Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicoburns | Hacker News Reader

Other wars are discussed. There have been threads on Russia vs. Ukraine in recent months.

Perhaps Israel look bad in the press because they are acting badly. It seems to me that Israel are unambiguously the stronger power in this conflict: they have are much stronger military, and additionally have the backing of the US and a bunch of other nations that would step in were Israeli territory under threat. And they are using that power to aggressively attack the weaker power in the conflict with little regard for civilian casualties (“collateral damage”) or proportionality of response.

View on HN

The fact that Israel is stronger doesn't seem especially relevant. We're not talking about a couple kids fighting during recess. The weaker side isn't automatically right and the stronger side can't be expected to moderate its response when we're talking about the murder of ~1000 civilians.

It's also absurd to think Israel should chill out and let the US handle its defense. As if an occasional murder-raid and constant rocket fire is just something Israel should tolerate because, if the Arabs actually invade again, the US will bail them out.

That aside, Israel should do more to avoid civilian casualties. And it should treat captives better than this story indicates.

> the stronger side can't be expected to moderate its response when we're talking about the murder of ~1000 civilians.

A fundamental principle of the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is distinguishing military and civilian targets, and minimizing harm to the latter. That applies to all sides in every war. [0]

In warfare, generally all sides are outraged, filled with hatred and revenge. They wouldn't be killing each other otherwise. That is not an exceptional situation, it's the norm; that's what the LOAC was written for. 1200 civilian deaths, though absolutely horrible, unforunately also is well within the norm for warfare. 100,000+ have died in places and times, including at US hands.

Obviously Hamas didn't follow that principle (they seem to have intentionally violated it). I can't say how well Israel is doing it, but it's an essential issue. Saying 'we're angry' or 'our people were killed' is not exceptional in warfare and does not create exceptions.

[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-ar...

The Israeli army is making a huge of effort to reduce harm to civilians. Including notifying in advance before striking buildings and giving proper time for evacuation of civilians from Northern Gaza. In many cases, Hamas forces Gazan people to stay in the danger zone despite IDFs warnings for people to die in their holy war. It is super hard to act morally when your enemy is using their own people as human shields

The way you put it, it sounds like Israel got up in the morning one day and for reasons no one can understand, decided to start inflicting civilian casualties on Palestinians.

You are correct that there is a history there, but

They way you put it, it sounds like Israel wasn’t created by forcefully stealing land from the Palestinian people that were already there

It wasn't.

> forcefully stealing land from the Palestinian people

That is incredibly ahistorical, and in my honest opinion, "land theft" allegations are akin to a smear.

The truth about the land's history is, of course, too complicated to fit in a thread.

Oh yeah, “it’s complicated”

One thing is for sure though, they keep doing it. To this day Israeli settlers, aided by the IDF, keep stealing Palestinian land and resources

Israel probably wishes they would just disappear so it would stop being so complicated

Your scare quotes are super condescending, but yes, it truly is notoriously complicated. Thousands of books have been written on it, and millions of hours have been spent debating it. Denying that Jews have any legitimate claim to land in the Levant is partisan and false, and it pours fuel on the fire. The only possible lasting solution will acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians have a rightful claim to (and a need for) a state.

No one denied any Jewish claims

You however, by saying it’s complicated, are trying to paint a simple picture in which Israel apparently didn’t do anything wrong

That’s actually incredibly partisan and false

> No one denied any Jewish claims

Yes you did. You said Israel was created by "forcefully stealing land." The vast majority of Jewish migrants in the late 19th century bought the land. If you're talking about the 1949 war... well, it was a war, in which the Israelis agreed to the fair UN partition plan, and the Arab states did not. At the very least, "stealing" is a very reductive way to summarize it.

> by saying it’s complicated, are trying to paint a simple picture

But is is complicated! That is actually true, and that's OK!

> in which Israel apparently didn’t do anything wrong

Of course Israel has done things wrong.

> That’s actually incredibly partisan

I am trying my absolute best to make comments in the spirit of HN. If you think it's too partisan to engage with, then I'm sorry, but you should know that I really did try.

So pointing out the fact that Israel has been stealing land from Palestinian people is denying Jewish claims?

Maybe you mean Zionist claims?

Do you also think that criticizing Israel in any way is antisemitic?

What is so complicated about admitting that Israel is stealing land as we speak, with its colonies in the west bank? Even Israel has no issues with colonizing its neighbors, so it's amazing to see you argue otherwise. It's not a secret.

Also it's amazing how nuance is needed when it's to discuss Israel's war crimes, land grabs, and everything else. But none is required when it's about Palestinians. Do you also say that "it's complicated" when someone talks about Hamas?

Many of the Israelis commenting here are not supportive of the West Bank settlers including myself.

Israel is not colonising anyone. Even the West Bank was occupied in ab existentixal war against proper state armies and violent civilians groups in 1967.

How are they not colonizing anyone when they are literally settling territory that even the state of Israel does not consider to be theirs prior to said settlers taking it? What does a war in 1967 have to do with colonizing in 2023? Or more importantly, why does Israel get to use that as an excuse for being allowed to be aggressive and do whatever it wants? Do you extend that logic to Palestinians too? Are they allowed to use armed resistance since they got kicked out in masse from their homes in the 1940s?

Someone else might say the same about the Hamas attack on October 7th. As the UN Secretary-General said, "This most recent violence does not occur in a vacuum. It stems from a long-standing conflict, a 56-year-long occupation, and the absence of a political solution in sight."[1]

Whichever side you are on (if any), responding to atrocities with further atrocities is not justifiable. It doesn't matter who commits these atrocities

1. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-09/secr...

Do you know Israel was trying to strike peace deals with the Palestinians multiple times and faced stagnation and rejection from their leadership? Also, the only reason Hamas exists is Israel completely pulled out from the Gaza Strip in 2007 letting it be self governed like an independent state. So no, it doesn’t matter what happened 56 years ago. Things have changed, there were many, many opportunities to change course and nothing justifies the horrific vicious terror attack of October 7th.

> And they are using that power to aggressively attack the weaker power in the conflict with little regard for civilian casualties (“collateral damage”) or proportionality of response.

It is certainly aggressively attacking Hamas, but that's because, despite Hamas being weaker, they've shown themselves capable of invading Israel and killing thousands of citizens.

You write "little regard for civilian casualties", but I don't think that's true - please, explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

And proportionality of response doesn't mean what many people think it means - is' not "Hamas kill X people so Israel should kill f(X) people". It's measured by how many civilians would die while achieving a valid military objective. Destroying Hamas is absolutely a valid military objective - the question is if Israel is managing to do it without a disproportianate number of civilians killed.

I think based on the best-known numbers we have - which place the civilian-to-combatant kill ration at 2:1, meaning 2 civilians killed per 1 militant - I think that this is valid and in-line with similar wars fought by Western countries in the past.

> the best-known numbers we have - which place the civilian-to-combatant kill ration at 2:1, meaning 2 civilians killed per 1 militant

Could you share any source for these numbers?

The majority of the reporting I have seen is that around 17-18,000 people have died in Gaza since October 7 and that the majority have been women and children. If we take that at face value, it seems that we would almost have to assume that the majority of men killed are being counted as Hamas militants. Given that there were assumed to be ~40,000 of these (as far as I can recall) in a total population of over 2 million, it seems unlikely.

No source offhand and can't look now, but it's just statements made by IDF spokespersons.

The 18k number is from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, and doesn't break down the numbers into civilians vs combatants.

I didn't quite understand your calculation or last sentence.

Thanks.

The assumptions I am working on:

- 18,000 Palestinians have lost their lives

- Gazan health authority figures are in the realms of reality given numbers reported compared with numbers confirmed in past conflicts (my inclination here is to assume they are possibly under-counting due to many still buried under rubble - though I could be wrong here and these are somehow already added to the tally)

- 50% are women and children (50% as a conservative convenience given that most reporting I have seen is over 60%)

- No women or children are being counted as enemy combatants (definitely not true - I have seen footage of female Hamas militants during hostage handovers - but again I assume for convenience that their numbers are not significant)

My calculation is that if 1/3 of Palestinian deaths have somehow been confirmed as militants/combatants then of a total of 18,000 that leaves 9,000 Palestinian men that have lost their lives. If the 2:1 ratio is correct then the number of combatants that have been killed must be 6,000. This seems unlikely to me because I cannot see why the 'collateral damage' suffered by the male population should be so different from the wider population when under 2% of a population of 2 million people are Hamas militants (by what I recall was the highest estimate of 40,000 given by the IDF at the outset).

In other words if the total ratio is around 2:1, I think it is highly unlikely that the ratio for the male population is around 1:2. What makes male Palestinians so special that they should suffer so much less collateral damage?

The problem with asking Israel to unilaterally tolerate rocket attacks, invasions, and attempted annihilations, is that that have already been doing that for 70 years. The never-ending attacks are a huge part of the reason Israel's political posture has become so radicalized, and the military response is so intense.

Israel has most definitely not been unilaterally tolerating rocket attacks

Israel has bombed Gaza multiple times, way before Oct 7, it’s killed people in peaceful protests, it has boasted Hamas to avoid a peaceful resolution of a Palestinian state and it continues to expand illegal settlements with the help of the IDF in the West Bank. All of that on top of forcefully taking over the land to establish the country in the first place

If anything, Israel has been the main aggressor, attacker and killer for over 70 years

To pretend otherwise is incredibly ahistorical

Reply on news.ycombinator.com