Hacker News Reader

Comment by blaufast | Hacker News Reader

I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble.

As somebody who isn't fond of the idea of an ethnostate and sees atrocities coming from all of the actors here, I don't feel comfortable speaking up due to the lack of nuance in public forums.

View on HN

I hear you. While reading your comment, I had the thought "'atrocities coming from all of the actors'? Are you saying they're equally bad?" Of course, that's not what you said and there are far better responses if one is concerned about debating the relative moral standings of Israel and Hamas. It was more of a kneejerk reaction, and I quickly dismissed that from rational consideration, but the fact that I thought it nonetheless (and, in a different world, just replied with that) is a bit unsettling. Especially when we can't be certain what's a truth or lie when it comes to coverage of this conflict, it's far too easy to lose sight of the nuance.

On a scale of 1-10, how nuanced is an Israeli Extermination Force executing a holocaust upon the prisoners of the Gaza concentration camp?

While I don't deny many of the atrocities that the Israeli government seems to be doing, it's only part of what's going on. I support Israel withdrawing from Gaza (aside from providing aid) and focusing on actual defense, but Hamas will still be active. There's also more work that has to be done in both Israel and Gaza. It's not just a one-and-done situation that's as simple as "hey Israel, stop doing the bad thing".

Yes there should be a more substantial ask and price to pay for committing a Holocaust, just as Nazi Germany was dismantled, we in tech should be demanding of a ceasefire AND the dismantling of the Holocausting state of Israel.

What would dismantling of Israel entail? I think Israel should be reformed to accept Palestinians and whatnot, but dismantling seems like a far stronger word.

This is my basic first draft proposal (nobody asked me, i know) for a dual-state solution as a fallback if a full single Palestinian state cannot be achieved (either case has 99% of the same suggestions from my perspective, Palestine from the river to the Sea with equal rights for all does not necessitate violence) :

https://twitter.com/smashah/status/1721992084167725078

(i forgot to add) + complete ban on MIC + Economic system completely realigned for joint and global humanitarianism (tikkun olam)

If only the world in general could be more peaceable and not have separate states. Many of the elements could stand to be adopted in general. As it is, your plan mostly seems good, although I'm doubtful about how "anti-extremism" and "de-Zionification" classes would manifest in practice, and "single economy" seems really weird and chafing.

If there's doubt, then a free and contiguous Palestine from the river to the sea with equal rights for all it is then. Thanks

What is that supposed to mean? Many people want equal rights and justice for everyone. What I'm doubting is whether your particular ideas for achieving that are appropriate. Good intentions alone don't solve problems. Feel free to explain, or don't if you don't want to, but there's no point in being snarky about it.

I don't know what to tell you except fighting against something that is wrong but widespread and established cannot be comfortable.

There's nothing really new here. It was not comfortable to be a e.g. civil rights activist in the US during segregation, or a dissident in the eastern block. The question is, what is right and what is wrong. You either accept wrong out of comfort as many people did in the past or reject it.

That's not the point that GP is making. Rather, discussing these kinds of topics tends to produce a lot of low quality and emotionally charged discussion that makes it dubious whether one should've engaged in the first place.

> I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble.

There is some of that, and a mainstream "which side are you on" attitude. I previously wrote that the US could sit this one out. Provide humanitarian aid only, provide no military aid, and try to pressure both sides into not killing each other in large numbers. Which is what most of the rest of the world is doing.[1]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/12/middleeast/ceasefire-vote-gaz...

This comment reminds me of the poem, ‘on the fifth day’.

https://poets.org/poem/fifth-day

I’m actually really glad to see that this is the first Israeli conflict where its actually easy to keep our jobs, its been awkward for decades in the US on this one topic.

The needle needed to move to show where that soft power has waned and where it really stands

To show that we never agreed about labeling everything antisemitism in an antiquated 20th century way, when everyone involved are semites

Every call for a statement was met with laughter, every kneejerk lobbing of the word antisemitism was met with more laughter. Every liberal Jewish American has to reconcile the perception we’ve all had of their of their pride and joy country their whole lives, and now has to consider being a Trump supporter after all that social justice work, c’mon that’s admittedly hilarious.

I get that most of this everyone with ties to this conflict feeling isolated and traumatized. Along with an algorithm fueled echo chamber where they only see the other side getting attention and empathy, no matter which side that is. These are problems for a therapist.

Regardless, that needle needed to move. I dont agree with how it did, Hamas was accurate in noticing that it would move.

For balance, Hamas is already on the sanctions list. Israeli leadership and military and settlers and financiers should be too. I dont think every comment needs every disclaimer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com