Hacker News Reader

I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date and you can pick an arbitrary cut-off date to pick a side. Pick the 7th of October 2023 as a cut-off for the past and Israel is blameless until they massacre the civilians later on.

You also need to pick definitions, and you can pick definitions anyway you like. Define civilians in a certain way and you are blameless. Both Hamas and Isreal overdo this, one claim is that they didn't kill civilians at the party because those served in the IDF for example.

I find this a useless exercise and an attempt to justify killing people for political or material gains. I don't like it, I don't accept any justification and I don't take sides on institutionalised or makeshift extermination of humans.

> I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date

No, why would you have to? As I said:

> Everyone is responsible for what they do

There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa. They each commit them against innocents.

Our opinion as "judges" or "referees" is not so relevant as what we are directly or indirectly responsible for, and what we aren't. Hamas has nothing to do with me, the US and Israel use me, so I need to speak out in clear terms or be responsible.

It's not a complex situation where both sides are kinda bad and we just can't figure out who gets the blame and who gets to get away scot-free. Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is a terrorist organization, that didn't change, and people who support it should be cut off. The same with the right-wing extremists in the Israeli government and those supporting the genocide committed by them. It's just a principle, applied to all comers without respecting the person. As it should be.

> Israel is committing genocide.

You state these things like they are objective facts that have been proven.

I suspect that most of the pro-israel side would be against israel comitting genocide (of course there are probably some extremists out there, but one hopes they are a small minority). The difference of opinion is not about whether genocide is wrong, but whether that is what Israel is doing.

And hey, with the recent south africa case at the icj, we might get lots of international law experts weighing in, so it might all become more clear.

[flagged]

Genocide is already defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

There is a big difference between saying genocide is wrong, and saying that anyone dying during a war is wrong. Of course every death is a tragedy, but my expectation is that israel (like any country) follows international law. I don't expect them to be absolute pacifists.

Replace "dying" by "murdered". Einstein called killing under the cloak of war murder anyway, and that wasn't even talking about bombing one of the most densely populated areas with over 1M minors in it. If you need more arguments to stand up, you will never stand up. The White Rose also talked about cloaking cowardice under the cloak of wisdom. It's not a tragedy, it's a crime, it has perpetrators and supporters who are mighty insolent and hoping to get away with it.

There is a certain philosophical sense that all war is murder. But international law does have definitions for these terms, and murder can be both a war crime or a crime against humanity depending on the circumstance. However there are requirements to meet. Someone being killed during a war does not neccesarily mean its murder. It could be, but it depends on the circumstances. Even if it is not murder, it might be a different war crime, but it would also depend on the circumstances. It is also possible for the death to be totally legal under international law.

This is not that different than ordinary laws in normal civil society. Sometimes a death is murder. Sometimes it is a lesser charge like manslaughter. Other times it isn't a crime at all (for example if the person was killed in self-defense). What type of crime it is depends on the facts at hand.

Similarly, carpet bombing a densely populated area would be an obvious war crime. However, targeted bombing (which is what israel claims to be doing), maybe - maybe not. It depends on things like how good the targeting is, what is the expected collateral damage, what is the expected military benefit.

Justice happens when everyone is held to the same standard of whatever the law is at the time the offense was comitted and evidence is used to demonstrate that the perpetrator's actions met the elements of the crime. Yes, those types of requirements are hard sometimes, but that is what separates justice from vengence.

> However, targeted bombing (which is what israel claims to be doing)

That claim does not hold water.

https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...

And in the same thread here, an Israeli tells me that unfortunately there is no other way than reduce Gaza to rubble. But it's also laser-precise targetting killings.

Enough.

Pretending it couldn't be known was disproven by those who called it out, any further playing for time I will not take part in. Let's examine the evidence when people are on fucking trial where they belong.

[flagged]

> What is that "pro-Israel" side?

I just mean random people on the internet siding with the state of israel.

> One of the five acts constituting genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention is "imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group".

Yes i agree that is part of the definition.

While i find a lot of the statements you mentioned concerning, for it to be genocide i would think they would have to come from people participating in the conflict or those who command them (since intent is required for genocide). I don't think statements by people not in charge of Israeli war planning count for much when trying to establish the intent behind the israeli war machine.

The amalek statement of course came from someone in command. The actual statement is at https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-by-pm-netan... . I agree its concerning, but i'm not sure in context it is really a smoking gun. It seems like it could be interpreted as meaning remember the existential threat hamas poses. There have been other statements by people in charge saying that the enemy is hamas not palestine.

> what more do you want?

Generally the bar would be proof that the intent of the military operation is to destroy the ethnic group. Showing intent is difficult, but that is generally what the crime of genocide requires.

To quote wikipedia:

>"The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Intent

I'm sorry, but that's like looking for direct orders by Hitler before you can be really sure there's a problem.

> The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes

The problem with your approach is that if a country actually implemented it the first neighboring country that fell under the control of a genocidal racist asshole would just have to hold a "take you daughter to work" day in their military and on that day invade your country.

Look, you obviously care a lot about this topic, but I think you're really wrong on your facts. For the record, I'm Israeli, so take what I say with your appropriate level of skepticism - but I'm going to at least try to get across what I think you're wrong about. I hope you approach what I say with an open mind, though many people tend not to (in any discussion of anything, not just about this).

> And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here?

They're incredibly relevant as human beings. They're far less relevant in the context of what the discussion is - they're not out there making propaganda, or fighting Israelis, or whatever. They are, simply, civilians of a country that's currently at war.

And to be clear, any death is tragic - far more so when it's civilians that only want to live peacefully.

> Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way.

First, this is two armies. I don't agree this is genocide, but let's put that aside for a minute - this really really is two armies. They're mismatched, Israel obviously is stronger - but the day to day fighting that is happening now (as opposed to the initial bombing) is militants with weapons attacking soldiers, and soldier attacking militants, mostly. It's a ground operation between a state military and a quasi-governmental insurgent force.

Just look at the videos put out every single day from Hamas themselves, showing their militants attacking the IDF. If you want a good non-Israeli source for this, you can watch Preston Steward on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart.

> We don't even hear about this [referring to classifying Gaza as food insecure]. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades.

Firstly, Hamas is brought up 50 times because they are the government, as well as one of the active participants in the war.

Secondly, this is not a genocide, by any definition of that word (I normally go by the official UN definition here). Israel is not trying to kill all of the Gazans - the reason civilians die is because this is war. And it's horrible, and regrettable, and every civilian death is a tragedy - but it just isn't proof of genocide.

Third, you imply that this genocide has been going on for the last few decades - which even further underlines my point that this is not a genocide. There have been several tragic genocides in the 20th and 21st centuries - and in all of them, the populations decreased, because that is the point.

Israel has the means to kill far more people, if it wanted to - it just doesn't.

If you have another definition of genocide that you're thinking of here, or some reason I'm wrong - please tell me what it is, so we can at least know we're talking about the same thing.

--

I don't think you're wrong about most of your last two paragraphs - of course you (assuming you're from the US) have more control over Israel (via US government policy) than over Hamas, and of course you have moral complicity in whatever Israel does.

But, I think you're getting something wrong here:

> However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves.

The thing is, this isn't about a nation "pink washing" or claiming they are fellow human rights enjoyer. First, it is a nation that really is closer in values to the US - which implies a lot of things, some of them making Israel's position harder (e.g. the fact that Israel has free press, as opposed to Gaza, means that far more Israelis are openly critical of Israel - there's a reason you don't hear more Gazan voices speaking out against Hamas!)

But more importantly, Israel isn't just a nation - it's full of people, who do share your values. I personally share Western values. So do most Israelis.

We are not saying "we share your values, so let us do a genocide". We're saying "we share your values, and we know more about what's happening than you do - our lived experience is much richer about this - therefore you should trust us more than you do".

I would never condone a genocide, and for the record I am highly critical of a lot of Israel's actions. But a genocide is just not happening, nor anythign clsoe to it.

What is happening is a war that Israel never wanted, but that most Israelis feel must be fought, because there is just no alternative that anyone has offered.

So I'll leave you with this question - what would you do in Israel's shoes? How would you guarantee that an invading force intent on killing as many of your citizens as possible, isn't able to do this again? Or would you just accept that your friends and family dying is OK?

I'm looking for a a realistic answer btw of what to do on October 7th, not how you would've changed Israeli policy in the past. Like I said - I'm also highly critical of Israeli policy for the last fifteen years at least - but I still agree this war is necessary (regrettably).

> Israel has the means to kill far more people, if it wanted to - it just doesn't.

That you say this and still come on to me with that "I share your values" stuff is just gold.

I don't understand people who say this, I really don't.

If I were to say "the US is capable of nuking Iraq and killing most of their civilians", that would just be a true statement of the capabilities of the US. That they chose not to do so during the Iraq war is proof of something about the US's intentions.

It's proof of the value that the US places on human lives, despite it sometimes costing the US dearly.

Of course I think nuking Iraq would've been unconscionable, for many reasons. For the same reasons that the US chose not to do it, obviously. But pointing that out is just plain old logic.

Acting otherwise doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The US not nuking Iraq in a war of aggression is proof that "the US" places a high value on human life? It would have started WW3 and there would have been no more US. Even the worst sociopath in the world wouldn't have done it just for that reason. It's still a war of aggression, with hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered.

> If we act strategically correctly, there will be immigration and we will live in the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a situation where 2 million people live there. If there are 100-200 thousand Arabs in Gaza, all the talk about the day after will be different.

https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398

That is the intention of those I stand against.

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1742199071761142056

These are the values of those I criticize.

To say "we could have murdered more" and think one can be in any sort related or even adjacent to the tradition of enlightenment and human rights at the same time is preposterous.

One of Israel's main talking points is an unironic repeat of an abusive trope and they wonder why they're losing the propaganda war, incredible stuff.

You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread—e.g. in the parent comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38829675, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38824306.

Please don't do that on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully. This topic raises a lot of strong feelings in everyone. If your feelings prevent you from commenting within the site guidelines, please wait to comment until that's no longer the case.

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This is important for preserving the community here, and it's important for another reason as well: to the extent that what you're arguing for is true, by posting aggressively and abusively you end up discrediting the truth that you're arguing for. That's not only not in your interest—it hurts everyone. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you this at least once before, so this problem is not limited to this topic.

For you it seems to be all about having a nice site. For me it's about having a nice world in which people can enjoy intellectual curiosity without being monstrously guilty for it.

> Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country.

This is right now. And this is HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38833350

Given how dedicated large sectors of the US tech industry are to silencing discussion, I can only say, I'll think about it. I might prefer to take my leave from this site than participating in it, to preserve something more valuable, more fundamental, while you explore this local optimum of discussion within a framework of normalizing genocide and sophistry with generous helpings of plausible deniability.

> For you it seems

I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel.

I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic.

Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an important topic means that it's ok to let loose on others—because after all, they're right (as they see it), it's an important topic, and they feel strongly. Actually the opposite is the case, and as I tried to point out, you discredit your own views by behaving this way.

I know it isn't easy but it is possible to make your substantive points without name-calling, personal attack, or flamewar.

Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly.

Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair.

I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to start or prolong them in your mind. When someone says something I consider incorrect, I refute it. Yeah, I added a lot of extra here I guess, but even without that, long comments with a bunch of quotes and links tend to be my thing. FWIW, they tend to be a LOT longer first draft, if you can believe that. As much snark or passion may have remained in some, it's not that I'm not trying at all. If that (long comments and not letting someone have the last word unless I agree or we're going in circles) is considered "flamewar" I can't help it and must plead guilty and unrepentant and be removed. No hard feelings, either.

But I honestly I don't understand why "too much activity" becomes a problem for you, even on day old threads -- or if it even does, I don't really grok you in that regard. But that's been my impression, as if you think it takes away from discussion of other topics?

During times like these, just like, say, when Appelbaum got cancelled, I do kind of get this thing that Brecht described, where you feel you can't discuss innocent topics while this elephant is in the room. At least not endlessly. Unless it's right in my ball park, something else I deeply care about or know a lot about, I pass, I'm not going to read up and learn on something new and then form a comment based on that, as I otherwise might. Just not in the mood. What I'm trying to say is, if I didn't post these comments (minus the personal attacks, but let's call them activist or political and maybe a bit too long) I would post none, I wouldn't post on other subjects instead.

But I don't post in random threads and try to make them about the chip on my shoulder, either. That's the best I can do, really.

And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied. In other words, it's between consenting adults, and as long as it's really just disagreement and splitting hairs and all that, and not abusive, is that really a problem?

Again, other points taken, please don't take this as a long-winded way of say "yes, but" to name-calling and getting personal. It's just your usage of "flamewar" that is hazy to me. To me, flaming someone is name-calling and getting personal, but not a lengthy or "endless" debate as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)#Flame_war

The tricky things in society, the ones that matter deeply to people or which they literally need to live, just aren't like programming anecdotes and all that, where people can have different experiences and no friction. Of course you're right in that this means one should take extra care to not add friction, and I'll renew my efforts for that. But I don't think friction as such is always bad. Too much of it is, but having zero is also a red flag IMO.

I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that.

Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing wrong with that in principle but sometimes people arrive with pre-existing talking points and whatnot and that's not curious conversation—it feels like being recited to tediously. I'd try to avoid that. But if you're relating to what the other person is saying, remaining respectful, and not just copy-pasting, there's no reason that can't be curious conversation, and it certainly doesn't need to be flamewar.

Ok I think I made my main points after all so I might not need to come back later :)

Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849701 is also borderline by HN standards, I'm afraid - but would probably be ok without the last sentence. Your comments will be better (for HN) and also more persuasive if you don't use overwrought rhetoric like that.

> Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!

When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow.

I honestly do not understand how that sentence could be more concise and clear. If someone reads something as fantastic as me "excusing killing Jews" into that, I have to ask, what in the world gave them that idea.

If I said "I'm under the impression you kept your comment short because you wanted to go back to kicking homeless people", and said that in a very polite way as I just quoted it, would you say "oh, that's a misunderstanding"??

Of course that's not fine, and no I didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything, and I often don't look at the threads in linear order.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, this by no means implies that the mods secretly agree with it. I understand the temptation everyone has to leap to that conclusion, but overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Still, users here need to follow the rules regardless of what other users do, and that applies to you the same as to me and anyone else. Changing the focus to someone else's misbehavior doesn't help. Everyone always feels like the other person started it and/or did worse, so that's just a recipe for a downward spiral.

What we need you (i.e. everyone) to do instead is absorb HN's guidelines, take them to heart, and then make your substantive points within that intended spirit, whether other people are doing this or not. If you're willing to do that, you can continue to post here and make your points. But we need you to stop breaking the site guidelines, which you've unfortunately been continuing to do. (And yes, I know other users are breaking the site guidelines too. If I could change that, I would.)

Thanks. I really just needed that acknowledgement to restore a sense of fairness, because I did assume if a response is called out, the context would at least be looked at. I am fine with adhering the guidelines though it's not always fair, or even when the other kids started it, etc. -- but using flags against a comment that is a reply to me, in a debate type situation, is just not something I can bring myself to do. Even in debates I am involved in maybe. Knowing that I if I called it out, I'd get a fair hearing, as I just did, is really all I needed.

Look, a lot of this thread was with me and I have some of my own thoughts on your comments, and why they're hard to deal with and/or flamebaight.

But I don't want to impose my thoughts on you - so if you want me to give you my POV, please let me know. Totally optional - no offense intended by offering, and no offense if you don't want me to write anything.

> And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied.

One minor technical point - I use a 3rd-party thing that gives me notifications to replies on my threads, which is probably true of some of the people you are talking with. So FYI that your statement isn't always true (and also FYI that this exists, if you're interested).