Comment by hmcq6 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hmcq6 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I didn't say that Israel has never ordered an evacuation. I pushed back on the commenter who stated that finding a militant in a hospital or school makes it a valid target.

> From my observation

Well from Human Rights Watches observation:

> Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital sought additional information to verify voice recordings and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, “our strikes are based on intelligence.” Even if accurate, Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital attacks were proportionate.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-israeli-ho...

> I don't think

Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the experts.

"Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."

We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside their humanitarian function.

It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and level it because of the presence of a single combatant (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g. but it may be ok under certain circumstances to completely level a hospital that is used for military purposes if enough warning has been given), the proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva convention which most people aren't familiar with. I agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.

Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing its intelligence to protect its sources.

My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in certain situations. Is it the highest item in the priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers), probably not.

> [It] Doesn't make sense

It does when your enemy is Amalek.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-africa-is...

There's certainly been no shortage of rhetoric on the Israeli side to exact revenge for Oct 7th. Some of it very extreme. The events of that day traumatized Israelis.

I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas specifically as an entity that should be annihilated. i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured. But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a military threat while there are active military threats. First finish the military threat.

When it comes to international law, i think human rights groups are more like the "prosecuter" than a neutral party. They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.

When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until some sort of trial is done.

P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that has a special definition in international law that is different from how people use it in normal conversation.

> They have an interest in this conflict that is not the same as Israel's.

You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very few human right groups would have an interest that aligns with that.

Israel would and has claimed otherwise.

Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to determine truth its probably better to start from a place of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence, not the other way around.

what is "Israel"? are you referring to the people of Israel? Do you believe that 9 million Israelis have interest of killing and displacing Palestinians and crush them as a people?

and what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?

Going by Israeli TV, Telegram channels and polls, unfortunately it really does seem like a large proportion of Israelis think of Palestinians as sub-human bugs to be crushed.

Already we've seen settlers building an "outpost" inside Gaza, while Israeli soldiers watch on. Meanwhile, Israeli civilians block aid to starving children, again while the IDF watch.

can you link me to such polls?

Sure: https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/sites/socsci-english.ta.... This is a very interesting poll, and it clearly shows that Arabs want peace, while Israeli Jews do not.

In reference to the same poll: "A vast majority of Jewish Israelis believe that the IDF is using an appropriate amount or not enough force" [0]. "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll said they think the IDF is using “too little firepower” in Gaza" [1]

[0] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783849

[1] https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-is...

I think most Israelis do not believe peace is possible with the Palestinians. This is a result of the suicide bombing campaign that followed the Oslo peace process.

But I don't think your survey shows what you're saying it shows. I've no doubt that more Israeli Jews want peace than Arabs. Find me a survey that asks this question to both population, do you prefer peace or a war. I have no doubt what the answer would be. You can see this in the public discourse, the Palestinian population supports "resistance" which is war. you won't find much Israeli discourse about initiating violence against the Palestinian population pre Oct 7th. See this: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/new-poll-shows-palestinians...

Palestinians could have peace at any time. On Israeli terms. They can have their freedom, their humans rights. What they can't have is the land they demand, the right of return, and the eviction of the state of Israel.

In terms of Gaza, it's not surprising Israelis are disappointed with the progress in the war. It's been 5 months and Gaza hasn't been completely retaken and Hamas has not been defeated as a military. Again I don't think this actually supports your point of view at all or necessarily paints Israelis in a bad light. If Hamas hadn't attacked on Oct 7th we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since they have Israel is using all its might to destroy them and yes there are severe consequences to the Gazans. Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal. The Russians e.g. would undoubtedly apply a lot more force. Even most of the western world would and has.

> Israel is somewhat in the middle in terms of the usage of force in this situation vs. what most of the world considers to be normal

If we're being honest, I think that perception (such that it may exist) largely depends upon the race of the subject states. Consider the recent bomb blast on Iran, attributed to Israel - if Iran responded in the same manner as Israel did after Oct 7th, our govs would be denouncing them as evil incarnate!

In any case, I really think - really hope - that's not true; surely most civilians don't think forced starvation, massacres of children, torture etc are "OK". If so, there is no hope for humanity.

And bear in mind this is not "just" about Gaza - many more people now know about Israel's illegal and dehumanising actions towards Palestinians, whipping up Islamophobia, and general land-theft and terrorism throughout the region. And we do not understand how this is allowed to happen in our name, supported by our governments.

> Even most of the western world would and has.

In the past, yes. And in times gone by, civilians were kept informed of global events by newspapers and TV news. Now, we are basically seeing a genocide, land-grab and oil-grab unfold right before our very eyes, from the normal, everyday people who are affected - people who now don't seem so different to us, people just like us.

What recent bomb blast on Iran? You're not seriously comparing slaughtering and raping party goers (to say the least), abducting woman, babies and elderly, to a clandestine operation against some infrastructure. Iran says it wants to destroy Israel (and why?) and acts towards it. Israel is allowed to counteract that.

If Israel raided Iran, raped Iranian woman, beheaded random Iranian citizens, abducted Iranian children and elderly, Iran would absolutely be justified to start a war with Israel. Many Iranians are strong supporters of Israel in this conflict by the way. In a war you do anything possible, these days within international law, to defeat your enemy and I'd fully expect Iran to try that under those circumstances.

You're insisting Israel is the bad side here. I'm going to respectfully disagree. There is no comparison between the moral positions of Israel and Hamas.

We're seeing war. The use of the word genocide in the context of this war is propaganda and is eroding the meaning of that word.

EDIT: It's also important to consider that Iran is already waging a proxy war on Israel. A war with no justification.

and any reason you decided not to answer the second part of the question?

Do you mean this part?

> what interest Palestinians have in regard to Israelis from your point of view?

I'm not sure I understand the question? Is it "how to Palestinians feel about Israelis?". If so, I don't know, but I can imagine how I might feel if I'd been dehumanised my entitre life; lived under brutal occupation/blockade my entire life, seen siblings carted off to be tortured in Israeli dungeons, had my father shot in front of me etc. Perhaps Israel should stop stealing land and homes, and stop their institutionalised dehumanisation of Palestinians; many Israelis seem to need de-radicalising.

That’s why they moved out of Gaza wholesale, removing settlers, just to have Hamas rise to power and attack?

You seem to have left out the 17 year blockade of Gaza by Israel, the intentional starvation of the population. The occasional bombings and "targeted" airstrikes... sure they just randomly attacked Israel one day because they felt like it...

That's not the order things occurred. When Israel left Gaza it left it to the Palestinian authority and it wasn't blockaded (there was some partial blockade but it was practically open). The present walls and barriers around Gaza were put in place after the disengagement as a response to specific attacks coming out of Gaza.

The previous restrictions on Gaza were also a result of attacks coming out of Gaza on Israeli civilians.

If the population was starving while Hamas, the government of Gaza, managed to smuggle in RPGs, assault rifles, lathes, trucks, rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, heavy machine guns etc. then clearly the issue is a matter of their priorities, not Israel. Hamas stole concrete to make tunnels, used water pipes to make rockets, was the elected government, and is completely responsible if its population is starving (which I don't think was true anyways). You're also somehow conveniently leaving Egypt out of the picture. Why should Israel feed its enemies (and allow them to work in Israel, and give them water and power). Egypt could have done all that. But Hamas didn't only pick a fight with Israel- they also collaborated with ISIS in Sinai and picked a fight with Egypt.

They "randomly attacked Israel one day" because they are consumed by hate and religious fanaticism. Just listen to what they say. If they chose peace, they'd get peace, Israel has no interest in randomly attacking them.

You are aware of Human Rights Watch’s history with Israel, right? Here’s a taste:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fu...

> the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with the "pro-Israel pressure groups."

What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have battles with groups who want to spin the truth.

I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political system right now is that we don't have enough organizations willing to battle against our own partisan pressure groups (without siding with any of them).

Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to understand an organization that hasn't.

As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising money from private supporters there, not the Saudi government. Do you think no one in SA supports human rights?

Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the Saudis, take a look at:

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia

Oh, you sweet summer child.

Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia?

And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights.

HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. Maybe they just have profitable principles, I dunno.

HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission.

And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.

Sure. But it’s hard to ignore that they are far harsher on Israel than any other country.

But don’t take it from me. Take that from a senior editor who left HRW after 13 years: https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-human-rights-watch-se...

Her objections include: "HRW’s initial reactions to the Hamas attacks...included the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’"

And "political framing that could always contextualize and “explain” why Jewish Israeli lives were lost in Palestinian violence."

It sounds like she wanted their coverage to be more one-sided. Explaining "the ‘context’ of ‘apartheid’ and ‘occupation’" is perfectly valid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com