Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> People aren’t using the ‘G’ word lightly

They absolutely are. Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible. Push one side and you eventually get to "The Palestinians Deserve What They Get". Push the other and you get to "Jews are Colonizers Who Need to be Driven Out". And BOTH SIDES use the term "genocide", largely incorrectly, to describe those horrors and are SHOCKED AND OFFENDED that anyone would describe their own opinions so.

I've just given up. My general political feelings align mostly with the Palestinians here, if for no other reason than it stops the immediate bleeding faster. But there will be no peace here, not within our lifetimes.

View on HN

> Really everyone with a non-cynical opinion in this whole mess, on both sides, is deeply unserious. There are no solutions here, at all. Everyone wants something terrible.

You've put my thoughts into words better than I could.

I'm not seeing a happy ending to this story, ever. I keep thinking about the turf war storyline in The Last of Us II (which was clearly written as an allegory for the Israel-Palestine conflict), and I think the storyline's conclusion was apt. There is only death and misery ahead. Get out if and while you can, and don't look back.

I disagree, but I appreciate your opinion regardless.

The thing is, there is a definition of Genocide and while I think what Hamas did in October was absolutely monstrous I just can’t logically conclude they committed Genocide. So anyone saying that is just ‘saying it’ if you catch my drift. But for what is happening in Gaza, I just want my Government to explain why so I can know for sure that I am mistaken about it and it isn’t genocide. The definition shows it is, but my Govt are saying that it isn’t. It just feels like a whole load of double think to me. Y’know what I mean? If there’s a definition of what it is, then why is the world seeing with their eyes it is genocide and a few powerful allies of Israel saying it isn’t.

Why does logic need to be so controversial eh? A definition is right there yet ‘opinions’ are taken more than fact in this age.

Feeling the same as you - won’t be any peace in the middle east at this rate.

> what Hamas did in October

...is not all of what Hamas is responsible for, nor a limited statement of its goals or desires. Nor frankly does it even reflect the limits of what non-palestinians like you are calling for. All the kids in NYC chanting "From the River to the Sea" are embracing a genocidal frame (that the expulsion of an existing population from its home is an OK thing to do). And... you don't really care, and choose to excuse that while you condemn the other side.

And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.

Like I said, there will be no peace here. And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.

<< is not all of what Hamas is responsible for

I read and then re-read the parent. It does not not appear that he has been discussing the totality of both 'sides' actions ( and there is a loooong history there ), but rather focused on most recent Hamas action and Israel's response to it.

From where I sit, OP is not wrong. It is tiring - it is especially tiring when it is couched in moralistic 'you should support <my side>' with the undertone of 'because we are the good guys'. I am starting to seriously doubt there are good guys here.

<< And so you (yes, you personally) are making things worse and not better. Because when Hamas or whoever finally gets to the line with an army capable of marching across it, they'll think they have your support.

And I guess this is the weirdest part. There is really one army in this conflict. An army with technology, training, supplies and knowledge seemingly to do whatever is needed -- some of it courtesy of American taxpayer -- and still managing to fail so hard across the board against seemingly inferior enemy, who adopted guerrilla warfare.

<< And the reason is opinions like yours that choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.

I remain unconvinced. OP is not excusing anything. Personally, I can easily say Hamas is bad.

Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'?

No? Then the discussion will remain fruitless and the issue will remain as-is for and will not be solved within our lifetimes. Might as well check out and keep US semi-safe.

> Can you openly say Israel's response is bad? Can you even openly state its response is 'over the top'?

Israel's response is bad. Israel's response is 'over the top'.

Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad? Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims (oft-parroted by activist westerners who don't really understand what it means) of retaking the 1948 land? Or do you just look the other way and figure The Jews Have It Coming? You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not. And picking a side means that someone loses.

<< Can you state that responses to that which embrace eliminationist goals are likewise bad?

Sure, elimanationist goals are likewise bad. I will go even further, it is a really bad idea for the humanity to go down that path, because, if history taught us anything, it is really, really hard to stop violence once it starts.

<< Do you condemn not just "Hamas" but Palestinian nationalist aims?

Can you define those a little more closely? I am hedging, because it is already moving way past the discussion at play and if want to evaluate all nations nationalist aims, I am not sure we should be limiting ourselves to just Palestinians.

<< You're picking a side here, whether you admit it or not.

I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith ( whether you admit it or not ). Based on your statement, no matter what I say, you have already made a determination about me and my views. That is fine. I am ok with stopping this conversation here. I am not expecting to change minds. I was, however, expecting more.

<< And picking a side means that someone loses.

Does it really have to be that way? Is it truly a zero-sum game? It is not a rhetorical question. I am curious if you can imagine a non-binary world.

> I worry that you may have chosen a side and are not arguing in good faith

Which side do you think I've picked? What can I say to convince you that I haven't? There are no solutions here. There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence. There will be no peace within Gaza and the West Bank without it. At best we can achieve a detent for a while and an end to the immediate violence, with a pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory.

If you're asking for more than that, on either side, you're perpetuating the conflict and making things worse. Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant, and what happens then is an actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.

<< There are no solutions here.

Zero disagreement. This is an HN thread. It is not even intended for a solution. The fact that is even discussed here is an indicator how unusual a conflict it is.

I am not a dignitary. I hold zero to no real world power. Frankly, if I did, I assume I would not be discussing stuff online for practical reasons. As it stands, its just two humans talking.

<< There can be no Palestinian homeland within the 1948 borders without terrible violence.

I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction.

I look at this from an outsider point of view so when I see words like this, I can't help but respond with 'but there already is terrible violence; how exactly do you want to escalate it?'

<< actual shooting war with millions of civilian casualties.

There already is a shooting war with all the horrors war can bring. The only thing missing is millions of civilian casualties. And it does not look like it ( war ) is being contained. If anything, there is a growing risk of expanding and moving beyond ME region.

<< If you're asking for more than that

Best I can ask for is a plea that both sides stop. Right now, this is probably the only reasonable way to stop immediate violence. And I suppose we can worry about 'day after' then. But as I mentioned before, once the violence starts, it may be hard to stop.

<< Because eventually we'll get to a stage where one side isn't dominant

Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?

<< pie-in-the-sky best case of some kind of end to the west bank settlement activity and maybe a little clawing back of recently-taken territory

So what do we do? Nothing? It goes full circle to 'there are no solutions here'.

edit:

I think I will be removing myself from the remainder of this conversation. It was genuinely interesting to me so I thank you for your answers. It looks like it is going to be a long week here as I am starting to get half panicky dms.

> I will ignore for a moment the 1948 restriction.

Demanding people leave their homes doesn't work. They fight. They kill. They'll starve. They'll die. This is exactly the problem we're seeing in Gaza, and it's just amazing to me that you don't understand it's symmetric.

It doesn't matter who you think "should" be living there, Israelis actually are. Homes are homes. People in the western pro-palestinian movement have fooled themselves into thinking that Israelis will just move to The Bronx or Palo Alto or whatever, and that's not remotely how it works.

> Because it worked so well now with a dominant party?

It's working comparatively well, yes. Both Israeli and Gazan casualties are bad, but low relative to total population. That's not the way real ethnic wars work, usually. If a Palestinian army thinks they can actually win, they'll invade and kill everyone. Because to their worldview it's their land and the Jews are invaders, and that's what you do with invaders. It shocks me the extent to which people don't understand this.

<< It doesn't matter who you think "should" be living there, Israelis actually are.

Hmm, are you suggesting that the moment Palestinian settler is able to eke out a piece of land he/she is able to defend from Israel, it is automatically acceptable ( in a might is right kind of way )? Is this really an argument we should be putting forward? Does it not clash with your previous statements somewhat?

<< it's just amazing to me that you don't understand it's symmetric.

Do I really though? Is it possible you are trying to force me into a particular convenient label? It makes no practical difference, but I would like you to note that most of the people here are used to 'internet argumentation tactics'.

<< It doesn't matter who you think "should" be living there

My friend, this is the reason we are unable to keep this conversation going. You are putting words in my mouth.

<< It shocks me the extent to which people don't understand this.

What is there to understand? Violence begets violence.

> My friend, this is the reason we are unable to keep this conversation going. You are putting words in my mouth.

My apologies, I took your evasion of the homeland border issue as evidence that you didn't want to treat with the fact that it's completely unresolvable. If that's not the case, I'm happy. But you're still not giving ground here and unless you do, you're basically siding with and supporting the aims of the folks who want to ethnically cleanse the levant.

Once more, to repeat: Israel's actions in and administration of the West Bank and Gaza are terrible injustices. But they're stable injustices and just "turning off" Israeli dominance in the region, which seems to be your goal, is going to hurt things very badly.

<< My apologies, I took your evasion of the homeland border issue as evidence that you didn't want to treat with the fact that it's completely unresolvable.

No worries. It was an evasion guided by trying not to muddy the waters further. I am not sure, bringing border issue into the mix would make anything clearer. It would likely force us down the history lane along with all the distractions associated with it, discussing sources, whether they are valid, biased, accurate and so on.. and while I am sure it would be a really interesting conversation to have, I do not think I am the right person to discuss it.

<< you're basically siding with and supporting the aims of the folks who want to ethnically cleanse the levant.

I purposefully choose not to align myself with either. I am, as it were, neutral, partially because I have no direct stake in outcome ( although I am open to argumentation on this front -- would you be able to make a case for it being useful to US interests ). If it makes you feel any better, I approach question of Ukraine in roughly the same way ( and I technically have a bigger stake in outcome there ).

<< But they're stable injustices and just "turning off" Israeli dominance in the region, which seems to be your goal, is going to hurt things very badly.

I find the phrase 'stable injustices' interesting and I suppose it does speak to something deep within us when as long we know something bad is coming, it is not as bad, because it is just the way life ( currently ) is. All of a sudden, its all ok, because it is, what it is. Might as well complain about the weather really. Pointless.

Do you not find it mildly depressing that you have effectively excused 'terrible injustices' by saying they are at least stable ( and predictable I suppose )?

As for goals, I am not sure I have actual goals here. If I did, I think this conversation would be more structured. But it isn't. I chat with you in this manner precisely, because my mind is not made up and, if it helps, you do offer interesting counter-arguments.

With that in mind, can you elaborate on how 'turning off' Israeli dominance would 'hurt things very badly'? I am a sucker for balance so it is possible I am missing something.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll try.

Assume that October 7 is what Hamas and Hezbollah would do on a much larger scale if Israel were militarily weaker than them. (You could, for example, take the Hamas charter as reason to think that.)

In that process nine million people get killed or displaced, with "killed" being a significant fraction. That's orders of magnitude worse than the status quo. Note that "who's right" has nothing to do with that evaluation - it's just based on the body count.

That I think is the case that the current "stable balance" is better. Even though it is tragic, brutal, and deadly, it still is far better than what could happen if the equilibrium were destroyed.

But this argument is totally dependent on whether you believe that Hamas and Hezbollah would do that. Personally, after October 7, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you may see it differently.

> Do you not find it mildly depressing that you have effectively excused 'terrible injustices' by saying they are at least stable ( and predictable I suppose )?

More than mildly so. But it remains the best option.

> With that in mind, can you elaborate on how 'turning off' Israeli dominance would 'hurt things very badly'? I am a sucker for balance so it is possible I am missing something.

When you want to kill someone else, but they are overwhelmingly superior, you can't. So you won't try, for the most part. When their power wanes and yours grows, there comes a point where you think you can win. And that's when you roll the tanks.

"Balance" is about stability, not equality. Fuck with Israeli dominance and eventually Iran sneaks enough weapons into Gaza that we see Hamas start to take and hold territory. How is that better?

I have to give it to you. It is not better ( defined as value of 'total amount of suffering generated' ) so it is a decent counter-argument from that perspective. I will need to digest it, but I think you can count this post as a point in your favor.

“choose to excuse one evil while you rail against another.”

Well that is incorrect and to put words in my mouth and then personally attack based on said words is kind of pointless.

My argument is about genocide. Words don’t equate genocide, but certain actions are. I don’t think you’ll be winning any nobel peace prizes for figuring out the difference.

> My argument is about genocide.

And my argument is that your "genocide argument" is overnarrow and has the effect of picking a side in a conflict that cannot and will not end unless people stop perpetuate it like that. Stopping your particular favorite enemy has the effect of empowering and emboldening their enemies, who are just as bad.

I’ve been having fun.

This is like the Flat Earth equivalent in geopolitics — and getting people to explain why they think things is fascinating.

I also like irony — so seeing Israel “prosecuted” for the lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history is hilarious.

Please tell me by what metric and to what other conflicts are you comparing this to where over 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children) killed constitutes the "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history". The smugness with which you treat the tragedy that is currently unfolding is disgusting.

Not parent, but let's take each side's numbers at face value:

The Gaza Ministry of Health says as of today that 35,562 people have been killed [0]. The Israeli Ministry of Defense in March said it has killed 13,000 Hamas operatives [1].

Leaving aside the two month gap between these figures, the civilian casualty ratio is 1:1.7.

I tried to find a source for what a "typical" casualty ratio is in urban conflicts. This source [2] claims that 90% of overall casualties is a typical number. That would be a ratio of 1:9.

John Spencer, who chairs the Modern Warfare Institute at USMA, and seems to be an authority on the subject, has a tweet addressing this specifically [3], in which he cites the Battles of Mosul, and Manila as having casualty rates of 1:2.5, 1:6 respectively.

I don't think proving the negative of "lowest civilian casualty rate in modern history" is feasible, but a nearly 5x improvement in civilian casualties compared to the assumed norm, and lower civilian casualties than Spencer's comparisons seems to indicate that the claim is not without merit.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham... [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-says-gaza... [2] https://civiliansinconflict.org/our-work/conflict-trends/urb... [3] https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769

It’s hard to believe those numbers when (according to anonymous Israeli military officers) the Israelis are willing to routinely accept civilian casualties of 20 to 1. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

Neither the Gaza Ministry of Health, nor the armed wing of Hamas have released the number of combatant casualties, leaving the IDF's number as the only estimate available. If that estimate is incorrect, they could and should challenge it by putting forth their own.

The source you provided says "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians". This is clearly an upper bound, and makes no claim about how close to this they actually come.

In the same way, I might offer my customers an SLA of two nines in their contract, but never drop below three in practice. Part of effective planning is describing the worst case scenario, but that doesn't imply it will actually happen.

The IDF counts every grown man that they kill as a "Hamas operative"

Hamas counts every Hamas operative younger than 18 who dies as a child.

This is an outrageous and horrifying accusation, can you share your source for it?

The battle of Manila stands out as one of the most horrifying in modern history, hardly a good standard to be targeting.

Modern History is already quite good compared to the entirety of history. The bog standard Siege of La Rochelle ended up starving the civilian population of 27,000 to 5,000. War is brutal, and when you dealing with brutal enemies like Hamas it's never going to an orderly affair.

> 35,000 people (over 15,000 of which are children)

For what is worth, the UN estimates are significantly lower with less than 8’000 children (and 5’000 women) out of the 25’000 identified casualties. Maybe there are indeed 10’000 additional victims as Hamas claims (the UN take that number at face value, Israel estimated are slightly lower) but it seems unlikely that 75% of them are children. It’s not physically imposible though.

The number of dead will be higher than reported, as there are many still under the rubble of thousands of homes.

And there will still be many more starving to death each day, thanks for aid trucks being attacked and burned (with IDF collusion apparently).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/21/israel...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com