Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrackerFF | Hacker News Reader

A massive problem in the current climate is that the middle-ground has been eroded. There are only two states: pro- or anti-Israel.

For example, if you show solidarity for killed children in Gaza, that also means that you're by proxy pro-Hamas, because Palestine = Hamas. Thus you can not be pro-Israel, and must be anti-Israel.

Likewise we've come to the point where you can say: "I feel for the Israeli people after the October 7 attacks, but I don't like the Israeli government". You automatically get classified as something other than pro-Israel, and, thus anti-Israel.

The middle ground has eroded. And with the Trump administration being what it is, I have zero faith that they'll see it any other way.

View on HN

> There are only two states: pro- or anti-Israel

Not really. I take the third option: I don't know enough about the situation to reach almost any policy recommendation with high confidence. Not engaging is always an option, particularly when you're dealing solely with rhetoric and not any fundamental action. (Obviously, if you're greenlighting weapons purchases your duty of care is higher.)

You don't need to recommend any policy. Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category.

> Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category

Sure. But declining to use the term "genocide" similarly illicits a negative response from a lot of the pro Palestinian side.

Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to. (My pet war was Ukraine. I, similarly, took a dim view of anyone who described Russia's invasion as a defensive war. And I'd similarly argue with folks who thought what happens in Ukraine has nothing to do with America's security, though I hope I was more respectful than the status quo with Gaza.)

> Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to

These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign. Anything other than explicit endorsement is seen as adversarial.

> These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign

We don't know that yet, the guidance hasn't been issued. (And we haven't seen how it's being interpreted by consular staff.)

Assuming anything but the obvious is carrying water for fascists and which is how we've gotten into this situation. Is there any reason to assume that aren't going to do the exactly that?

> Is there any reason to assume that aren't going to do the exactly that?

Yes. They're publish something and then a picosecond later a district court will issue a nationwide injunction.

Trump's admin is ignoring court orders and are about to pass a bill that will make it illegal to hold them in contempt of court. I don't see why an injunction will matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com