Comment by austin-cheney | Hacker News Reader

Comment by austin-cheney | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I call bullshit. If you use your imagination hard enough then just maybe you could explain the military action in Gaza as warfare… but how does that extend to the West Bank? There is no warfare in the West Bank, but there are Israeli settlers murdering Palestinians without consequences while stealing land in illegal settlements.

> Israel is forced

Again, that’s bullshit. Nobody is forcing Israel to be an asshole to their neighbors. Israel was the victim in 1967, nearly 60 years. It’s not 1967 anymore. A universal rule of life is if you don’t want people to think of you as an asshole then start by not being an asshole, not with a bunch of excuses and sad equivocations.

I suspect Israel would try much harder to be less of a belligerent asshole if they were placed on a weapons embargo. Israel is often seen as the bad guy, because their actions make them the bad guy.

If Israel really didn’t want Iran to use the Palestinian people as a puppet they could solve the problem by not giving the Palestinian people cause to be puppets. For example, Iran would lose all political influence around Israel if Israel annexed the Palestinian people with rights, protections, and citizenship.

I really don’t think Israel wants this issue solved. I really think it’s about tribalism and conquest. That’s why I cannot see any difference between Israel/Palestine and Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. It’s all sociopathic tribalism with lots of military aggression against civilians while claiming to be victims.

Exactly what I mean about seeing things from one side.

>but how does that extend to the West Bank?

When your country history includes all of your surrounding neighbors going to war to try to exterminate you, and that sentiment hasn't changed, you are going to be probably very expansionist. Not that the west bank settlements are morally right and they certainly don't help the cause, but the actions are somewhat understandable.

>Again, that’s bullshit. Nobody is forcing Israel to be an asshole to their neighbors.

Oct 7th kinda is. Nothing really significant happened much other than minor land grabs in the West Bank and standard counter terrorism stuff with occasional rockets being launched by Hamas. Oct 7th highlighted the clear and present danger that still exists, where Hamas doesn't care about fighting a war and care more about killing non-muslims, civilians and military personnel alike.

> Israel is often seen as the bad guy, because their actions make them the bad guy.

Because most people who consume online media tend to only hear about the bad things Israel does. Goes back to the discussion about other genocides and how those are never talked. Like I said, the media narrative on this is insanely effective to make people polarized.

>Israel annexed the Palestinian people with rights, protections, and citizenship.

Try to be rational about this. The last thing they want is giving potential Hamas members or radical extremists free access to the country + citizenship. Majority of Palestinians are still pro Hamas.

>I really think it’s about tribalism and conquest.

Again, try to be rational. Is it tribalism, or do they just want a future where citizens don't have to worry about terrorist attacks or getting rocketed anymore? Its not like Israel never tried peaceful solutions - most all of them get shot down because Palestinians want "their" land back, or at the least in control of the majority of that region ("from the river to the sea") that puts Israel at a huge disadvantage and greater risks for attacks.

> Again, try to be rational. Is it tribalism, or do they just want a future where citizens don't have to worry about terrorist attacks or getting rocketed anymore?

That’s exactly what Milosevic argued to justify attacking his neighbors. We have to get them before they get us

I am being rational and cannot imagine any justification for the complete eradication of Gaza or the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

If this is, after all, only about safety and security then why isn’t Israel annexing those people into citizenship? Rationally speaking it would eliminate most of the domestic threat simultaneously legally qualify the West Bank settlements. Again, it really appears Israel would rather have tribalism than security.

Illegal according to who? The concept of legal doesn’t apply to nation states. “Legal” presupposes an enforcement framework and process which simply doesn’t exist as it applies to sovereign countries.

But more to the point you can’t claim to be rational while using terms like “the complete eradication of Gaza”. The population in Gaza has grown since the war started.

Meanwhile in southern Syria the Druze are actually being exterminated by self-proclaimed jihadis (and Palestinian “refugees”) and the whole world is turning a blind eye while Israel desperately tries to prevent a larger catastrophe. Now the Syrian Druze are requesting to be annexed by Israel and to be under IDF protection. You don’t care about Palestinians, you just hate Jews.

> Illegal according to who?

Everyone else in the world.

I can use terms like complete eradication. What percentage of buildings in Gaza remain in safe enough conditions for people to live in? The entire strip looks like a flattened dust pile.

Yes, killing civilians is bad regardless of their identity. It seems like you are trying to shift ground to something unrelated because you have nothing of actual substance.

Now how is the conduct by Israel not tribal warfare on a nearly genocidal scale?

>The concept of legal doesn’t apply to nation states.

So when the US government repeatedly calls the Russian invasion of Ukraine illegal, you are saying they are wrong, right?

"Two years ago, Russian forces launched an illegal and indefensible all-out invasion of Ukraine"

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/368495...

Yes, lol a press release by the Biden DoD is propaganda not factual information.

Obviously Russia is wrong on a moral level for invading its neighbor but legality doesn’t enter into the conversation.

Don't be disingenuous. Its far from "just a press release"; its the official position of the government of the United States. There are many other instances where different parts of the government call it illegal.

It is just a press release and regardless, what any country’s official position is, is irrelevant. Legality generally doesn’t apply to international relations as each state makes their own determination on what does and doesn’t apply to them.

For example the current US ambassador to Israel just announced that France will be partitioned into two states, one for France and one for Palestine, France isn’t bound by that.

>We have to get them before they get us

In Israel case, its "we have to get them so they don't get us again". Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Not sure why you haven't bothered to read the rest of my comment as I addressed your two other points.

It’s not difficult. I apparently guessed your sentiment accurately even though I was actually describing the first head of state to be convicted of war crimes for promoting genocide and ethnic cleansing.

But, let’s make this even less difficult. Is the goal here security or dominance? Security suggests reducing hostilities but dominance suggests removing a group of people from an area of land. I really don’t see any reduction of hostilities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com