Hacker News Reader

Comment by baked_beanz | Hacker News Reader

You're claiming that every building destroyed by an Israeli airstrike was booby trapped by Hamas...?

Even if that were the case, destroying those buildings with civilians inside is still a war crime

I'm claiming there is a reason that Israel destroys buildings you neglect to mention. Recognizing that reason strongly undermines your assertion of systematic targetting. There is a fog of war, and war is messy, so a charitable outlook should exclude blase confidence about the matter.

You're mixing two different things with the civilians in buildings. The mass building destruction we see is done on buildings after evacuation to dismantle booby trapped buildings. Israel does frequently do strikes on buildings or infrastructure that contain civilians, but that is a different kind of action with different reasons and circumstances (e.g. collateral damage of strikes on military targets, etc.)

I love how confidently you reply in a way that makes you think Israel just has a right to do it. Like they have a right to just level buildings because they think it's booby trapped.

You're someone that has deepthroated the Israeli narrative, with no critical thinking whatsoever. I hope, for your own sake, you start to see more of the reality, as defending a violent regime like this can have an impact on ones soul, which will affect - if not already - other areas of your life.

Did I say Israel has a right to do all these things? No, I did not. I described the situation and their reasoning. Now Israel does have a right to defend itself. Hamas, the government of Gaza, forfeited their relatively peaceful situation when they openly attacked Israel. That doesn't mean everything Israel does is unquestionable. There is plenty open to criticism. There is also a fog of war, and much is unknown now that will be revealed as time goes on. But that also doesn't mean that we should dismiss everythjng Israel says just because they say it. A little more nuamce and curiosity is the most ethical approach to this inherently morally bankrupt conflict.

The mere existence of a state per se is violent, and given that both Israel and Palestine insists on having mutually incompatible states over the same territory, there is no other option but endless bloodshed until both sides commit to a conciliatory settlement. Until that day, a day which may never come, since everyone is hellbent on egging their respective favored side on, things will simply continue as is until one or both sides are destroyed. Since Israel unquestionably has more power, it will likely survive. There is no morally unquestionable option, but I think anyone who has a stake in the livelihood of Palestinians would be interested in stopping the conflict as soon as possible and making a settlement, even an imperfect one. In such a quandry, the only ethical option is to remain open and curious, be willing to look at facts and evaluate claims instead of jumping to conclusions, and refrain from asserting an uncertain narrative as fact when there are competing narratives and counterexamples.

> forfeited their relatively peaceful situation

There you go. Even when you want to hide it, you can't.

If you assert this, it is a open attack against the rule of law. Society requires peace, and peace requires deterrence and enforcement. Feel free to feel morally righteous, but recognize that your opinion on moral righteousness condemns all people to live the rule of the jungle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com