Hacker News Reader

Comment by siltcakes | Hacker News Reader

My opinion on him shifted because along with Paul Graham, they're the only tech leaders who have stood up for Palestinians. I don't agree with Graham on everything either, but I've gained a lot of respect for him speaking out against Zionism. They're rich, but it still is difficult to go against the entire venture capital industry to do the right thing.

View on HN

Completely agree with you on this. It will be an unfortunate exercise for future historians to look back on this time, crunch through the enormous amount of data with their quantum computers, and end up realizing just how many people were willing to condone the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Only one side stormed through civilian areas killing everyone they met, and it wasn't the Israelis.

Yes, it actually was and is the Israelis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Palestinians have every right to resist occupation.

Incredible that they have a term for a war they initiated and subsequently lost. Is whats happening now in Gaza also a Nakba?

Genuinely curious what you think would have happened if all the Islamic countries would not have attacked Israel. Would there be a peaceful Palestinian country? Guess we'll never know....

But that's all history. Your "occupation resistors" decided to rampage through towns and a music festival and massacre everyone they met. And somehow you seem okay with that.

Zionists committed the ethnic cleansing and invasion of Palestine. I invite anyone to click the link and read for themselves.

Yes, the Nakba is ongoing.

In my reply above, I evoked the memory of Jeanette Rankin, who was the lone dissenting vote against the Pacific War after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (somewhat analogous to the October 7th attack).

It is a natural human tendency to desire that the people who inflict pain upon others to also feel pain inflicted upon them. This has been the human condition since ancient times, and yet the most revered figures in human history have been the pacifists who consistently advocate against violence (e.g. Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, MLK, etc).

You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.

Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?

All the violence in the region stems from the Zionist invasion, land theft and genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Something to keep in mind, though, was that she was clearly wrong.

You are effectively saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Japanese civilian population was justified, due to the actions of a few Japanese leaders. In my opinion, there is no justification for violence against civilians.

Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com