Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rotdhizon | Hacker News Reader

The US is one thing but there is no possible way Israel will stop bombing. They will openly say they will, and continue to do so. It just gives them more breathing room to calculate bigger and more serious strikes. Israel has literally nothing to lose. The US is taking all the heat for any actions in Iran. Israel and Iran are mortal enemies, one can not continue to exist while the other lives, this is how they view it. Iran wants Israel erased, Israel wants Iran erased. This isn't going to stop until one of them suffers catastrophic damage.

View on HN

I believe from what I have heard and read that Israel will likely only stop if US formally withdraws military support in a sense that they stop supplying weapons (?)

> Israel has literally nothing to lose.

Israel has a lot to lose, the question is only how much of the lost will be replaced by american taxpayers' money. They're almost out of anti-air interceptors, the war they started in lebanon is going badly and iran still has tens of thousands of drones left. There's also hamas and hezbollah and more and more of the world is turning against them, be it in proper politics or even mundane stuff like the eurovision.

And it's not just the aljazeera and similar media, the israelis said it themselves: https://www.timesofisrael.com/zamir-said-to-warn-cabinet-tha...

Israel will be fine. They have nuclear weapons if shit really starts to get bad. They'll tell you they don't (while smirking), but they do, and have for like 70 years.

If Israel uses nuclear weapons, that's the end of any shred of sympathy left for them in the world.

There would be massive political consequences for Israel. Sanctions, embargoes, no more ability to travel abroad, the end of any hope of any positive diplomatic relations with other countries, etc.

I'm not that optimistic, they're already accused of genocide in Gaza, rightfully so, and even the european countries that supposedly recognize the ICC in Hague don't arrest Netanyahu. US will of course back them up, as always.

As a result of Israel's actions over the last 2.5 years, world public opinion of Israel has tanked. There will already be serious consequences for Israel down the line because of that.

But it can get worse for Israel. Use of nuclear weapons is a massive taboo, and if Israel were to cross that line, it would be impossible for any government to continue to support Israel.

> Israel were to cross that line, it would be impossible for any government to continue to support Israel.

The same could be said for running a massive pedophile and human trafficking ring, but that line has been crossed and it seems that nobody seems to want to address the country that's found itself at the heart of it all.

>that's the end of any shred of sympathy left for them in the world. There would be massive political consequences for Israel

They genocided Palestine. They are bombing the shit out of Lebanon and will likely ethnically cleanse them too. Words have been said but no action has been taken. Nobody seems to give a shit.

Bibi could parachute into Mecca, take a shit on the Ka'aba, draw the Prophet (SWT) eating pork, and all we'd get would be a strong finger wagging from the US, Russia, France, etc... and no action.

>Sanctions, embargoes

Mossad has gathered enough blackmail over the years to ensure these won't work.

>no more ability to travel abroad

over 10% of Israel has dual citizenship with another country (mainly USA, Russia, France, Poland, Ukraine). Such restrictions won't affect them.

> the end of any hope of any positive diplomatic relations with other countries, etc.

Define "positive". Look at what Epstein did, yet the West as a whole (UK, France, US, etc) plus some MENA nations still hold Israel in the highest regard and refuse to critique them, much less break off diplomatic relations. I think you're being naive here

If the war (population displacement / genocide / ethnic cleansing, you can call it however you want to) in Gaza has taught the world something is that the current Israeli regime is visceral and they clearly think they are above any international conventions. Of course they will not stop bombing any of its neighbors until we 1) stop funding and 2) start sanctioning them for their war crimes.

I wonder if regime change could help alleviate the tensions in the region.

I'm not sure why you got downvoted. The current admin seems to love regime changes. Why not Israel? Israel is killing medics in Lebanon (supposedly collateral damage but they don't see it that way https://www.npr.org/2026/04/05/nx-s1-5763606/lebanon-medics-... )

I'm just curious here: if we really think about today's conflict in the Middle East regarding the GCC, Israel, the US, and Europe, we can trace this back to US-USSR relations in 1945, as well as the 1980s leading up to 2001. I'm wondering what are everyone's finding on this and what are your opinions?

If we have to choose, it seems the world would be better off without Israel committing genocide

Israel can do better, but Israel committing genocide is not the fact legally.

The strict definition of the Geneva conventions does not include forced displacement but in some parts of the world that is included in the definition of. And legality is a matter of tribunal and none has been held so far.

You are mixing war crime and genocide IMHO.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" followed closely by the bestseller "If I Did It: Confessions of the Genocider"

I guess this is sarcasm, but I don't even understand what you want to say.

It is a fact factually, however.

I could witness a murder and the murderer committing murder would still not be a fact legally. It's still a fact.

Murder and genocide is not the same. Genocide has strict definition.

So does murder.

So what's your definition of genocide? Maybe we are discussing about different things.

The deliberate destruction of a group of people and its culture (completely or partially).

This fits the general description of what Israel has been up to in Palestine since 1948, but especially during the past few years.

Indiscriminate killing of civilians. Planned starvation. Poisoning wells. Denying Palestinians the right to return to their homeland. Forbidding the use of Palestinian cultural symbols. Denying Palestinians the right to fish/conduct business. Keeping them under curfew and surveilling their every move, making them as miserable as possible. Mass imprisonment. Denying Palestinians home-ownership.

Systematically destroying Palestinians and any chance for them to thrive/ found a state/ have human rights.

I see you have replied, but your comment has been marked as dead, so I cannot reply back.

You fed my comment to an AI and based your response on what it said. You said some of the claims were "incorrect".

Let's leave aside how ridiculous it is to fact-check with an LLM. if you go back and read what the AI actually generated, however, you will see that every claim has factual basis, the LLM just marked some as "narrow factual basis", for no particular reason. If it has been documented, it is fact, the LLM is just confused.

Every one of these, when done systematically (and they are) is a component of genocide. About half of them would be enough to constitute genocide on their own.

Displacing more than half of a population (as Israel has done TWICE in history) is definitely genocide.

If you are truly interested in educating yourself, you can start by reading the following wikipedia page (even just the intro):

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

Thank you, I will check the article

So why isn't what Israel doing genocide?

Genocide definition is: the deliberate, systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group

Israel most probably did war crimes (white phosphorus usage seems to be confirmed, while IDF says they have not used it), but I don't think that Israeli has intention to destroy Palestinians. The have intention to destroy Hamas or Hezbollah.

1) Hezbollah is not Palestinian.

2) Israel has had genocidal plans for Palestinians since before Hamas existed (see the Nakba). In fact, Likud brought Hamas to power, because they saw them as a more fitting opponent than other groups (who were less militant).

3) Israeli politicians (not just current ones) have candidly stated they wish to destroy Palestine, Palestinians, and any chance for them to live in theur homeland

For gods sake, educate yourself. One easy thing to look up is a timeseries of deaths/year of Israelis due to Palestinian violence vs. deaths of Palestinians due to Israeli violence. That should do enough to dispel you of the idea that Palestinians are the terrorists in this case

I don't see how anyone can defend Israel at this point. How?

Why not? There is at least theoretical chance to get some justice regarding Benjamin Netanyahu crimes if they are proved. As well Israel is democracy and can be changed. It is not like Russia where people don't have freedom of word.

What's your proposal and vision regarding Israel?

Well, considering that the odds of a person on Earth not being a descendant of Abraham is practically zero, why not give Israeli citizenship to everyone? Of course, with special protections for the Jewish people. Then, we can be done with the everlasting conflict.

No you make fun of me and that’s it.

I'm sorry that came across that way - I honestly wasn't trying to make fun of you.

Getting downvoted by all the emotional people here is not worth it; this thread does not welcome a polite discussion especially from the pro-Israel side. Like in any social media with a voting system (terrible idea, I might add), the vocal and active majority wants to disentivise the disagreement.

I don’t see any pro-Israel side commenter here but me at best. IMHO I do my best to keep discussion as polite as possible having in mind the sensitivity of the topic.

I probably wasn’t clear in the above comment - but what I tried to say is that the thread disincentivizes pro-Israel comments; I am pro-Israel as well and prefer not to engage.

We are all being civil here. Could you please stop insinuating otherwise.

In your opinion, which international entity do you regard as the final authority for the formal recognition of this legal fact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case...

"...is an ongoing case..."

Exactly

So you would believe an authority of the UN. Considering the US has imposed sanctions on UN employees, do you see any conflict of interest there?

In this specific case it is something interesting to follow and to analyze. This will definitely have consequences on Russian-Ukrainian war too. UN overall is powerless - there are 7000+ UN peacekeepers in South Lebanon right now. What are they doing there?

I don't understand your point. You contested a fact "legally", but in your opinion the only authority that should have the final "legal" say in the matter is an impartial and weak one.

That's the best we have and it is better than random internet commenters who make judgement like they have a solid evidence of what's going on. Lastly depending on outcome this can be used for more fruitful discussions in the future.

It is not the best we have at all, and the choice is not between random internet commenters and the ICJ. You have the International Association of Genocide Scholars and a plethora of human rights associations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#Academic_and_leg...

You are choosing who to listen to because you don't like what you are being told by everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com