All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please do not do so in the spirit of battle. The latter is off topic here, and the last thread HN had about this did not do well enough at keeping to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Instead, ask first whether you can find a place of compassion in yourself before commenting. If you can't, that's understandable, but then please don't post. By compassion I mean something more spacious than angry identification.
I'm not saying that this is the purpose of HN (we're not aiming quite that high) but I do think it's the only way to touch a topic like this without destroying that purpose, which is thoughtful, curious conversation. It may be nearly impossible to relate to such a topic from such a place, but nearly != entirely, and it's part of HN's mandate to try. Consider this an experiment, or perhaps an advanced exercise, in community.
Thank you, Dang.
As someone on the Israeli left I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place- I do not condone Netanyahu and his government and am indeed very critical of Israeli governments of the past decades. But on the other side, my 78 year old mother is fleeing to shelter every couple hours as my hometown (not anywhere near the west bank or the Gaza strip) gets hit by rockets, as do my young nieces and nephews, some of which developed psychological issues from the stress. And the stories from what people experienced on the October 7th attacks wrench my gut.
At the same time I'm also sorry for the Palestinians suffering during this war, the vast majority of them civilians. I wish instead of people treating it like a football match where you to support "your side", they could process the nuance of opposing any violence towards civilians and support peace (with the goal of a two state solution with Israel and Palestine co-existing according to the 1967 borders and UN resolution 242).
IMO this would require that both Netanyahu and Hamas do not stay in power.
In your opinion what are the chances of having an early election to replace Netanyahu? AFAICT it requires a non-confidence vote in the Knesset, but how likely do you think this could happen?
Not the OP but Netanyahu is living on borrowed time — he won't be replaced in the middle of the war, but even Likud is having private talks about who replaces him once it's over. I would give very high probability that he is replaced well before his term is up.
Unfortunately, given Bibi's single-minded focus on staying in power, "he won't be replaced in the middle of the war" guarantees that he will try to make this a forever war.
I'm curious if pressure from the US ever mounts enough to end this war. Currently we're supporting Israel just like we always have and are just making some empty statements to signal to the more left-leaning segment of the Democrat voter base. I think it's most likely this reality continues, but it does seem possible, albeit unlikely, that Democrat voter discontent gets high enough that we force an end to the war in the next two months.
Of course, even if that somewhat far-fetched scenario comes true we'll probably be up to at least 40,000 Gazans killed :/
> "he won't be replaced in the middle of the war" guarantees that he will try to make this a forever war.
He's already in escalation with Lebanon: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/10/violence-escalates...
That actually sounds like Lebanon is attempting to escalate by hitting Israel with drone attacks.
IMO he doesn't have the votes in the Knesset to do it, and the US is already applying significant pressure to wrap it up soon. Not to mention the Israeli economy can't take the workforce drain to sustain the war at this level for much longer. He doesn't have forever, whether he likes it or not.
I think it's close to 100% that we will have an early election, as he can't placate his right-extremist coalition partners on which his government depends. I would guess we'd be up to a 2024 elections.
I'll be a bit more pessimistic than others here. Netanyahu knows that elections won't go favorably for him, but he's very smart and has survived this long - and he's still in charge; he'll be putting a lot of effort towards fending off early elections, certainly until he can show some win for Israel here (not that I think it's possible at this point).
We're also in a situation where he knows that dragging out the war might be the best strategy for him personally, which worries me greatly.
I've been in touch with several Israeli HNers who are in much the same position as you describe, and I admire their, and your, capacity to stay open despite being under orders of magnitude more pressure than most of us here. This is the spirit I'm asking for commenters to find in themselves before posting.
(Edit: Lest this seem like an expression of bias: I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well and can say similar things about them.)
You’ve been in touch with Palestinians use HN? Not to seem one-sided, I didn’t realize Gazans had sufficient internet access, let alone food or water, to browse HN.
I've been in contact with Palestinians, you may be aware of millions of them living abroad (same as Israelis, like myself) and millions more living in the west bank (the total Palestinian population world-wide numbers 14.3 million, Gaza only houses 2.3M). You don't have to be on ground zero in Gaza to be a Palestinian.
When I said "HNers on the other side of the conflict" I had in mind users who aren't necessarily Palestinians but have strong identification with their plight. However, it's worth saying that HN has some valued members in Gaza (as well as in the West Bank, of course, and Palestinians in other places). Here's one memorable example:
https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=daliaawad, My experience as a Gazan girl getting into Silicon Valley companies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26251143 - Feb 2021 (460 comments).
Someone who knows Dalia has been in touch with us, but at least at that time, they unfortunately had lost contact with her and don't know if she's still alive.
Also this YC startup:
Launch HN: Manara (YC W21) – Connect Middle East engineers with global companies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25849054 - Jan 2021 (104 comments)
---
Some other threads over the years (I just looked up Gaza, of course there are also many Palestinians on HN from the West Bank and other places):
Lifehacker: Tarek Loubani on 3D-Printing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20623545 - Aug 2019 (68 comments)
Gaza: Coding in a conflict zone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18128432 - Oct 2018 (88 comments)
Marc Benioff joins Valley notables backing Gaza’s first coding academy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374027 - Jan 2017 (137 comments)
How to Get More Women in Tech: Lessons from a Hackathon in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13240777 - Dec 2016 (12 comments)
Mentoring in Gaza's first hackathon - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11858963 - June 2016 (152 comments)
Mentor startups in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9267716 - March 2015 (63 comments)
Wireless in Gaza: the young entrepreneurs beating the blockades - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8715085 - Dec 2014 (54 comments)
What It's Like to Build a Startup in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8404414 - Oct 2014 (80 comments)
Are you aware of any Gazans that are normally active on HN, and if so, if they are ok?
(It is heartbreaking that you have to add "we don't know if Dalia is alive" when talking about her.)
Worth noting this isn't an absolute position. There are many Gazans posting on Telegram. They have food, water and internet access. But they seem to be the ones shooting at Israel and other Gazans...
Edit: suspiciously this is downvoted suddenly as well as lots of other unrelated posts of mine. Looks like you can't have a responsible discussion on the internet these days...
I would have upvoted you but for your last para. Don't react to downvotes immediately. Let it simmer for a while.
I thought you were joking for moment; it's easy to find the truth. https://volunteerinpalestine.org/purchasing-a-sim-card/
"Internet Access High-speed Wi-Fi is available throughout the country in homes and in cafes and restaurants throughout the city. Additionally, local banks have publicly available WIFI that can be accessed 24/7 from outside the building. The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine."
Power and Internet are not readily available in Gaza and haven’t been for 2 months. Sure solar and usb charging and satellite communications. I haven’t had a ping from our office since early October though.
I took a few suitcases of clothes to Egypt last week to try to get to the kids of our employees in Gaza, the ones whose existing coats and stuff are in rubble with any toys memories and belongings they had. Getting them through Raffa is not easy.
Thank you for helping the humanity in those dark times.
We're talking about Gaza. This article is about the West Bank, no?
From the article:
> The Wi-Fi is stable and reliable and 3G is also available in the West Bank, Palestine.
> There are shops all around Hebron, including many that are within walking distance from the Excellence Center where travelers can purchase a SIM card and add more minutes to their phone plan.
Also, regarding food and water .. it's not hard to find pictures and reports of thriving markets, cafés, clubs. Materially, I'm pretty sure Gazans are better off than Egyptians.
Of course that doesn't much diminish their grievances which is based on lost land and and lack of freedom of movement.
According to GDP per capita, before the war Gaza was at $3500/year, while Egypt was at $3700/year. Which says that Egyptians are probably better off than Gazans. Even before the problems of the blockade, lack of electricity, and the current disruptions of war conditions.
So no, people in Gaza are not better off than people in Egypt. Though they are closer than I would have guessed.
You're right but the comparison is fascinating: https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=E...
What is really interesting is that unemployment rate for PL is 25.7pc vs Egypt's 7pc. So the average income for PL is higher! 4610 v 4100
Also interesting is that PL has a higher life expectancy.
Sadly, both are very corrupt.
I have not lived in Israel for most of the last 20 years, but I do have family and friends there. I also know plenty of both Israelis and Palestinians moderates, but they are unfortunately the small minority on both sides.
I don't think it's fair to say that Israeli moderates are the minority - though that entirely depends on what you mean by "Israeli moderates".
I think the majority do not have any "territorial ambition" and would usually happily agree to a two state solution peace agreement, including giving up the WB, as long as security to Israel was guaranteed.
We are very far from this being realistic because of a lack of leaders on both sides, and because the security guarantees are incredibly hard.
> as long as security to Israel was guaranteed.
That idea which seems so reasonable can encompass a lot of very unreasonable positions.
Total security is never guaranteed, and many evils have been committed in pursuit of it.
The US and Canada seem to be doing fine. France and Germany. Thailand and Laos (as far as I know). Your statement is vague and does not seem to take into account the actual realities of living in perpetual insecurity.
All of those countries have had terrorist attacks in the last 5 years. While their level of security is generally high, they do not experience total security. You cannot be completely secure without total control or elimination of anyone who might disagree with you.
Of course I accept that some actions are legitimate in some places to achieve a higher level of security for the people, but it always requires careful consideration and is not something for which just any sacrifice can be made without further thought.
I agree that "Total Security" is never guaranteed, but we're talking many orders of magnitude between the current situation and Total Security.
It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
> It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed.
It is a true fact of life that many Israelis are killed, as a direct result of the Israeli government's long-term policy of actively assuring that the most violent and extreme Palestinian faction possible is reinforced and strengthened at every turn (starting with its original creation) to maintain internal Palestinian divisions and provide a pretext to deflect domestic and international pressure to make peace.
Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu and I hope (and think) he will pay for it with this being, finally, the end of his political life.
That said, what would've been your alternative? For Israel to refuse to cooperate at all with Hamas the last fifteen years? To prevent them receiving any outside money from Qatar? To not allow any Gazans to work in Israel?
That's what would've needed to happen to "not reinforce Hamas", and I have a feeling that had Israel done that, it would've received more condemnation.
> Yes, that was a very very mistaken plan by Netanyahu
While Netanyahu has taken it run with it for quite a while, it actually predates Netanyahu having a significant role related to it, back to the original formation of Hamas, which Israel fostered in Gaza for much the same reason as Netanyahu has repeatedly actively fostered since.
> That said, what would've been your alternative?
Not actively working to antagonize the Palestinian population, disrupt the election campaigns, and make the Fatah-led administration look weak and complicit (by blocking campaigns directly, carrying out a targeted campaign of detention of Palestinian politicians, and directly interfering with ballot distribution and other administration preparations for the vote) as a deliberate strategy to secure a victory by the primary opposition -- Hamas -- in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
Not refusing to cooperate in subsequent PA-Hamas agreed Palestinian elections (where Israeli cooperation is required because numerous voters still live under Israeli administration) to freeze the divided status quo in place, and not cutting off peace talks because of an agreement between the PA and Hamas to form a unity government, hold elections, and participate together in peace negotiations, for the same purpose.
Among other things.
Well I certainly agree about most of that.
> It is just a true fact of the world that if Israel were to let down its guard even a little, many Israelis would be killed. We saw the proof of that on October 7th.
October 7th happened under the current approach, to assume it would be at least as bad under a 'guard let down' scenario begs the question. There are two competing factors here - hatred and control. The current regime maintains a fairly high level of control, but doing so engenders more hatred. If anything, I think high control-high hatred may be an attractor in policy space, but probably not a long term good one.
> October 7th happened under the current approach, to assume it would be at least as bad under a 'guard let down' scenario begs the question.
Look, I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since. The current justification is "because of the blockade". What should Israel do? Not do a blockade and hope that Hamas decides to give up violence after 30 years, despite it promising to do so?
There is just nothing that Israel can reasonably do given that its neighbor insists, rightly or wrongly, that it needs to invade Israel and kill all Israelis. Even if they are 100% right about all the historical injustices they've endured, and everything was 100% Israel's fault - it would still make no sense to "let down our guard", cause the direct result will be the death of multiple thousands of Israelis.
> Israel left Gaza in 2005.
Israel did not leave Gaza, though it made a show of doing so.
> Gaza elected Hamas who have been bombing Israel ever since.
Israel carried out a campaign directly aimed at discrediting Fatah and radicalizing the Palestinian population around the elections, and it paid off exactly as intended, with Hamas not only winning locally in Gaza, but an overall legislative majority.
Israel has also acted to preserve the status quo they acheived in that election by obstructing subsequent planned all-Palestine elections.
> Israel did not leave Gaza, though it made a show of doing so.
Just to be clear, what do you mean by this?
> What should Israel do? Not do a blockade and hope that Hamas decides to give up violence after 30 years, despite it promising to do so?
So what is your plan then? Keep millions of people in perpetual prison for all eternity? Because that's more or less what "blockade of Gaza" entails.
It's important to emphasise just how small the Gaza strip is: roughly the size of Dublin (smaller if you exclude fairly large "forbidden zones" near the wall). No city that size can be self-sufficient, it's physically impossible. Gaza is set up to fail. Not intentionally as part of some plan, but that doesn't change the fact of it.
Hamas has hinted at some moderation over the years such as recognising Israel's right to exist, and they have basically been ignored or rebuffed at every turn. Israel hasn't even tried with Hamas. They just said "fuck these elections" in 2005 and that was that.
I intently dislike Hamas, but Hamas is the reality that exists, so it's what you'll have to deal with. Simply giving up and saying "well, Hamas are a bunch of religious nutjobs, so we're not even going to try" is a huge part of why things have escalated in the first place. Note how Hamas-levels of extremism doesn't have wide-spread support among the Palestinians on the west bank.
If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom? All of that in spite of religious nutjobs currently in government who support Jewish mass-murderers and have expressed views that are just as extreme as Hamas and are nothing short of genocidal? That is just as naïve, if not more so, than expecting Hamas to immediately come to their senses after lifting the blockage.
Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
> So what is your plan then? Keep millions of people in perpetual prison for all eternity? Because that's more or less what "blockade of Gaza" entails.
First of all, I don't think that's an accurate characterization of life in Gaza. They're not literally in prison, their conditions aren't great (at all!) but definitely not the terrible conditions that that image conjures up.
> Hamas has blood on its hands, absolutely, but the idea that Israeli are poor victims who have never done anything wrong is just dead wrong.
I absolutely agree, Israel has not done anywhere near enough to improve conditions in Gaza and seek peace, especially in the last 15 or so years.
But you asked my plan - I'm far from being knowledgeable enough to answer that, but here's what I think the general outline should be:
1. Destroy Hamas. At this point, given the damage they've done, to Israelis, to their own citizens, and to the peace process - this is a must-do. Not sure what this means in practice, but probably need to capture or kill enough of their leaders to make them unable to continue operating as an organization.
2. Someone else needs to step in and help manage Gaza. The US thinks a bolstered PA can do this - Netanyahu claims this won't work, and Palestinians mostly dislike the PA. So I'm not sure who can fill this role in practice, but someone needs to do it. (I trust Biden a lot more than Netanyahu, btw).
As an aside, I think Israel should help rebuild Gaza, somehow, and help the people now stranded without a home. No idea how to do this in practice (I doubt anyone will be happy with Israeli contractors literally building buildings in Gaza, and don't think that'll be safe), but it's the moral thing to do.
3. Start making concrete steps towards peace. Start dismantling settlements, and find ways to bolster Palestinian voices for peace (instead of the reverse, which is what has happened over the last 15 years). Find other ways that improve the lives of Palestinians while maintaining Israeli security, I'm sure there are lots of ways that can be done.
4. Start a peace process. Any peace process, with anyone credible enough to do it. Israel cannot morally "give up" on peace, even if the Palestinians are currently unwilling to seek peace.
That's what I think should happen. I have very little faith this will actually happen though, except for part 1 of that.
> If you grew up in Gaza and are in your 20s now then you hardly remember a time before the blockade. What do you expect from the people of Gaza? After a life-time of desperation for them to come to an epiphany and lay down all protest and adopt carefully nuanced language in the hope that Israeli politicians will give them more freedom?
I expect that, once Hamas is destroyed, many people in Gaza will start speaking up against Hamas and the destruction they brought on their own people. Some Gazans are already saying as much.
Many countries have suffered defeat in war - Germany and Japan are good examples. They didn't all grow up wanting nothing more than violence because of the Allies bombing their countries. They became great allies of the US etc. I don't know why we think that Palestinians can't be the same, given that Israel actually takes concrete steps to repair the terrible damage wrought by this war.
You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme organization using another name.
The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
Neither Germany or Japan was subjected to an occupation this lengthy and brutal and expected not to lash out.
> You have no realistic shot at destroying Hamas without addressing the conditions that created it. At "best" you'll create a vacuum filled by another extreme organization using another name.
The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation.
> The only way of destroying what Hamas is, is to start treating Palestinians humanely, and address their grievances so they actually see an alternative might work.
The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
> The situation on the west bank shows that stopping the rockets is an achievable goal. Extreme ... fine. The west is full of extreme organisations of all kinds that almost never hurt anyone because they're well-policed. That is a situation that would be a LOT more acceptable than the current situation.
The west have had plenty of organizations that did regularly hurt people despite being extensively policed until the conditions that created them were addressed, despite those conditions being far less extreme than full-on apartheid. E.g. take the IRA.
The situation in the West Bank shows it can be contained for some time, and while doing so you'll see the moderate groups' lose support as the situation drags on in favour of more extreme movements unless you actually address the underlying issue. E.g. consider how the support for Fatah has steadily declined on the West Bank, while support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad has massively increased, along with Lion's Den - a group that is only a year old, yet outpolled Fatah in Washington Institute polls earlier this year, and that was formed largely out of disaffection by Fatah's lack of action.
Any belief you'll be able to maintain a state of relative calm without addressing the oppression is a belief that a population of millions will just give up and resign themselves to living under an apartheid regime forever, and that's boundlessly naive.
> The same was said about Daesh/IS/PIJ and this has turned out to be false.
The populations under their control were not subjected to decades of occupation by an apartheid state, and they imposed themselves from the outside and were the ones to oppress the populations that lived under them. The notion they are comparable is bizarre, and I've never heard anyone say that about them.
I love what you're doing here: you're assuming your argument to be correct, then discussing that assumption. It's ridiculous of course, but pretty hidden. What is currently in place is effectively a 2 country system. That's what "apartheid" means in your post. By that measure, people living on ANY country border, say the Polish-Russian border, or the US-Canada border, are living in "apartheid". I think you'll find that's absurd.
And what you're trying to hide is that you're suggesting as an alternative: a single -muslim- state. In other words, you're trying to hide that you're pushing repression of everyone. Including muslims btw, just ask Iranians or let a Saudi pour you a few (excellent, but WTF strong) coffees, then talk to them about how happy they are with their state. And I think you'll find Saudi are a lot less extreme than Hamas (for one thing they'd never do something as "low" as picking up a gun. That's for peasants)
In other words: the only alternative you're giving for oppressing 2 million people is oppressing 15 million people (15 because Palestinians would also be oppressed under such a system).
And then there's the trap: you perpetuate the leftist "vision" that people start acting more extreme when they don't get 100% what they want. Of course, this only ever applies to leftists and whoever leftists consider victims. It doesn't apply to Israeli, for example. Giving THEM 100% what they want (Palestinians stay on their land, 2 state solution, no more rockets or attacks, cooperation) is not under consideration. They're not victims. It's also trivial to give unending examples of this not being true. But that's not the trap. This is just the one-sidedness of the argument. Of course if you get your one-state solution you don't want to admit you're calling for, it will immediately make 10 million people a LOT more extremist (never mind what will happen when the inevitable happens and Palestinians massacre in Israel again, and I don't mean since Oct 7, I mean like they've always done. Most Israeli ALSO can't leave, so they will do the one thing they can: fight)
But the trap is: Hamas are racial supremacists. They believe they are better, they will win, because they are extremist muslims. That's how their value system works. If they get what they want, your argument is that they will immediately stop extremism. Does this actually happen? Talk to an Iranian, a Sudanese, an Indonesian, a Kashmiri ... did this actually happen? No. When they got what they wanted, they immediately became 10x MORE extremist and attacked.
The one state solution that you hide you're calling for is not a solution to end apartheid. It will make a population of 10 million start an open civil war with a population of 5 million people. It will be a bloodbath, for entirely obvious reasons.
This is the trap: you say the one-state "solution" will solve the problem. Reality is that that solution will make things 100x worse, for everyone, since it will do what it did everywhere else this was tried: unending civil war with incredible amounts of casualties.
You're suggestion is putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
So: no thanks. Go fuck yourself.
> I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well
This thinking kind of reinforces what you're trying to stay away from. There are not just 'two sides' to this. And I'm not sure what you would envision as an HNer from the "other side": someone in support of Hamas? In support of the Palestinian people?
I'm only commenting here because I think the bias you fear expressing can still kind of appear in different ways.
I really do appreciate the approach you're taking here with attempting to allow for curious and thoughtful discussion about contemporary topics while being cognizant of the dangers.
You're of course right that there are many more than two sides to the topic, but there's a strong tendency for users (being human) to identify with one or the other side in this war, and that's what I was referring to. I take your point that my wording was unclear there, and even a grain of unclarity is pretty dangerous in this context.
My experience with this conflict has been that people have had to specifically demonstrate that there are more than two sides to this. Support for the Palestinian people or being against large-scale bombing does not mean one supports Hamas.
Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN and NBC News describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga...
https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt
https://www.nbcnews.com/Israel-Hamas-war-Gaza-Strip-conflict
My interpretation of "other side" was "other side of the border", i.e. someone living in Gaza or possibly the West Bank. In that case there are literally two sides (I could cite the Jordan curve theorem?). But that may not have been what dang meant.
There are two sides - ordinary people on both sides, who mostly just want it all to stop, and the leaders on both sides, who want it to continue. (As do arms dealers.)
The ordinary people have far more in common with each other than they do with the leaders who are keeping this war running.
60% of surveyed Palestinians “extremely supported” the military actions on Jan 7, an additional 15% somewhat supported. This was research done by Palestinians based locally.
There is a lot of hopeful thinking about humanity being conjured out of thin air, evidence on the ground is to the contrary. Many people on the ground support the conflict and expect to win. A great majority of Palestinians supported the attacks in January. A great majority of Israelis insist on a military response taken to its conclusion.
This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/12/05/palestinians-vie...
https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20...
And before that 70% wanted control of Gaza to be taken away from Hamas, and a majority opposed breaking the ceasefire:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-sh...
Consider that asking about support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing, especially when a portion of those polled were in the war zone.
Now consider the extent to which provoking this kind of reaction was Hamas' goal in light of polls showing people wanting them out in a situation where their legitimacy as a political leadership kept dropping with each year without another election.
> This is not the case of peoples being held hostage by their leaders. They might not like their leaders but they would put new ones in power who were substantially the same.
After this? Maybe. Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above. Which might make one want to ask why the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction and what that says about the extent to which they want peace, because given the sharp but predictable changes in polling this reaction is clearly entirely counter-productive.
For the same reason I wish people would stop call it overreaction. As far as I see from inside Israel the reaction is considered spot-on by majority.
Overreaction is the mildest thing I'd call it. It's an ongoing series of brutal war crimes, and if it's true that the reaction is considered spot-on that does not make it more justified.
At the same time, it is a demonstration of exactly why this reaction is counter-productive, because you can expect that exact same anger to grow in a Palestinian population where the vast majority had nothing to do with the attacks, nor have ever voted for - or even had a chance to vote for - Hamas (~80% of the current population of Gaza were either not born or not of voting age when Hamas won a minority of the vote), and who before this wanted Hamas out. Expect to see a massive resurgence in support for Hamas and even more extreme groups, and the net outcome being to have made Israel's security situation significantly worse.
It has also massively damaged support and sympathy for Israel internationally. E.g. many political forums I'm in used to see it as distasteful or too extreme to describe Israel as an apartheid state just a couple of years ago, while it is a widely supported view today, and the Israeli reaction is regularly described as ethnic cleansing with little opposition to the use of that term.
Put another way: Hamas has gotten exactly what it wanted out of this, and Israel has harmed its case and harmed its security massively.
If I were to make a prediction, it would be that unless Israel massively changes direction very quickly, the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks will contribute to making resistance to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement start to crumble.
What I meant is that "overreaction" is a subjective term. From perspective of an average Israely (again, my subjective observation) it's not "over" reaction.
So > the Israeli leadership is so easy to goad into over-reaction
From Israely leadership perspective it's NOT an overreaction, so it IS easy.
And in general "overreaction" is too emotionally charged. What would be an adequate reaction? Send us your X women we'll rape them? How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
It is irrelevant to the point I made that the average Israeli doesn't see it as overraction or that the leadership doesn't. The point is that they're demonstrating that they're either to dumb to realise what Hamas intent was (goading them into brutal violence to whip up support for further violence against Israel in return), or they're not interested in stopping the violence.
And as I point out "overreaction" was the mildest term I'd consider using. Emotionally charged would be to call it mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. An adequate reaction would be not to brutally murder civilians and carry out extensive war crimes.
> How do you measure "over"ness of a response to mass rape and torture?
By lack of adherence to international law. By any willingness to cause mass murder and engage in ethnic cleansing.
At the very least, by the time the IDF response had led to the murder of more civilians than the attack of terrorists they are hunting, they ought to consider that it is no more morally acceptable for them to murder civilians than the other side, and they've become what they claim to want to destroy.
That doesn't answer my question, what would be an adequate reaction to more than thousand civilians brutally murdered, raped, etc? What Israel should've done as response that you would consider adequate for all sides, Palestinians, Israelis, and international community?
It's not my job to solve a problem successive Israeli governments created by their decades of violations of international law. Maybe they can't find something they consider an "adequate reaction" that doesn't involve mass murder and ethnic cleansing. That doesn't make those legitimate, or moral, or legal. That is a problem of their own making.
Consider that if it was reasonable for Israel to murder many times more civilians in response to a Hamas attack on civilians, it would be equally reasonable for Palestinians to murder many times more Israeli civilians than that again in response to the IDF attack on Palestinian civilians.
But nobody have an inherent right to a reaction they consider fair, if that reaction involves brutally violating the rights of innocent third parties.
It's no less terror when the IDF kills innocent civilians than when Hamas does, and seeking to legitimise it is no less immoral.
OK. But you do say what Israel shouldn't do, and at the same time, you can't provide any alternative solution. That's a really convenient position. I don't think doing nothing is an option here, so Israel does what the electorate expects it to do, that's what I meant in my comment about overreaction.
Also, I'm not sure who you mean by "they". Let's talk about specific people: past governments are mostly dead, current generation was born into this situation the same as Palestinians were born into theirs. "They" (current Israeli population) can't end the occupation; there are no feasible options. So what "they" should do in case a neighboring nation kills a thousand of "them"? Again, these people have nothing to do with occupation. The kids at that rave party most likely considered themselves as far left (just given the demographics). I myself am far left; I'm a part of "them", and I'm against the occupation, but no one is able to come up with a solution that would satisfy both sides.
So when you talk about "them", whom do you mean? Who'd you expect would find a solution if you can't even solve this smaller moral dilemma of what your country's response should be in case of Oct. 7?
edit: like, how can you overreact if no one can say what "non-over" reaction should be?
>support for Hamas attacks once the retaliation has stoked up hate is inherently going to be strongly affected by views shaped by the large-scale invasion and bombing
In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
"32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
Palestinians don't like their governments, this does not mean they would have governments that acted substantially differently. Support for violence is widespread and predates the Oct 7 attacks and Israeli response.
> Before this, the poll above shows people wanted them out, per above.
The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
1. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/955
> In September 2022 armed struggle was the most popular option for resolving the situation, support for that went up in Sept 2023. [1]
The change is well within the margin of error given the poll size. It is also a question that does not in any way tease out how many of those support atrocities like the Hamas attacks vs. legal and legitimate armed resistance of an occupied population against the occupier (Israel is still considered an occupier by both the UN and EU due to the extent of their control). As such it's not relevant in response to the sentence of mine you quoted.
The other survey asked a very different question, specifically on views on the cease-fire specifically in Gaza. If we're going to compare polls that ask entirely different questions, it's far more reasonable to interpret that as directly contradictory to support for those kinds of attacks prior to the Israeli retaliation than it is to assume abstract support for armed struggle as a long-term means to solve the conflict as a whole implies support for a specific kind of action.
As it is, I stand by my claim that you can't meaningfully say anything about the pre-Israeli retaliation views on attacks of the type Hamas carried out when interviewing a population that at that point had been subject to a full-scale invasion, extensive bombing, and many thousands dead.
What we can say something about is about the specific questions people were asked in surveys, none of which to my knowledge included questions about large terror attacks on civilians.
> "32% support and 67% oppose the idea of a two-state solution"
"which was presented to the public without providing details of the solution" is key here. The poll I linked got 50% for “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” A key part of the problem with asking open-ended about a two-state solution is that it forces people to impose their own idea of what that would mean in terms of borders and concessions from each side. E.g. if you were to ask about a two-state solution that involves Israel maintaining control over their illegal settlements in the West Bank, you're certainly likely to get far more opposition than the poll I linked.
As such what the difference in numbers tells us is just that the exact form of a two-state solution would have a significant impact on the potential for it to lead to peace.
> The older survey above did not address violence. Not liking your government does not imply that you oppose all of their general positions.
I did not suggest they did. It showed people wanted Hamas out, and replaced by the PA, and wanted them to give up their independent armed units, as I stated. The statement people were asked to agree or disagree with was "The PA should send officials and security officers to Gaza, to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up its separate armed units"
Not wanting to give up all violence for an occupied population is unsurprising - it'd be far more surprising if most of a population of which the vast majority was born after the Oslo accords were signed yet has seen no signs of progress would believe in negotiation. It'd also be entirely unreasonable to demand of an occupied population to want to give up their legal right to armed resistance.
There is, however, a vast chasm between legitimate armed struggle and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Sorry I think you got confused there by the unclear question in the report. The survey was conducted on 6th of October, one day before the Hamas attack (that's written on the report page). So "this war" can not mean that attack or the Israeli counterattack but probably the decade long conflict. Also the survey shows people have very low trust in organisations, including Hamas.
The second link they posted is about [1], which was conducted well into the retaliation. So while it is clearly about the October 7 attack, it's also clearly massively affected by the feelings about the counter-attack.
[1] https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10719/Wartime-Poll-Results-...
From the article you quote, 51% of Gaza supported a 2 state solution, 75% face food insecurity, only 23% had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in Hamas, 52% had no trust at all in Hamas, most said their freedom of speech is limited or not free at all. Per the Washington Institute, 70% wanted PA to take over Gaza from Hamas in July 2023.
In regards to the 60% you quote, the question was framed as "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?"
Given the majority of Gaza has trouble accessing the news/electricity, 95% don't trust Israel's news (in the same survey), what they know about Oct 7 is not what we know about Oct 7. Whether you and I believe it or not, there are plenty who think all the targets on Oct 7 were military, any atrocities are fake news, etc. And for a people suffering under blockade for 16 years, including a year of weekly peaceful protests in 2018-2019 that were repeatedly met with violence by the IDF (~200 killed, thousands maimed/disabled), living in slums with little to no electricity [1], seeing their lives deteriorate year after year as the world has forgotten them - it would not be surprising at all for them to support a "military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance."
Furthermore, we're talking about a survey taken in the midst of war where 46% have lost their homes (same survey you shared), 80% of Gaza is displaced, and all the thousands of civilian and children deaths and tens of thousands of maiming and mutilations etc. Hospitals destroyed. Bakeries and water towers bombed. Journalists and health care workers murdered. ... Unclear how many, but probably all of the population has PTSD; 90% of the children had PTSD back in 2021 [2]. So in that context, in the midst of such immense suffering, the answer to this question should not be surprising at all. It is completely rational.
However, it would not be accurate for us to conflate their answer with supporting atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7 (which is not something it seems the survey asked about).
>> Many people on the ground support the conflict Re: Gaza, the survey you link says 90% "support a ceasefire that includes a mutual cessation of hostilities." So I don't think it's accurate to say the civilians of Gaza support this conflict.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/harsh-living-conditions-in... [2] https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/4497/New-Report:-91%25...
>>>> post-edit I had missed that the survey parent comment linked was completed before Oct 7. My bad.
There are no 2 sides. There is an oppressor and the oppressed. The coloniser and the colonised. The occupation and the occupied.
>There are no 2 sides. >Go on to break everything down into two sided relationships.
Remember poster: Despite the Romulan's insistence, There...are...four...lights!
2 sides implies equal footing. Especially as many equate this to a war. This isn't a war, it's a genocide.
But joke about it. Who cares? Just a bunch of people out of sight, out of mind, getting blown to bits day in day out.
Hilarious isn't it.
Let's also not forget the unbearable plight of all Russian HNers, who due to circumstances beyond their control are now isolated from the rest of the world. Many of them suffer greatly and fear for their own lives as Ukrainian drone attacks hit deep into Russian territory. We shouldn't treat this situation as a football match, where people only support "their" side. Instead, peaceful coexistence with both sides fulfilling their obligations according to the Minsk agreements is required.
IMO this would require that both Putin and Zelensky do not stay in power.
You are drawing some sort of analogy between two dissimilar conflicts. Yet what the analogy precisely entails is totally unstated.
I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some relationship between them but it is very hard to do this when you cannot be bothered to explain in plain English why you think these two conflicts are related and in what manner? What aspects are you referring to?
It can be frustrating when someone tries to make a strong point, but focuses mainly on the flourish and does not actually explain any reasoning -- this doesn't contribute to intellectual exploration since without explaining your reasoning, there is zero chance you can convince any thoughtful person to change their mind.
Funny, my mother-in-law lives in Russia and describes nothing of this sort of fear.
Young men there do have trouble working internationally. And they do have legitimate fears. But the fears are more along the line of being conscripted and sent to the front lines, and not the rather insignificant risk of drones.
You might be coming from a good place, but you are word for word posting Kremlin talking points currently being pushed all over the place through their think tanks.
Minsk agreements were impossible to uphold and Russia never attempted to do so from the beginning, it was showed upon then much weaker Ukraine as Ukraine was in no position to defend itself then, it is different now.
Sure, it's satire. My point was that if this article was about how Russian prisons brutalize Ukrainian children, dang probably wouldn't have posted asking for us to show compassion with the perpetrators' side.
Glad to hear that, certainly doesn’t transfer well on the first read, as I saw that sentiment far too widespread last few months.
A close friend of mine lived in Israel for a long time, and I got the sense that your feelings are echoed by many.
It's too easy for people in America and Europe to sit at their desks and repost propaganda on social media in favor of "their side".
There are plenty of Israelis on all sides of this issue.
There are also plenty of Israelis who frequent HN, btw (like me).
That the Israelian public is devided on the current Israelian government and its policies was reported on in Germany when it was about the judicative reforms.
Reporting this devide between religious hardliners and more liberal people stopped with the Hamas and Gaza attacks. Since then, it basically comes down to equating Israel as a nation (ignoring the fact that policy is made governments) with all Israelians (ignoring opposition to the current Israelian government) with all jews everywhere else. Ehy am I saying this? Because every critique of Israel as nation, and the policies of the current government, have been almost immediately been called out as being anti-semitic.
I think that does a disservice to everyone: jews, because it makes ever jew kind of a target for people oposing Israel (after all Israel is representative for each and every jew, if you believe certain articles). It makes it harder for Israelian opposition forces to get traction and it squarely devides Arabs / Muslims from jews, making dialogue extremely hard.
One can critizie Israel as a nation without being an anti-semite. One can also be supportive of Gazan civilians without supporting Hamas. By preventing this discourse, nobody is gaining anything.
I very much agree that calling any criticism of Israel anti-semitic is both factually wrong and very bad, on many levels.
The main thing that upsets Israelis is when the criticism is:
1. Specific only to Israel, and/or far harsher on Israel than on other similar countries for no reason.
2. The criticism offers no path by which Israel is allowed to defend itself. It's totally legit (and morally must be done) to criticize Israel if it does bad things - but if literally every action that Israel takes is criticized as being "too much", the end result can only be "Israel cannot do anything".
Btw, small language nitpick - the correct term is "Israeli" not "Israelian", at least in English.
It is tricky isn't it? Because both sides in this conflict have the right to exist and defend themselves. Terror attacks are not self defence, nor are illegal settlements or what amounts to terror bombing.
Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.
I think if Netanyahu loses the next elections and is replaced with more moderate voices (like Ganz or former PM Lapid), and if the US/NATO/UN peace keeping forces will agree to PLO's leadership wishes to back them into taking control of the Gaza strip with Hamas as a junior partner in its government we may get there. But a lot of these things may not happen.
I really hope it plays out like this. What really pisses me off so, Hamas leadership is sitting savely in the Emirates. And the religious right in Israel, the ones promoting the settlement policies for example (their rethoric isn't something I'll repeat or even cite) is excempt from serving in the military to an extent.
For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it.
> Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in.
Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances.
The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.
Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that.
Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
> Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing
It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself.
> The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources.
Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets.
Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force.
Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)
Re Suicide Bombers: By so far I meant in current conflict.
Re bombing and airstrikes: For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
> The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
This rings so hollow to me. People were out protesting Israel the day of the October 7th attacks, which was before Israel had done anything! In the eyes of many people in the world, Israel is guilty, period, no matter what it does.
Not to mention, and this is also a pretty important point - Israel showing initial restraint would've made it look weak, which could easily have meant that this war would've turned into a multi-state regional conflict. Hezbollah for weeks was watching from the sidelines, deciding whether to join the conflict or not. Had they done so, casualties on all sides would be far far higher.
People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint.
> For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless.
That's a very sad consequence of the fact that Hamas uses that civilian infrastructure, thus making it effectively not civilian any more.
> And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes?
C'mon. Israel could easily attack and kill far more people. Just look at actual mass slaughters that have happened.
Israel isn't coming anywhere close to what it could do if it wanted. Unlike Hamas, it isn't constrained by capability.
Also, it is now doing a ground offensive which is causing far more Israeli soldier casualties, instead of continued bombing.
There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth.
The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies.
What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now.
As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.
So how should Israel respond in you opinion?
The first step would be to stop indiscriminately killing civilians (or discriminately killing civilians, whatever, just stop).
The next step is up to them to figure out, but "commit war crimes" isn't an acceptable answer. Those pointing out the war crimes don't have to pitch an alternative to war crimes and hope the idea is accepted or whatever. Just stop killing civilians, then reassess.
Just to clarify exactly where I sit morally: I do not find it acceptable to kill 10 civilians in retaliation for 1 civilian being killed, nor do I find it acceptable that such 10x revenge killing of civilians is allegedly done in the name of saving civilians. Such statements tell me that the ones making them, don't view Palestinians as civilians to be saved. Whereas I don't believe 1 Palestinian civilian life is any more or less important than 1 Israeli civilian life.
Your answer is for them to sit back and allow Hamas to fire rockets on them and not engage back?
We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right?
Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
It's a simply question. What should Israel do when attacked?
That question is as "simple" as asking what Palestinian civilians should do when attacked.
These are actually simple questions (yes or no format):
> We're discussing how to minimize the civilian casualties happening as we speak, right?
> Not just the civilian casualties on /one/ side of the wall, /right/?
If your goal isn't that, you should speak up, because that is currently the goal of most of everyone else. Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved.
I'm going to write that again for emphasis, since you've tried to change the topic to it twice now:
--> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal is achieved. <---
As it is, you seem a bit distracted from the goal of minimizing the ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak. Focus. We can discuss your question after, and only after, the civilian deaths stop racking up.
If Israel stops, Hamas will continue with its terrorist actions. Again what should Israel do?
Maybe that is true, maybe not. Maybe the inverse is true, maybe not. Either way, you're asking about a security consideration, so I guess I must repeat this a third time:
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
For now, please take the time to read the post you just responded to, as it directly addresses that subject, and you seem to have ignored it, based on your lack of answers for the 2 questions contained within, and your 2-sentence reflexive reply to a multi-paragraph post.
How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
===> Security considerations and guarantees for Palestine and Israel from each other don't come until after that goal [of stopping ongoing civilian casualties happening as we speak] is achieved. <===
You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace.
>>How could 2 sentences contain a thoughtful response? In this case, they don't. If you read the whole post, your reply will contain 2 yes-or-no answers. If not, it won't. Please read the whole post before reflexively responding again.
Because you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
> You have no proof of that. This is also pretty much ahistorical model of the world. Wishful thinking won't bring peace.
This makes no sense. I am stating the consensus of the world. Ignoring for a moment that israel's terror bombing of palestinian civilians is even less likely to bring peace, the primary goal in the first place is not to "bring peace", it is to stop the ongoing killing of civilians happening as we speak. Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved. But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing. You are free to try to convince the world otherwise, as is israel, but thusfar, you have both failed at the task.
You can disagree, but righteousness is defined by the majority here, and the majority of the world says israel needs to stop its terror bombing campaign against palestinian civilians, regardless of any questions you or israel may have for what comes next. Indeed, whatever your answer to your question (what should israel or palestine do when attacked by the other), "continuing to terror-bomb civilians in palestine" isn't an acceptable answer, as judged by the world. You will have to come up with a new one if you wish to no longer be a villain in this story, according to the world.
>you are dodging my question by replying with questions.
In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
>> Your personal goal of "peace" is lower priority, and we (the world) may be willing to discuss it after the aforementioned higher-priority goal is achieved.
How gracious of you. Where did you (the world) had that meeting where you decided which goals are more important?
>> But I see no reason to reward terror-bombing of palestinian civilians, especially while the terror-bombing of palestinian civilians is still ongoing.
But indiscriminate bombing of Israeli cities is reasonable and kidnapping, raping, mutilating, torturing of Israeli civilians is fine? The moment Israel stops before Hamas is destroyed all that will immediately resume.
>> In order to answer your question, I'm first asking clarifying questions which you yourself are dodging. Your dodging of clarifying questions, combined with your history of short, combative posts, illustrates that you aren't interested in clarity, or an answer, or even honest discussion, but rather just to argue. Well, you can continue arguing with yourself, frothing with rage at the fact that the world rejects israel's shallow excuses for terror-bombing palestinian civilians and executing israeli civilian hostages found in gaza. I'll no longer be a party to your bad faith attacks and arguments.
Nice ad hominem and straw man building.
> The moment Israel stops before Hamas is destroyed all that will immediately resume.
Without Hamas, all that was in Hebron / E Jerusalem will promptly resume, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The latter looks increasingly likely.
> But indiscriminate bombing of Israeli cities
Ceasefire agreements are put in place for a purpose. If pursued earnestly, it can lead to permanent peace (see: Israel-Egypt). Otherwise, if the costs of the on-going war are okay, countries should have at it. Having lived through wars, the costs to me appear rarely justifiable.
>>Without Hamas, all that was in Hebron / E Jerusalem will promptly resume, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing. The latter looks increasingly likely.
Hamas controls Gaza and not the West bank.
Yeah, and hence the pathetic state that West Bank is in under the Israeli occupation. It isn't worse or better than Gaza, but it is still an abomination from the perspective of the Palestinians.
> How gracious of you. Where did you (the world) had that meeting where you decided which goals are more important?
Thanks, yeah. Some folks are entitled enough that they feel their opinion outweighs the world. Russia's war on Ukraine is another example of someone thinking their opinion outweighs that of the world. So I appreciate your gratitude and humility in recognizing yours doesn't. The results of the world vote on the immediate (without preconditions) ceasefire is here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144717
> Nice ad hominem and straw man building.
Aw, and you were making such great progress before it turned into another short, combative post.
Anyways, I was happy to help you find that vote, you're welcome! Have a good one!!
>People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint.
You increase the cost of war by increasing the wealth of both sides. People with nothing spend their lives more easily than people with much.
> with the goal of a two state solution with Israel and Palestine co-existing according to the 1967 borders
Why are the 1948-1967 borders considered so important? They lasted for 19 years.
Also, in 1967 Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Do people want that again?
The 1967 borders were what was agreed in the peace process in the 90s.
1948 borders are irrelevant.
There was never any agreement on borders. You can look at any past offer and see one side or the other complaining why it's unacceptable.
I can empathize with this, and hope your family remains safe. But I'm afraid Netanyahu and Hamas are just tips of icebergs, and criticism at that level will not be even remotely sufficient to resolve the underlying issues. I'd love to be corrected, but it seems to me that _all_ religions (not only Judaism or Islam) are plagued by supremacist beliefs about their own ethnic group. At the ethnic group level, religion seems to be an evolutionary advantage if not a primary driving force of genetic success. But at the global, human level, it is often catastrophic. Religious apologists tend to paper over their (often subconscious?) supremacist fundamentals with moral teachings and utopian visions, but I think it's crucial that these beliefs are publicly examined and criticized on the global stage, "heresy" be damned. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
Judaism is very different to other religions in some ways. It is not a proselytizing religion - it's not looking to convert anyone to Judaism.
It has certain supremacist beliefs - the Jews are the "chosen people" of God, giving them certain duties and certain privileges. But it's not necessarily a "Jews are better" line of thinking. Though of course many religious Jews may phrase it in those terms.
Worth mentioning that the majority of Israelis are secular, so the religious view on this, whatever it is, is a minority view in Israel.
Israelis can potentially vote out Netanyahu in the next election. But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths? Hamas leadership prefers the current state of affairs because it has made them wealthy by taxing the populace and embezzling foreign aid. They have no incentive to agree to a peace deal or allow new multiparty elections. There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.
Is there any way Israel could undermine Hamas with prosperity? Make the lives of palestinians better, give back settlements, etc? Get average palestinians to think "wtf who are these terrorist asshats, Israel is a good neighbor."
Israel should stop expanding settlements. Those only make a final peace deal harder to achieve. But that won't solve the Hamas problem. Hamas leaders don't care what average Gazans think nor will they voluntarily give up power. Prosperous Gazans already have to pay Hamas protection money, so more prosperity in Gaza means more resources flowing to Hamas to buy weapons.
The problem is that there is no "Israel should or shouldn't do" - countries don't have agency like that, their governments do. And those currently in power intentionally wanted to make a peace deal harder to achieve, because they don't want peace.
Before the Sharon/Netanyahu/extremist takeover, Israel was serious about peace. But in the last two decades, Netanyahu has seen Hamas as an asset to undermine the PA, block moderates, and eliminate the 2 state option [1,2].
Israel has killed Hamas leaders who wanted to work towards peace [3]: >> After Israel assassinated Jabari, Reuven Pedatzur, a military analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, reported: >> Our decision makers, including the defense minister and perhaps also Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knew about Jabari’s role in advancing a permanent cease-fire agreement. … Thus the decision to kill Jabari shows that our decision makers decided a cease-fire would be undesirable for Israel at this time, and that attacking Hamas would be preferable.
An Israeli government that was actually interested in peace could halt and reverse the settlements in the West Bank, end the apartheid (e.g. military vs civilian courts for Palestinians, different class of citizenships, travel restrictions, prevention from visting Jerusalem's holy sites, etc.), the blockade of Gaza, etc. Treating Palestinians as humans (and not propping up Hamas) would likely go a long way towards undermining Hamas. Most Palestinians already didn't like Hamas - 70% wanted the PA in July 2023 according to the Washington Institute.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up... [2] https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian... [3] https://theintercept.com/2023/11/17/hillary-clinton-hamas-is...
>There doesn't appear to be any realistic solution short of a massive, forceful intervention by a neutral foreign coalition.
Has such a thing ever happened in history? I don't think it has, so it seems like fantasy. No one really seems interested in risking their or their children's lives policing some other group of people elsewhere in the world if they don't have some geopolitical interest in it.
> But how exactly would you propose to remove Hamas from power without a lot of civilian deaths?
Did you consider that massive civilian death could play into Hamas' hand? One of the insurgency techniques, where the action causes overreaction to amplify support ("action-reaction-revolution").
What happens in Palestine (a territory of the state of Israel plus the territories under the occupation) is called insurgency. To end the insurgency you can either withdraw, exterminate the insurgent population and/or convince the population to not support the insurgent.
Insurgency is always a fight for the legitimacy. The problem with this conflict is the fight for legitimacy happens not only between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, but also within these parties. Israel has official stance on supporting two state solution and un-official de-facto single state goal. Palestinians have Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad etc.
It's a big problem, indeed. Prior to October 7, a large majority of Gazans supported having the PA take over control in Gaza. It's worth considering to what extent waning support and credibility with their own population was a motivation for Gaza in the attacks, given being seen to do something and goading Israel into making themselves be seen by the Gazan population as an obvious villain plays straight into Hamas' hands.
The biggest blow Israel could deal to Hamas would probably be to do the minimum to contain them, provide the PA with access and means, and let the PA deal with it with guarantees of meaningful concessions if/when the PA succeeds in meeting certain targets (that ought to carefully not mention Hamas, but mention things like demonstrating a functioning justice system and ability to secure the borders). To your point of a "neutral" foreign coalition, if granted access by Israel, the PA would potentially be in a position where it could ask for international assistance and try to frame it as allies coming to the aid of the population rather than an attack on Palestine.
But that would also first take an Israeli government that is serious about peace and negotiating concessions, and frankly the current Israeli government seems as caught up in seeing the continuation of the conflict as essential to their own power as Hamas.
In the meantime there's a real danger this will stoke up more radicalism not just in Gaza but in the West Bank as well.
But what about reparations? Israel has destroyed most of Gaza's infrastructure and housing. Israel is responsible for this act of genocide.
I wish more people had your perspective. I see a lot of us politicians who miss this basic human nuance, let's all be against all violence and attacks on civilians - we don't need to both sides it, just humanize our behavior. I think like you state, I want innocents, civilians everywhere on all sides to avoid violence, terrorism, bombings, this seemingly endless horror. I see many us politicians making misleading statements about wanting to say you must support destroying Hamas, and that's all they can say, and they attack people who say we must protect innocent people - and they can't accept any criticism about needing to protect civilians on the Palestinian side.
It's easy to over-react to an attack, and I hope people like you are able to control the reaction. I'm in the US, and it's important to me to remind people that the US destroyed Iraq in response to 9/11 (and Iraq wasn't behind it, regardless of them being an evil government) and a million people died and also we bear eternal shame for kidnapping people and torturing them in black prisons during that terrible time. I was a young adult at that time and I failed to make any impact on US choices. I hope other people do better than I did.
You massively discount the radicalizing effect. After what happens, neither side will agree to peace under your formula (which never worked even in more optimistic times).
A thorough, and thoroughly depressing, analysis of Netanyahu and his thinking:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/21/the-netanyahu-...
Of particular note, and to your point:
> Netanyahu is not a conventional ideologue. His opposition to a two-state solution does not derive from any messianic conviction or biblical inspiration. While many of his supporters are religious traditionalists, he is staunchly secular and doesn’t even keep kosher. Instead, his worldview is shaped by deep pessimism. “I’m asked if we will for ever live by the sword – yes,” he told a group of Knesset members in 2015. He had absorbed this view as a child. His father, Benzion Netanyahu, was a dyspeptic historian of the Spanish Inquisition who died in 2012, at the age of 102. “Jewish history is in large measure a history of holocausts,” Netanyahu Sr once told the New Yorker’s David Remnick. For Netanyahu the son, that catastrophic vision of history has meant that nearly all matters of defence appear refracted through the lens of existential threat. According to such calculus, any Palestinian state would almost certainly devolve into an Islamist terror state threatening Israel’s existence; therefore indefinite Israeli control over the occupied territories is an absolute necessity for Jewish survival.
As another Israeli on the left: why are you still there? Why is your family?
I'm genuinely curious.
Since 2005 I've only lived in Israel for about 1 year. I currently live in Berlin.
For my family, the downsides of immigration are too great vs the downsides of upper-middle class living in metropolitan Tel Aviv. Israel is the only place where their mother tongue is the dominant local language, where their culture is the dominant local culture, where they have their friends and family and professional networks. Where they're not foreign.
Immigration is a pain in the ass and I'm not surprised most people don't do it.
Just wondering... if in your describing community and culture are the valuable features of Israeli daily life, why aren't more people interested in a single state solution? Tel Aviv seems like a thriving, resilient hub. Would it be so buffetted by (admittedly major) changes to borders and civil rights across Judea?
It wouldn't just require a change of leaders. It would require an end to apartheid against Palestinians. It would require the colonist settlement of Israel giving back all it's land to the Palestinians. It would require all those involved being brought in front of the ICC for war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I've been reading this site for 5+ years at this point and I hope that this experiment/exercise does not continue. This is an issue where those demanding commentary are generally not doing so in good faith, and acknowledging the reality of the situation is something that is best not done in polite company. There are plenty of places where you can discuss this content as much as you'd like, and nobody's life will be improved by this becoming yet another one of them.
You usually nuke stories that are political. I'm not being critical, it clearly leads to significant improvement over similar sites.
What makes this one different? When I see a headline like this, I usually assume I managed to see it before you did, and if I refresh the page that it will probably disappear. So again, and without accusation, what's different?
Bad things happen all over the world, nearly constantly or at least it seems to a cynic like myself. Some of those bad things seem... if not fixable, then at least not intractable. Those stories don't seem welcome here though. Surely the situation in Israel and Palestine is as intractable as any, and so much more than most.
Users usually flag them, but yes, moderators often downweight them too—and then there are times that we turn off the flags.
The answer to your question goes like this: (1) some stories with political overlap are on topic (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... (2) we try to be careful about which those are, so the site doesn't go down in flames; (3) I think it follows from HN's core principle (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) that we have to allow at least some discussion of this topic—to suppress it altogether would contradict the intended spirit of HN; and (4) I've explained (or tried to) the sense in which this particular story can be on topic for HN, in my other comments in this thread.
If you or anyone reads that material and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it. Just please understand that the answer may or may not be satisfying, because even if we agree on the principles, different people interpret and draw the lines differently. The important thing for HN moderation is the principles, though, not the individual calls.
I got the impression that stories about the Ukraine/Russia was have been consistently suppressed, including stories about the tech side of the war - drones, hacking, etc. Is this impression mistaken?
It was similar. Users flagged many posts, and we applied the same principles as I've described in this thread, as best we could. That involved turning off flags on certain stories. Unfortunately, the threads did not go well.
That experience is one reason why I'm taking a different approach in the current thread. We're trying to learn over time how to support some discussion (but not too much) of these difficult topics, while remaining within the intended spirit of the site.
Could these threads be saved by a different post weighting model? Throw away downvoted posts, but also discard controversial up voted posts? Or detect bipartisan voting and discard those votes?
I do think there's room to experiment with that, yes.
I skim through headers of 100+ vote submission daily, and since 7.10 I haven't seen anything about this conflict until recently, and now this is second in last week. Since the discussion usually tend to be broad topic rather than specific link, this feels a lot (I left a single comment last time and was flooded by responses). Both entries are talking negatively about Israel (I think specifically Al Jazeera is not very good source being affiliated with Qatari government) so it feels kind of biased; of course it may just reflect HN users opinion, but the comments were more balanced?
Yes - the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site. That took a while, and it's probably better to have waited in any case, because otherwise the odds of reflective rather than reflexive responses (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) would have been even lower than they currently are.
Basically everything in how we run HN is an attempt to optimize for the core principle: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... I know it's not at all obvious how this topic can be within that spirit, but it's also not obvious how avoiding the topic can be within that spirit, so it feels to me like we have to try. I'm trying to support that in this thread a lot more actively than I usually do. (Btw, this has the side effect of paying much less attention to what else is on HN's front page, or happening in comments elsewhere. Usually I make the opposite tradeoff.)
>> the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site.
Pleasantly surprised to see you state/admit this - thanks dang <3
> reflective rather than reflexive responses
I understand where you are coming from. In my experience, the reflective response is often a steel manning of one's own position. This often involves framing, as in using phrases that are agreeable in another context into the author's position. The error I see is both sides of the argument constraining the scope of their discourse to only use information that supports their position. Lies by omission & more often than not, lying to oneself first.
In my experience, having tools to expand the contextual scope is vital, if not the definition, to supporting intellectual curiosity. That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting. I think being able to somehow deconstruct comments to extract the insightful (& indicative) as signal over the noise in the comment would also be useful. It's open ended on how that would be done but it's worth exploring IMO.
I think tools that improve expression, understanding, & evaluation of context are critical to improving cohesion across humanity. I am busy writing open source libraries with the intent of creating apps to support contextual expression & understanding. I hope others create & collaborate in building these sorts of tools (tech, social, spiritual, etc) because it may be one of the most important advances for healing our many divides.
---
> That's where we seem to disagree on flagging & even downvoting.
I think the author's intent of expression is often not heard with the same context. So the meaning of what was spoken & what was heard is different. Often one applies their judgements to what was heard while not grasping the context of what was spoken.
Have you done any analysis on who downvotes/flags, on what they downvote/flag, & how often?
> I know it's not at all obvious how this topic can be within that spirit
It seems to me such important happenings demand curiosity from rational adults, and I'm struggling to understand why an otherwise-rational community would suddenly disagree... Anyway I appreciate your efforts in this thread and everywhere else on the site.
Also, it's amusing to me that, more often than not, discussions about this topic are derailed by discussion about whether it's possible to discuss the original topic in good faith, rather than any sort of blatant ignorance about the actual topic. It's very meta.
People who are "intellectually curious" about the Israel-Palestine conflict and its history should go read a book (or several)[0] instead of debating it on social media. At least that's my opinion.
[0] I would recommend this one, although I haven't yet made it very far (as it's very long): https://iupress.org/9780253220707/a-history-of-the-israeli-p...
The point was to hear each other, not to "debate", although it inevitably turns into that and worse.
Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.
I respect your opinion, but
> Maybe the only thing worse than trying is not trying.
I and others in this thread have been trying to say that from experience, any discussion (unless maybe it's between trusted friends in a face-to-face interaction) about this topic turns into an absolute shitshow sooner or later. I'll admit that this isn't the worst I've seen on the internet, but scroll down far enough, and you'll find enough people engaging in basically flamewars.
"Hearing each other" is all well and good when we're talking about technology, where lots of people on HN are either very knowledgeable about a subject or can at least share their personal experiences. For a topic such as this, I don't think that the HN audience can give any particular insight. Nor do I think that this can be gleaned by individual news articles. The history of this conflict is incredibly complex and anyone who wades into inevitably discovers how little they know about it. That book I mentioned has more than 800 pages and it stops somewhere in the early 2000s, I believe (indeed, the first edition came out on a hopeful note in light of the Oslo accords).
I hear you, and it's all true, but I can only repeat what I said in the GP: despite all this, I think we have no choice but to try. To give up on that would be to give into the dehumanizing and dehumanized in ourselves. I can't go with that in good conscience and I don't think it's in HN's long term interest, even though it would be universes of easier to just act like it's not happening.
I did my best to moderate this thread, to the point of overload, and yes there was a lot of flamewar and guidelines-breakage that I simply couldn't get to.
IMO what we need to do is find at least a drop of (let's call it) heart in ourselves not only for the ones we identify with, but also for the ones we don't identify with. That's how we can start being human about this. If even a tiny amount of that is possible, and of course it is, then we owe it to ourselves to try.
I'm afraid I can't really follow your logic here. You seem to imply that a) one becomes "dehumanized" if one doesn't deeply care about the Israel-Palestine conflict and b) that caring about it implies one should discuss it with strangers on the internet.
I think neither of these is true. a) is IMHO false unless you care to a similar extent about all the other atrocities happening even as we speak - most of which elicit a response of "oh that's sad but what will you do". The reason why people care about this conflict (myself included) is because it has become a proxy conflict that is really about other things.
b) is IMHO false because the real action one should take if one cares about this is first and foremost contact anyone you know who is affected by this conflict - even if indirectly, say, by antisemitism or islamophobia - ask them how they're doing and express your support (not necessarily for their positions but for their plight).
I really don't understand what good it does anybody to engage in debate about a topic that is so politically charged and where almost everyone has only half-knowledge (or less).
There are two possibilities:
- This submission is being kept up out of personal agenda (in which case, fair, we can vote with out feet and voices on other platforms)
- This submission is being kept up out of genuine belief. That would constitute an adjective used to describe a person who inadvertently helps their enemies (which Iranian proxies are).
On another note, the article contents - most of it is just poor conditions and rough treatment, which is something that happens to you if you rape and massacre civilians. If you want to know what is actual torture, look up what happens in russia-occupied regions of Ukraine. That's torture, and it happens on a scale far surpassing anything that happened or can happen on such a small piece of land as Gaza strip.
This is a highly politically charged conflict that’s mainly relevant for being a sort of rhetorical proxy conflict (see all the other conflicts going on that receive a fraction of the attention). The point of discussing this topic is to rhetorically battle.
Unlike say, the current civil war in Burma or Sudan, or the Azeri-Armenian war, basically everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say.
That is not the only point of discussing this topic, and definitely not the point of discussing it here. This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time.
I agree with you about this:
> everyone who clicks on this will have an opinion that’s not, well, academic let’s say
... but as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, I don't think suppressing the topic outright is a solution either (I mean a solution to the particular constraints of this site, not in general).
So what do we do? We each work in ourselves to find a larger space than just our own opinion. We make room for the other alongside ourselves. If we can do that, we'll be able to comment from a place of openness rather than battle. For those who feel too intensely to do so: that is human—let's just be aware enough to recognize that state in ourselves and refrain from posting as long as we're in that state.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
> This follows from HN's core principle* because curiosity and battle can't be active at the same time.
Does HN have a policy against epistemic soundness in claims? Because if there is a method that is maximally useful for these sorts of issues, it is disciplined epistemology. Yet, I know of no explicit policy on it, but I have been subjected to scolding for practicing it, suggesting there is an implicit policy, at least to some degree (perhaps only on some topics, who knows). Or, an error has been made....which once again is an epistemological matter.
If people refuse to even try to utilize the tools that exist, and discussion of that phenomenon is disallowed, it may not be optimal game play....and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing?
(And yes, I do realize that the culture we've been raised in has taught us that statements like mine "are" necessarily "in bad faith", though mine is not actually.)
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment, nor what you mean by epistemic soundness, but I'm pretty sure HN has no policy against it.
> what you mean by epistemic soundness
This, for starters:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/
You know that word "is" you use now and then? That word is fundamentally based in epistemology.
> and sometimes, suboptimal gameplay results in large quantities of death. Is curiosity about that a good thing?
Do you understand that part?
I will add some clarity: by "suboptimal gameplay", I am referring to the individual and collective behaviour of human beings, as it relates to causality (the consequences of our behaviour).
I am basically asking what HN's stance is on being curious about "large" quantities of (at least plausibly) unnecessary human death.
I'm sorry but I don't understand that.
Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means? I think that's a legit question. If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic and could in some forms even be monstrous. But that's not what I mean here. What I do mean, I tried to describe at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616823 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662. It has to do with being open to others.
> Are you asking about how one can possibly be "curious" in the face of a catastrophe like this, and what that even means?
I am asking: can you be curious about whether it may have be possible for these (and future) deaths to be avoided, had some humans acted differently than they had?
I suspect this may seem like a very strange question, and I propose that that is an artifact of the problem.
> If curiosity means a detached-technical attitude, that is not an appropriate response to this topic...
Here you are representing a subjective belief as knowledge, on a matter where people's lives are at stake. Can you be curious about whether this approach as a moderator on a website frequented by some of the most powerful minds on the planet may be preventing lives from being saved, or whether it is part of the underlying causality of why these powerful minds can't keep it together when discussing topics like this (which may also contribute to the causality underlying deaths)?
As a random bystander I find your comments extremely hard to comprehend. It's not really the vocabulary, although it could do to be less lofty. I think part of it is sentences like this:
> Can you be curious about whether this approach as a moderator on a website frequented by some of the most powerful minds on the planet may be preventing lives from being saved?
This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing, but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
> This sounds to me, and maybe I'm wrong, like you have some sort of pre-formed opinion about what Dang et al are doing
I certainly do. And, it is worth noting that while all beliefs are opinions, not all are merely opinion.
Is your read on me better than mine on you? How much experience do you have in the domain?
> but are choosing to cast it in the lens of "can you be curious" as a way of avoiding just directly saying what you think.
My strategy is to use deliberately unusual language in order to break people out of System 1 / LLM / Colloquial mode.
Clearly it is not working, have you any advice for me now that we've at least somewhat, perhaps, broken the 4th wall?
Reminder: thousands have died already, more will (presumably) in the short run, and MANY more in the long run. I appreciate this may not be a pleasant experience, but the stakes are not exactly low.
It is clearly a charged topic and while you did a good job setting the tone, it clear that moderating this discussion will be a daunting task for anyone.
I am already seeing the antisemitic comments calling Jews colonizers, stealing land from indigenous people for 75 years. The one-liners or single-sentence zingers lack context or, often, truth.
I do appreciate comments from people living in that area -- what their lives were and are before and during this conflict.
I do wish that instead of this charged subject on HN, instead an article discussing the history of this land and people living on it. History of empires, conquests, displacements, wars, attacks.
Etymology of the names and Meaning of terms that are being used by both sides.
* What did Zionism mean in 19th and 20th centuries? What does it mean in 21st century?
* What does Anti-Zionism mean?
* Where does the word Palestine come from?
* What really happened in 1948?
* What happened to Gaza Strip under Egyptian rule from 1948 to 1967?
* What happened to West Bank under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967?
Discussing history of what happened and what did not would be less explosive and more productive use of great minds on HN, in my opinion.
The problem is that while al jazeera can be balanced about certain topics, fact is it is entirely government funded by an authoritarian undemocratic state and on this topic in particular it seeks to purposefully take a prejudiced anti Israeli stance. It has also been criticised for biased to the Syrian dictator, and takes various stances according to the foreign ministry. We therefore cannot be certain if the claims are true. Unfortunately as history has repeatedly proven, propaganda works. At the very least maybe source should include Government funded?
You can make a similar case against any media organization. They all publish true things and false things. They all have biases that highlight certain things that are happening while occluding others.
On HN, we go by article quality rather than site quality. This has been the case for many years: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I attempted to give a detailed explanation of how that relates to the current thread in these comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38620928
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38618471
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38617464
If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I can take a crack at it.
I appreciate the willingness of HN to allow discussion on this topic.
Despite the inevitable low-quality or even overly-biased comments, I find the comments from both sides of the discussion to be generally informative and thoughtful. Certainly more-so than in any other online context that I'm aware of. I come here to learn and reading opinions that I haven't considered before is essentially how that works (especially when those opinions are well founded and backed up with sources).
In short, I find HN to be a relatively knowledgeable and thoughtful community and I appreciate the opportunity to hear this community's thoughts on what is a very important and complex topic.
I appreciate this thread being allowed on HN. I consider HN to have very high quality discussions and high quality people, and as an Israeli, I believe it is my duty to both:
1. Try to offer smart people an insight into my thinking on this topic, given that I usually have insights they lack.
2. Try to seriously consider other viewpoints to help me better think through my own view of the current war.
I don't really like that an Al Jazeera story is the "prompt" for this, since I think that's a heavily biased source that we may as well ignore, but I'm mostly here for the comments anyway.
I don't quite understand the many people here who think it's such a problem to allow this thread. If you don't want to argue about this topic or be exposed to it - you can always just leave this thread alone! Nothing is forcing you to take part in it.
I am disappointed in the decision to allow this.
Can you walk me through how the below commentary is adding value to the HN community? What % of participants will walk away from this conversation with a positive perspective of their peers?
It's hard to find compassion when the truth is hard to find, on either side. And I trust Al Jazeera (and some Israeli newspapers) less on this topic than other sources.
I definitely feel Palestinians have legitimate grievances but on the other hand I fear people's natural compassion being used to prolong a war rather than end it.
Can we get a write up of this "experiment" from your perspective sometime next week?
(Ideally after you finish dealing with all the irate email)
Some of us are probably wondering if we will be seeing more of these "experiments" into 2024. If this is going to be the case, I'll seclude myself in some darker, more obscure corner. Maybe I'll go back to 4chan. Ambiguous moderation is much more onerous to me than no moderation.
Since I don't know how to contact you directly ... My comments got rate limited bacause of two or three dumb comments I made over the span of a decade mostly on religious topics. Does the rate limiting get lifted after some time automatically or is this punishment forever?
I tried asking people here but they didn't come up with an answer except to try to ask you.
If dang gets overwhelmed with comments here (there are a lot) you can always email directly to hn@ycombinator.com ideally from your email used to register here and ask to be returned to normal after acknowledging dumb comments.
I was rate limited for several months until in conversation with dang about an entirely different matter I mentioned that I'd reply in more detail but for the matter of being rate limited.
I guess that triggered a manual look at my comment history and I was upgraded to "mostly harmless".
I don't expect that to always work as not every reply to comments will get read.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html explains how to contact us directly.
I'd be happy to take a look for you but it's impossible to keep track of this from the comments.
Did pg ask you to resurrect this flamebait thread?
No.
Oh, but I will. For the headlines like this have no place on HN.
Hey Dang, I think I've had a rate limit applied to my account from over a year ago. Do these rate limits expire? It's made it difficult to continue in some technical back & forths.
Please email mods directly at hn@ycombinator.com as mentioned here:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html>
If you’re going to run a forum where blatant rule breaking comments can’t even be reported, maybe refrain from hosting threads on politics, especially one that attracts people who claim that broiling babies alive is some sort of “resistance”.
There is no evidence to that claim. One baby was killed on Oct 7th, which is horrible, but it was not in an oven, not in a pregnant woman, nor beheaded.
> blatant rule breaking comments can’t even be reported
You can flag rule-breaking comments and in egregious cases, email us at hn@ycombinator.com. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Ah thanks for the info!