If Kyiv went into Russia to capture children and seniors after gunning down a rave, their Western backing would evaporate overnight. Russia would be vindicated in its claim that their neighbour poses a security threat.
Had Hamas hit military installations (demonstrating Israeli impotency) and taken hostages, but treated them well (taking the moral high ground as images of Nonna being served tea and falafel are juxtaposed with those of aerial bombardment), our conversation right now would be very different.
You're broadly right. One component of the solution must be an independent Gaza (if not Palestinian state). Another has to be reparations for the Nakba. Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K. and possibly French. (Reparations for the blockade are needlessly divisive. Israel can always argue, legitimately, I believe, that it was Palestine's Arab allies who repeatedly attacked it first.)
That is an interesting thought experiment in itself. I'd like to believe you are right, but then I remember that there was virtually no condemnation when the daughter of one of Putin's propagandists was assassinated. There was also little interest to determine if Ukraine may have been behind the destruction of the dam that killed many innocent civilians. So, I'm not entirely sure how European and US opinion would have oriented.
> Israel can be partly responsible, but the primary debtor should be the U.K.--they are the ones who took the land and gave it to another
That is a good point, and I'm pretty sure other European states would have quite a bit to attone for to help set this right.
Massive difference between targeted killing and broad slaughter. To put this on the other shoe, it's why we were never going to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan or Vietnam.
The target was the propagandist; “Dugin reportedly made a decision at the last minute to travel separately” [1].
Many would argue that this is EXACTLY what Hamas has done, no more, no less.
The fog of war is well named. There hasn't really been any VERIFIED evidence presented to independent media showing that Hamas deliberately killed civilians.
On the other hand, lots of evidence, from Israeli sources themselves, of zero babies murdered, zero rapes, Israeli tanks shelling Israeli civilians and Israeli helicopters shooting at Israeli civilians with hellfire missiles.
https://youtu.be/RmhrRknUwtU?si=Bo851vbgprjsOdlo
https://youtu.be/WEyVdHL09vY?si=QaRCkr5-TVKiinny
https://www.youtube.com/live/CPMf3CIa_BA?si=jzNZfD76KlK_7Oel
there has been numerous verified evidence the terrorists killing civilians including children:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-...
even the terrorists acknowledged that there are no civilians in Israel, only targets:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67321241.amp
the question is what has become of the world when terrorists are taken for their word?
Even the sources you cite show the Hamas militants attacking entirely civilian infrastructure. Even if it is true that some of the Israeli victims were killed by the IDF inside Israel, it is still in response to Hamas attacks on a kibbutz, festival etc. - NOT military installations.
Cue pandemonium, and wild crossfire.
We DO have actual gun footage camera of Israeli Apache helicopters firing indiscriminately. Plus we have the testimony of those helicopter pilots, as reported by Haaretz, that they had no clue who was who, and they just emptied their weapon stores on anything that moved, and kept going back to base to reload and repeat.
ALL of the above is taken VERBATIM from Israeli sources, reported by the Israeli media.
You haven't looked at any of it. Just blindly repeating the same tired old narrative, long after it has been debunked.
After all, why is Israel BURYING all the forensic evidence (burned out cars, etc) in the desert? Or... you didn't know about either (widely reported even in the US)
And Hamas took hostages for the SAME reason they ALWAYS took hostages. To free the THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinian hostages languishing in Israeli dungeons. Or are you going to pretend that that's not true either?
For goodness sake, J Paul - the US State Dept official who resigned in protest gave interviews talking about EXACTLY THIS, and even shared cases that he personally was involved in where Palestinian child hostages were sexually abused/raped by their Israeli captors.
You can stick your fingers in your ears as long and as deep as you want. That's your problem. It doesn't have to be mine, or others who want to delve deeper and find out the truth.
While sourcing interviews on Israeli media, and the press.
Yes, there's plenty of snuff videos circulating on Israeli telegram channels. Funnily enough, they don't get circulated to reputable, independent, international press. There was one segment on the independent US Breaking Points channel (Ryan Grimm, of the Intercept), highlighting just how much fake misinformation is being spread on those very Israeli groups. Reported on TODAY!
And whenever IDF claims and videos DO get circulated to the international press, they get DEBUNKED within a day or 2. Too many to enumerate. From beheaded babies, to rapes, to bombing this hospital and that camp, to striping civilians making them pose as Hamas fighters, to hiding metal weapons in MRI rooms, to posting videos of fake Gazan doctors criticizing Hamas (later proven to be an Israeli actress, with name and film bio). And on. And on.
Youre saying stuff Hamas themselves have posted to social media is forged? Stuff on wikipedia is forged?
Must be a tremendous amount of delusion in you, and a radical inability to face reality, for you tp deny what happened on October 7th.
It’s kind of sick really, what this crisis has revealed.
And you prove that by not checking or referencing the many copious references and links to NEWS REPORTING that I (and I'm sure others) have given. You haven't tried to address any of the items I brought up (which themselves are just a small sample of a bigger body of work). Instead, you make up silly things I did not say, pretend I said them, and then exclaim fake indignation. That's possibly why you feel sick ...
If Hacker News can "tolerate" that from you, it can certainly handle my attempts at highlighting courageous journalism on here.
This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day.
I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
() https://www.ft.com/content/7b618433-ba5f-4e92-a3e0-d5d41d6d1...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/israel-c...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-milita...
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.
The equivalent would have been to erect a border wall, then send the British navy to intercept any ship going into or out of Ireland, and signing agreements with other EU countries to ensure they enforce the same terms for air travel. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza.
I'm Irish. That's not an accurate description. There very much was a compromise, on all sides. One that both sides in the current conflict could learn from.
There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws.
If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Blockades are an act of war, so yes, it's not unexpected or illegal that the Allies were blockading Germany while at war. But Israel is claiming not to be at war with Palestine (or at least was before the current invasion). They in fact keep claiming that military occupation of Palestine ended 20 years ago.
The fact that Hamas can turn water pipes into rockets is somewhat irrelevant. The obvious fact is that, as long as it is impossible for Palestinians to live a prosperous life because of this occupation, some part of their population will want to retaliate. Peace in the region can't start without ending this blockade. Israel's Iron Dome can already protect from huge numbers of Palestinian rockets. It is generally the Palestinians who are defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks (as can be seen in the current invasion, as well as past protests and retaliation).
This is not true. They did dig up pipes to make rockets, but they were the pipes from Israeli settlements. Settlements that Israel destroyed so Palestinians couldn’t inhabit them
> What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Be more at peace, feel like they matter, like the world cares about them and that they can be a part of it without having to ask for permission from Israel
If anything, the end of the blockade would probably bring more peace and stability to everyone in the region
> Be more at peace
We have fundamentally different interpretations of what happened in October, and the dancing in the Gazan streets that accompanied it.
Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence. Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.
For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks.
Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
The history of this conflict is a lot more complex than the occupier/ occupied framing would imply. For one, there was a Jewish presence here for centuries, not to mention the ancient kingdom of Judea. But I find these discussions unconstructive usually since they seem to get into these "he hit me first" kind of arguments. I agree that a two state solution is what we should be striving for. Humans are creative, if the will was there, we would find a way to connect Gaza and the West Bank (tunnel/bridge/whatever), do some territory swaps as needed, divide Jerusalem, etc. The plans for this exist, it's the leadership that's failing (on both sides).
Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt).
Israel didn't disengage entirely from Gaza, it maintains a murder zone inside Gaza, and has murdered unarmed peaceful protestors in Gaza within that murder zone.
Gaza has sea access, but Israel doesn't allow any ship to dock into Gaza or leave Gaza - this is blockading Gaza's own sea borders, not closing Israel's. Egypt's border with Gaza is also controlled by Israel through a treaty - Egypt can't unilaterally open its border to Gaza without breaking its treaties with Israel.
Here is the prompt:
``` "Please analyze the given article to determine if it exhibits a pro-Zionist bias. Consider the following factors: the author's background and affiliations, the language and tone used, the presence of one-sided arguments, the sources and evidence provided, the framing and context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and any potential biases or gaps in the article's viewpoint. Additionally, compare the article with other sources presenting different perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Based on your analysis, provide a clear assessment of whether the article can be considered pro-Zionist or not."
```
Your comment:
``` ``` Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths) Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another country (Egypt). ```
GPT response:
``` This comment appears to be a Zionist talking point. The comment is trying to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza by portraying it as a victim of terrorism and a benevolent actor that has disengaged from Gaza and dismantled its own settlements. However, this is a misleading portrayal of the situation.
Firstly, Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 was not an act of benevolence. Rather, it was a strategic move to consolidate Israel’s hold over the West Bank and to avoid the demographic threat posed by the Palestinian population1. Moreover, Israel’s disengagement was not complete, as it continued to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters2.
Secondly, Israel’s imposition of a blockade on Gaza was not a response to terrorism, but rather a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza3. The blockade has caused immense suffering to the people of Gaza, who are denied access to basic necessities such as food, medicine, and electricity4. The blockade has also severely restricted the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, which has had a devastating impact on the economy and the livelihoods of the people5.
Finally, the comment’s reference to Egypt’s border with Gaza is misleading. While it is true that Gaza has a border with Egypt, this border is also subject to restrictions imposed by Israel and Egypt. Moreover, Egypt’s border with Gaza is not a viable alternative to Israel’s blockade, as it is also subject to restrictions and is not equipped to handle the volume of goods and people that need to pass through.
In conclusion, the comment is a Zionist talking point that seeks to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza by distorting the facts. The reality is that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, and has caused immense suffering to the people of Gaza. It is important to recognize this reality and to work towards a just and lasting solution to the conflict. ```
I'm seriously thinking of analyzing this thread, flagging all the zionist accounts as it's the same accounts replying and repeating the same lies and debunking those lies via GPT.
However, what is clear is that Israel's current approach is not working to ensure its security, and that in the last few decades it has only succeeded in turning the population of Palestine ever more bitter against them. So, unless they are prepared to wipe them out entirely, what possible hope is there in continuing in this direction?
Say Hamas is successfully eliminated. Every single Hamas leader and soldier is killed or captured. Is there any reason whatsoever to imagine that people in Gaza could return to their bulldozed and bombed "homes" and feel friendly towards Israel? Or did this incursion all but guarantee that the next generation of Gazans will feel even more justified in defying Israel?
And note, the same question is true of Hamas' monstrous attack - no doubt the vast majority of those hurt by the Hamas attack will feel justified in hating and fearing Gaza and Hamas. It's just harder to ask the ones being oppressed to just bear with it in the hope their oppressor might stop.
UN has assisted Hamas in the past, there is no reason to believe it would be any different this time. The history didn't start on October 7th, what has happened on October 7th is the violence went over the threshold in which Israel would believe intent of international community and instead is handling it themselves despite the uproar.
So, if anything, a more accurate description is that October 7th was a boiling point where Palestine retaliated for decades of oppressive killings.
But the reality is that neither is the right framing. The October 7th attacks on innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable. The following invasion and widespread murder of innocent civilians aren't justified or justifiable.
A ceasefire and peace deals must be imposed to keep the situation under control. All those who have caused the death of civilians, both in Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership, should face international justice, and new leaders should be installed that are committed to a lasting peace process.
Also, I'm not seriously advocating for this. It's a fantasy that has no chance whatsoever of happening. But it is probably the only sort of thing that could bring a quick end to this conflict given the current parties in power.
Your original comment said that leaders committed to peace should "be installed". That doesn't sound democratic in the least. And here you say that "it is not authoritarian to take aggressive war off the table". When you're talking about outside forces forcibly taking over these places governments and "installing" new leaders, that's the definition of authoritarianism. Israel's leaders were already democratically elected, and obviously they're not peaceniks, and if Netanyahu suddenly died of a stroke, I think it's naive to think the Israelis would now vote for peaceniks. And I think it's very unlikely that Gazans, given a new vote, would choose peaceful leaders either, though I could be wrong of course.
I don’t think that the UN is trustworthy in this manner. It seems like the UN is like Lord Farquad in Shrek:
“This ceasefire with Hamas may cost thousands of Israeli lives, but that is a risk the UN is willing to take for the sake of peace.”
What would be the solution of that independent state went to war and attacked Israel again? Would you agree at that juncture that Israel would be within its rights to destroy and conquer that state?
But you do not have the right to attack the civilian population or to take their land. Even if you think they were for the war. The allies didn't conquer and destroy Japan or Germany. They didn't divide their territories among themselves (even the separation of Germany still left two sovereign states).
We have also learned from the end of WW1 and WW2 that investing into the old enemy state to make it happy and successful is in fact a MUCH better solution for lasting peace than pounding them into submission and trying to sap their economy. If Israel had sought a Marshall-plan like solution for Gaza after the Yom-Kippur war instead of a military occupation for the following 30 years, perhaps Hamas wouldn't have won the 2005 elections in the first place.
Both Japan and Germany had major civil cities leveled and gave unconditional surrender in WWII, and were occupied.
Germany was stripped of its sovereignty and former statehood. It was administered by the allies for 5 years and permanently lost 25% of its territory (compared to its 1937 pre-war borders.) It took 25 years post WWII for Germany to be admitted to the UN.
Japan was Occupied and administered by US military for 7 years following the war, and parts of the Japanese home islands are still administered 70 years later. Japan Lost multiple territories it had held for more than 60 years before WWII started.
I think that what we learned from WWII and subsequent wars that you need unconditional surrender and acceptance for any real nation building to take place.
Perhaps Palestine needs their equivalent to Germany's first post-war chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who accepted that Germany lost, and was willing look forward and not back.
This sort of swipe is against the spirit of the HN guidelines and particularly the spirit we asked commenters in this thread to keep. Please don't do this.
In general, the overall solution would be for Israel to allow Palestine to be an independent state, recognized in the UN, with full control of its own borders. It is fully within its rights to keep its border with Gaza closed, of course, but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea. There is also a good argument to be made for paying reparations to Palestine for the occupied territories and for the entire illegal blockade duration - though that is ultimately secondary. The thornier question is of course how to connect Gaza to the West Bank.