But yes, I would have liked to see some concrete examples.
the issue is that those Palestinian protesters NEVER condemned Hamas. So, they just play Hamas propaganda playbook: commit attack, hide behind civilians and cry how cruel is IDF.
One should propose plan to solve problem without those deaths, or his words just become propaganda.
A mother whose childs have just been killed and who never supported Hamas in any way absolutely has the right to critize the bombings that killed her family, without having to present a working geopolitical plan.
How about on the other hand, the IDF does care again, where their bombs explode?
"Israel's defense minister said he has "released all restraints" on the Israel Defense Forces' troops in their fight "
https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa...
for sake of mutual peace and future every human should think hard before talking on sensitive topics. But humans can't, so we butcher each other instead for thousands of years.
No, you are puppet because you distribute point from one side, and are manipulative (distort my words).
> the IDF should not give up restraint while operating in densely populated ares?
I don't think we discussed this topic. What kind of restrain you are talking about now?
Well, it surely is possible you did not read it, but just look above in the thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746724
"Israel's defense minister said he has "released all restraints" on the Israel Defense Forces' troops in their fight "
Militray restrain means watching where you are shooting - and not shooting if the danger of civilian deaths are too high. The IDF officially given up on using restraint - and the number of civilian deaths and among them many, many children show it.
So fighting terror with terror? That's what it seems to me. And being called a puppet for one side, because I critize both sides - is just a very typical thing for this whole debate.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Israel obviously didn't literally released all restraints, otherwise we would see some carpet bombing like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnd3IYH7x1o
Now you define what is the "civilian deaths are too high" exactly, what is the evidence that IDF is not using such protocol already, and if this will be sufficient to defeat Hamas.
But the israeli defense minister literally said he ordered the IDF to give up restraint. How much more official do you want it?
And the evidence that they are following this order, is the high civilian death number.
"and if this will be sufficient to defeat Hamas."
And this is the thing - as long as the Hamas leaders are safe in Quatar and being supported by Turkey as "freedom fighters" and others - this is not a fight that can be won with just using more brute force.
To be clear, I do think Israel has a right to militarily target the Hamas - but not palestinian people as a whole. Every innocent child that dies fuels anger and new terrorism.
Even if all of Gaza is cleared and its population send to the Sinai desert - it would not really make Israel safer. It is just a really complicated conflict with very, very old roots.
it totally can be: if 95% of Hamas fighters killed or jailed and 95% of their infra/inventory destroyed, it will be much weaker and won't be able to deliver large scale attacks.
> Every innocent child that dies fuels anger and new terrorism.
and not acting also fuels terrorists.
and not acting also fuels terrorists."
So killing a child or not killing a child has the same outcome?
I don't think so, but I also think this is going nowhere.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Massacring dance festival attendants and people in their homes is not self defence, it is terrorism.
Also, it seems you are shadowbanned. You might want to reread and reflect some of your comments and then contact dang.
Absolutely not. There's no moral justification for murder.
I agree. The problem is, evidence is surfacing many homes and festival attendants were mowed down by the ones supposed to protect them, IDF (the controversial Hannibal directive). Like this tank filmed by a police helicopter shelling homes in kibbutz Beeri: https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/18mbpxt/is...
So if IDF massacred dance festival attendants and people in their homes, the logical conclusion is they also committed terrorism against their own first-class citizens, not only against those from the other side of the apartheid wall.
Where is the proof for that?
A tank shooting at houses where enemy fighters were dug in?
On the other side there are lots of videos showing Hamas murdering people.
And tons of Israeli also support rather distasteful things, including before Oct 7, which has been widely documented. Some of these people are currently ministers (e.g. Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, etc.). And many Americans, and Italians, and $any_other_nationality. I don't want to play "tit for tat" here but only for Palestinians have I ever seen the "well, they support Hamas, so therefore it's not a big deal" line of reasoning.
"What if" is the key phrase there. Can you jump into the minds of every Palestinian and know their likes, dislikes, motivations, level of support for Hamas? No, of course not; none of us can.
> Massacring dance festival attendants and people in their homes is not self defence, it is terrorism.
Absolutely agreed. But I'm not convinced what Israel is doing in Gaza is self defense either. There's certainly a self defense component to it, but cutting off electricity, water, and communications, and indiscriminate killing of non-combatants... well, none of that is self defense; those are war crimes.
Israel certainly has the moral right to defend itself against threats (existential or otherwise), but the response needs to be proportionate. I don't believe what they're doing is proportionate.
"Yes yes etc but do you condemn hamas"
Literally the meme
The problem is when people who speak out against the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents are presumed evil terrorist supporters unless they also explicitly condemn Hamas.
All: please do not post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We want thoughtful, respectful, open communication here—not political battle, internet tropes, and all the rest of that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
But Hamas isn't mentioned once in the article. If the only views which are silenced are pro-Hamas voices, and pro-Palestine voices which aren't also pro-Hamas are left uncensored, then this article is dishonest to the point of lying. Plus, HRW claims that they themselves have experienced censorship in relation to this conflict, and I can't imagine that the Human Rights Watch would outright post pro-Hamas content.
I'm disappointed that your comment with nothing but unfounded pro-Israel speculation is at the top of this thread.
No, only Hamas is a terror organization. The IDF is not.
Im not sure what better fits the définition of terrorism for you
At thé end of the day most israelis would be fine with a two state solution. This guy and other religious extremists liké Bennet have taken hostage the israeli people
More context: per some video from 2001 according to translation from Turkish regime propaganda broadcaster.
> At thé end of the day most israelis would be fine with a two state solution
Is Hamas Ok with two states?
Israel encouraged Hamas by allowing Qatari support in to Gaza with the intent of keeping Gaza and the West Bank
Finally the Hamas charter was amended and no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.
In any case Israel (with the support of the US) has all the power in this conflict and they are the ones actually killing tens of thousands of innocents no matter what Hamas’ official position is.
What happened on Oct 7 then?
True there was a terroristic raid into Israel in which 1200 people lost their lives but the scale of power does not compare AT ALL
Anyway it fits what you can read in more reputable sources such as https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-i... (litteraly written by an osraeli)
> Is Hamas Ok with two states?
No. And some argue thats precisely why Netanyahu helped them get financed to have a scary enemy and play the security card while pursuing a territorial war instead of working for actual peace.
Thats not my opinion. Thats what she israeli left wing is accusing him of : https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.p...
The short answer is "we don't know for sure"; it has repeatedly says it does, but some are skeptical they mean it. In the last 15 years they haven't really been given much opportunity to prove it, so ... we don't know for sure. But I think an evolution similar to the PLO would have been possible (too late now).
But we can ask the same about Israel: is Israel okay with two states? Because "just keep building settlements on the West Bank" doesn't sound much like it, or the way it's treated Gaza over the last 15 years, or tons of other actions over the last 60 years. And several of the religious Zionists now in government and holding several ministerial posts have pretty explicitly said they DON'T support a two-state solution, and have expressed views that at best can be viewed as supportive of ethnic cleansing (before Oct 7).
Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism" involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror from all the other terror organizations?
The only correct thing in your comment is that Hamas is also bad.
Please do research before spreading war crime apologia.
"Shock and awe" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Civilian_casua...
IDF is a real military with rules of engagement and target selection. If you say indiscriminate bombing, no this is not. WW2 and Korean War was.
Maybe we should call them torturers instead. Maybe that is more fitting.
Pope referred to specific case of two women got killed during firefight allegedly by IDF sniper.
There is no clear evidence that they were killed by IDF, only Palestinian priest words.
And how is that justified? The murder of two old women in a Catholic church compound, by a sniper no less. And one of them was murdered while trying to retrieve the body of her mother.
evidence on the record is only priest words in interview. I highly doubt if they were killed by actual sniper, anyone in compound had ability to identify which sniper it was.
> if a Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word of the IDF
It indicates that that person is biased with high probability, and his words should not be taken into account without hard evidence. Strong judgement and manipulation without any hard evidence in this case is very good proof of that.
I realize it's hard to discuss this topic without falling into that, but if you can't avoid it, please stop posting until you can. That goes for everyone else as well, of course.
For the IDF not being one: literally no country, not even Iran, has declared them as one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g...
Words truly have no meaning if you think a democratic society like Israel is a terror org.
Hamas is classed as a terror org.
Israel is not. No matter how many tiktoks you view.
I also don't really get convinced by comments which just say "no you're wrong" without elaboration, maybe try a different tactic.
> United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
And Geneva Conventions >(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Meanwhile, Israel is committing all sort of war crimes (1) for 70years and that’s barely 10% of the reality and not even including the genocide this past 2 months, all based on a fairytale of a “promised land” -which is a lie even from religious perspective- that if you are a jew you have the right to take any house or land without consequences, most of the people in Israel aren’t even Semites, one of the reasons why DNA tests are illegal in Israel.
(1) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-...
But not by deliberately targeting civilians.
Are you employing some non-standard definition of "target" or of "civilian"? Claiming Hamas didn't do any of that?
I think majority of pro-Palestine people want peace. Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion there.
While I am sure that's the intention, the claim is that this doesn't happen nearly as aggressively for anti-Arab or anti-Palestine content as it does for anti-Jewish or anti-Israel content, and that there are far more false positives.
In the full report (which is admittedly rather long) it mentions that even many neutral mentions of Hamas are removed, and that comments such as "Make Gaza a parking lot" are allowed to stay, which is obviously not just a suggestion for urban planning, or another that supposedly didn't break the rules was "it will wipe Palestine off the face of the earth and the map", and somehow I don't think that was a cartographer disagreeing on the finer points of map drawing.
I don't think this is intentional; "/Hamas/d" is easier than policing that. But that doesn't change the outcome.
I mean, at some point Instagram was hiding Palestinian flags, and mistranslating things to erroneously inserting "Palestinian terrorist".[1] I am convinced this was not intentional and that this is all hard, but again, it doesn't change the outcome.
And to be honest, this also fits my (unscientific) observations over the last 20 years or so. I've lost count the number of times I've seen "Look what the Jews have accomplished! So much! And the Arabs?! All they're good for is bombs, they never accomplish anything! It's clear the Jewish people are just better than the Arabs"-type stuff, and this is often just left standing. Whereas outright anti-Semitic content is much rarer, and much more promptly removed.