How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact that almost every overtly political story that hits the front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased on one side?
We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of possible reasons and people would most likely dispute about those as much as they do about the underlying topic.
For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing because, although it might make things superficially easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about anything else.
The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably a lot easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far, than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the articles. Perhaps that's because there have been thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of datapoints (even though everyone always does; it seems to be unavoidable). It takes a lot more than that before reliable patterns show up.
What matters to me is that there be principles underlying the moderation decisions and that they get applied equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's always interpretation involved—we don't get every call right. But I think the principles, at least, are the right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care about the question.
[1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It might not appear that way to many readers who have strong passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.
This really cannot be understated. HackerNews draws an educated demographic, which generally tends to be centrist, perhaps leaning a bit to the centre-left. Remember, this is based on demographics. Individual exceptions will occur but do not prove the rule.
The uncomfortable thing about political discussions is that most (not all) of them occur over things for which there isn't a clear-cut scientific consensus. If something is truly clear cut and self evident, then it usually won't turn into a political issue. You can set up an argument that is unassailable from one viewpoint but which crumbles from another. Two people who are reasonable and logical can have stark disagreements over political issues because of how they approach the issue. When people we respect and admire express political views that do not match our own, it can be disquieting.
The most important thing is to maintain respect for each other, even when we disagree. Political discussions on HackerNews usually don't descend into flame-wars, and I appreciate that. Perhaps you've hit on something important by limiting the frequency of such discussions. If they occur infrequently enough that they aren't a constant irritant, perhaps its easier for participants to keep their cool.
Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value.
You've done a good job of it here, you're thoughtful about it, probably you have studied and learned more than fits in HN comments. You might do whatever research remains and write a book. I hope you will!
> I'm always open to hearing arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly. When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did about the submitted URL of the OP (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're happy to change something. Another example that sticks in my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630 from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but the principle is the same.
Probably you've thought of it, but it's not even-handed when strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others. OTOH, I appreciate that hot topics get a different level of scrutiny.
> strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others
Can you explain?
The two changes you listed and I quoted, while I think they improve the quality of those OPs, resulted from a level of scrutiny that seems higher than what most OPs receive.
Imagine Vim and Emacs users were again at odds. And imagine that Vim users raised every possible objection to Emacs OPs, resulting in a lot of extra scrutiny of the Emacs posts. Even if each mod action was even-handed, overall the actions wouldn't be even-handed between Vim and Emacs.
But as I said, the Gaza war is a very hot topic and extra scrutiny seems like a good idea. Anything that cuts down on unsubstantiated claims seems especially good.
If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.
The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.
So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.
If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.
A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny
To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.
If nothing is true, then no one can criticize
power, because there is no basis upon which
to do so. If nothing is true, then all is
spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
the most blinding lights.There are things sometimes that don't have two sides to balance out perspectives.
Not a lot of them, but there are for sure.
Difficult conversations often require the ability to reflect and contemplate on one's own understanding before being quick to validate it and reinforce it by putting it on others.
As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment.
So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were to decide that HN should balance both-sides, who draws where the middle lies?
Everything that violates human right for example. Or direct threats to democracy.
I haven't come across one yet.
And indeed, there is no solution here other than to be tolerant of other opinions, which may come from very different contexts than your own.
american foreign policy often becomes european union migration policy. just remember that, for example, when discussing international affairs.
Having said that, I have to say that HN is one of the communities that is better at dealing with different opinions, from different places. It's much harder on Reddit. On Metafilter, it is absolutely impossible: anything far from mainstream American liberalism is considered taboo.
The only thing I'd add to your point is that while HN is certainly global (or let's say highly international), the community is still overwhelmingly from Western countries. (Not all hold pro-Western views, of course, but that's different.) This means that users from non-Western countries who want to contribute views that go against what is commonly believed in the West, have a hard time. We do what we can to help, but unfortunately it's not much, because the forces of large numbers and group psychology are unstoppable, especially together.
For starters the situation is evolving more on that front. Every new action is a potential headline for palestine. On the other hand Israel's position is much more static: They want to prevent the slaughter on oct 7 from happening again, and are using force to do so. That hasn't changed. You can't make new headlines out of it.
Its probably also inherent to the fact that Israel is currently on the offensive, outside of its territory in an asymetrical urban conflict. The optics on that are always going to be bad for the state in Israel's position regardless of how justified it is. Urban conflict is always a bloody mess, same with asymetric conflicts.
When israel bombs a hospital that makes a great headline. Its easy to understand and verify - hospital used to be there, now it is not. Its emotional - everyone knows in normal circumstances hospitals are supposed to be off limits. The Israeli side is hard to fit into a headline - hospital bombed after it became a military target due to use by militants, in accordance with international law and the principles of porportionality and distinction. For starters that is a mouthful to be a headline. It lacks emotional punch because now we are talking about legalese not deaths of innocets. Its hard to understand - most non experts do not know what the doctrine of porportionality& distinction is. Even if they do, we do not know in the fog of war what israel knew when targeting it and if it was reasonable at the time. Even if we did, where precisely the line is can be controversially grey. Its not like there is a huge amount of case law on this. Determing if it was legal would probably require hundreds of pages of legal argumentation. Even then, there is a whole other question of if the line international law draws is the correct one morally, which you could write a book on. Its just very hard to put all that in a news article.
So i don't think it is HN's fault that most of these articles lean more anti-israel. Its just much easier to write about things from that perspective. It is much more black and white and requires much less nuance and context.
That is quite the spin, I have to say. Almost brezel shaped. Kind of like an abussive husband accusing his of forcing him to beat her up because of reasons...
People strongly holding opinions like this are actually worrying about the future of HN, and the world in general.
And no, of course there is no threat if suoerior military starts levelling the city around you, why would that be dangerous in anyway...
By the way, the IDF already killed three hostages waving white flags. Nice rescue operation, I have to admit. At least now those hostages are safe from both, Hamas and the IDF.
Not sure what to think of people that are ok with bombing hospitals for any reason at all, even the made up ones the parrot around.
And no, I do not justify Hamas. I do fully understand why they are so radical so, but this is quite different from justifying them.
You on the other hand are trying to justify the targeting of civilians and non-combatants in war. And that targeting, that is a war crime.
Like when they said there’s no tunnels. Then tunnels were found. So everyone’s like no it’s an elevator. Turns out it’s not an elevator. But it wasn’t used. Full of chairs and bed. But there’s no guns. Tunnels are blocked. But they aren’t in use…
Or when they said Israel bombed a hospital and 500 were dead. Then the photos and videos came out and it was Hamas missile and it was in the parking lot with a tiny crater.
Or when they said Israel bombed the Egypt trucks bringing supplies to civilians. Then the videos and photos came out and it was the civilians intercepting the trucks for food because Hamas steals it all.
Yeah let’s believe everything Hamas tells us haha. Brainwashed by the media to believe conspiracy theories. You probably support Russia too.
I don't believe Hamas, nor the IDF. I tend to believe UN investigations of past conflicts around that very question, and those didn't find evidence.
And the Hamas stealing food is such a twisted take, it almost is lying.
What I do not support is war xcimes, ethnic cleanising and the suffering of civilians. Regardless of who is doing or causing it. You on the other hand, I'm not so sure.
Hamas stated their aim very clearly - to have Israeli hostages to trade for the thousands of Palestinian hostages that are held in Israeli dungeons.
Not that it justifies the Hamas attack, but it goes a long way explaining it.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Isr...
Yes, such as "throwing stones" at armoured vehicles - truly despicable! Many are held without charge too. And many are held under "administrative detention", which means they can be held in a dungeon, without charge, forever. These are not the actions of a modern, progressive, democratic country.
I'm sure that some are imprisoned for good reason, buy many are there for spurious reasons - and none of them should be tortured or subject to sexual abuse, regardless of their supposed crimes.
Holding people without charges is defenitely not that. If it were, whatever Russia is doing with people opposing the war Ukraine would totally swell as well. And it isn't.
You onw what else kills people, and is illegal by international law? Throwing bombs on civilians. Espesially if said civilians didn't do anything.
Restraint is the word and appriach that would allow Israel to project strength and maintain support. What Israel is doing now is a) butthurt and pathetic and b) a despicable disregard of human rights. No amount of stone throwing justifies, or explains, any of that. At best using stome throwing as a justification is excusing conduct that amounts to war crimes. And I hope we can agree those are unacceptable, regardless of whom and which conflict. They happen as it is way too often, if we accept them as justified onxe, we risk opening a door to a place everyone is ok with conducting war in a criminal way. Infor one don't want a world like that, the last time rules of warfare were systematically ignored by everyone, it was incredibly ugly.
Israel’s campaign against Hamas is, in international law terms, an exercise of national self-defense. Like all other nations, Israel has an inherent right to use military force based on this legal justification (although there are some scholars who continue to believe that self-defense arises only in response to an armed attack from another state, an interpretation that is increasingly considered impermissibly restrictive). But what exactly does self-defense justify in terms of the scope and duration of military action?
The most common criticism of the IDF campaign is that it is too aggressive, producing too many casualties and too much physical destruction in Gaza. The ever-growing chorus of demands for an immediate and unconditional cease fire is the most obvious manifestation of this criticism. Those who embrace this view fail, however, to explain how it aligns with the inherent right of self-defense, or perhaps embrace some flawed conception of self-defense as some type of tit for tat equation requiring a proportionality of harm between the aggressor and the defender.
These understandings miss the point. Self-defense for a nation is analogous to self-defense for an individual: it legally justifies measures that would otherwise be unlawful when acting in response to an actual or imminent unlawful attack. But there is an important limitation on those measures: they must be reasonably necessary to reduce the threat and restore the status quo ante of safety and security. Indeed, self-defense is derived from the general legal justification of necessity, which means simply that if a measure is necessary it is justified; if it is not then it exceeds justification and remains illegal. This is another way of saying that the response must be proportional to the threat.
This is why tit for tat self-defense is so highly misleading: it is the threat that dictates the permissible scope of self-defense, not the suffering inflicted by the unlawful aggression that triggers the right. It is logical for a state to assess the scope of an imminent or ongoing threat by considering not only the opponent’s capability to inflict harm, but its motivation and intent. To this end, it is important to remember that the express goal of Hamas is to annihilate Israel and kill as many Jews as possible, and that the only reason they didn’t succeed in killing more on Oct 7 and the following days is because Israeli security forces were able to repel the invasion. Translated into military terms, this really leads to a very simple question: what scope of military action is necessary to secure the safety of the Israeli population from the Hamas (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) threat emanating from Gaza?
That question cannot be answered by simply comparing casualty numbers. Even assuming some validity to the numbers provided by the Hamas controlled health ministry in Gaza (numbers which from inception have conflated civilian and enemy deaths), the mere fact that more civilians have been killed in Gaza than were killed in Israel on October 7th or since does not indicate an excessive or disproportionate response. Instead, the more logical question is focused on whether it is reasonable to assess a necessity to destroy Hamas as a fighting force capable of projecting violence against Israel? And in this regard, it is highly significant that in prior conflict flare ups, Israel attempted more limited military self-defense actions. October 7th proved that these limited responses failed to security Israel from the Hamas threat and render reasonable the conclusion that nothing short of a full-scale campaign to destroy this enemy’s military capability was necessary. Indeed, it is likely that historians will question whether Israel exercised unnecessary restraint up to this point, thereby exposing their population to constant rocket attacks, cross-border assault tunnel incursions and other attacks over the 16 year period in which Hamas has controlled Gaza.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/ground-truth-the-disconnect-c...
Basically everytjing in your wall of text is either wrong or so turned on its head and misunderstood it could as well be wrong.
The key word you don't seem to understand is this: proportinality.
FWIW, there is a "mute" button, but it still allows Hasbara drones to harass you, claim you're a terrorist supporter, antisemite etc - you know, the usual slander they resort to once facts are in the way. The level of denial and falsehoods coming from pro-Israeli accounts is awful, especially here, a place renowned for inspiring curiosity and research.
Today is the first day I've wished for an HN block button too :(
That's quite a rich comment in light of the Dahiya doctrine. It's times like these that I'm glad HN won't let you delete comments for posterity's purpose.
> what scope of military action is necessary to secure the safety of the Israeli population from the Hamas (and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) threat emanating from Gaza?
When you define it like that, literally any military action, up to and including the destruction of all of Israel and it's inhabitants (a-la Samson option) is excusable. The "we have to go to their country and kill them all to protect our way of life" mindset is the fascistic seed of genocide.
Nobody is going to play by that definition. You're delusional if you think the scope of a perceived threat justifies the intensity of an actualized retaliation - it's a misunderstanding of strike warfare. The laser-focus on total war has impaired the IDF's ability to respond to precision threats in a dignified way. It's impossible to argue that Hamas hasn't exploited this obsession, and it's destroying foreign support at an unprecedented rate. You can only massacre so many Qibyas before your government's long-term strategy comes into question.
> Indeed, it is likely that historians will question whether Israel exercised unnecessary restraint up to this point
Here's a thought-exercise for you; how does the world look at America for developing the nuclear bomb? Do you think they love us, for subjugating the world under the ironclad-rule of a nuclear age? Do you think historians criticize America for showing too much restraint in Nagasaki?
Food for thought, may it nourish your starving soul.
Yes, and the list of crimes was made public. Many of them were indeed "throwing stones".
As I said, some are definitely held because of terrible crimes they actually committed; however, it must be noted that Palestinians are tried under an apartheid system, by a military court. Furthermore, it seems that many are held for no good reason, and many are tortured or sexually abused - confirmed by human rights groups.
BTW, if a convicted prisoner dies before they complete their sentence, they keep the body on ice until the sentence expires - that is just... evil.
I hope that this is not the standard we hold, because if it is, there is no moral ground anymore to stand on when it comes to denouncing terrorism.
I think it's pretty clear that Hamas would prioritize the release of a high ranking terrorist with civilian blood on their hands over someone that may be wrongfully detained.
None of that justifies, again, the levelling of Gaza, the starving of around 500,000 people and the deliberate targeting of civilians who have nothing to do with any of that.
You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that, Israel started levelling Gaza right south of the border and continue southwards, hoping people flee to Egypt which would allow Israel to close the doors behind them. There is a term for this: ethnic cleansing. That is undefensible, period.
ah, yes, it's that simple, just press the magic button that makes all Hamas disappear and all uninvolved civilians live well and prosper...
To me it seems that if those who care about innocent civilians were more focused on demanding Hamas to surrender and release the hostages promptly would be do more to save lives than constantly criticizing Israel, which gives Hamas hope they can survive this (and do what they did again later on)
You know what makes, maybe, Hamas go away? Open and free election, a cease fire followed by a peace treaty followed by international recognition of Palestine as a nation with free access to the sea and everything else that entails. With a neutral, demilitarized zone between Israel and Palestine, a zone save guarded by an international force with a very robust mandate. Because by know, both side need to be seperated to avoid future conflict. That would also mean a full review by an international court of all sentences by Israeli military courts against Palestinians, in cases a general amnesty is not applicable.
Oh, I almost forgot: A rebuilding plan for Gaza and other Palestinian territories. A massive one, comparable to the Marshall Plan after WW2. A plan in which Israel would have a keen interest in paeticipating if peace is the goal. Oh, yes, and a complete abandonnent of Israels illegal settlement policy and the settlements.
In exchange for Israel recognizing all of the above, and international support of that, the new Palestinian nation agrees to recognize Israel as well.
How does that sound? Not magic, I know, but something that worked in principle in Northern Ireland for example.
I'd also add that there needs to be an end to apartheid in Israel. There may also be need of a deradicalisation program.
[0] https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/sites/socsci-english.ta...
Actually the term for this is: war
Hamas can surrender and release the hostages to end the war. Until then Israel is justified in pursuing their 'complete and utter destruction'
I tired so tryong to get that point across to people. And worried what that attitude might mean for the future.
Presence of civilians does not render an area illegal to attack. Using civilian cover to initiate attacks is a war crime, not wearing uniforms is also a war crime - both things Hamas does. Using civilian buildings for military purposes makes attacking those areas legal and within the rules of war. You don't get to change the definition of words or invent laws of war when convenient to attack Israel.
Does the defender turn into the aggressor and vice versa, when the „Winning“ side changes? Should war just „end“ at this point?
Unless, of course, one side just wants and needs the war to go on and on...
Unfortunately, you lose the privilege to call for an end of war when you've (at some point in time) been in the position of the aggressor. War, in itself, is not a number game. You can't just expect the defender of the current conflict to return the favor by doing exactly as much damage as the aggressor did. War is a means to an end and by initiating aggressions, you have to face the very real possibility that the intentions of your opponent may not match your own.
Yes, once your initial defence is sucessful, you have no justification to turn around and become the aggressor. This is real life and not a game of Civilisation.
In more specific terms regarding the conflict in Palestine: How dar do you want to go back to define the "original" aggressor? Which is utterly pointless, because being attacked is no carte blanche to use whatever means and do whatever you want with the, very loosly defined, "enemy".
- Israel has occupied Palestine since 1948. As an occupier they cannot be outside their territory. This is not war but collective punishment. - Israel controls the daily lives of all Palestinians - they control where they go, where they live and what they can eat. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-counted-calorie-require...) - Prior to Oct 7th, Gaza was subjected to airstrikes and numerous people were killed (https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/seven-lies-a...) (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-att...)
Prior to making unfounded statements, might I suggest you become informed? -
> Israel has occupied Palestine since 1948
Perhaps you should check your dates before calling people misinformed. Gaza was occupied by Egypt until 1967.
The fact still stands, Israel has occupied Palestine since 1948.
Also a fact, Israel invented terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
As a footnote, dynamite, which is used in terroristic endeavours, was invented by Alfred Nobel, the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize...
Israel has one of the most advanced military and intelligence apparatuses in the world. And Palestinians are some of the most surveilled humans in the world. Israel knows where they’re dropping the bombs and the demographics of the humans who live there. No amount of gaslighting the international community and unsophisticated normies changes this fact. There’s no excuse for these war crimes and it’s an utter shame that the West, led by America, continue to allow Israel to use the tragic events of October 7th as an excuse to murder innocent Palestinian civilians (most of whom are children).
The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists but doesn’t allow civilians to shelter, it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way but Israel should continue until Hamas is defeated like Germany was.
Debunked: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
Please try to verify what claims are already debunked to avoid unwittingly amplifying misinformation: https://www.oct7factcheck.com/index
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely." [0]
[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
You will need to find something new to lie about
The UN and Lancet [0] believe the numbers are credible. Let's not forget there are likely 10k+ civilians still burried under rubble too.
> Hamas has miles of tunnels to provide cover for their rapists
Come on, you are not commenting in good faith. There is zero credible evidence that any rape took place, Hamas have staunchly denied it, and from what returning hostages have said it seems incredibly unlikely. There is however an abundance of evidence that Israel is trying to use rape as attrocity propaganda.
> it’s tragic that Hamas is killing its own people this way
This is absolutely absurd - it's like telling a domestic violence victim it's their own fault.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened?
“UN team says rape, gang rape likely occurred during Hamas attack on Israel”
UN: “The mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-team-says-rape-...
https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploa...
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/claims-of-isra...)
“In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified,” the report concluded.
"It is known for its negative coverage of American foreign policy,[1][4] misleading reporting,[25][26] and sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
Excellent sources!
And where are the women whom we should believe?
> You think in a sudden 1143 person civilian homicidal attack, going door to door, no rape happened
Firstly, the latest figure from Israel is that 695 Israeli civilians were killed, with the rest being security forces. Of those 695, many were armed settlers.
Secondly, the fact you assume rape did occur, especially in the total absence of any evidence, is bizarre, and suggests you may have some deeply-seated biases against Palestinians and/or Muslims.
As I explained in another comment here [0], the UN report is a farce insisted upon by Israel to aid in laundering their lurid attrocity propaganda. The report is not the result of an investigation, it simply regurgitates what Israel presented to Pramila Patten. From the report:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=GordonS#39629197
Do you hear yourself? We're talking about the Hamas that crossed into Israeli territory and surprise butchered civilians with weapons into a bloody death??? I'm supposed to be prejudiced because according to a UN report, they also committed rapes across that carnage?
I've already read what you quoted. It's contradicted by "The mission team received clear and convincing information"
> "in the total absence of any evidence"
Absolutely delusional.
The report doesn't say that. It says they received "convincing information"... from Israel. It also says Israel didn't allow the collection of any evidence, and still won't allow an independent investigation.
I've explained my standpoint that Israeli attrocity propaganda is being used to manufacture consent for ethic cleansing and/or genocide, and you've explained that you believe all this to be true despite the absence of credible evidence. Neither of us would further the discourse by continuing this any further, so I won't be engaging in this thread any further. Good bye.
Second, as an occupier, there are no internal border. As the United States and Israel do not recognize a Palestinian state, they did not cross a border, they broke out of their concentration camp.
“In the medicolegal assessment of available photos and videos, no tangible indications of rape could be identified,” the report concluded.
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/07/media-concocts-un-hamas-r...
What do you think Hamas firing rockets into Israel is doing?
> their lives are worth less than the ones tragically lost on October 7th?
No. Equal. We need a framework that stops cycles of retribution and saves the most lives long term. Probably imposed by an international coalition since it's easily observed that groups of people obviously respond to massacres against them with more retribution.
> As the United States and Israel do not recognize a Palestinian state, they did not cross a border, they broke out of their concentration camp.
Are you going to treat the invasion of Taiwan the same way? Since US "doesn't recognize it," it's fair game for them to butcher thousands taking Taiwan?
Concentration camp is ridiculous hyperbole. Gaza is dense overall but half of it isn't https://maps.app.goo.gl/hNEpzVno4z5n9WQH9 . Do you expect the Israeli's to currently allow Gaza to freely trade and receive as many weapons as Hamas desire? Egypt supported the blockade. October 7th would've been 5x worse. Strengthening Hamas' weapons just extends this horrid conflict. Israel was relaxing the travel restrictions and more people were border crossing until Hamas attacked. What kind of message does that send to Israel about letting their guard down?
How do you propose to fix this? You want a ceasefire and Palestinians integrated as Israeli citizens in a 1 state solution? There is no will for this from Hamas. Their 2017 charter wants 1967 borders, your "concentration camp," yet they attack outside of it.
(https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-forbids-doctors-fro...)
What people are debunking is the notion that Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon of war. There are no evidence for that (nor for sexual violence at all, it is just that it is very plausible). And the use of such stories in propaganda purposes.
This is in contrast to the Israeli military who has been recorded using sexual violence as a weapon of war against Palestinians on multiple occasion.
What makes this disgusting, is the use of stories of sexual violence to propagandize anti-Palestinian sentiment. Sexual violence is a horrible crime, that is truly horrendous for the victims. The victims of such crimes deserve better than their horrors being used to justify other crimes.
Regarding the UN report, it is not the smoking gun you seen to think it is, though I can see why you'd think differently if you only read the "highlights" from MSM - go ahead and read the report [0]:
> As a result of the aforementioned challenges, it must be noted that the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of United Nations entities operating in Israel, as well as the lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate
Pramila Patten didn't "investigate" anything; she previously said on this: "It's not my role to investigate" - her job was to repeat what the Israelis told her. While in Israel she even met with proven hoaxers from Zaka, the organisation responsible for spreading many of the putrid attrocity propaganda that came out at the start.
Pramila Patten also infamously made the incredible, unsubstantiated claim that Russia gave their soldiers viagra and sent them out to rape Ukranains. She's a well-known fraud [1], who now sits in a position created by Hilary Clinton - who herself infamously spread false rape propaganda about Libya.
I feel we are now at an impasse, and so I won't be engaging in this thread any further.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/file...
[1] https://thegrayzone.com/2022/11/13/un-envoy-fabricating-viag...
“Go ahead and read the report”
UN report: “The mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity.”
- https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2024/03/05/israel...
- https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/3/...
- https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1764395904335839699.html
- https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1765132760224846142.html
This is an unserious argument.
1. The numbers come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, which is indeed “controlled” by Hamas since Hamas is their governing entity.
2. The Ministry has no verifiable history of being wrong on the civilian casualty numbers. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: The Ministry’s numbers have held up to scrutiny in ALL of the previous wars (including scrutiny from Israel) [0].
3. The Biden Administration has corroborated the numbers.
4. Israel hasn’t denied the numbers. In fact, in one report from the IDF a couple months ago, they corroborated the Ministry’s numbers at the time.
5. The same silly argument could be made to dismiss just about anything coming from Israel given their documented history of lying and even manipulating our (American) media, from lies about beheaded babies [1] to pushing propaganda via U.S. media outlets like the New York Times [2].
> The United States killed many more Japanese civilians than American civilians who died during the war, that doesn’t make them right. […]
This is just a whataboutism and another unserious argument.
One evil act doesn’t justify another evil act. This is as serious of an argument as someone trying to justify slavery in 2024 by pointing to America’s history with slavery.
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/14/israel-biden-beheaded-ba...
[2]: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
This is laughable. They claimed that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 500 people that the Palestinians themselves bombed. You are either hopelessly biased and unserious or uninformed.
Please source your claim as I did mine.
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
The claims appear to be founded: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
"However, the sound preceding the explosion, the fireball that accompanied it, the size of the resulting crater, the type of splatter adjoining it, and the type and pattern of fragmentation visible around the crater are all consistent with the impact of a rocket.
Evidence available to Human Rights Watch makes the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, highly unlikely."
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
[0]: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
[1]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/gaza-findings-october-17...
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.
Because that’s exactly the Hamas playbook: loss of Palestinian civilian lives are the lever they pull to stop an Israeli retaliation, time and time again. It’s the CNN doctrine. But it’s not working this time due to what happened in October 7th.
Murdering over 13,000 children not only does nothing to “eradicate” Hamas, it does the opposite: It creates more Hamas-like groups. All of these women and children Israel has murdered have families, friends, etc. who miss them and will be even more determined now to avenge their deaths.
This is what I see:
P: Hamas attacks civilians
I: Responds by saying that this is will never happen again, and they will put their youth into urban combat to ensure it never happens again by eradicating Hamas
P: Engages in urban combat via insurgency, including using civilians as human shields
I: Continues to try and eradicate Hamas. Civilian shields are murdered.
H: If you keep killing civilians, you'll only make more of us!
I: Then come out and fight!
H: No! Keep killing our children.
At some point you have to place the safety of your population over the safety of another population that is currently murdering your civilians and actively stating they want to continue doing so. Plus to my knowledge P still has hostages that they refuse to release.
If the average American had to live for even just a full week under the conditions that Palestinians live under, they would categorically classify the Israeli government and the IDF as the terrorists. I mean, Israel literally has, as a political and military strategy, the concept of “mowing the grass” [0] [1] to periodically terrorize Palestinians and they aren’t even particularly subtle about it.
My phrasing was specific to the Oct 7 attack because that event was the provication of the current conflict.
Despite policies like "mowing the grass" being catalysts for the Oct 7 attack, my point is that Isreal has stated a clear objective: elimination of Hamas. Their terror tactics are described in the Wiki link you provided appear to be supportive of that goal too.
Hamas has also stated a clear objective so far as I know: destruction of the Isreal state (potentially also of all Jews, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say just the state).
I'm undereducated on the issue, but to me it seems that there is no reconciliation of these goals. They are not simultaneously achievable.
My estimate is this conflict could end today if Hamas conceded. What would become of Palestine is a different matter. Their current authority, the PA, seems to have a policy of paying familes for insurgent deaths. Isreal probably won't want them running the show,and they definitely won't want Hamas running it. Other bordering countries like Jordan and Egypt seem to want nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian children appear to be raised to hate Isrealies and are taught to murder, perhaps justifiably (and maybe this is wrong and only propaganda).
I want this fixed, and I can see a path forward where Palestine embraces sovereignty and becomes a mecca of the world by operating as a tax haven for businesses. But in order to do that they need to determine their goal is peace, and ally with other countries for protection against Isrealie aggression. But that is a hard path forward when starting at current state, including the world view held by Palestinians.
And maybe I'm entirely wrong in this post. But my GP post was specific to my perceived, orthogonal objectives of both sides.
There are lots of comments in this thread that aren't flagged, so discussion isn't being prevented. It's true that a lot of the earlier comments were flagged, but that was (or should be) because they were flamebait. It's one of the downsides of internet commenting that the flameiest and most reflexive comments appear first in a thread—because those reactions are the quickest to flare up. Better, more reflective comments always take longer [1]. This goes 1000x for a topic like this one, unfortunately.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
-- original reply --
I've answered that several times in the links I listed; can you take a look and, if there's something specific I haven't addressed, let me know?
(I don't mean to be dismissive—it just takes a surprising amount of time to write those things and I can't do it at the moment.)
I'm pretty sure it's not an easy task to moderate HN. But I'm still surprised by the answer here.
Keep in mind that I was commenting about the situation very early in the thread. My comment applies only to the very first comments that got posted, perhaps the first couple dozen–no later.
Anything that goes against the status quo has a high chance of being flagged, I've seen this happen over and over and especially recently.
I've posted about this many times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., including quite a few explanations specific to the current ongoing topic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39388899 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)