It's reasonable to view Palestine as a nation and it's reasonable to look at what's going on and see forced starvation of a nation coupled to, as we are discussing here, cruelly relaxed standards for enemy combatants that make a mockery of international law and are de facto indiscriminate by any standard. Sneering about agendas is distasteful in this context. Vast majority of us aren't really keeping score or trying to advance anything at all, just horrified, as horrified as we were by 10/7, while 10% hurl insults at each other and lash out at anything anyone else says.

The entire Palestinian war doctrine is built around attacking Israel, then running for cover of well intentioned Western public. Hamas just needs to survive this to declare victory, and then the clock resets until the next cycle of violence. Hamas assumes Israel will not be allowed to have a decisive win, one where its leadership down to its last junior operatives are hunted down and eliminated.

> The entire Palestinian war doctrine is built around attacking Israel ...

Let me correct that for you - The entire Palestinian resistance is built around the idea of fighting a foreign occupation of their land. Israel is a coloniser state, and the Palestinians are justified in fighting them, even violently, for their land and existence as many other colonial countries have in the past against their oppressors. The denial that some Israelis have about this is the height of political stupidity.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The problem with Israel is not PLA or Hamas, but the the right-wing religious fundamentalist Israeli-Jews that have captured power in Israel. Right-wing religious fundamentalists around the world thrive by creating a climate of fear and hate. Unless Israeli Jews and Palestinian muslims hate each other, they cannot be in power. And if you look at the history of the Israeli religious fundamentalist Jews, you will find that they have assassinated their own people, Palestinian politicians and ven foreign diplomats and leaders, to ensure that there is no peace and a climate of fear and hatred flourishes.

Why do you think Netanyahu and his predecessor formulated the policy of supporting and financing Hamas when the PLA started exploring diplomatic and non-violent means of peace, and gaining international support? The reality was that that these religious fundamentalist Israeli politicians need some religious fundamentalist violent Palestinian faction to brainwash and radicalise their followers to retain power. So they deliberately create conflict. The Likud party that Netanyahu now heads, was found by religious fundamentalists in Israel who were a jewish terrorist organisation that took please in killing and slaughtering Palestinina men, women and children. Albert Einstein once warned the Israel polity about the dangers of such people capturing power in Israel because of the atrocity them committed against Palestinians in the name of Israel.

It is not a co-incidence that Netanyahu and his other religious fundamentalist buddies allowed Hamas to attack Israel, when he and the right- in Israel are in a very politically precarious situation. The current war allows them to create hatred among the new generation of Israelis and Palestinians, so that they can cling on to power.

Sounds like you’re endorsing violence, just upset that your side is losing.

Most people find genocide upsetting. This isn't a video game. Tens of thousands of lives are being destroyed here.

Whats the difference between “war” and “genocide”?

The starvation part and the "ehhhhh 100:1 civilian:combatant is fine" part.

Btw the person you're replying to goes a bit farther than is appropriate, I apologize

In what insane world do you have to feed enemy population?

You finally admit that you see the Palestinian people as the enemy.

That's not true. If you read anything, it's very, very, clear that the absolute very most you can argue is "40% of Palestineans love Hamas and want it to fight Israel".

Meanwhile, you're out here, doing in public:

- why would anyone ever call this a genocide

- they should be starved as they are the enemy

- yes correct I mean all of the Palestineans are the enemy and should be starved

- just listen to them for proof

I, completely honestly, 100%, believe its more likely you're astroturfing to make Israel and Zionism look bad than an actual Zionist. But I'm a Zionist, so it's just cope on my end. Terrible stuff my friend.

Ah.

EDIT: I shouldn't have been so terse.

First off, the fact you wrote that unironically and with such surety and verve means this is, at the very least, if you're in a place where your interlocution hurts Israel.

There's no way to explain this, even at length, in a way that's convincing. It's something that settles in over weeks, at best.

I'm intimately familiar with the branching arguments from here: ex. Hamas is stealing the aid, it's not Israel's job to make sure aid gets in, of course aid has to be screened, UNWRA radicalized palestine so UN isn't a reliable aide distribution partner, etc.

I had to make a bit of a journey myself on this topic: I spent Oct/Nov/Dec talking about Gaza Health Ministry is the last place I'd go to for death totals, etc. etc.

At some point once things pile up, and up, and up, it crosses a critical line where you can see in reality that our jaundiced view from thousands of miles away is a map, not the territory. It's a list of excuses used to avoid taking the world's easiest layup ("we are defeating the terrorists and flooding the zone with cookies and cakes for the civvies"), and that layup has been avoided for 6 months, there's been plenty of time to take action to avoid a visible outcome, and that outcome's visibility may have just vanished into the wind as another complaint from uninformed antisemites.

Let's say that's not Israel's problem and it's being unfairly treated by a PR campaign by radicals who contain antisemites.

Then either A) world government's are too scared of their population to admit Israel is doing just fine or B) maybe all that stacked up stuff is a list of excuses to not have to take action to treat Palestineans like people.

You think Israel is winning? It's hate that has won and it will consume the Israelis soon. Unlike you however, I feel sorry for the Israelis too who will be harmed because of Netanyahu and his ilk - hopefully Israelis will realise this sooner and get rid of these selfish religious fundamentalists politicians.

Hopefully Gazans will too?

And what should the 12 million people living there now do?

Let us know how you'll handle them.

> And what should the 12 million people living there now do?

Accept the idea of a single state where Palestinians and Israelis have true equal rights and live together as the best solution. The opponents to this are the religious fundamentalists on both sides, especially the Israeli-right. Or, alternatively, accept the two-state solution by creating a State for Palestinians.

Would Hamas dissolve? Their charter specifies that their goal is to kill all Jews. What happens after they are citizens?

The two state solution was offered repeatedly. Israel isn't in charge of that. Hamas refused every time. So, I support you there, but it's not up to the 12 million living there. It's up to the handful of Hamas psychos holding Gaza hostage.

> Would Hamas dissolve? Their charter specifies that their goal is to kill all Jews. What happens after they are citizens?

The same thing that happened to jewish terrorist organisations like the Ḥerut (“Freedom”) Party (who, like Hamas used to rape and slaughter woman and children) - their leader Menachem Begin founded the Likud party (which toned down its terrorist roots and became a right-wing fascist political party). PLA too has toned down. Hamas too can. Note that Hamas was democratically elected but was never allowed to exercise its democratic right to govern because Israel and the US didn't like it, and forced a civil war on Palestinians by urging the PLA to attack it, while using their propaganda machinery to demonise Hamas. The Israeli-right (and US) never wanted democratic organisations in Palestine to flourish because it makes it harder to demonise them and deny them their right, and would lead to a peaceful resolution between Palestinians and Israelis that they do not want.

> The two state solution was offered repeatedly. Israel isn't in charge of that. Hamas refused every time.

The Israeli-right doesn't want peace. It desires all the land of the Palestinians for the State of Israel. If you look at Israeli history, you will find that it is Israeli-religious fundamentalists who have always sabotaged the peace talks, while using the settlers to attack Palestinians and occupy more and more of their land. They killed their own Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin (The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin: ‘He never knew it was one of his people who shot him in the back’ - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/assassination-... ) as he was working for a peaceful settlement with Palestinians. They succeeded in sabotaging the peace process. Netanyahu's mentor, Ariel Sharon later gave the order for assassinating PLA's Yasser Arafat (Yasser Arafat: The Assassination - https://www.palestinechronicle.com/yasser-arafat-the-assassi... ), to create anger and hate amongst the Palestinians and sabotage the peace process. They succeeded. Hamas too has many times offered to negotiate peace with Israel, but each time they were rebuffed by Israelis (Israel Rejected Peace with Hamas on Five Occasions* - https://inkstickmedia.com/israel-rejected-peace-with-hamas-o... ). Why do you think Netanyahu continued to support and finance Hamas? (Why Israel Created Hamas - https://swprs.org/why-israel-created-hamas/ ). Even recently, Netanyahu has bluntly said he will never accept the two-state solution (Israel’s embattled leader has long opposed the emergence of an independent Palestine. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/22/netanyahu-bi... ) and has instead used the recent tragedy to do the same thing the right-wing religious fundamentalists in Israel have always done - kill Palestines brazenly and seize their land in both Gaza and West Bank (Israel unveils big West Bank land seizure as Blinken visits - https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/03/israel-unveils-... ).

Israel's greatest enemy are their religious fundamentalists in power. They need to get rid of them, starting with Netanyahu, if they want lasting peace.

>The Israeli-right doesn't want peace.

That's unsubstantiated, and besides the point. PLO and Hamas have still refused any and all two state options, including a 98% land swap offered with Bill Clinton at the Camp David summit.

The two state solution isn't on the table no matter what anyone other than Palestinian leaders say, so we can ignore that part of your argument. It doesn't serve as constructive criticism of Israel. Maybe of Arafat specifically, if you're intending to criticize.

Look at Israel's history and you will find that religious fundamentalist Israeli Jews have always been at forefront in sabotaging all efforts at peace and in fostering violence whenever they can because it benefits their politics. (I've already cited many examples). The slogan "from the river to the sea" was originally the genocidal slogan coined by the fascist Likud party, by Netanyahu, in 1977 to highlight their policy of subjugating all Palestinians and occupying their land for the State of Israel (The controversial phrase “from the river to sea,” explained - https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23972967/river-to-sea-pal...). (And now the same religious fundamentalist Israelis cry crocodile tears about "anti-semitism" because some muslim fundamentalists and secular pro-Palestinians have usurped the slogan for their own cause).

As long as these religious fundamentalists thrive in Israel, Israel is doomed to be a country to live in hatred and anger.

And, if you support Israel, it should worry you. I am an indian who had great sympathy and respect for Jews, and later Israeli leaders. Today, thanks to Netanyahu and his vulgar war to just cling on to power, I am a pro-palestinian now. It is important for people like you to understand this because while in the short-term you think that Israel is "winning" the war by "defending" itself by killing 30,000+ Palestinians, later on, you are going to wonder why the rest of the world don't "like you". Netanyahu and his other religious fundamentalist jews will use identity politics and try to convince you its because you are a jew, and the world hates Jew. No. If people look down on Israelis today and tomorrow, it will only be because you were cowards to not stand up to your genocidal leaders, and even supported them, like the Nazis cheered on Hitler.

(Now, Netanyahu has deliberately attacked and provoked Iran too because he knows Israelis are losing patience with his promises to bring back the hostages - most of whom the IDF has already killed with their bombing of Gaza. So expanding the conflict to war with another foreign state, by provoking Iran, is his only way to further distract the public, foster even more hate between jews and muslims and cling on to power.)

>Israeli Jews have always been at forefront in sabotaging all efforts at peace

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing that they offered a 98% land swap that is extremely contrary to your claim. (That's not the only time Israel agreed to a two state solution, either.)

Let's look at your other argument.

>because some muslim fundamentalists and secular pro-Palestinians have usurped the slogan for their own cause

"From the river to the sea" is in the Gaza charter. If it's Netanyahu's slogan then we must also conclude that it's so inspirational to Gaza's government that they wanted to include it in their constitution. That doesn't sound like "some." That sounds like the government of Gaza, regardless of how much citizen support, is intent on conquest and extermination.

You're also acting like "from the river to the sea" is bad for Israel to say. Those are Israel's borders. Any less than that means they need to evacuate somewhere. India isn't offering to accept 12 million Israelis for immigration. Right? If they are, it would be easier to accept 2 million Gazans.

Of course that's what Gaza included in the charter. They want Israel erased. They want the Jews dead. That's also in their charter. It's very specific. They didn't mince words there. It says the rocks will divulge that Jews are hiding behind them so that they can be killed. I encourage you to read it.

Israel, however, has no intention of conquering Gaza. It withdrew completely from Gaza, nearly 20 years ago. Gaza invaded Israel. Not the other way around. They are now occupying Gaza as a response. But they were not occupying Gaza before October.

If you are going to bring up the import restrictions, you should criticize Egypt too. They are also on that front. Why pick on Israel? Egypt is the bigger army.

>you were cowards to not stand up to your genocidal leaders

I don't have a horse in the race, so "you" isn't really appropriate. But this is exactly what people are thinking about Gaza, that they are cowards not to stand up to their genocidal government that beheads children and films it.

Regardless, you still haven't given a single viable solution.

It looks to me like Israel has no choice, as you've proven here. You're criticizing a victim forced to act in a way no one likes. Gazas' goal is to make you not like Israel by forcing it to act. They won you over with baby beheading and terror apparently.

Do you feel it's okay for Gaza to invade Israel?

Would it be okay for Pakistan to invade India?

What about if Pakistan's founding documents direct all Pakistanis that all Indians must die? Is that acceptable?

Why should that be acceptable to anyone?

The previous commenter didn't say "Israeli Jews have always been at the forefront of sabotaging peace" (which would have been a nationalist slur that presumably would have been flagged off the site); they said "fundamentalist Israeli Jews" --- a particular minority cohort of Israeli Jewish people with particular policy goals.

The point stands. A government supported by fundamentalists has offered two state solutions.

You misquoted them, quite significantly. I've offered a correction. That's all.

Unfortunately I can't edit that comment any longer. But you're right.

There are some problems and differences that you're ignoring.

The goal of previous terror groups wasn't extermination. In fact their goals were largely in alignment with Western morality. Targets included key infrastructure, not specifically civilians. This is similar to Western military efforts.

The US hasn't needed to do much propaganda, Hamas has made themselves intolerable in Western society by beheading children, recording it, and disseminating it, among other similar media interaction. Their goal is to alienate Islam in order to preserve it in the face of westernization. They don't want Palestinians to be accepted in Western society.

Given the historical dissimilarity, why would any Western government believe that Hamas would suddenly gain Western idealism within the confines of a Western democracy?

I don't see any reason that we should, especially when relying on the historical accounts you've provided.

This method of elinination can only be carried out via a Holocaust. Killing half the 2M citizens won't eliminate Hamas it will recruit 3 generations as justified in their violence as Israel. The cost of their crimes will be paid by both sides grandchildren or we will witness a final slaughter of 2M people.

Sorry, but I don’t buy this. West Bank is both more peaceful and less radicalized than Gaza, the difference being that the Israeli military operates in the West Bank but not in Gaza. Gaza was left unchecked to be run by Hamas and we’re seeing the results today.

Long term the only solution is systematic deradicalization, but before any of that happens, Hamas needs to he destroyed and the war in Gaza needs to serve as a lesson to why peace is better than war. So far, for all Palestinian suffering, we’re not past that point.

So policing the west bank has left it more peaceful so we can certainly now murder our way to peace in gaza by killing another 30,000 innocents in order to kill another 0.5% of the militants. 30,000 dead innocents can't possibly generate more than 300 soldiers among survivors.

For practical purposes the degree of force required to pacify it would kill 98%. Its possible that a better policed Gaza would be more peaceful this doesn't mean present efforts are reasonable.

Where did you take the figure of 0.5%? Consensus is over 12k Hamas militant dead and many more injured.

I'm presuming that intelligence about the exact location of targets in a ruin is going to be far less precise and starvation and privation are going to start killing faster than bombs. Ironically the armed gang will probably weather than particular challenge than the general population. Incremental improvements in number of combatants dead is going to come at the expense of a much larger contingent of dead civilians.

Hamas was I believe said to have what 50,000–60,000 fighters. By the time they get to the halfway point half the population will be dead.

Hamas leadership can be killed, but Israel is effectively waging a was on terror by another name. And terror is a concept you can’t blow up. By inflicting horrific damage on a civilian population Israel creates more people willing to give up their lives in military struggle.

The problem isn’t individuals with a wish to kill. They can’t do much damage. West Bank is full of those people and Israeli security apparatus deals with them just fune. The problem is institutional terrorism; an entire enclave of tunnels, rockets, special forces and a structure all designed to murder Israelis. That can, and has to be destroyed in a decisive way.

I'm trying to understand; it sounds like you feel that an AI selecting targets and letting some live is just as bad and indiscriminate as a group forming a charter that reads "exterminate all Jews." (Paraphrasing, but the meaning is not disputed.)

That's hard to agree with. I'd rather the group that tries to save some civilians over one that targets all civilians intentionally.

Wouldn't you?

That said, we can criticize. But we should do it constructively. Provide a better option, militarily, or otherwise. (I don't have one. And anyway I believe this article is baseless.)

Short of offering options, we're just picking sides, and to me it looks like you're picking the wrong one.

And, that is bias.

The criminal that hides under color of law while killing far more innocents is more odious on multiple fronts. Dead children and austere serious men walking through their blood reeking of offal and rightiousness is a disturbing contrast.

The US ought to disassociate ourselves forever from such undepentant criminals.

So the one that kills openly against the law prescribed by democracy is better? Do continue. The world is listening.

Waiting for your constructive criticism. What should Israelis do?

This post doesn't make any sense no matter how many times I try to parse it. You are part of the 10% I mention who lash out at anything anyone else says. Be well.

Which part didn't make sense? I'm happy to help you.

Start here: Gaza seeks to exterminate 100% of enemy civilians. It's in their charter and it's their stated goal.

Does that part make sense?

Next compare with Israel. According to this article their ugly secret mission is to save at least 90% of enemy civilians.

Which of those is preferable to you?

Lashes out

My commentary shows that desire to be moral does not always make for moral action. You thought you were rooting for the good guy, and it turned out that you're not. That can be upsetting. The right thing to do is to revise your view. I'm not lashing out. You're upset with yourself.

I don't know how you keep coming up with #s from the article that somehow indicate Israel's trying very hard to protect civilians. It's self-soothing but no one, absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that.

n.b. not in their charter, not their stated goal. I'm a Zionist too, used to say stuff like this, I just had a wake up call in January about how I was unable to talk to other people anymore because I had walked too far down a path that was obviously us vs. them and the Likud-Gvir unholy alliance was doing truly evil things that made us vs. them look really, really, bad.

>not in their charter

I can't tell if you're pretending or not. Are you?

ARTICLE 7: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

INTRODUCTION: "This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Etc. etc.

>coming up with numbers

They are accepting 10% casualties according to the article (probably bullshit). I didn't expect to have to explain this, but the % symbol implies it's divided by 100. That means there are 90% unacceptable casualties.

>absolutely no one, thinks the article is saying that.

I think most people here can subtract 10 from 100 and get 90. Am I the only genius on HN? I hope not. Help us all if I am.

Or are you talking about the 100% number for Gaza? I took it from their charter. I assume that "O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" means that they want all of them dead. I didn't find any mention of rogue or rebel trees or stones that would allow Jews to hide behind them, so I have to assume they mean all of them.

But, I'm intrigued by your accusation. Where are you finding different numbers? I'd love to see even a single document that allows for saving a Jew authored by Gaza's government. Let me know where this document is.

For clarity, I'm no Zionist. I just don't understand why anyone would support a government blatantly claiming a hateful purpose in their founding documents.

If you want me to feel bad for people in Gaza, I do. I very much do. But this discussion is about governments, and you've made a comparison between governments where there is a very clear cut difference. One has the moral high ground and is attempting to minimize civilian casualties, while the other is blatantly maximizing them in practice and inarguably as their stated purpose.

> not in their charter.

18 August 1988.

2017: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full.

> They are accepting 10% casualties according to the article (probably bullshit).

I genuinely can't parse this. What does it mean to "accept 10% casualties". Casualties means injured/dead. Do you mean 10% of the total population injured? 10% of those injured in a strike are non-combatants? Steel-manning while gently guiding back to the material: lets ignore the 100:1 extreme in the material, and say 10:1. That would mean roughly 90% are non-combatants. Not the inverse.

I'm a Zionist and I'm shaking my head at the majority of what you wrote, there's no need to be this rude to anyone, ever. The condescension harms you more than them, you're trying to win them over, you shouldn't be ranting and pretending they don't know what a % mark means, its detrimental to your argument because it increases perception you're missing their point

More widely, at some point we have an obligation to engage with people and avoid silly side debates like "the charter says kill all the jews, here's the 1988 charter, oh you know they have a new charter? sure they revised it, but the revisions are stupid pandering to ignorant Western sympathizers" and "find me a document allows for saving a Jew authored by Gaza's government. Let me know where this document is."

There's a really unfortunate tendency to conflate any criticism of this war with "Hamas good" or even "Hamas okay" or "Hamas bad but not that bad" etc etc. Not claiming any of that. I'm on the right of Israel opinion polls because I want the war to continue until Hamas is eliminated because I do believe that the 1988 charter describes how they see Israelis to this day.

But I, like everyone else, contain multitudes, and see a straight through line from IDF concerns about targeting rules getting looser and looser and looser over the years since the 90s, what I've seen since October, and now this information we have in the TFA. I'd rather acknowledge that publicly and remain clearly morally superior than start long arguments over if its okay using things like 1988 charter.

What you're saying requires a belief that you are the official speaker of Hamas. And that they don't mean what they say, they mean whatever you say they mean.

It's a stretch. I can't say I believe you. I'll go with the documentation and official statements pending some more compelling evidence to establish your authority.

Dude this post doesn't make any sense, like it's not even attempting to respond to any of it. If you're on tilt, bless, this is overwhelming for me too. But it's bizarre to tell me I'm "trusting Hamas" when I virtue signalled 4 times I don't believe them.

If it's any help to either of you, I'm completely lost in what you're both arguing about, and sometimes on HN you can get caught up in an endless over-explaining trap that sends the thread off into the right margins and really makes whatever important point you were originally trying to make impossible to find.

We all have trouble (me especially) accepting the idea that our interlocutors here sometimes just aren't going to agree with us, no matter how many ways we restate our case. Sometimes the most persuasive thing you can do is just leave off.

No I'm saying that I'm trusting Hamas. I'm not trusting your implied claim that the new charter doesn't say that. It clearly does.

I gave a short response because it seemed like you were claiming that a new charter doesn't call for the killing of Jews. The new one only calls for the killing of the ones in Israel for now, because they are Zionists, even if not by choice.

I am pointing out that the implication is not for you to make. The meaning is expressed by the authors. The same ones who entered a neighboring nation and gave inarguable meaning to their already stated purpose. Furthermore, they NEVER deny the original 1988 meaning either. As a point, they don't.

As for 10% casualty; it means when making 10 calls for 10 kills, if 1 is a bad call that's acceptable. If 2 are bad, that's not acceptable. That was stated pretty clearly in the article. I didn't read it a second time, but I'm sure it's there.

So, Israel, even as demonized in this hearsay article, still sounds 90% better than Hamas.

Stated another way, even if Israel were to state that they intend to only save one Gazan civilian, it's still better than the stated purpose of Gaza. Your earlier comparison then is problematic.

I'm sorry for the percent sign explanation. When you tell me the article doesn't say that, I make a genuine effort to understand what you've missed. The article says 10% casualty, and I said 90% as a cup half full expression. Since you said the article didn't say that, I guessed that you didn't see 90 in the article. I tried to help you look for the 10.

I'm not calling you an idiot despite the seemingly implication. Not everyone understands how percentages work and I can't be expected to make any assumption about what you do or don't know.

Common sense being uncommon as it is.

It says that they are willing to kill up to 20 innocent people for e en the lowliest Hamas stooge in addition to wrongly 1 in 10. That is in order to correctly kill 9 its justified to kill 200 innocents adjacent in addition to 1 yahoo who was poor fellow who was miss-targered.

It obviously says the exact opposite of that unless you conflate multiple separate hearsay accounts. Injecting YOUR racism doesn't add meaning to the article, instead it only serves to discredit it.

Bloviating isn't the same as explaining. You make no sense and are actively damaging Israel. Are you a Hamas plant? Your posts are composed of verbal and mental gymnastics completely unrelated to the post you're replying to. I already told you I'm on Israeli right and agree with you the 1988 charter is what to rely on

You made the comparison: "It's reasonable to view Palestine as a nation and it's reasonable to look at what's going on and see forced starvation of a nation coupled to, as we are discussing here, cruelly relaxed standards for enemy combatants that make a mockery of international law and are de facto indiscriminate by any standard."

Gaza's policy is objectively indiscriminate. Israel's is objectively not indiscriminate.

I don't care what political party you identify with, and I don't care which country I'm damaging. I'm with the "Everyone Must Learn Science and Remain Objective" party. You were objectively wrong.

Does that make sense?

This is a complete non-sequitor? Be well my friend, I'm sorry about the account being marked as throttled, I think it'll help in the long run.

Marked? I don't think that's how it works, but thanks for the sentiment.

Non-sequitor? The last comment is a literal quote from you, and an explanation about how it doesn't fit the charter that you agreed in the preceding comment.

You're offended when I explain the argument, and then when I don't, you say you don't get it.

/shrug

Look it's simple; Gaza is worse than Israel. Objectively. That doesn't mean Israel is a model of human morality. And I don't think anyone is claiming that. But let's not pretend it's the same as Gaza. Israeli troops aren't rolling in beheading children while dancing and posting videos, right? It's nowhere near, even if we take everything in this garbage hearsay article and multiply it by 1000, it's still better than Gaza.

There's nothing you can say other than, "Yeah, I shouldn't have made that comparison." Any other statement at this point just looks like you condone beheading children. How do you not see that that's what you implied unintentionally?

Hopefully that's not what you're condoning.

They built shitty murderGPT and they think based on vetting a sample it can be 90% effective at picking out Hamas associates. In turn they are targeting homes and residential buildings with the stated goal of killing up to 20 people to get the lowest level flunky.

Their goal would allow them to kill 200 people to get 9 Hamas. 21 v 1

In fact

- Hamas is the local government many people who fulfill only civilian roles arent lawful targets.

- A dearth of smart bombs led to using dumb bombs which are less accurate and more likely to create collateral damage.

- There arent infinite lawful targets as the supply of lawful targets is smaller in relation to the pool of victims it is expected to get less accurate.

murderGPT is probably worse than specified.

1. The article is hearsay at best.

2. The article states that 10% is the absurd acceptable casualty rate. So I don't see how you got to 21 v 1. These are stark differences.

But anyway, let's assume Israel wants to kill ALL EXCEPT ONE enemy civilian.

That is still objectively better than wanting to kill ALL enemy civilians.

You made the comparison. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is.

The 10% is supposed to be merely those targeted incorrectly. You can't leave out collateral damage from your calculation.

> In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

For every 10 Hamas targeted for deliberate murder in their own homes while they slept to be splashed with the blood of their children and wives it is acceptable in their books if 1 was never in fact even a villain. It is further acceptable if the high tonnage dumb bomb dropped on your building kills up to 20 other people.

This means it is acceptable to deliberately murder a total of 200 people to kill 9 authentic Hamas. That is 191 innocents to kill 9 villains or 21 for every one.

> That is still objectively better than wanting to kill ALL enemy civilians.

They have objectively killed more innocents than Hamas and stand to kill more but that isn't entirely what makes it more loathsome. When monsters strike at the innocent in a functional nation they have no end of defenders and comforters. The cops come in the shoot the bad guy, medics come to heal what can be healed, the press are shocked, their families come together.

When the innocents are made over into villains or villains by association who will stand for them. Who will even stop the slaughter let alone heal the wounded. As the people went about their daily lives while the jews were marched to gas chambers so the jews will go about their lives whilst the gazans are hunted by drones and bombs and starved.

Look at yourself. You would never have defended the gas chamber but you are defending wholesale slaughter and starvation. THAT is what makes it worse.

I'm not defending it. I'm putting blame where it belongs, on the perpetrator. No one in Israel asked for war. Lots in Gaza did.

When a woman defends herself from rape by stabbing the rapist I don't say, "She caused him more damage!" I blame the rapist.

Not everyone wants war and that's sad that people are caught in it. But Israel isn't at fault, any more than that woman. Hamas is firing from behind innocents. They have to kill innocent people to survive, typically. You can help them by eliminating their need to do it, or you can blame the victim.

Those are your options whether you like it or not. Just like they are Israel's options whether they like them or not.

> I'm not defending it.

Proceeds to defend it

> I'm putting blame where it belongs, on the perpetrator. No one in Israel asked for war. Lots in Gaza did.

Gaza is a population of 2M people run by an armed gang of a mere 50,0000. The IDF a fully fledged modern army has thus far proved unable to root out Hamas despite leveling most of Gaza. It seems hard therefore to blame the 1,950,000 not in said gang for its actions especially when half of them are kids.

> When a woman defends herself from rape by stabbing the rapist I don't say, "She caused him more damage!" I blame the rapist.

This is manipulative garbage. The rapist is singular unified in guilt and purpose. We are talking about a society. If you have anything else in this vein please keep it to yourself.

> Not everyone wants war and that's sad that people are caught in it. But Israel isn't at fault, any more than that woman. Hamas is firing from behind innocents. They have to kill innocent people to survive, typically. You can help them by eliminating their need to do it, or you can blame the victim.

We can demand lawful just behavior even in war. Letting murderGPT generate targets and blowing up women and children in there home isn't it. What happened in October was simply awful but Israel in modern times is not under existential threat from Hamas. They absolutely had the ability to prosecute the war in a different fashion. Acting like they had to either lay down and die or petpetrate horrors is again manipulative and dishonest. A few fuckin pointers.

- Drop bombs only on human vetted intelligence

- Fire on armed resistance not children

- Drop bombs on people participating in conflict instead of homes even if its harder and less effective

- Drop bombs only when the probable collateral damage is either zero or the tactical gain is high eg killing 0-5 to get a top tier leader is probably acceptable killing up to 20 to get each and every flunky is insane.

If the war can't realistically be prosecuted successfully on those terms then set up an actual acceptable no mans land between gaza and Israeli settlements instead of letting a bunch of idiots build settlements adjacent to the people who want to murder them. Fire back when shot at and continue assassinating leaders and those directly responsible for the October horror. There is every reason to believe that October need never come again.

If this is unsatisfying nobody gives a fuck. Morality is hard. Decency in an indecent world is hard. Man the fuck up and develop a sense of honor.

The current trajectory is unsustainable. The only way to pacify gaza is to kill everyone and that endpoint is probably unachievable without the world turning against Israel and stopping it and if leave a genocide partly done you'll be worse off than if you had never started.

This is the train we are on. The conductors are mental midgets and the people laying the track are oblivious.

You're defending people rather than nations which means you've changed the subject because you can't defend Gaza's actions and you're being forced to sustain that Israel is a better actor.

Stay on topic. You want to defund Israel.

Gaza intends to kill 100% of civilians (according to charter). Israel intends to kill less than 100%.

Defund Gaza?

If Israel had a kill all policy that would win your moral favor?

Disgusting. For real dude. Not even a little criticism for Gaza? Only Israel? Why?

I have realized you are uninterested in reasoned dialogue and prefer sentence fragments and manipulation. I don't think you have anything more to contribute so I'm ejecting. Good day.

Of course because you have no option but to admit your bias and racism at this point. You'd rather not.

> think most people here can subtract 10 from 100 and get 90. Am I the only genius on HN? I hope not. Help us all if I am.

TLDR: You are the only HN genius who forgot to multiply by allowed collateral damage.

They suggest based on thin evidence that it selects 90% Hamas associates given relatively clean data at start of conflict. There are oh so many things wrong with this.

- Hamas is the local government. Those who don't participate in the fighting aren't lawful targets in the first place

- They preferentially strike homes during the night maximizing collateral damage in order to obtain a higher chance of killing the target. They set the acceptable losses at 20–100 based on rank and importance of the target.

- Their initial accuracy was assessed by vetting a small sample earlier in the conflict.

What happens to your targeting as the conflict proceeds? Your known targets die, flee, and move around. New soldiers are recruited but don't provide clear intelligence from a chaotic warzone of their present status. You would logically expect such a system's accuracy to decline towards randomness as such a conflict proceeds and intelligence and targets become thinner on the ground. There is no reason to accept the initial 90% targeting accuracy on faith.

Even where we accept we must not forget to multiply by acceptable collateral damage.

82% of the so-called “Palestinians” approved of October 7th Massacre back in October. 75% approve of it in March 2024. For every armed terrorist there were 5-10 Gazans perpetrating the atrocities on October 7th. Every other house in Gaza is full of weapons. “There are no innocents in Dresden”, Winston Churchill

I'm apparently at least one genius on HN that doesn't multiply unrelated sources.

I took each claim as coming from a separate source because the article specifies that they did.

By itself, a claim of 10% allowance, implies a 10% allowed civilian casualty rate.

Also, if you down vote, it prevents me from commenting. If you just want to get the last word in, say so. You're not important enough for me to care if I do.

Neither is this hearsay article.

More telling, you completely dodged the racism in Gaza's charter. Swept it under the rug.

Israel is bad for using AI, but it doesn't bother you that Gaza wants to kill all civilians?

Really, I think that last one makes moot all of your points entirely.

You can't downvote direct responses nor does a downvote prevent a response. YOu might find that the reply button is not present on a comment immediately after it is made. If you click on the stamp eg "1 hour ago" you will note the reply button is evident and can be used.

The predicted false targeting rate is explicitly NOT the civilian casualty rate nor is it even supposed to be. You are seizing dishonestly on a low number because it appears justifiable.

It's not the overall civilian casualty rate which appears to be 2–3x nor the expected casualty rate of AI guided bombing of residences which appears to be much higher yet. It does appear that the maximum allowable rate according to Israeli policy is 21x for such bombing raids.

It does prevent you from posting for an hour. The reply button is present. You get a "you're posting too fast" message.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524

So in summary what you're saying is, we should go with hearsay and sum all hearsay together, multiply all false claims and use those to guide our government.

Nice.

Hey, why do we use significant figures to guide our multiplication?

Anyway even if we do believe all hearsay, you have to admit kill 99.999999999% of civilians is still a better policy then kill 100% (Gaza's policy).

So your other points still don't matter.

You've opted to defund the kill some policy while still funding the kill all policy. And simultaneously you're critiquing it. You have to admit, there's not just a little bias there. It's something deeper.

Yeah, that's a very specific error for a specific function. HN has a thing where they can manually mark accounts as throttled - my understanding its when you have a habit of replying emotionally and repeatedly to the same thread. So this, helpfully, gives you a pseudo-timeout to reflect before jumping back in, which in theory increases constructive responses, and at least prevents littering.

I don't know where you're getting that from. dang has very clearly explained how it works in that post.

"Your account is rate limited. We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars."

What part of this differs from how I described it, except I was more polite and didn't say you were posting low-quality comments, or doing a flame war?

Your argumentative confusing responses used to frustrate me but you're putting a smile on my face now. Idk what's going on over there, but I have a feeling you know you're doing it, you're enjoying it, and I'm genuinely happy to hear that. יברכך יהוה וישמרך

How would you automate a system that throttles low quality posts? It relies on downvotes. When people downvote your comments, you are "rate limited" for a short duration.

That, of course, leaves open the problem of people downvoting stuff they disagree with, regardless of quality.

Essentially, the system works, but in many cases, a downvote means you're right and the downvoter doesn't like being wrong. That causes an unjustified throttling. Oh well...

Well, October 7th Massacre wasn’t enough to wake you up from a 140 years long dream of peace. But some social lack of acceptance in January did. That’s telling. It is a zero sum game. It always was for the Arabs. Time to wake up and face the harsh reality, not invented idealistic dreams (that are admittedly much more comforting, but lead to massacres October 7th style).

War is nasty. It won’t stop being

You mean the bombing of Gaza or the October attacks?

I see it as open season. One under resourced side wants a fight with a well resourced side. I don’t expect them to sing songs. I expect them to very violently kill each other till on one side goes, ‘we lost’.

They are deliberately targeting civilians based on nebulous association knowing they will kill up to 20 others without even that thin justification.

There is absolutely reason to believe such missions could range from 10-50 civilians to one actual soldier.

They are claiming kills as justified that never received human vetting. Even the kills that would be lawful are by any reasonable analysis fruits of a poisonous tree.

Done at scale its hardly different than running a gas chamber.

Well it's like facebook pushing trump content and saying "well it's not us, it's the algorithm that decided". Same thing, I think it's to just put blame on something else, even if nobody sensible believes it.