However Sweden was the first country to recognise Palestine.

Is it possible that the pulling out of UNESCO is further in-line with Trumps “we want to focus on America” fluff, similar to the threats of pulling out of NATO and the actual pulling out of the Paris Accords.

I’m aware that there has still been some US interference in the middle-east, I’m just not sure I’m drawing the same connections as you.

Also, and I mean this in the best way I can: I don’t really trust anything coming out of Gaza’s health ministry. That doesn’t mean I side with Israel as they are also distorting facts very often.

And i’m not sure how your sweden example says anything about the US supporting israel’s genocide? Was there something you expected to happen when sweden recognized palestine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_journalists_in_the_...

In short: gazans are all issued ID numbers at birth. The ministry of health has published id numbers of the dead, which means you can do stats and tell if the data is fake. On top of that, so far (afaik since 2009 when hamas came to power) nobody has caught them in a lie. So they’ve a track record of telling the truth, and give us data that we can smell-test for fraud and it passes.

So yes, nobody else is on the ground to produce independent numbers, so the numbers can’t be fully verified. But using that doubt as an excuse for inaction in the face of ethnic cleansing and genocide is fucking disgusting.

If you comment that they give us this data, surely you have a link to said data?

> I don’t know if the data is available to the public, or just to journalists

Do you know what "published" means?

Hint, public and publish come from the same root word...

It is hard/impossible to come up with an accurate death toll.

The Gaza Health Ministry systemically underreports the death toll by only counting bodies that they have directly observed.

Some third parties have tried to extrapolate from the reported numbers to get to the actual numbers; but that is a highly speculative endeavor under the best circumstances.

This was only true in an early phase of the conflict; they've long since been adding casualties reported by "reliable media sources" as well as a Google form.

You’ll always be disappointed if you continue with this mindset though, the world will not bend to you because of your moral outrage, the best you can hope for is to open peoples eyes with understanding - not by calling everyone inhumane, disgusting or laying expectations at their feet.

I was outraged with Uyghurs, I was outraged with Rwandans, I was outraged about the Tamils, Burma, the ISIL occupation, Boko Haram etc;etc;etc;

I’m old now, my outrage did nothing to prevent or assuage these conflicts and this conflict seems too muddy for me to get involved with, I can’t pick a side, both sides are killing each other and one is more successful than the other.

I don’t feel like beating people over the head with the conflict will actually stop anyone dying, even if we decided all of us together to bomb Israel off the map: that’s bad too. Nobody is coming to the table with anything even resembling a solution.

So, kindly, I will reserve my moral outrage to situations whereby I can make a difference, where I don’t have to watch both sides chanting death threats in schools about each other. I will not morally side with either.

I think the US should absolutely stop giving money to Israel, there seems to be no benefit at all and it supports their genocide. But I also see no reason to actually support Palestine. The current conflict can be traced back to the October attacks, but then those attacks can be traced back to some attacks Israel did and back and forth until you get to the Old Testament and probably before that.

It's a religious conflict that won't go away unless you remove religion from it. I don't expect that to happen during my lifetime so I'd rather we just pull the tax dollars out of the region.

Most of the problems in the middle east can be traced back to European and American meddling.

That would be great (?), except the stated reason for pulling out was "anti-Israel bias". It's about kowtowing to a foreign terror regime, not standing up for America.

Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt when they directly state that they're withdrawing over the decision to admit Palestine?

The journalists' association of the French wire service Agence France-Presse (AFP) warned on Monday that staff working with the agency in Gaza are at risk of starvation and that "without intervention, the last reporters in Gaza will die."

In the statement, the SDJ said that AFP's journalists in Gaza have warned that they no longer have strength to report, with one photographer, Bashar Taleb, saying in a post on Facebook: "My body is thin and I can no longer work."

"Since AFP was founded in August 1944, we have lost journalists in conflicts, we have had wounded and prisoners in our ranks, but none of us can recall seeing a colleague die of hunger," the SDJ said in a post on X.

https://www.euronews.com/2025/07/22/afp-journalists-at-risk-...

Nothing to do with israel destroying farms and crops?

Hamas bad. We can all agree hamas bad. But to blame starvation on hamas when israel is in control of the food supply… how do you mental gymnastics your way to that??

And this, blocking all food from the enclave will surely make the value of Hamas' stolen food worthless, right?

Wouldn't the smart decision for Israel be to flood Gaza with food aid, till any stolen supplies were worthless?

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/afp-fact-check-media-bi...

Are reporters taking food from Gaza’s or, how is that distributed?

Maybe read before commenting, or perhaps allow people to be ignorant and admit that openly; jumping down my throat because I don’t already know your favourite news outlet solves what exactly?

(also don’t think I don’t see the irony of your bio being: “I usually don't know what I'm talking about.”)

If you google for "famine yemen", you see very thin children, with just skin on bone - all the fat and muscle is gone. If you google for "famine gaza", they just seem a lot healthier.

Sometimes you can tell by looking at someone’s face they’re starving - but usually you can’t. Usually it’s when they strip down for the periodic medical exam when you can actually tell how starved they are.

Do you want a recent photo of this man, or do you want him to strip naked for you to judge his weight loss?

Why is one man stripping naked for you something you need before you’ll believe the hundreds of different people saying that people are starving?

Like, seriously. What if he’s lying? He could be, of course - but would you then believe everyone is lying? Or what if he’s telling the truth about weight loss, and you see proof - will you then turn around and say well yeah but he’s probably just starving himself for attention?

You need proof one man is starving to believe hundreds?

Funnily enough, everybody's a sceptic when buying a used car.

Pretty much all atrocities in the middle east can be traced back Europeans (mainly UK) carving up the area after ww1 and theirs and American imperialism since ww2. Israel is a project of this.

But Israel is a "project" that needs to end. More like a scape goat.

I'm israeli. This war is bad, my government is evil. But I deserve to have a nation to call home, so do the Palestinians.

If you disagree with me, think about it a bit and what it says about you.

But people do suggest russia should give back the territory they’ve taken by force. That’s most (if not all depending on your take) of israel.

Historically - in my opinion in the wake of ww2 a jewish state should have been carved out of germany, rather than england giving away land that wasn’t theirs to give away. So in a sense Germany as we know it should have ceased to exist.

Just as now, i believe for there to be peace in the region israel as we know it must cease to exist. Either by radically changing and becoming a place where palestinians and jews live together in peace and shared governance, or by giving up a huge chunk of land they stole in ‘48 to create two states.

Opinions, obviously.

Alas hamas killed that one in The 90s when they decided to send suicide bombers to Israeli busses during the peace process that Israel initiated.

Also Israel accepted the two state solution in 1948, alas all Arab countries decided to attack the newly idndependent country.

Saying "we" stole the land is a bit odd. The arabs leaving in Israel didn't call themselves Palestinians until after 1948.

Israel is not in the Arab peninsula, arabs living here came from there, hence they are Arabs.

I still support their right to their national claim. But pretending it's some ancient construct that "we" stole from is not historical. Palestinian nationalism is a modern construct.

> This war is bad, my government is evil.

We have a lot in common

> But I deserve to have a nation to call home, so do the Palestinians.

Absolutely!!!

I did not call for the end of Israel as a project, I do disagree with it's creation, considering how it turned out, especially since it was more or less the intention of Zionism as stated by it's founders.

I don't know how to solve it. But I do know that Israels actions since it was founded has worked against any kind of solution that is not a takeover of the area and the creation of their ethnostate.

You domknownthat Palestinians are mostly Arabs and not native to the region.

The Israeli founders accepted the UN partition resolution. all Arab countries attacked Israel to destroy and create their pan Arabian fantasy.

In the 90s Israel initiated the peace process and gave self rule to the Palestinians with an end goal to create a Palestinian state. Hamas decided to send suicide bombers to bomb Israeli busses killing thousands.

This caused a massive shift right in israeli politics. And gave power to those saying we can't afford to give land. I don't agree with them.

Your revisionism is abhorrent.

In private letters from the founders they write about their true intent of accepting the 48 deal just to get a foothold and then keep taking over the rest of the land, you can look it up yourself. And what a deal, Jews owned like 7% of the land and was handed 55%? Why would anyone be angry about that. By an organization that was basically three countries in a trenchcoat and without the support of most the people who lived there.

I know Hamas is bad, I can call them terrorist without a problem. Netanyahu however is also a fan of Hamas as he has stated its critical to prop them up as that allows them to divide and conquer the Palestinians and create more chaos that they can use. Exactly like how they are using Oct 7 in both Gaza and the West Bank now.

I understand that Israel is in the grips of far right zionist fanatics, but a large part of their population does support some kind of genocide.

Your genocide excuses are disgusting.

Now, I don't know whether that is true. It seems to be the argument that the Israeli government and the right-wing majority of its population are making now - that if they give Palestinians actual freedom, Israel will just cease to be, so they have to starve people to death, bomb them etc. The more they do that, the stronger the argument that Israel should cease to exist.

If there is another option that allows Israel to continue to exist, that's great. But it's really up to Israel to come up with a viable option for that, because Israel is an alien entity that forcefully imposed itself on this territory to begin with.

Regarding Russia, I'm a Russian citizen, and the invasion of Ukraine did, in fact, made me reach the conclusion that Russia should not exist as a state. It's not that this particular war is especially damning; it's that Russia has a very long track record of imperialist wars, and, more importantly, it doesn't change - it keeps doing it. Arguably Russia as it exists today is inevitably imperialistic simply because it's a polity that is cobbled together and still largely held by force or threat of it - it never really fully de-colonized, and if it ever does, it'd be an order of magnitude smaller. So from that perspective it really cannot change - and if so, then yes, it should cease to exist.

That's nonsense.

The Jewish people have a long (2000years) of calling Israel territory as home. Does it mean I deny the Palestinians national claim, no. But it sure as hell mean Jews have a claim atleast as much as Arab immigrants and conquerers

Palestinians, on the other hand, have actually been physically living in that place for well over a millennium. Not only that, but dismissing them as "Arab invaders" is also rather misleading - while the language and the culture is Arabic, the Palestinian population is mostly descendants of the same people who lived in this area 2000 years ago (Canaanites etc), with Arabic culture imposed on them during the early Islamic conquests. And again, if you're willing to look back that far to establish a link that translates to right of possession, then should we go back another 1000 years and talk about Torah's vivid descriptions of the invasion of Canaan by Jewish tribes and genocide of the local population?

I think it's foolish to try to derive some kind of meaningful claim today from what happened 2000-3000 years ago, though. And looking at the more recent history, what is today Israel was explicitly a settler colonialist project. Here's Ze'ev Jabotinsky writing in 1923, not mincing words about Palestinians being the native population that he wants to displace:

"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. ... Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators. ... Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach."

Like there were always practical limits to how much the US could constrain Israel, especially due to its relative popularity until recently. A bunch of activists didn’t recognize that and tacitly endorsed letting Trump win and now here we are.

Here is a more productive way to phrase your comment:

> I personally believe there is not a genocide, and the reason why I believe that is because I heard from ___________ [fill in the blank] that the population has increased over the past 2 years, and I personally believe that makes it not a genocide because ____________ [fill in the blank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas

These are both rather prominent results when searching just for: netanyahu hamas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Options are: 1. Regime change, which I have seen no effort to attempt to effectuate 2. Withdrawal, which seems unlikely at this point. 3. Permanent occupation, which seems like the default. It may end up falling short of full genocide but it’s definitely violently upheld apartheid at a minimum.

If the third option is “cleaning up a mess” then that’s uh… pretty bad.

In October 2004, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weissglass, explained the meaning of Sharon's statement further:

"The significance of the disengagement plan [from Gaza] is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. That is exactly what happened. You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."

Addendum: In 2005, Israel evacuated approximately 8,000 to 9,000 Israeli settlers from Gaza. Since then, there was an increase of approximately 250,000 settlers in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) since 2005 - or roughly 28 times more than the number evacuated from Gaza.

In chess you sacrifice pieces. Only a really naive player would think "well, if he sacrificed that piece, that proves he doesn't want to win the game".

[WP] According to Sharon, the disengagement plan was aimed at addressing Israel's long-term security challenges by shifting the country's resources to focus on strengthening the areas that "will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement" with the Palestinians.

So this was the immediate motivation: to give up some small, expensive and challenging settlements to focus resources on occupying more land in a more important place. Notice: not an ethical argument, not a peace offer. No. "Let's use our resources to take from the same people more, better land somewhere else."

And of course Israel managed to spin this with the US in such a way that basically they got a green light to settle as much as they wanted of the West Bank.

There have always been people, in Israel, who had the long term goal of annexing the whole "Greater Israel". They might not be a majority, but that doesn't matter because they have no meaningful opposition, as most Israelis are indifferent to Palestinians and to the idea of equity and justice.

And what's happening now is clear. There's no military goal whatsoever to the ongoing flattening of the Gaza strip. The purpose is only to make the place unliveable and to kill time in wait for the final green light to the ethnic cleansing.

Netanyahu stays out of jail. The amount of planning that has gone into the endgame in Gaza is about as much as went into our tariff wars and only slightly less than what went into American endgame planning for Iraq and Afghanistan.

#neverforgetArmenia

He also knows that his government is starving a million people to try to eliminate the 10.000 fighters that are surviving.

Where is the same energy for what is going on in US?

And as far as US, you had a distinct movement that was against Kamala specifically because she was pro Israel.

I really don't understand the obsession with this particular conflict to the point where you feel like you are in the moral right by essentially punishing US people and making it worse for the people you care about (in terms of Republicans being way more pro Israel), specifically because the democratic party, didn't offer up a candidate that is EXPLICITLY against Israel.

Sounds a lot like whataboutism. I heard a lot of that term going around whenever anyone dared mention any non-mainstream talking point about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but funnily enough, no one seems to talk about now.

Whataboutism is when you justify the wrongdoing of X by pointing out that Y is also wrong and nothing is being done about it.

Im simply pointing out that if your outrage about Palestine is genocide, then you should be outraged about the other genocides. You can either agree, or you can further narrow down your position on why specifically Palestine conflict is the one you chose to place your outrage on, and not others.

Took me a while, but: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31084334

Compare our two posts:

"I can think of one very powerful country doing exactly that for over half a century. Hope we're all collectively raging against anything coming from that country."

and

"There are other genocides happening in Myanmar and Sudan that nobody talks about."

Please be honest and fair. Don't you agree both of these arguments are more or less in the same vein? We're both pointing out that Bad Shit is happening elsewhere in time or space, and for some reason we think that public attention/outrage is unfairly shifted towards a specific conflict. We both imply that there is a deliberate political reason leading to that specific conflict being in the limelight and not any other conflict.

Given our little discussion here, I probably strongly disagree with you on the specifics of this specific conflict (Gaza). But we both have made the same argument, coming from diametrically opposed points of view: we both think (correct me if I'm wrong) that people/media/society etc have pet conflicts to be outraged with in detriment of all other ongoing conflicts. Or in short -- hypocrisy. Although I disagree with you, I very much think this specific argument is absolutely valid.

My point is that media and online people (HN) were very eager to scream Whataboutism when the exact same comment was made in another context (Ukraine), but everyone seems to have forgotten about Whataboutism in this conflict when people like yourself make comments in the same vein.

When it comes to Palestine, you had 2 choices, vote Dem, which is arguably the better choice as Dems overall are more humanitarian minded, or the other 2, which both increase chances of Trump winning, which is way worse for Palestine.

I don't get what mental gymnastics one has to do to find that abstaining is the morally justified position. Its not like if enough people abstain, nobody becomes president.

>The Americans have blood on their hands when it comes to Gaza and the same cannot be said about other conflicts.

Uh.....lol?

The other big thing is that I dunno how one can support people that actively murder people for being gay, but thats just me.

Like, I genuinely think Netanyahu is perusing a “ Lebensraum” strategy with Palestine. This is evidenced by their support of right wing Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory.

I’ve come to this realization as a Jewish person who was brought up on “Israel has a right to defend itself” during the second intafada. Israel has genuinely changed for the worse in a way that’s hard for a lot of people to see.

That America was willing to do this, if the bombs didn't work, seems to contradict your claim. (And I think the Americans had little choice to do so.)

The key difference is that the US recognized that Japan could surrender, accepted that surrender, and instituted regime change with a goal of democratic prosperity.

I’m not convinced Israel would do the same. They certainly haven’t said anything about actual regime change and setting up a legitimate government.

If you're at war and your opponent has lost but is foreign to the idea of surrender and fights to the last man, and you oblige him, you are pursuing war not genocide.

My friend, if Hamas surrendered tomorrow, the death would stop. They have no allies, they have no support, the war is over. It's now just how much of their own people they are willing to grind up. Western liberals on the keyboards are not going to stop Israel. The fractured and shattered Islamic middle east is not going to stop Israel.

End the war, give up the land, and take the offer from Israel for first class tickets for every Palestinian to go live in Iran. Get your diplomacy and ideology straight, and maybe in 50 years your will have the economy and military needed to go take it back from Israel, and then they can be the ones to bend over for peace.

Have we seen an end to the violence in the West Bank area of Palestine?

Again, Palestine has no cards left. They are powerless and have no friends with power. They completely failed at diplomacy over the last 50 years and completely failed at building an economy (other than weapons manufacturing).

They lost and lost badly. They can go regroup somewhere else and try to capture the land again in the future. But for now they should stop using their civilians as fodder to childishly delay the inevitable.

So the adults are ready for this to end. There is no choice winner, so the winner will just be the one who is stronger. The same way every other war has been decided.

*Granted, the Muslim world obviously has huge support for Palestine. But it's in word only. Palestine's "allies" pretty much said "Good luck bro" and then closed their doors. Probably because Palestine has the diplomatic skills of a toddler. Don't be fooled, Israel won this with diplomacy. Making friends with the right people and being a good friend to them will carry you far.

Sign of the times, I suppose

There has always been a question of what Israel’s strategic goal is here because it doesn’t make any sense. An at least rational answer would be “regime change”, but no evidence has come up to indicate this is the plan.

Since Israel isn’t attempting to stand up a legitimate Palestinian government, all that’s left is permanent occupation and/or genocide.

I agree. It's painfully obvious that nobody has a plan or even an idea what could be done. But that's because all options are garbage. Stay in Gaza? Guerilla warfare forever and more civilian deaths. Pull out of Gaza? Hamas rearms in a few years, starts shooting rockets again, Israel retaliates and more civilians casualties. Regime change? Good luck, all moderate voices are toothless against the Jihadists.

The fundamental problem here is Hamas. There is just nothing in this world you can offer them to stop this suicide mission. All they care about is destroying Israel. No matter the cost. And that has nothing to do with Israels conduct. I'm sure it's compounding after decades of bloodshed but deep down they just hate Jews.

We could ask why there aren't more Palestinian refugees who fled to other countries? As far as I can tell, leaving Gaza is very difficult, and nobody really talks about making it easier.

i never saw anybody been against migration of population out of war zone to safety. in case of ukrainian refugees it was widely discussed that people need to get to safety and entire europe helped.

I can't think of any comparable historical example of declaring a people's entire territory a war zone and migrating a substantial/majority of the entire population out. Can you? The reality is they'd be unlikely to ever be able/allowed to return, and as such the actual purpose of such a project would be ethnically cleansing the territory.

and you essentially you prefer population to suffer hardships of war in order to "safekeep" territory and "prevent ethnic cleansing".

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/almost-half-gazans...

Isn't it both? I'm not an expert on this by any means, but it seems like anyone who's born on that land will find it almost impossible to leave. Both countries that have land borders with Gaza will usually not admit locals, except in very few exceptions. Even someone trying to transit through Israel to other countries would probably not be able to. Their sea and airspace, things that are seen in other countries as open windows to the rest of the world, are controlled by Israel. And their own government sometimes acts to prevent people from leaving. So, even if some countries accepted their refugees, I don't see how an average Gazan would be able to get there. It's not quite North Korea-level of difficulty, but it's up there.

when israel after trump announcement said that idf will help people (who want to leave) to leave through israel, everybody screamed that it's literally proof that israel executes genocide and ethnic cleansing

typically to be refugee you need to get to country and request this status. you can't get refugee status remotely.

Legal restrictions could be reduced if there are any counties willing to take refugees.

at no point he was saying that gazans will be rounded up and moved out.

the way that conversation is going now is (and i am not trump fan):

- everybody: gaza is destroyed and nobody can live there. conditions are inhumane

- trump: lets allow to people move out to different countries, provide them with housing/jobs/etc while gaza is rebuild

- israel: we will help to people who want to leave - to leave

- everybody: this is literal genocide and ethnic cleansing. gazans should stay in gaza

A US administration that was serious about this would propose a deal to take some refugees from Gaza as a sign of good will. Something like "we will take 25% if other countries agree to take 75%." To say that other countries should take all the refugees, when they've shown no interest in it, is deeply cynical. So I didn't bother to look further.

Of course we'd never see that from the Trump administration. Unfortunately the Biden administration wasn't imaginative enough to suggest such a thing.

i saw some interviews with gazans that said, that in case EU/USA/Canada will accept refugees, Gaza will become empty overnight.

- Supported Saddam in Kuwait

- Supported Saddam in Iraq

- Massacred Christians in Lebanon

- Tried to overthrow Jordan

- Caused chaos in Syria

- Destabilized Libya

- Aligned with iranian axis despite gulf states (eg Saudi) hosting at that time

- Complained about Egypt-Israel peace despite the former being the only country to send men to die for them

- Sent jihadists into Sinai

- Ran military ops out of Tunis after Tunisia agreed to host Arafat causing Tunis to get bombed

- Repeatedly militarized "refugee camps"

Like whether what israel is doing is wrong (it is) is independent of whether or not the palestinians kinda suck (they do)

OP isn't making a moral argument. They're making a practical one. It's practical for a potential host to be wary about accepting refugees given the positions of their predecessors. Particularly when the current popuations are engaged in decades (centuries?) old disputes based on ancestral rights.

Like we can even blame the way things are on the israelis, or at least majorly on them, but that doesn't change the calculus for other arab states.

What action would you like them to have taken to prevent deaths in ukrain?

I called the US complicit, not unesco.

Yes, but still not enough, or its people's survival will not depend on the kindness of others. In my opinion, it's not a competent government, at least based on its performance so far.

It is the duty of the occupying power to ensure the safety of the civilians within the territory it has occupied. A duty Israel, with its use of starvation as a weapon of war and habit of shooting medics in the back of the head, is obviously not fulfilling.

[1] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186

As for me, I’m just an ordinary person, believing that all lives matter worldwide. And if many innocents continue to die meaninglessly, I consider their governments incompetent for the job.

Are you suggesting that they (just to clarify, I’m referring to the government leaders, not the maliciously misinterpreted starving innocents) are competent and that all the other governments are to blame?

Ok so how do you know that they are not doing enough?

>Are you suggesting that they are competent and that all the other governments are to blame?

I'm suggesting it's not productive to blame the people starving in a concentration camp for not doing enough to find food.

+1 for me to quit posting on hn

This type of word spinning is distasteful, and more importantly, it's a sign of significantly weaker mind capacity than past level I recall joined hn 10ish years ago.

The first thing you should be doing, is to read the link, fire up AI deep research with some neutrally toned question to gather information.

The reason hn drew me in, was people actually always aim for contributing to the discussion constructively. That's not the norm nowadays.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/middleeast/egypt-boosts-secur...

Why do you think in the at least six different armed groups in Gaza, there is not one ready to fight against the people who have effectively taken them hostages?

Why in the around half of million extended families of the 100,000 people associated with Hamas in Gaza, there is not enough political pressure to stop?

"The United Nations, the European Commission and major international aid organizations have said they have no evidence that Hamas has systematically stolen their aid, and the Israeli government has not provided proof.

https://x.com/cogatonline/status/1774174849650278480

500 is the trucks per day including building materials and industrial goods rather than only food

No. Article 54 of the additional protocol I (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/arti...) only allows destruction of objects etc. necessary for the sustenance of the civilian population if they are solely used for the members of the armed forces.

So even if Hamas stole the vast majority of the aid, as long as there is starvation, destroying it is forbidden.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

this is complex however, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/siege-law/

I'm thinking that as long as there's food, maybe you can destroy them, but if you then, having destroyed them while there is food, restricts the supply you are still breaking the treaty.

There's also article 54 §1 of additional protocol I.

What food aid?

Will it be someone else’s fault? Will they admit their mistakes and change their opinions? Or will they brush aside their published reasoning and say it doesn’t change anything. Check back at 11.

So there isn't anyone else to rely on for statistics here.

THEY LOOK LIKE THE JEWISH CHILDREN IN WWII

WHAT THE F

You can be skeptical of the gaza MoH all you want, but unless you’re demanding independent verification you’re just enabling what we have to assume is a genocide.

Maybe even a coalition of peacekeepers to go in and control Gaza. Hamas could maybe even give up the rest of the hostages.

> have to assume is a genocide.

??? Guilty until proven innocent? In what world?

Guilty implies conviction & punishment. You don’t punish people who’ve not been proven guilty (like say idk palestinians being punished for hamas’ actions)

What I’m saying is if there is the credible possibility of genocide (which there is), then inaction is complacency. Stop the violence, asses if there has been genocide, prevent any further.

"KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip—Thousands of hungry Palestinians amassed last Tuesday morning outside a barbed-wire fence surrounding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid center here. The moment the gates cracked open, the crowd surged forward.

American security contractors tried to keep control, but scores of men pushed through barricades and snatched boxes of food awaiting distribution. Others sprinted in behind them. Men on speeding motorcycles raced past the pedestrians to grab whatever food they could. Gunshots rang out—it wasn’t clear from where. Within about 15 minutes, all the food was gone."

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/us-israel-gaza-aid-dea...

I know it's easy to judge being far away, but seriously, men on speeding motorcycles?

I don’t see anything obviously suspicious in that - if your family was starving would you sit back and let them die? Or maybe hop on a motorcycle and cut to the front of the queue?

Norm is 33.14% overweight and 21.17% obese, palestine was (before 2021) 23.6% overweight and 19.5% obese.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9998069/#B10

So, no, Gazans are not suffering from obesity at “incredibly high rates”.

Malnutrition and obesity can also co-exist in the same person at the same time. Most of the articles on obesity in gaza point this out.

> Obese people can easily live for six months to one year without suffering health issues

Jesus christ. Are you really saying forced starvation is ok because some people have the fat reserves to not die from it??

Even if all the obese people in gaza had the fat reserves to last 6 months - which they don’t - you’re still giving the thumbs up to starving the other 80.5% of the population.

Not to mention, aid has been blocked since march so the other 19.5% has two months left of their supposed six months of “no health consequences”.

And for the record, I am so fucking disgusted I had to write this.

Jesus christ.

[0] Reminds me of someone saying to a rapt audience that people in coastal areas flooded by sea level rise would just "sell their houses and move" (sell their houses to whom, fucking aquaman?).

Why wouldn't they be on "speeding" motorcycles? They have a family to feed. They're probably coming from some distance away. People travel on motorcycles.

Desperation and survival.

I don't know, maybe you think they're eating too much fast food or sugary drinks? Probably they need to make more exercise, right?

Its not the genocide aspect - there are other genocides that are happening (Myanmar for example) that don't cause this reaction. Don't think its anti antisemitism either, as you don't see a lot of narratives that come with traditional rhetoric of that type.

Whoever is pushing media out on this is must have figured something out in the format to make people this polarized.

None of that applies in Serbia / Bosnia / Kosovo, as far as I can tell. That is more like a separatist movement situation like what you see in Kurdistan, Kashmir, etc.

Gaza is a competely separate country/territory. They have no connection to the modern Israeli state. If anything they should be asking for Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship since the majority have kin relationships and history from there.

How does that have anything to do with the conflict? Could there ever be 51% of Israeli citizens who are non-Jewish Arabs? That tells you why Israel will not extend rights to the majority of subjects under it's territorial control.

> Gaza is a competely separate country/territory

It is not. Israel does not recognize it as such, and Israel controls all the borders, all the electricity, all the water, all the Internet and essentially all the external commerce of the region, it even controls the waters off shore of the region.

But you of course didn't answer anything else I said, despite being wrong about the one thing you picked out of my response

Exactly. This only exposes the lack of accountability and the harmful stereotypes that led Nazi Germany and now lead Israel to committing a genocide.

The reason this looks like some tribal/racial/dominance thing is because these questions and conditions apply almost equally to the West Bank. There is video evidence of multiple settler pogroms in the West Bank.

All of the rest of the world sees basically the same violent conclusions. The only people making excuses for it are some Israelis the rest of the world refers to as extremists.

Palestine is used as a proxy by Iran to essentially wage war on Israel, because or a lack of better term, they are still salty about a different religious group being on "their" land (and to be accurate, was technically taken from them, but it was because they were on the losing side of WW1)

But Iran cannot engage in war directly, as they would be seen as aggressors.

Israel on the other hand is forced into basically a lose/lose/lose situation. Its either suck it up and wait for Oct 7 part deux to happen, be genocided themselves if one state is implemented, or be seen as the bad guys in pushing further and further, hoping to take over enough land to make the former 2 not an issue.

> Israel is forced

Again, that’s bullshit. Nobody is forcing Israel to be an asshole to their neighbors. Israel was the victim in 1967, nearly 60 years. It’s not 1967 anymore. A universal rule of life is if you don’t want people to think of you as an asshole then start by not being an asshole, not with a bunch of excuses and sad equivocations.

I suspect Israel would try much harder to be less of a belligerent asshole if they were placed on a weapons embargo. Israel is often seen as the bad guy, because their actions make them the bad guy.

If Israel really didn’t want Iran to use the Palestinian people as a puppet they could solve the problem by not giving the Palestinian people cause to be puppets. For example, Iran would lose all political influence around Israel if Israel annexed the Palestinian people with rights, protections, and citizenship.

I really don’t think Israel wants this issue solved. I really think it’s about tribalism and conquest. That’s why I cannot see any difference between Israel/Palestine and Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. It’s all sociopathic tribalism with lots of military aggression against civilians while claiming to be victims.

>but how does that extend to the West Bank?

When your country history includes all of your surrounding neighbors going to war to try to exterminate you, and that sentiment hasn't changed, you are going to be probably very expansionist. Not that the west bank settlements are morally right and they certainly don't help the cause, but the actions are somewhat understandable.

>Again, that’s bullshit. Nobody is forcing Israel to be an asshole to their neighbors.

Oct 7th kinda is. Nothing really significant happened much other than minor land grabs in the West Bank and standard counter terrorism stuff with occasional rockets being launched by Hamas. Oct 7th highlighted the clear and present danger that still exists, where Hamas doesn't care about fighting a war and care more about killing non-muslims, civilians and military personnel alike.

> Israel is often seen as the bad guy, because their actions make them the bad guy.

Because most people who consume online media tend to only hear about the bad things Israel does. Goes back to the discussion about other genocides and how those are never talked. Like I said, the media narrative on this is insanely effective to make people polarized.

>Israel annexed the Palestinian people with rights, protections, and citizenship.

Try to be rational about this. The last thing they want is giving potential Hamas members or radical extremists free access to the country + citizenship. Majority of Palestinians are still pro Hamas.

>I really think it’s about tribalism and conquest.

Again, try to be rational. Is it tribalism, or do they just want a future where citizens don't have to worry about terrorist attacks or getting rocketed anymore? Its not like Israel never tried peaceful solutions - most all of them get shot down because Palestinians want "their" land back, or at the least in control of the majority of that region ("from the river to the sea") that puts Israel at a huge disadvantage and greater risks for attacks.

That’s exactly what Milosevic argued to justify attacking his neighbors. We have to get them before they get us

I am being rational and cannot imagine any justification for the complete eradication of Gaza or the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

If this is, after all, only about safety and security then why isn’t Israel annexing those people into citizenship? Rationally speaking it would eliminate most of the domestic threat simultaneously legally qualify the West Bank settlements. Again, it really appears Israel would rather have tribalism than security.

But more to the point you can’t claim to be rational while using terms like “the complete eradication of Gaza”. The population in Gaza has grown since the war started.

Meanwhile in southern Syria the Druze are actually being exterminated by self-proclaimed jihadis (and Palestinian “refugees”) and the whole world is turning a blind eye while Israel desperately tries to prevent a larger catastrophe. Now the Syrian Druze are requesting to be annexed by Israel and to be under IDF protection. You don’t care about Palestinians, you just hate Jews.

Everyone else in the world.

I can use terms like complete eradication. What percentage of buildings in Gaza remain in safe enough conditions for people to live in? The entire strip looks like a flattened dust pile.

Yes, killing civilians is bad regardless of their identity. It seems like you are trying to shift ground to something unrelated because you have nothing of actual substance.

Now how is the conduct by Israel not tribal warfare on a nearly genocidal scale?

“I declare bankruptcy!” -Michael Scott

The term genocide was specifically coined to refer to what happened to the Jews during WWII, its meaning doesn’t change to fit your bigoted opinions. There has not been a complete eradication of anyone or anything in Gaza but Jews and that happened back in 2005.

Haters gonna hate. But your hatred and vile rhetoric don’t make you right. Hopefully HN will be less welcoming to this sort of offensive attitude.

Here are your starving gazans: https://x.com/DocumentIsrael/status/1948045924099367359 they have fresh fruit that looks perfectly ripe… so interesting that no aid is getting in and yet somehow they’re holding fruit I sometimes have trouble finding in my supermarket here in the US…

Before that news article CNN independently analyzed video evidence of that events gunfire to determine it came from the IDF. Where is the lie?

Why are you ignoring the facts and supporting genocide?

As always the question is for you: why do you hate Jews so much? Why do you want all the Jews to be killed?

Just so we’re clear I showed an actual video of Hamas with fresh fruit, the UN just shared a video of literal tons of aid they’re refusing to distribute. you shared a paywalled article quoting an anonymous source with zero verification.

There's overwhelming proof of intentional starvation in Gaza, by multiple different sources -- sources that don't agree with each other on pretty much anything else, by the way. Every major news outlet in the planet is reporting the same thing, but in your evil, twisted, human-hating logic, all of them are wrong and only the openly fascist government of Israel is right because they say so.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-humanitarian-aid-1.759176...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/23/we-faced-hunge...

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/world/gallery/photos-starvati...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/23/more-than-100-ngos-...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/gaza-evidence...

https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-repo...

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165396

https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-situation-updat...

The UN has literal tons of food that they’re refusing to distribute. Hamas clearly has access to fresh fruit as recently as 2 days ago and yet they refuse to share any of it with their constituents. Egypt is refusing to allow anyone to leave Gaza as a refugee. When Israel and Trump proposed resettling the refugees temporarily until the war ended they were accused by you, the UN, and every single “humanitarian” org of ethnic cleansing.

Israel is not responsible for a problem they didn’t create, don’t want and are trying very hard to prevent and end. The only people responsible for this are the ones refusing to solve it unless it allows for a genocide of Jews.

The OP and you are both determined to only consider solutions that allow for further Arab colonization and may result in the death of millions of Jews. This is why I accuse you of genocide.

I will also add, Israel is not responsible for the health and welfare of even a single Gazan citizen, that responsibility falls on Hamas, so literally anything Israel does to help the gazan citizenry is already going above and beyond. If you have a problem with the welfare of Hamas’s constituents, take it up with them. Tell them to unconditionally surrender and return the kidnapped hostages. Instead of agitating for the wholesale slaughter of Jews.

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

That's all there is to it - pure propaganda. No data, no evidence, no science, just pure, unadulterated propaganda from half a century ago, still very much alive and kicking.

I wasn’t directly referencing that but it’s literally the strongest proof, data, evidence science that she was 10000% right. Stop defending monsters because you literally have no clue what you’re talking about.

Most gazans very clearly would rather the war continue bec they get free food and the possibility to kill Jews.

> most gazans[sic] were attempting to lynch the hostages.

I hope this gets you banned from HN.

Here in America we call that a lynch mob.

Maybe you should stop with the bigotry apologism.

> most gazans[sic] were attempting to lynch the hostages.

This is a lie, and its worse, it is a genocidal lie. Most Palestinians in Gaza were at home, at work, or in school, with varying support and opposition for these actions. You are doing racist generalization over a whole population who are currently victims of an ongoing genocide. What you are doing here is inhumane and disgusting. If you are only banned for this behavior you are getting off lightly. Propagandizing a genocide is banned by law in most jurisdiction and in a just world you would face legal consequences for this.

Consider that your own personal feelings are preventing you from observing reality from an unbiased perspective. You seem to go around inserting yourself into old comment threads about Israel calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you racist and genocidal. Please calm down. Just because I don’t hate Jews it doesn’t make me genocidal. In fact it’s very much the opposite, I’m anti genocide. You appear to be in support of genocide with your false claims that Jews are genocidal.

I know I am not following the HN guidelines over here, and that my behavior in searching for mentions of Israel and calling people out for their worst speech is neither healthy nor helpful. But what you are doing here is spreading genocidal rhetoric, racism, propaganda and hate is far worse. The post which I replied to is far from your worst offense. And you seem to be getting more radicalized and racist in your posts as the genocide continues. I don‘t think you can recover from your hateful beliefs at this point, and I don‘t think there is a point in talking you out of it. So my only hope is that you will be stripped of opportunities from distributing your genocidal hate on platforms like HN.

This type of rhetoric is not only historically rooted in prejudice, but it also fuels the rise in antisemitic incidents around the world. For example, a recent incident involving a group of Jewish French children being racially targeted and removed from a flight, based on completely fabricated claims that contradict eyewitness testimony, is a chilling reminder of where this kind of hostility leads. These children were interrogated about their ties to Israel, simply because they were visibly Jewish. The Spanish foreign minister then added to the fire by asking if the Spanish people would be patriotic or believe evil Israeli zionists, (again these were French Jews many of whom had never been to Israel.) echoing the Dreyfus affair and other blood libels.

You spreading completely, provably false claims of genocide and violence doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It emboldens bigots and reinforces the belief that Jews, wherever they are, are somehow deserving of suspicion or punishment for existing.

Many people hate Israel not because of any policy disagreement, but because it represents one of the few places where Jews feel they have agency and safety in a world that has repeatedly failed to protect them. That safety, unfortunately, is what some find threatening.

Nothing I’ve said promotes hate or genocide, quite the opposite. My concern is with protecting people from the real harm that comes from false accusations and malicious stereotypes. It’s important to recognize when the line between legitimate criticism and dangerous rhetoric has been crossed, and to speak up when it happens.

That is what I am doing. Denying the Gaza Genocide (which is still ongoing as of today) is dangerous and hateful rhetoric, and I am calling you out on it. You have also demonstrated anti-Palestinian hate and anti-Palestinian racism in a more broader sense. I don‘t think you will stop doing that until you are banned.

Note that I am talking about you specifically, not any ethno-religious group you belong to. Whatever you are doing has no implication on your ethno-religious group as a whole.

EDIT: For the record, human rights group inside Israel even call this a genocide. There is only one reason for your genocide denial, and that reason is grounded in hate towards the group who are victims of genocide. And I am really disappointed in HN for allowing this kind of extreme rhetoric to persist here.

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2025/7/28/israeli-r...

Said by someone openly defending what is universally understood as genocide (Gaza) and colonization (West Bank). Peak doublethink. Peak evil.

So when the US government repeatedly calls the Russian invasion of Ukraine illegal, you are saying they are wrong, right?

"Two years ago, Russian forces launched an illegal and indefensible all-out invasion of Ukraine"

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/368495...

Obviously Russia is wrong on a moral level for invading its neighbor but legality doesn’t enter into the conversation.

For example the current US ambassador to Israel just announced that France will be partitioned into two states, one for France and one for Palestine, France isn’t bound by that.

In Israel case, its "we have to get them so they don't get us again". Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Not sure why you haven't bothered to read the rest of my comment as I addressed your two other points.

But, let’s make this even less difficult. Is the goal here security or dominance? Security suggests reducing hostilities but dominance suggests removing a group of people from an area of land. I really don’t see any reduction of hostilities.

Because the biggest world superpower that claims to be all about "freedom" is the sponsor of this one, not a rogue, sanctioned state somewhere