| |
| ▲ | dlubarov 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The UN has described their actions as genocide. It wasn't a UNSCR resolution or anything, but three individual UN employees whose credibility is debatable. UN employees is a broad category that includes terrorists such as Faisal Ali Musalam Naami. | | |
| ▲ | lossolo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Since 16–17 September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (created by the Human Rights Council) has issued a formal report concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That’s a UN investigative mechanism with an official report and UN press release, not a couple of random staffers. Besides that the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory (an independent mandate holder) reported in March 2024 that there are reasonable grounds the genocide threshold was met. And the International Court of Justice (the UN’s principal judicial organ) ordered provisional measures on 26 January 2024 because at least some rights under the Genocide Convention were plausibly at risk, orders it reinforced in May 2024. You can disagree with these bodies, but they’re real UN mechanisms and courts, not "three employees". And as to Faisal Ali, separate independent review (the Colonna report) found Israel had not provided evidence of widespread militant infiltration across UNRWA’s workforce. Isolated criminality by individuals doesn’t erase findings by UN investigative mechanisms or the ICJ. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/unrwa_claims_vs_fa... https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-review-israel-hasnt-prov... https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/t... | | |
| ▲ | dlubarov 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's an independent commission of inquiry making a report to the HRC. The commission could have reported that the moon is made of cheese, and the HRC wouldn't be able to do much about it, other than politely suggesting that they consider a revision. Even if HRC did have some kind of oversight, current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example. > UN press release Again "UN" is imprecise; the press release (at least the one I saw) was by OHCHR. Another of their press releases described Israel's hostage rescue operation as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces". > the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory Who has been accused of antisemitism by several countries, and is currently under US sanctions. > widespread militant infiltration I wasn't claiming this. | | |
| ▲ | lossolo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The COI issued a 70+ page legal analysis and a formal OHCHR press release summarizing its conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You can dislike the HRC, but the COI is a UN mandated investigative mechanism with its own methodology and evidentiary standards. > "UN" is imprecise Fair, but OHCHR hosting a press release doesn’t mean "just staff opinion". OHCHR is the Secretariat for HRC mechanisms, it publishes COI materials. The COI reports to the HRC but operates independently under UN rules for commissions of inquiry. These bodies are designed to feed into accountability processes (state action, sanctions and courts), which is why states and tribunals cite them. > current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example. Yes, membership is political, members are elected by the UN General Assembly but that doesn’t erase the COI’s evidentiary record. And the genocide question isn’t hanging only on the HRC, the International Court of Justice (a separate UN organ) has issued multiple provisional measures orders in South Africa vs Israel, finding Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention plausible and ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, ensure aid and (on 24 May 2024) halt the Rafah offensive. Those are court orders, not HRC opinions. > "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces". That phrasing came from a joint statement by UN human rights experts (Special Procedures mandate holders) about the 8 June 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, they were independent experts, not the High Commissioner personally or "the UN as a whole". They don’t bind the UN system, but their statements are part of the record governments consider. > Who is currently sanctioned by the US for her antisemitism. Judges from ICC are also sanctioned by US, almost anyone being critical about Israel is either condemned, called antisemitic or sanctioned by either US or Israel. I would like to remind you that US (alone) vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions. And US is isolated relative to most of the world (these below are only the ones I found from the last 3 years, there could be more): UN General Assembly, Dec 12–13, 2023: "Immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza passed 153–10–23. US voted against, with a tiny minority of 9 other countries (Israel and some irrelevant little islands). UN General Assembly, May 10, 2024: Resolution ES-10/23 upgraded Palestine’s participation rights and urged the Security Council to admit Palestine. It passed 143-9-25. US opposed and then vetoed the related Security Council membership bid on April 18, 2024. Jun 12, 2025 Emergency Special Session (ES-10): A/RES/ES-10/27
149-12-19 in favor. Demanded an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, unhindered aid access, respect for IHL and protection of UN/NGO workers. The UK and many EU states voted yes, US voted no. Sep 12-13, 2025 Regular session: "New York Declaration" on a two state pathway
142-10-12 in favor. Endorsed a two state framework that condemns Hamas and envisages a PA led governance track (so "Hamas free"). US and Israel were among the 10 no votes. There is an obvious pattern here. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | guizmo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't punish Israel by giving a victory to Hamas. You punish the next victim of terrorism after you recognized that it works to make you obey. If killing as many palestinians as possible was the intention of the Israel military, they wouldn't need to go into Gaza city, they would bomb it without sending troops on the ground. The only reason for going on the ground and losing soldiers is to go dig out the Hamas. Having the intention of annihilating Hamas isn't genocidal. | | |
| ▲ | lossolo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your whole argument is a copy paste from Isreal propaganda. They didn’t "give Hamas a victory", recognition is about Palestinians right to self determination and about rescuing a two state horizon that successive Israeli governments have all but buried. That’s exactly how the UK, Australia, and Canada framed it today: "recognition is tied to 1967 borders, a reformed, non Hamas Palestinian government, and reviving a political track", not rewarding terrorism. And no, this isn’t "ignoring Hamas". The ICC has warrants for Hamas figures and also for Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes during this war. You can reject the court, but the warrants exist and were recently upheld against attempts to quash them. That reflects how the law sees both sides’ conduct, not some applause for Hamas. Saying Israel "must" be acting humanely because it risked troops on the ground doesn’t answer the core allegations. International law doesn’t turn on whether an army also undertakes ground ops, it turns on starvation of civilians, collective punishment, disproportionate strikes and incitement. Those are precisely among the acts the ICC cites (starvation as a method of warfare), and why so many governments now insist the political endgame can’t be left to military force alone. If you want to deter terrorism, you need a credible political alternative that isolates militants rather than letting them claim they’re the only ones "delivering results". Recognition (explicitly conditioned on PA reform and excluding Hamas from governance)does that, it empowers non Hamas Palestinian institutions and puts real stakes on the table for a negotiated peace. That’s not "punishing Israel", it’s trying to prevent the next October 7 and the ongoing mass devastation in Gaza by giving both peoples a political path out. So recognizing Palestine now isn’t capitulation to Hamas, it’s an attempt to stop a cycle of atrocities that law, courts, and most of the world already recognize as intolerable and to anchor a two state outcome in something more than wishful thinking. | | |
| ▲ | guizmo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're arguing as if the debate was about the UK formalizing its intentions to recognize a palestinian transition government that would recognize Israel. It isn't. Otherwise we would probably not have as strong a disagreement. My disagreement is on the recognition itself at this moment in time, with Hamas still being the strongest military and political force in what could be a Palestinian state in the future. The conditions are not met, but the recognition is already formalized. Is the plan to rescind the recognition if the PLO don't act or isn't in capacity to act on its promises? I think it effectively rewards Hamas actions on October 7th even if it isn't the intended purpose. And when I say that I think it will encourage terrorism, I don't mean only in Israel but in the world. That might well be a possible way out for Israel as you say, but I believe it will become the strongest success for a terrorist organization in a very long time and give ideas to other faction worldwide, especially among jihadists. | | |
| ▲ | lossolo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | They recognized a state, not Hamas. All three governments paired recognition with language that explicitly excludes Hamas from any governing role and ties the path forward to PA reform, elections, and 1967 based parameters. Canada spelled out elections in 2026 with Hamas barred and a demilitarized Palestinian state, Australia said plainly "Hamas must have no role in Palestine" the UK framed recognition inside a two state horizon and negotiations, not as an endorsement of whoever currently wields guns in Gaza. You can recognize a state while withholding recognition and cooperation from a particular authority. That’s what’s happening here: political recognition to salvage a two state outcome while keeping Hamas proscribed and sanctioned. The UK, Australia and Canada continue to list/designate Hamas as a terrorist organization and maintain sanctions, nothing about these decisions lifted that status. > If conditions aren’t met, what leverage remains? Plenty. Recognition can be followed by conditional steps (embassies, treaties, budget support, security cooperation) that only move if reforms happen so exactly what Canada, UK and Australia are signaling by tying recognition to PA reform, elections, demilitarization and negotiated borders. If those benchmarks stall, governments can freeze high level engagement, funding and agreements without "rescinding" recognition. The point is to separate Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fortunes, not fuse them. It’s an attempt to take the oxygen out of their narrative by decoupling Palestinian statehood from Hamas’s fate and putting the burden on reformed, elected, non Hamas institutions to represent Palestinians. If that path advances, Hamas loses relevance. And as I already mentioned, if it stalls, the recognition still strengthens the legal/political basis for a negotiated two state endgame instead of leaving the field to endless war and maximalists on both sides. | | |
| ▲ | guizmo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's very fortunate that they didn't change from being Israel allies to Hamas allies. However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel. The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...). You made the best case that I read so far on a recognition though from a diplomatic point of view. I just think it's wishful thinking given the force in presence in the palestinian society, and that it evacuate too casually the optics of a recognition before any condition is met, which will be seen as an unconditional recognition by many (most?) people. What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example? Not exactly an implausible scenario given the relatively recent history. | | |
| ▲ | lossolo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I get the optics point but the policy substance is narrower than the headline and there are ways to keep it from becoming the "unconditional victory" you’re worried about. Recognition is not equal to a blank check. > The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...). Some will. But policymaking can’t be held hostage to who posts what on Telegram. The question is whether the net effect shrinks Hamas’s political space so give non Hamas Palestinians a credible horizon and resources only if they meet benchmarks that Hamas refuses. That’s how you break the militants monopoly on results. > However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel. Because the last 30 years show waiting for perfect conditions just entrenches the status quo. Recognition now creates a legal/political anchor (Palestine exists in principle), while the capacity to exercise that sovereignty is earned. It flips the incentive so reformers can tell their own street, "we can actually deliver borders/freedom if we keep Hamas out and meet X, Y, Z..." > What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example? Then you haven’t "rewarded" terrorism, you’ve precommitted the world to a two state endgame while keeping teeth so you freeze benefits, tighten sanctions and preserve the political baseline for the day spoilers weaken. That’s still better than the current loop where only hardliners can claim momentum. So I’m not hand waving the risks. I’m arguing that recognition + hard conditionality + security guardrails gives you a strategy, not a hope. It separates Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fate, creates leverage over the PA and builds a path where spoilers lose material advantages the moment they act like spoilers. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You punish the next victim of terrorism We already do that supporting Israeli doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine It's time for the cycle of violence to stop, on both sides. Israel is consciously escalating the conflict to preclude the possibility of peaceful reconciliation. You can't even deny it; Israel built Hamas to kill Palestine. |
|
|
