| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | slg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Israel's response was very similar to the US's response to 9/11. 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists (a smaller percentage of the population than Israelis killed on 10/7) and as a response the US started two wars killing at least 100 times as many Afghans and Iraqis (there are lots of debates about the total casualties there too just like Gaza). This is not a defense of Israel, just a fact that seemingly is never part of the conversation that I think can help people better understand why this is happening. |
| |
| ▲ | LightBug1 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tens of millions protested the US response. Today they still spit to the side when having to say the name George Bush or Tony Blair, among others. You either weren't there, have a bad memory, are watching typically mainstream new sources, or are willfully ignoring the voices that are having that conversation today. Many of the ills today can be traced back to powers grabbed at the time to assist that so-called "war on terror". | | |
| ▲ | slg an hour ago | parent [-] | | I genuinely don't know what distinction you're trying to make here. Do you think there aren't equivalent protests in Israel? There were minorities in both countries that opposed these responses from the beginning and those responses generally became more unpopular as time went on just like the men who spearheaded them, but a majority of both countries were initially supportive. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | abdelhousni 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You forgot eighty years of occupation, cultural , economical and ethnical cleansing of the local indigenous people called Palestinians with help of US and Western countries mainly. |
| |
| ▲ | slg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >the local indigenous people called Palestinians While you have a valid point overall, I always hate this specific phrasing because it's either ignorant of history or implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. And if it is the latter, you're actively being counterproductive to the cause because that is telling the Israelis that the land will be morally theirs if they can hold it for enough generations thereby encouraging continued occupation. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > implies there is a statute of limitations on being indigenous. Is there not? I’m pretty sure every tribe that’s considered indigenous now at any place has replaced some other group that lived there before them. | | |
| ▲ | defrost an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not clear, and unlikely in Australia. * https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high... * https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s... This recent genetic based view replaces the "gut feeling" view akin to yours that was long pushed by Quadrant et al. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle an hour ago | parent [-] | | But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? They might all come from the same people that came to Australia first, but that doesn’t mean they are native to the place they currently live in. If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe, who gets the land now? And how do you settle that without some arbitrary statute of limitations? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > But surely, the different tribes in Australia also moved around and replaced each other? Read article, chase up the papers, evidence says "no". The Tasmanians and the Noongars (Southern most to east, southern most to west) have genetically been in place a long time and had no one to replace. The article mentions "genetic diversity" between east, west, centre, north, south, etc - that comes from not mixing. "But surely..." <-- gut feelings? You should joinn Quadrant. > If a tribe moved from southern Australia to the north and replaced another tribe Do you have any evidence of that? > who gets the land now? There's a wealth of material on Mabo, Land rights, Native title, et al that address all that - if you're generally curious it's there to read. eg: starting with, say https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case |
|
| |
| ▲ | slg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you take the view of history that the ability to forcibly drive other people off their land grants the new inhabitants a valid claim to that land, then Israel's actions are only objectionable because they are happening now rather than in the history books. It's inherently a doctrine of might is right, and the Israelis are mightier than the Palestinians at this current moment in history. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Right, but at least historically, what alternative is there? You can’t really unroll thousands of years of human history and make everyone go back to where their ancestors came from (even just because people ended up mixing after colonizing other places), so you have to take some state as the correct one and then condemn every change after that (or just let everyone do whatever they want). Otherwise, how would you decide who gets which part of the world? | | |
| ▲ | slg 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Which is exactly why this area has been in conflict for millennia. Many different groups have valid claims to the area being their historic homeland. Dubbing one single group as "indigenous" is a refutation of all the other people's historical claims on that land and it means all the Israelis have to do is wait out this conflict until it becomes "history" and the Palestinians lose that "indigenous" label. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pojzon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This will be the case tho. US big brother will make sure to protect its little “older” brother. Hilarious as it sounds. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway27448 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can call hamas whatever you'd like, but it's certainly not hamas doing most of the terrorizing in palestine.... |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am entirely behind this take. |
|
| ▲ | bdhe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > and it quickly grew beyond any reason Why did it quickly grow? |
| |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because of literally years of terrorist acts from Hamas? Because the action initially had overwhelming public support? Because, as any military action without proper planning, they promised a quick victory and had no plans beyond "bomb, bomb, bomb"? And had no plans for "what do we do if we don't succeed"? For an exactly same "military action with no planning but a lot of bravado" scenario see Russia's invasion into Ukraine. | | |
| ▲ | baq 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Consider the possibility that “bomb bomb bomb” was the entire and only point of the exercise. |
| |
| ▲ | sophacles 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because there were children to starve. Brown children. |
|
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hamas is a terror organisation funded, and quite possibly created, by far-right nationalist elements in the Israeli government to weaken the Palestinian authority and create a pretext for the occupation of Gaza. Netanyahu is on the record funnelling money through Qatar. He said it was for "humanitarian aid" - which would be more credible if it wasn't such an extraordinary and unusual outbreak of concern for Palestinian wellbeing. The occupation is straight out genocide, labelled as such by many Israeli scholars, as well as most of Rest of World. This level of barbarism and entitlement has no place on a civilised planet. |
| |
| ▲ | tartoran 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We should stop using this term terror/terrorist, it's lost any meaning. If Hamas are terrorists because they're terrorizing Israeli population then so are Israelis' IDF or whatever force kills other country's population. And the list extends beyond that. To paint a resisting force/army as terrorists is just charged language to emotionally manipulate and pollute discourse. It would be more useful to put in balance what each side is fighting for. | | |
| ▲ | km3r an hour ago | parent [-] | | Terrorism has a simple definition: using force against civilian life to further ones goals. Target a music festival with no military value: terrorism. Blow up a building because hamas has a tunnel under there: not terrorism. If the military value gained is disproportionate to the civilian cost, it is a war crime. But still not terrorism. | | |
| ▲ | tartoran 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Terrorism has a simple definition: using force against civilian life to further ones goals. Not disagreeing with the definition but this is what both sides have been doing. Look, blowing up aid workers, which is in question in this article, is also terrorism. Killing unarmed civilians, kids, etc is also terrorist. Also if you you use your definition for what Israel has been doing in the last 70-80 years it makes them terrorists as well, the word is simply meaningless at this point. | | |
| ▲ | km3r 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What political/ideological goal does attacking the aid workers move forward? It's a war crime, no doubt, but terrorism has a meaning that doesn't include all war crimes. > Killing unarmed civilians, kids, etc is also terrorist. The vast majority of lethal force actions in Gaza are targeting Hamas operations. Civilians getting killed by those strikes is NOT terrorism. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | guerrilla 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You didn't actually address the actual point. Israel and it's defenders have been lying about the death toll this entire time and Hamas was not. > - Israel's response was hasty, unplanned, purely driven by emotion at the beginning, and it quickly grew beyond any reason in the next weeks. This is also an extreme understatement. It's literally a genocide. |
| |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | yosamino 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | here you go: > The Israel Defense Forces believes that the Hamas-run health ministry’s death toll from the war in the Gaza Strip has been largely accurate, a senior Israeli military official acknowledged on Thursday. https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-believes-70000-gazans-kill... IDF claims 2/3 to 3/4 of killed are civilians. Now add in that around half of the population of Gaza is under 18 and also that half the population is female. I know that I will not convince you, you are a person who thinks "lol" is adequate terminology when discussing the killing of humans, but you also don't get to lie about things on the internet that even the party you support does not lie about. Please try and adhere to the standard of conversation that all of us on HN are trying have to elevate our discussion. Read it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | |
| ▲ | guerrilla 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The evidence that their numbers were accurate was just presented to you in this very thread. | |
| ▲ | cholantesh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I take it that literally every NGO in this space and genocide scholars are all in on the lie? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | baq 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > - Israel's response was hasty, unplanned, purely driven by emotion at the beginning, You’re being generous. There’s zero chance Israel didn’t know it’d happen and it let it happen anyway. The one country which all but brags about tying off loose ends. |
