In this seemingly forever argument, it seems there is some nuance in that Palestine is not Hamas and vice versa. One of the perspectives as I understand it is that Hamas is actually a threat to the existence of Palestine; the militaristic behaviour undermines Palestinian efforts at independence (and this is an avenue for exploitation by those who don't want to see an independent Palestine).

It is a similar situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

You can argue that the government of Israel isn't the will of the people of Israel (in the same way the US government isn't the will of the people of the US), but in my opinion there's more of a separation between 'Palestine' and 'Hamas' than there is between 'Israel' and 'the will of the people of Israel'.

There's a lot of wrongdoing, which means there are a lot of innocents being harmed, and the harming of innocents is the greatest wrongdoing. Harm by inaction is also wrong. Harm by preventing aid and assistance is also wrong.

None of this stuff is easily answered.

The joys of ideology, or maybe more correctly, the joys of living amongst those who take ideology so seriously that they attempt to enforce their fantasies upon the real world.

In my personal logic bubble: Protesting in support of Palestine is not protesting in support of Hamas. Declaring support for Israel is protesting against Hamas and their acts of terrorism against Israel. I can do both of these things without being hypocritical (like I said, in my personal logic bubble).

I saw someone post this was due to H1B visas. Then I drilled into the comments and saw it was a Palestine protest. It is getting hard to know what is true anymore as everyone is trying to push their own narrative.

Aww, does that mean we won't get to see whether he could avoid getting booed when he inevitably mentions AI?

If only there weren't so many reasons.

It does not.

Which part of the title indicates that everyone walked out? I assumed it was merely some of the cohort.

There's not much good to remember them by for the past decade they have been implementing a global panopticon system etc.

At least in the 1990s and 2000s it felt they were doing some good stuff for humanity. But the 2010s and 2020s the masked pretty much slipped.

I think you underestimate what the human attention span has become.

I wonder which spectrum Steve Jobs would be on if he was still alive to this day.

That is a bold prediction

There's two opposing forces at work. Everyone wants to be Steve Jobs, and no one wants to be Steve Ballmer. So the only choice is to go to the extreme to stay as far away from the other end as possible.

No chance. Have you seen the stock price lately?

He ruined Google, started by shattering the culture into a million pieces. He has negative charisma and no imagination. He was best as a mid level manager.

Unless the people who shout “Free Palestine” are part of the Knesset or Hamas, I don’t think their offering of a “concrete realistic solution” matters one bit.

How can a solution ever be realistic, if on the other side you have: (1) Israel and its "we are the victims!" citizens, (2) Israel's military, bombing civilians, while they are trying to get to humanitarian aid, oh and journalists, especially, when they are coordinating with Israeli military to supposedly avoid being targeted, oh and whole news agency buildings, when they negatively report on what Israel is doing (3) Netanyahu, who starts one conflict after another, to stay in power, (4) Zionists, most of who are maximalist in their ideas about what land they want to possess, and assign a value of approximately zero to the lives of other human beings, nearing a racist ideology of "master race"?

(5) There are also complete idiotic and anti-semitic forces on the other side, who demand Israel to completely disappear.

What solution will be accepted as realistic by multiple sides of this conflict and acceptable enough for most sides to get everyone back to the negotiations table?

I have a very unrealistic idea about what should happen, which is directly opposed to factors (1) to (4):

Israel needs to return all stolen land and return to internationally recognized borders as a first step of showing good will. Israel needs to prosecute its own military personell for war crimes and for supporting armed mobs chasing people out of their own houses in the West Bank. Netanyahu and his gang need to be brought to Den Hague, and be put in front of the International Criminal Court. This is just the base justice level.

On the other side Hamas needs to disarm at least in majority. No more rockets launched. Also no more rockets launched from Hezbolla etc. Is the hostages situation still ongoing? Of course they need to be returned, if any still actually alive.

Next, Israel starts financing rebuilding efforts in Palestine.

Sounds realistic? Probably not, but that would at least be somewhat fair. Just not gonna happen with a US-supported dictator and his gang on one side and a guerilla militia on the other side.

Maybe the point is, that "realistic" probably != fair, and that is extremely painful. Maybe the point is, that fairness can only be achieved via a lengthy decades long process of first getting the weapons to cool down, and then holding all parties responsible at international courts. But guess what, Israel would never consent to be judged, because they do whatever the f they want.

Maybe the shouts are less about "hey I have a concrete solution for a complex hundred year old ethnical problem" and more about "hey an authoritarian state shouldn't be allowed genocide of 100k civilians, or at least my state should not support them with weapons". Protests are about immediate action, solutions happen over long time, if ever.

Let's start by Israel no longer committing a genocide on the Palestinians and go from there.

Most "free Palestine" protestors probably don't care an awful lot about the final outcome of the conflict, they just want the mass killing of innocent people to stop.

There's a reason the movement only flared up when Israel started carpet bombing Gaza, and not during the mostly-quiet years before.

It's a fashion statement for some people I've found. Like the Anarchy symbol on a T-Shirt. I've run in to people with such a hard line opinion on the matter who couldn't even point to where Palestine is a on a map.

Free Palestine simply means a sovereign Palestinian state separate from Israel, which Israel has rejected many times over the years, most recently in the Knesset vote in February and July 2024, opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. Any time there was outside attempts to recognize Palestine as a state (e.g. through UN efforts) Israel responded with building more settlements in the West Bank.

It's performance for social standing. They don't actually care.

I'm very uninformed but could "free Palestine" not mean a two state solution?

It would be a petty gotcha with little meaning, more than interesting.

Not me. I always enjoy a nice opportunity to nap in front of a large crowd.

Disabled in the sense they get more time to take tests.

It was a commencement speech. Here's a transcript: https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/s...

So funny how a site called "Hacker News," once vibrant with the ethos of lighthearted disobedience and an inquisitive spirit, finds itself almost religiously in opposition to those who decry a (horrendously incompetent) dystopia and panopticon forced upon the population by the very forces this website's (former, I'm assuming) users claimed to hate so much.