I Can't Sleep

I'm interested in knowing more about both sides. OP has given a bunch of links in the article (almost in every sentence). Could you point out which assertions of OP are biased?

I will reply mainly to your point (2) first, as I see it often repeated.

> Israel for years had the means to completely exterminate Gaza many times over, but they never did

In a theoretical sense that Israel had the means to, sure. But in practice, Israel couldn't really do that without disastrous consequences to itself, could it? Having protection and support from major powers, like the UK and USA, has been a lifeline for Israel ever since its creation. If US stopped using its veto power to protect Israel within the UN Security Council, it would have been under heavy sanctions for a very long time now, and its prosperity and perhaps even existence would be under serious question (see [1] and [2]). If US stopped providing military funding and arms support to Israel, it would seriously impede its ability to wage war. If those same powers were not helping its defenses (either directly or via deterrence) against the many enemies it has historically had in the region (it has basically no neighbouring country that it is in good relations with), it is doubtful that it would still have existed to this day. The governments of the countries protecting Israel would not be able to keep doing that if Israel made a move so radical such as large-scale extermination of Palestinians in a post-WW2 world that does not look fondly on genocide. So no, they do not have the means to completely exterminate citizens of Gaza in practice.

And even if Israel had both the means and the freedom to completely exterminate Gazans yet chose not to do it, does NOT committing something so obviously atrocious provide any justification for doing other kinds of atrocities that most people would categorize as less severe? I strongly argue that it does not. To use a silly analogy, someone who stole a significant chunk of your money from you does not deserve praise for not stealing all of it just because they theoretically had the means to. They have still done you injustice, inflicted harm, and deserve condemnation. No one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism.

About your point (1), the reactionary expulsion of jewish citizens of the neighbouring states in the post-Palestinian-ethnic-cleansing-of-48 world [3] is also a tragedy that also deserves condemnation. It is not the current burning issue, however, while Gazans are being bombed and starved to death as we speak, which is why there are so many people talking about Gaza right now and not about that. Nevertheless, I would not want to stop anyone from talking about it, as again, no one should be free from criticism when they commit acts that deserve criticism, and I welcome anyone with time and motivation to open topics about it. This current topic here, however, deserves full attention of its own without whataboutism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut...

[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/43-times-us-has-used-veto...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...

I've become very concerned lately with the censorship on hacker news.

The only way I found this page was by attempting to post the url.

It's been essentially banished from the site, without even a comment on this thread about what happened or why.

If we are going to censor things, this should be a transparent process not a covert activity where people don't even know they have been censored.

The entire article seems quite biased. Using footnotes after every sentence doesn't necessarily indicate a well-researched piece. I won't delve into recent events due to the challenges posed by the fog of war effect. A clearer example of Paul's bias is his choice of quotes regarding past events.

In reference [19], discussing the April 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, Paul presents the following quote:

"Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed, and then slaughtered by automatic firing and survivors have told of even more incredible bestialities. Those who were taken prisoners were treated with degrading brutality."

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-211346/

This quote originates from a UN report just 11 days after the event, posing two critical issues: firstly, insufficient time for a thorough investigation; secondly, an erroneous casualty count of 250, later revised through subsequent investigations to a total of 107, inclusive of non-civilian casualties.

Furthermore, there's a significant omission. The Deir Yassin events didn't occur in isolation; they were part of a broader context — a battle during the Arab-Jewish civil war, where Jewish militias aimed to break the blockade of Jerusalem enforced by Arab militias.

The Deir Yassin incident has undergone extensive scrutiny, exemplified in Eliezer Tauber's book.

https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-That-Never-Was/dp/1592645437

> This quote originates from a UN report just 11 days after the event, posing two critical issues: firstly, insufficient time for a thorough investigation

There is no reason to not trust first-hand testimonies (see also: believe all women). Of course, investigations did happen, which are a matter of public record, but the circumstances were such that it is hard to prove one way or the other definitively. So, the denials will happen regardless.

> The Deir Yassin events didn't occur in isolation; they were part of a broader context

It is almost like you're defending 7 Oct.

  Israeli historian Benny Morris said the militias "ransacked unscrupulously, stole money and jewels from the survivors and burned the bodies. Even dismemberment and rape occurred."

Btw, the perpetrators of the massacre (Lehi & Irgun) you seem eager to defend were abhorred as fascists by the very people they were sworn to protect. Even those who took part in the massacre, like Amos Kenan, couldn't come to terms with it: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/lover-of-the-coun...