‘I witnessed war crimes’ in Gaza – former worker at GHF aid site [video]

Post by rendall » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 10:25 PM UTC

mjamil wrote: post #115

rendall wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate and notable that whenever Israel hits the front page of HN and avoids getting flagged, the perspective is reliably anti-Israel. It's worth recalling that confirmation bias, which we’re all prone to, kicks in hard on this topic. We are all subject to the tendency to notice and remember things that back up what we already believe, while tuning out anything that contradicts it. With Israel, that often m…

Have you considered that your framing exposes implicit bias? It breaks posts down in a binary (pro- or anti-Israel) formation. It’s not that simple. One can be deeply sympathetic to the millenia-long suffering of the Jewish people and even want them to have a homeland, and yet believe that Israelis are largely unconcerned with the welfare of Palestinian civilians. It’s also reasonable at this point to believe that Is…

Post by burnt-resistor » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #72

crystal_revenge wrote: post #17

As someone who went to US high school in the 90s, a good 1/3 of our curriculum seemed to be "never again" studies of the holocaust and other genocides throughout history. Which makes it completely incomprehensible to me that suddenly "don't talk about genocide" has become the basically law. What's worse is I actually feel openly saying "I don't support this genocide and I'm critical of the state committing it" is a r…

For progressive, educated people, Holocaust education was a double-edged sword. It made us keenly aware that the belief in the need for the existence of a Jewish state came from centuries of European Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust. Therefore, when Israel justified its actions as defense against an existential threat, I think Europeans and American descendants of Europeans felt very nervous about…

Post by School-Cotton » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 10:27 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #143

fuck_AI wrote: post #12

Three words - Boycott, Divest, Sanction. If BDS didn't work, they wouldn't be trying to ban it.

I agree with the means, one has to but economic pressure on Israel, but the BDS movement holds some non-viable positions.

Post by rightbyte » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 10:30 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #162

mjamil wrote: post #156

The UN definition is quoted here: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction…

Israel is not an occupying power in Gaza, but rather a warring power. And Article 23 of the 4th Geneva Convention says: ".... are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination," i.e. if the warring party believes the supplies will be diverted they have no obligation to supply them. And that's what is going on here.

Post by burnt-resistor » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 10:33 PM UTC

throwway120385 wrote: post #87

dkarl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For progressive, educated people, Holocaust education was a double-edged sword. It made us keenly aware that the belief in the need for the existence of a Jewish state came from centuries of European Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust. Therefore, when Israel justified its actions as defense against an existential threat, I think Europeans and American descendants of Europeans felt very nervous about…

For a while people would label arguments against Israel as being against the Jewish people or the Jewish faith. That is, decrying how Gaza and the West Bank were formed were seen as anti-semitic arguments. It was essentially an argument that Israel is Judaism. Whereas mature people can usually argue against a behavior without arguing against a person or a group of people.