311–320 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we expect any desirable outcome in this hypothetical though? So the US flips, Israel is pressured into withdrawing, Hamas regains control of the strip and resumes rocket attacks, Israel is forced to respond eventually. It doesn't seem like a path toward a real solution.
Israel needs to take a more precise approach to getting rid of Hamas.
This is not tech related and does not belong on hacker news
I find it interesting and worth talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One party had a long leash. The other cut the leash and yelled attaboy. Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed.
Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be? They're the leaders of a terrorist organization. The US takes out terrorists wherever they may be (or, works with local authorities to get them first). But, when local authorities are siding with the terrorists, we go in there and do it ourselves. October 7th was Israel's 9/11 - we went and got bin Laden in Pakistan, without dealing with the Pakistani gov…
You're trying to fight an organization that is part of the civilian population, not above it or outside of it. And that organization is deliberately using human shields to blur the lines even further.
It's not easy to figure out who's a random Palestinian or who's going to fire a rocket into Israel five years from now. If we want to keep bombing our way to victory, that's going to continue down the road of genocide.
Humanity needs to be better than this. We need to be better than this.
I for one will be holding my representatives responsible who continue to vote for the US to enable a genocide. The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
Consider that the videos of Oct 7 had a similar effect on lots of decent people. The un is the same now as it was before October 7. In gueterres words "it didn't happen in a vacuum". The complete loss of credibility for the un also didn't happen in a vacuum. Even if their report is true it will fall on deaf ears thanks in no small part to their lack of any sort of objectivity when it comes to Israel.
I learned a very uncomfortable—though valuable—lesson about humans that day.
Title: Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza Reality: The report was written by a 3 person UNHRC commission, which itself is seated by Ethiopia, Congo, Sudan, and Qatar.
I'm sorry but Qatar is part of neutral commission? Israel just bombed them. It was a bad for Israel to do, but this isn't "third-party."
Title: Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza Reality: The report was written by a 3 person UNHRC commission, which itself is seated by Ethiopia, Congo, Sudan, and Qatar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the rules haven't changed—they've been the same for many years. Let me try to dig up some past explanations. Edit: here's one from a few months ago, which covers the principles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43738815 . Re how we approach political topics (or political overlap) on HN in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Re how we deal with Major Ongoing Topics, i.e. to…
Looking at the official HN guidelines, it states that "Most stories about politics" is off-topic , and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic ". Is the Isreal/Gaza debate not political, and not mainstream news? How does a story like this not directly violate those guidelines? Furthermore, the guidelines state that stories should be what "good hackers" find "intellectually satisfying". A political deb…
Personally, one aspect I always enjoyed about this site was how it was often an escape for me from the endless bombardments of political discourse that is constantly being shown/recommend to me on other platforms. I do understand the importance of the nature of these types of discussions, but I agree with you, I am not certain much honest debate is being had here.
In the n number of threads like this, I would be surprised if many leave with any of their opinions changed. All too often do people comment to soothe their own knee-jerk reactions rather than to facilitate understanding or intellectually challenge one another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the rules haven't changed—they've been the same for many years. Let me try to dig up some past explanations. Edit: here's one from a few months ago, which covers the principles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43738815 . Re how we approach political topics (or political overlap) on HN in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... Re how we deal with Major Ongoing Topics, i.e. to…
Looking at the official HN guidelines, it states that "Most stories about politics" is off-topic , and "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic ". Is the Isreal/Gaza debate not political, and not mainstream news? How does a story like this not directly violate those guidelines? Furthermore, the guidelines state that stories should be what "good hackers" find "intellectually satisfying". A political deb…
That doesn't seem true to me. I'm seeing lots of opinions I don't agree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it interesting and worth talking about.
I generally find HN discussions pretty interesting, but this particular topic seems to just be two groups who have zero chance of changing their minds hurling misinformation and propaganda at each other.