Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

cpj.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 968 posts

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#761

Post by throwaway6734 »

prmoustache wrote: post #483
EvgeniyZh wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the premise that Hamas wouldn't be able to fight open battles. But it doesn't make using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) not their fault. The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone (without getting into details of which part of dead civilians is actually due to being human shields). Of cou…

No, the responsibility is always on who is shooting at civilians. If you can't beat the Hamas in Gaza without shooting civilians, don't shoot, retreat in Israel and focus on protecting Israel.

Do you feel the same way about the bombings in Germany and Japan during WW2?

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#762

Post by mistermann »

hef19898 wrote: post #511
matsemann wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, it's also easy to claim HN is biased, because people are biased differently, and HN is close to global. As a northern european, I for instance would say that I often find HN trend conservative, compared to the discourses in my country. But someone from a different part of the world could claim HN to lean progressive, based on their political environment. So I don't think there is an easy way here. If one were t…

Well, there are things that cannot be bozt-sided: Everything that violates human right for example. Or direct threats to democracy.

Some of us will happily take the non-normative side on things like this as well.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#763

Post by hef19898 »

bennyz wrote: post #756
hef19898 wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Hamas attacked, killed and kidnapped people in a terror attack to protest this. Also to have hostages to exchange for some of their own. And yes, these "own" are Hamas members and not the innocent bystanders. Was there ever any doubt about this? None of that justifies, again, the levelling of Gaza, the starving of around 500,000 people and the deliberate targeting of civilians who have nothing to do with any of…

>You what works? Identifying the purpetrators, prosecuting and convicting them. If you want to go ultra tough, use Mossad to go after Hamas leadership. Heck, even using precision strikes at Hamas leadership in Gaza wouod be better, regardless of the related colleteral damage and casualties. Israel is not doing any of that ah, yes, it's that simple, just press the magic button that makes all Hamas disappear and all un…

Right now only one side is doing the blowing things up stuff: Israel.

You know what makes, maybe, Hamas go away? Open and free election, a cease fire followed by a peace treaty followed by international recognition of Palestine as a nation with free access to the sea and everything else that entails. With a neutral, demilitarized zone between Israel and Palestine, a zone save guarded by an international force with a very robust mandate. Because by know, both side need to be seperated to avoid future conflict. That would also mean a full review by an international court of all sentences by Israeli military courts against Palestinians, in cases a general amnesty is not applicable.

Oh, I almost forgot: A rebuilding plan for Gaza and other Palestinian territories. A massive one, comparable to the Marshall Plan after WW2. A plan in which Israel would have a keen interest in paeticipating if peace is the goal. Oh, yes, and a complete abandonnent of Israels illegal settlement policy and the settlements.

In exchange for Israel recognizing all of the above, and international support of that, the new Palestinian nation agrees to recognize Israel as well.

How does that sound? Not magic, I know, but something that worked in principle in Northern Ireland for example.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#764

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gryzzly wrote: post #655
GordonS wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, months on and numerous false claims later, I've yet to see see any credible evidence of a large, undergroud Hamas facility.

[flagged]

I am really puzzled by you posting this and thinking it justifies bombing. Are you unable to imagine how this would look if the shoe was on the other foot?

Imagine there was happening in New York - and someone posted a video “They are using Subway and maintenance tunnels to deliver supplies” - obviously infrastructure would be used!

Next step: “therefore any building over a tonne is a valid military target”. Do you realise that would mean basically any building in New York?

If that were true, you could bomb hospitals and it would never be a war crime. You must realise that if you actually think through the logical consequences of your argument.

Military facilities are things like an arsenal, munitions depo, barracks, forward operating base, fire support base, etc. To the best of my knowledge, this was never found.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#765

Post by incognos »

exodust wrote: post #637
incognos wrote: post #594

[flagged]

You might identify as a fact vending machine, but don't count on others buying your processed snacks. > Fact: This began in 1948... Let's add a breakpoint there. You haven't defined "this", and everyone knows any measure of "this" goes back before 1948. Speaking of 1948, just 3 years after WW2 ended, the Jews who suffered some of the worst death and despair of WW2, were attacked again in 1948 from all sides in the Ar…

[flagged]

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#766

Post by mistermann »

hef19898 wrote: post #496
whiterknight wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a test described in the rules: “do you expect to read it on a headline of a major news outlet” if yes, it may not be of HN interest.

That would exclude, e.g., every senate hearing of big tech. Or anti-trust case against big tech. Not sure this argument holds up to scrutiny.

Add some faith (belief without proof, we all do it, and can't recognize it in ourselves or other ingroup members) and you are good to go...provided current planetary results are okay in your books I suppose.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#767

Post by hellojesus »

jay-barronville wrote: post #718
flyinglizard wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Is there a number of civilian casualties after which Israel is not allowed to keep fighting to eradicate Hamas? Murdering over 13,000 children not only does nothing to “eradicate” Hamas, it does the opposite: It creates more Hamas-like groups. All of these women and children Israel has murdered have families, friends, etc. who miss them and will be even more determined now to avenge their deaths.

Isn't the logical extension of this supportive of complete genocide? I don't care about either side in this conflict, but I fail to see how anything short of genocide stops this.

This is what I see:

P: Hamas attacks civilians

I: Responds by saying that this is will never happen again, and they will put their youth into urban combat to ensure it never happens again by eradicating Hamas

P: Engages in urban combat via insurgency, including using civilians as human shields

I: Continues to try and eradicate Hamas. Civilian shields are murdered.

H: If you keep killing civilians, you'll only make more of us!

I: Then come out and fight!

H: No! Keep killing our children.

At some point you have to place the safety of your population over the safety of another population that is currently murdering your civilians and actively stating they want to continue doing so. Plus to my knowledge P still has hostages that they refuse to release.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#768

Post by yunwal »

highmastdon wrote: post #457
g-b-r wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SURE it really seems in Hamas best interest to shoot the few journalists present... And it's Hamas that's preventing international journalists to enter... They're terrorists but not stupid

Really? I think they’re terrorists AND stupid. Why else would they use funds from charity to build tunnels? Why else wouldn’t they build a local economy instead of investing in the daily rain of rockets on their neighbours? Why else would they launch a horrific attack against civilians at a “love and peace” festival next to the Gaza Strip in a country that’s a military powerhouse? Other than complete delusion, it’s b…

> Why else wouldn’t they build a local economy instead of investing in the daily rain of rockets on their neighbours?

Seriously? If you’re trying to build an economy, one of the first things you’d want to do is establish free trade with other countries. If you can’t do that your economic prospects are basically zero.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#769

Post by whiterknight »

hef19898 wrote: post #496
whiterknight wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a test described in the rules: “do you expect to read it on a headline of a major news outlet” if yes, it may not be of HN interest.

That would exclude, e.g., every senate hearing of big tech. Or anti-trust case against big tech. Not sure this argument holds up to scrutiny.

1. Is it the worst thing if the top level headlines for those cases aren’t here?

2. We have more than on heuristic. Those are specifically about tech.

It is not that difficult to identify a hot politcal topic that has nothing to do with tech, unless your judgement is motivated.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#770

Post by rendall »

GordonS wrote: post #683
rendall wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is revisionist history - Gaza was never even part of Egypt So confident and yet so wrong. This is literally history. Are you pro-Hamas because you don't know the history of the region, or do you not know the history region because you're motivated to ignore it where it contradicts your pro-Hamas narrative? From whom did Israel seize control of Gaza in 1967?

[flagged]

So confused. From whom did Israel seize control of Gaza in 1967? From the Palestinian Authority or what?

Edit: So, for those of you inclined to believe that "both sides probably have a point" but are otherwise not clear. No. This is the best you will ever get from the "pro Palestinian" side. It is not a side that is pro Palestinian people. Pro Palestinian people would like the war to end and Palestinians to live peacefully in their own state. A 2-state solution. No, "pro Palestinians" don't care about history or the truth. They are only anti Jew. When you try to bring up evidence or facts, they will reject anything that comes from Israel and accept anything from anti-Israel sources.

Post reply on HN