831–840 of 1001 posts
All: if you're going to comment in this thread, please do not do so in the spirit of battle. The latter is off topic here, and the last thread HN had about this did not do well enough at keeping to the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . Instead, ask first whether you can find a place of compassion in yourself before commenting. If you can't, that's understandable, but then please don'…
If you’re going to run a forum where blatant rule breaking comments can’t even be reported, maybe refrain from hosting threads on politics, especially one that attracts people who claim that broiling babies alive is some sort of “resistance”.
You can flag rule-breaking comments and in egregious cases, email us at hn@ycombinator.com. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So Israel’s military operation is contemporaneous with a threat, and does at least serve some degree of self-defense purpose There really is no self-defense purpose in my mind to what Israel is doing. It's more self-avenging as others mentioned. You can argue it's a preventative operation to prevent future attack by taking out Hamas, but the approach they're taking does not indicate that since it's completely counte…
What other options does Israel have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time somebody says this, I always ask the same question - what is the alternative? What should Israel do instead ? This is war. War is horrible and tragic, and far more so because Hamas hides within civilian buildings and used human shields. What should Israel do instead to protect itself and to fight Hamas?
Please, go through the images first. Then explain to me, how bulldozing a park aids in Israel's effort to fight Hamas? Again, Israel has the right to fight and fight hard, anyone would do that in their place. But I think many people in the west are awefully unaware of just the scale and magnitude of the destruction Israel has unleashed.
If you establish HQ in a building, that's now an acceptable target. The alternative is that civilian areas are an invulnerability shield that lets you conduct whatever operations you want.
And this is Israel holding back. They have the option to level all of Gaza, they don't. They do roof knocks, conduct evacuations. And they didn't break the ceasefire conditions either.
Just a reminder that Aljazeera is the state sponsored news of Qatar, a county that hosts Hamas leaders and is close allies with Iran. It’s not a valid news source.
Is there any news source in the world that isn't in some way connected to one of the parties of this war? It has to be a news source that has significant presence in the region so that they have some topical credibility, but also is not located in a country that does any business with either the Arab world or Israel. I'll wait.
In this summary it shows Al Jazeera as left center bias in general, but with heavily biased reporting against Israel. For this specific topic it is clearly one of the most biased news sources that are still given credibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I skim through headers of 100+ vote submission daily, and since 7.10 I haven't seen anything about this conflict until recently, and now this is second in last week. Since the discussion usually tend to be broad topic rather than specific link, this feels a lot (I left a single comment last time and was flooded by responses). Both entries are talking negatively about Israel (I think specifically Al Jazeera is not ver…
Yes - the reason is that it slowly started to dawn on me that we can't avoid this topic altogether and still remain within the intended spirit of this site. That took a while, and it's probably better to have waited in any case, because otherwise the odds of reflective rather than reflexive responses ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... ) would have been even lower than they currently are…
It seems to me such important happenings demand curiosity from rational adults, and I'm struggling to understand why an otherwise-rational community would suddenly disagree... Anyway I appreciate your efforts in this thread and everywhere else on the site.
Also, it's amusing to me that, more often than not, discussions about this topic are derailed by discussion about whether it's possible to discuss the original topic in good faith, rather than any sort of blatant ignorance about the actual topic. It's very meta.
Im glad to see the community engage with this -- there couldnt be a more significant current event happening right now and its jarring that it would be so silent. Edit: And why is it relevant here? At a minimum coworkers are suffering silently through it. The emotional damage just for internet bystanders is staggering.
[flagged]
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
I suspect a very large number of people are too smart to speak up, but also resentful of the forces that work to prevent actual nuanced dialogue. That's certainly the sentiment in my bubble. As somebody who isn't fond of the idea of an ethnostate and sees atrocities coming from all of the actors here, I don't feel comfortable speaking up due to the lack of nuance in public forums.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because there's a huge difference between deliberately targeting civilians vs collateral damage. Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
True, the distinction between targeting civilians and collateral damage is significant and morally relevant. However, it's important to recognize that even actions labeled as 'collateral damage' can sometimes reflect a disregard for civilian life. While genocide, the intentional destruction of a people, is unequivocally condemnable, we must also scrutinize military operations that, though not aimed at civilians, cons…
Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender.
Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment.
If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
Why is this on hacker news?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662