921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is clearly a charged topic and while you did a good job setting the tone, it clear that moderating this discussion will be a daunting task for anyone. I am already seeing the antisemitic comments calling Jews colonizers, stealing land from indigenous people for 75 years. The one-liners or single-sentence zingers lack context or, often, truth. I do appreciate comments from people living in that area -- what their l…
[flagged]
Those are the most serious allegations: "The men and teenage boys were taken to a warehouse where they sat on a bare floor covered in scattered grains of rice. There they were beaten, interrogated and verbally abused. There was no sleep, and the grains of rice cut their skin as they sat there, undressed." A man claims: "Some people didn’t return from the torture sessions. We would hear their screams and then nothing.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And some support the war Hamas rages despite the effect on the Palestinian people/civilians. Is that an other other side? This is complex, and we really can't describe this conflict as just having two sides.
Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict? I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side). Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third pa…
We're talking here about the conflict that has happened as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7. Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN). And you've described it as "Israeli people-Palestine people".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other options does Israel have?
Two states along the 1967 borders. If Israel and the US agreed to this, the international community would overwhelmingly support it. This would be more than enough to guarantee Israel's security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how would you refer to the different groups/entities and/or populations involved in this conflict? I'd say there is of course a range of opinions and different narratives on both sides (from from actively seeking coexistence to humanitarian to pragmatic to nationalist to religious fundamentalist to having a deep personal hate for the other side). Then you have all kinds of different groups, factions and third pa…
> However all of those pieces arrange themselves around a central conflict which does have exactly two sides in my opinion, which are the Israeli and Palestine people, respectively their claims to live on the land. We're talking here about the conflict that has happened as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7. Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN describes it as the "Israel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've been in touch with HNers on the other side of the conflict as well This thinking kind of reinforces what you're trying to stay away from. There are not just 'two sides' to this. And I'm not sure what you would envision as an HNer from the "other side": someone in support of Hamas? In support of the Palestinian people? I'm only commenting here because I think the bias you fear expressing can still kind of appea…
You're of course right that there are many more than two sides to the topic, but there's a strong tendency for users (being human) to identify with one or the other side in this war, and that's what I was referring to. I take your point that my wording was unclear there, and even a grain of unclarity is pretty dangerous in this context.
Take a look at how CNN vs BBC vs The Guardian categorize the conflict. CNN and NBC News describes it as the "Israel-Hamas War" (Reuters similarly uses "Israel and Hamas at war") while the BBC and Guardian list it as the "Israel-Gaza war" (and I'm pretty sure the Guardian previously used the same terminology as CNN).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/israel-hamas-war
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-ga...
https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas/
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt
https://www.nbcnews.com/Israel-Hamas-war-Gaza-Strip-conflict
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn't have the UN to organize international agreements and compromises before 1945. I don't think there's any other realistic chance for peace, like the Israelis the Palestinians are too stubborn to simply give up and surrender.
Why is being within the 1967 borders a realistic chance of peace? Israel was previously within its 1967 borders, in 1967, Arab states declared war on it anyway. A realistic chance of peace is Arab states realising that they’re not going to be able to kick Jews out of the Jewish homeland.
It would be nice if people in the region at least pretended to be working towards peaceful solutions.
Well I think most people in the region want peace, Israelis included. However if Hamas is dedicated to war the basis of religious beliefs what are you going to do?
Netanyahu presents a map of Israel that includes West Bank and Gaza at a UN speech and you think he "wants peace". Blatant provocations like desecrating religious sites, arresting thousands of Palestinians without charge, limiting water access, allowing and protecting settlers as they kick Palestinians from their homes in West Bank are all provocations. And that's just a short list
Massacring hundreds of people in the March of Return in 2018 during a peaceful demonstration is not the act of a "peace loving Israel".
You can't stampede into a room, guns blazing and expect people not to respond. There is no peace in the region with the status quo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be arguing from a bizarre perspective that Israel is the defender here. In reality, Israel is the aggressor, and Palestine is the state that has been under occupation and illegal blockade for decades. October 7th was an (illegal, abhorrent and criminal!) act of retaliation against previous Israeli aggressions, not an unprovoked attack. If Ukraine were to bomb a Russian city during the current war, no one…
Bizarre is viewing Israel as "oppressor" for disengaging entirely from Gaza, dismantling is own Israeli settlements despite massive protests by the seller movements, and only imposing a blockade once a terrorist group took absolute control (and threw Gays and Fatah opponents off rooftops to their deaths) Not to mention the "blockade" is in fact Israel closing its own borders and Gaza has a third border with another c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t say there was a genocide in 637. But they took over the land, just like they took over large parts of the subcontinent. And it’s whiney for them to act like the victims now. It’s like if Mexico somehow took back Texas and California. How much could we really complain?
In Sindh the Buddhists weren't all ill-disposed to them. I know less about Bengal.
I have no problem with Islam’s wars of conquest and civilization. I just find the victimhood mentality that’s been adopted in the 20th century to be undignified for such a culture.