Live data from Hacker News

IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

dropsitenews.com

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#921

I just wanna say it's nice to see more people finally waking up and smelling the ashes. I can only hope in the future this genocide will be studied to better understand the main points of failure to not repeat such a widely event covered event.

The problem is that both sides lie flagrantly with such frequency that very few claims about the war can be taken at face value. On the other side there was the famous "hospital bombing" news event early in the war where it was claimed that 500 people were killed, and then within a couple of hours it became obvious that the explosion was caused by a misfiring Hamas rocket, with video from multiple angles of the failu…

> On the other side there was the famous "hospital bombing" news event early in the war where it was claimed that 500 people were killed, and then within a couple of hours it became obvious that the explosion was caused by a misfiring Hamas rocket...

Forensic-architecture published a report on that too: https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What's more suicidal? Wanting to reach a peaceful settlement with your neighbors or funding the radical segments of that society while preaching intolerance towards them? Because that's what the Israeli right has been doing for years.

[flagged]

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Palestine is a country under a brutal military occupation and progressive illegal colonisation that has been going on for 80 years. If Mexico had started attacking the US across the border, what would the US do? I'm curious to hear what you think a country should do in this circumstance.

Are the US currently illegally occupying large parts of Mexico and progressively colonising it, displacing and oppressing the Mexican population? And if that were the case, would you say that Mexico had started attacking the US across the border? Or would you say that the US are waging war against Mexico and Mexico is fighting back?

You have the timeline backwards. Palestinians attacked Jews first, then Jews occupied the invaders.

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how Israel/Palestine is any kind of evidence that ethnostates can't work. There are Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades. There are unique historical reasons why there's so much conflict in this region.

> Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades. when you write something like this ask yourself if were Palestinian if you would be happy if you son or daughter said they are moving to Israel to live there. if you answer Yes, we good. but of course no way you’d ever say yes…

So you don't take the word of the Palestinians who actually live in Israel. Remarkable, but ok.

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#925
post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going back decades, then Palestinians started started multiple civil wars against Jews before the founding of Israel. It's almost as if the Jews knew they couldn't peacefully coexist with most Palestinians on the same land.

That is simply wrong. Palestinians were first attacked by the British, supporting the Zionists, in the 1930s. Then, in 1947, during plan Dalet, Israel attacked Palestine and the surrounding Arab states. Before that, of course, they colonized Palestine under the shield of the British empire. An easier way to disarm this argument is: Why did the Zionists come and displace the Palestinians? And who would respond peacefu…

[flagged]

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#926

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the US currently illegally occupying large parts of Mexico and progressively colonising it, displacing and oppressing the Mexican population? And if that were the case, would you say that Mexico had started attacking the US across the border? Or would you say that the US are waging war against Mexico and Mexico is fighting back?

You have the timeline backwards. Palestinians attacked Jews first, then Jews occupied the invaders.

I disagree with this timeline (the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism).

But more in general, there's no point in following a tit-for-tat that goes back 80 years or more with the intent of finding "who was the first". Each event further down the chain completely reverses the assessment, and you can't base any solid reasoning on such grounds. What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory? Who is oppressing the other with overwhelming force? Which side keeps taking and which keeps losing?

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel is an oppressive, genocidal, apartheid illegally occupying force. You can't compare the two sides. Palestinians have been under this assault by Israel and Zionists in general for nearly a century. Defending anything Israel does at this point is indefensible. Their context has ALWAYS been wrong and they've been caught lying so many times it's more accurate to believe exactly the opposite of anything the IDF say…

This is wildly one-sided and basically incorrect. The Palestinians initiated multiple conflicts against the Jews, even before the foundation of Israel. The Jewish people beat them back every time, and this same pattern continued after the Israel's founding. What happened throughout history when someone beat back a hostile enemy that attacked them? The loser lost territory, resources, and freedoms. Which isn't to say…

This conflict has nothing to do with "the Jews," and framing it in that way seriously distorts it.

It's a conflict between the native population of Palestine and people who came in from the outside with the goal of making Palestine their own. The outsiders won for a number of reasons (British backing, superior political organization, etc.). They now rule over the native population, most of whom they deny any rights to. They justify this by saying the native population deserves it because it hates them and resists them.

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#928
post #811
post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attempting to use this as a defense requires conceding that the default assumption is that someone is a terrorist until proven otherwise All other things being equal, if your opponent engages actively in hiding among medical and press workers as a type of guerrilla warfare, then the reality does become this. I'm trying to say this dispassionately because I'm aware that people get defensive, but lets say that you ha…

Also trying to speak dispassionately: If your enemy presents as the most vulnerable as the most vulnerable of a population, shouldn't that be an indication that you're colonizing? That you're squeezing so hard, oppressing so vehemently that an entire people become your enemy? Or the entire people were your enemy the whole time.

Israel knows that full well. One of prominent figures of the Zionist movement wrote all this back in 1923:

https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot

"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority."

"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."

"Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators."

"This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine. ... We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies. To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system."

"All Natives Resist Colonists. There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised."

"This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very large potential absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a great many Jews in the country without displacing a single Arab. There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding"."

"This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's.

"Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed. "

"We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism. Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach."

"In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative. We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not. There is no other morality."

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the timeline backwards. Palestinians attacked Jews first, then Jews occupied the invaders.

I disagree with this timeline (the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism). But more in general, there's no point in following a tit-for-tat that goes back 80 years or more with the intent of finding "who was the first". Each event further down the chain completely reverses the assessment, and you can't base any solid r…

> the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism

Yes, but they were doing it by legally purchasing land, not through violent displacement. Arabs then rioted against Jewish communities, and that started the cycle of violence.

And note how this push for Zionism coincides with a global expansion of antisemitism after WWI. The only place Jews could find reliable support was among their people and protected by the British who were bound to uphold the Barfour declaration.

> What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory?

But if you ignore the history, you can't actually determine whose territory it is can you? Jews purchased land from Arabs, Arabs repeatedly started conflicts with them and Jews repeatedly beat them back. Losers in a conflict lose territory, and the armistice following Israel's founding drew the expanded lines.

As for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank today, I agree it's problematic, but what exactly Israel supposed to do when they keep getting attacked? They were attacked after the armistice with Jordan and Egypt, so once again, they didn't start anything.

If Mexico repeatedly attacked the US, they would do the same thing. Hamas continues to have over 70% support among Gazans, even now, and Hamas murders anyone who speaks against them.

Re: IDF killed Gaza aid workers at point blank range in 2025 massacre: Report

#930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

...What an odd and dishonest framing of the problem. Do you define "hospital not destroyed" as "some walls are still standing"? Because an easy counterpoint to your claim is the Al-Shifa Hospital, which you will certainly agree cannot be operational in this state and thus can be defined as "destroyed": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/%D9%85%D... And this is one example out of the many: https://en.…

People keep repeating that Al-Shifa is not operational. That claim does not match current primary sources.

1) UNICEF (Feb 5, 2026) reports restoration of pediatric intensive care services at Al-Shifa, including 7 PICU beds equipped with ventilators, monitors, and oxygen. https://www.unicef.org/sop/media/6131/file/Humanitarian%20Si...

2) OCHA (Dec 1, 2025) explicitly lists current service lines at Al-Shifa: 7-bed PICU, pediatric post-op inpatient care, hemodialysis, and emergency care. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/gaza-humanitarian-response-s...

3) WHO (UN Geneva briefing, Dec 12, 2025) states Al-Shifa was working again as a partially functional tertiary care hospital with many services functional. https://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/2946/un-geneva-press-b...

4) ACAPS (Feb 5, 2026) says that by Jan 19 Al-Shifa was receiving around 500 patients daily. https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/2026...

Operational does not mean intact or well-supplied. It means treating patients and running services. The above sources show it is.

Post reply on HN