I suspect you ignore the history of terrorism by Irgun and the bombing of the King David Hotel, which house the British military command. Menachem Begin was a key player in that attack & was extremely proud of it. Who are the modern day parties following in those footsteps? Why Likud, & Begin was a co-founder of that very party— now led by Netanyahu.
I think dang made a mistake by allowing this topic onto HN. Nothing good is going to come out of that.
Begin is rolling in his grave as we speak. There is nothing between today's Likud and any historic version of that party. That's one thing.
The Likud (under the leadership of Sharon, who is also rolling in his grave) is also the party that withdrew from Gaza and handed it to the Palestinian Authority, dismantling settlements (by force). The Likud (under Begin's leadership) was the party that made peace with Egypt and gave Sinai back, also dismantling Israeli settlements (by force).
I don't think the history of the Irgun is really relevant here. At any rate, the views of the Likud shifted substantially and current party called "Likud" has really zero connection to the Likud at the time of Begin/Shamir/Sharon etc.
Too loaded. Too complex. Too many strong emotions/feelings. Destruction, death, loss. Amplified. Weaponized. I know I feel very strongly and it's hard to put things in objective terms.
You need to zoom in, zoom out, the history is vast, there's the big picture, there are details. Most of what you'll encounter online and in the media, on both sides really, is propaganda.
How can you compare the war in Gaza to the systemic killing of Jews by the Germans is beyond me. The war in Gaza is devastating but on the scale of wars it pales compared to the war in Ukraine, or the war in Yemen, or the civil war in Syria, or the wars in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other major conflict in recent history. And none of these are comparable to WW-II or the Holocaust either.
How can you compare the world today that is demanding of Israel to stop the war to the world that stood by and didn't do enough during the holocaust.
If I draw graph where I plot all world conflicts in history, with one axis being the human toll (dead, injured) and the other axis being world response (not sure what metric we should use, I'll pick number of people marching in the streets), you'll see that Israel is being singled out in a negative way. And that's before we have the discussion of "right" vs. "wrong", "who started", or the other political and historical aspects.
I disagree with "Palestinians being genocided". I think the word genocide should be used to describe some very specific circumstances and should not be used for violent conflicts even when very large number of people die.
I think your statement would sound a lot hollower if we put in in more objective terms, let me rewrite that for you:
"I wonder if that's the world felt if it wasn't 18,000 Palestinian deaths in war between Gaza and Israel following the Oct 7th attack on Israel but 6 million Jews who were systemically murdered by Hitler's Germany with the stated goal of murdering all Jews in Europe. The murders were carried out primarily through mass shootings and poison gas in extermination camps.".
> How can you compare the war in Gaza to the systemic killing of Jews by the Germans is beyond me.
One was due to a hatred for a people while the other is over land, but regardless of the motive, genocide is genocide. Leave or be killed is what Hitler said, and it's what Netanyahu and is IDF have been saying.
> The war in Gaza is devastating but on the scale of wars it pales compared to the war in Ukraine, or the war in Yemen, or the civil war in Syria, or the wars in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other major conflict in recent history.
You must have your head in the sand. More civilians (mostly children) have been killed in 2 months than in an entire year in Ukraine. Historians reckon the destruction in Gaza is worse than the carpet bombing of Germany in WW2.
> I disagree with "Palestinians being genocided". I think the word genocide should be used to describe some very specific circumstances and should not be used for violent conflicts even when very large number of people die.
You can disagree all you want but the word is very clearly defined in international law, and all experts on the matter agree that it fits the definition.
> I think your statement would sound a lot hollower if...
Refer my earlier paragraph. You don't get to define what genocide means to suit your purpose. Arguing that it isn't genocide because they haven't killed enough people for that is insane. It's not about the numbers, it's about intent. They've displaced millions and killed as fast as they can, indiscriminately. They've also destroyed all civilian infrastructure to ensure that any survivors have nothing to return to. They've made explict statements saying they want to wipe Palestinians off the land.
> I think dang made a mistake by allowing this topic onto HN. Nothing good is going to come out of that.
Actually I find the discussion on HN has brought up many useful insights on a complex conflict that provokes emotional responses. It's a model that many other communities could learn from.
I wasn't ignorant of it - that's why I said "any modern Israeli party". I'm aware past Israeli/Zionist groups have engaged in terrorism and in some cases deliberate civilian massacres. As far as I know Likud hasn't within the past 50 years.
What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of freedom-fighters/terrorists hiding amongst them?
Let us imagine a residential building with about 100 people living there, and let us imagine that there is information that some enemy combatants are living among them. A decision is made to strike at the building in order to eliminate the combatants. Consider two different approaches:
1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded.
2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them.
Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.
Nowhere in any civilised state in the world do the authorities just go in and kill everyone in a building to get to a few.
It's beyond insane.
The fiction you've created to rationilise this is that there is a "war", but there is no fucking war. It's an occupying force slaughtering its hostages to punish a relative handful among them.
Wow, hello hyperbole and loaded terms. If we can’t even agree on basic facts like the very existence of a war, then there’s simply no point in discussion.
I agree. So long as all you know is Israeli propaganda, you're blinded to the truth and there's no point in discussion.
If there's a war, where is the army that the IDF is fighting? How many losses have the IDF had? Where is the front-line of this war? Where is the footage of this so called "war"?
The Hamas military is embedded in the civilian population, as everyone knows. IDF has sustained minimal losses after getting their act together after Oct 7th, but if your definition of war precludes one sided casualties, then I guess operation Desert Storm wasn’t part of a war. If you need a very explicit front line, then I guess the Vietnam and Iraq wars weren’t wars either.
These answers are obvious. You would’ve been able to answer your questions yourself if you were earnestly looking to do so.
> Because in scenario 2, you’re presumably also shooting at unarmed civilians with their hands up who are posing no threat to you. There’s no reason to shoot them if you have the choice not to. In scenario 1, an air strike is coarse-grained enough that you don’t have such a choice to make.
But in scenario 1, one is bombing unarmed civilians residing inside their homes. The only reason they do not literally have their hands up is that they do not even see the strike coming before they and their families are killed; and they pose even less of a threat to the person sending the missile than they would pose to a soldier that is physically located next to them.
> The outcome is not the same, because scenario two involves a high likelihood of more casualties on your side. It is legitimate to care more about your own soldier casualties than about enemy civilian casualties.
My initial reply to the parent was in the context of "deliberate massacres of civilians", pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance. The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications (unless I horribly misunderstood it). Regardless of whether one agrees with the motivations and justifications, the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians. Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.
> But in scenario 1, one is bombing unarmed civilians residing inside their homes. The only reason they do not literally have their hands up is that they do not even see the strike coming before they and their families are killed; and they pose even less of a threat to the person sending the missile than they would pose to a soldier that is physically located next to them.
We must be talking past each other. I don’t see how any of this contradicts or lessens what I’ve said.
> pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance.
You misunderstand. People such as myself find such “massacres” (loaded term, by the way) acceptable when they’re part of collateral damage rather than intentional killing of civilians.
> The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications
Of course. Like I’ve just explained, killing civilians is justified when it’s collateral damage. You understood me correctly.
> the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians.
That phrasing sounds like civilians were deliberately targeted. They were not. They were simply in the way of the military assets that were deliberately targeted.
> Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.
I’ll grant you that. But intentions matter. Intention implies that if civilians and combatants were clearly separated, the IDF would not continue to kill civilians at the same rate they’re doing now. If the IDF does not have the intention to target civilians specifically, then the only other party that can make a difference is Hamas, and that is where the blame lies for all civilian deaths.
> That phrasing sounds like civilians were deliberately targeted. They were not.
> But intentions matter. Intention implies that if civilians and combatants were clearly separated, the IDF would not continue to kill civilians at the same rate they’re doing now.
Agreed, intentions do matter. While it is impossible to see inside any person's mind and determine precisely their thoughts, we can look into the trend that is visible in the rhetoric of Israel's leaders, and which influences opinions of the soldiers and signals to the them how much they can most likely get away with. Some examples that signal barely any concern for civilians follow below, and cast doubt on the assertion that IDF has no way to reduce civilian deaths. The statements suggest that they are pursuing revenge on the whole Gaza strip, and aiming to inflict as many casualties as they can get away with without losing the protection of USA in the UN security council. I argue that it is reasonable to use words "deliberate massacres of civilians" after listeaning to what Israeli leaders are publicly saying themselves.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to reduce parts of Gaza “to rubble” and invoked the people of Amalek, the foe that God ordered the ancient Israelites to genocide in the Bible, in a recent speech. [1]
- Defense minister Yoav Gallant called for a “complete siege” on Gaza and stated that “we are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” [1]
- Army spokesperson Daniel Hagari said forces would turn Gaza into a “city of tents” and admitted that Israel’s “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy” in dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Gaza. [1]
- Ariel Kallner, a member of parliament from Netanyahu’s Likud party, wrote on X after the Hamas attack: “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join!” [2]
- Giora Eiland, a reservist major general and former head of the Israeli National Security Council, wrote in a popular Hebrew-language newspaper, “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in.” Elsewhere, he specified that “Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf” and indeed that Israel must demand that “The entire population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the Gulf.” Finally, he said that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.” [2]
- “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”, IDF general Ghassan Aliyan [3]
- Revital Gotliv, a Parliament member from Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party, called for Israel to use nuclear weapons in Gaza: “It’s time for a doomsday weapon. Shooting powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a neighborhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza.” [1]
- Galit Distel Atbaryan, also of Likud, posted on X in Hebrew that Israelis should invest their energy in one thing: “Erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth” and forcing the “Gazan monsters” either to flee the strip to Egypt or to face their death. [1]
> The statements suggest that they are pursuing revenge on the whole Gaza strip, and aiming to inflict as many casualties as they can get away with without losing the protection of USA in the UN security council.
While I’m skeptical that this is actual formal policy, this is at least a position that I can take seriously, so thank you for elaborating. I would not be surprised if the IDF is currently conducting strikes with a lower threshold for confidence than usual, and if the protests were merely aimed at pressuring the IDF to take greater caution with civilian casualties, I would be a lot more sympathetic to them.
Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. Unfortunately, 100% specificity is impossible to achieve. So the question is, is Israel doing their absolute best on minimizing casualties or not?
Do you have a reason to assume they don’t do so? The reported 2:1 ratio is absolutely in line with modern warfares, especially considering the very very densely populated urban environment.
> Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists.
And I'm sure you will accept Hamas strikes against Israel as justified as long as they deem the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or is it only your view of who is or is not a terrorist organization that matters?
We should never let labels like "terrorist" be used to justify using any means neccassary to ensure their removal. There is always the null option - do nothing. How much civilian casualties are there with that option vs. indescriminate eradication of anyone near Hamas?
With hamas in the picture, both Palestine and Israeli civilians will suffer indefinitely with no peace ever. With a hopefully short war that manages to cut out the cancer that is hamas, healing can begin for both nations.
I mean, fire the general in charge of security and put competent people on your walls to avoid any further incursions, and then work to remove the million settlers you've pushed onto stolen lands.
It's insane how Israel has managed to sell this fiction that they have a right to slaughter tens of thousands because a few terrorists must be hiding amongst them.
