Based on history and looking long term I see three paths out:
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
If you had said in 1988 that The Troubles in Northern Ireland would have a peace accord ten years later no one would have believed you. Everything seemed at a complete stalemate, and there is a history going back hundreds of years. Yet in 1998 the Good Friday accords were signed. And now, almost 30 years later, I think we can safely say it's been a huge success.
There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.
I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.
I don't know that you can describe northern island as being a happy success story. The most you can say is it's stable which is a success in its own right.
You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.
No because the IRA generally called in warnings. In both the 90s Manchester bombings there, people had 75-90 minutes to evacuate, they moved ~80,000 people each time and saw no fatalities. The warning for Warrington wasn't as effective.
Northern Ireland is absolutely a success. Having family that are from there it's utterly unrecognisable to what existed in the 70s and 80s. It's far from perfect but the difference to those on both sides who live there is vast.
Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.
Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.
The fear of Israeli right hardliners was that Gaza would become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists who want to wipe out Israel. Obviously.
Idealism prevailed. Israel even unburied its dead so as not to leave them behind, because some realists were present and knew what the Gazans would do to those dead. But Israel withdrew.
Then everything the hardliners feared came true, ultimately culminating in Oct 7th. Immediately after withdrawl, Hamas took over.
Instead of building a near utopia with what was left behind and the billions in aid Gaza received, and building peace with Israel, Gaza armed itself to the teeth, raised generations of terrorists, and entrenched those terrorists in an elaborate sprawling network of tunnels.
October 7th 2023, thousands of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and thousands of unaffiliated everyday Gazan terrorists poured into Israel when the IDF were, to use your analogy, were caught napping.
Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
Israel will always have to sleep with one eye open. As do all civilised nations, lest we have another 9/11, 7/7, Boston Marathon bombing, Manchester Arena bombing etc.
How did that Jewishness result? It didn't materialize out of thin air, but as a result of the Jews expelling the Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, bulldozing their homes, and then building over the rubble. That has been the bone of contention for 70 years now.
Most of the terrorist threat in the West is a result of Israel's meddling in the region and the atrocities that have to be committed to protect them. OBL said as much in his Letter to America.
The concentration of Jews was a direct result of a different process of concentrating Jews, specifically in camps.
And the expulsion and persecution of Jews from Arab countries and Iran.
Regardless of what timescale you use, the presence of Jews in the region predates both other main Abrahamic religions by necessity, as Jesus was himself a Jew.
We can complain about how badly Britain and other colonial powers carved up failing empires til the cows come home. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh certainly can have an opinion on the British Empire. And great swathes of Africa can point in any direction and be pointing at someone who screwed them over.
At some point, we have to deal with how the world is now. History is important to learn from, agreed, but unless it's a really think history textbook it's not saving you from a terrorist putting a 7.62mm-based hole in you, or feeding you pressure-cooked ball bearings.
Most of the terrorist threat to the West is from Islamic extremists, foreign (inc imported) and domestic, and to a lesser extent the opposite end of the horseshoe it emboldens. To blame Israel for global or even regional Islamic extremism is both ironic and myopic. It's also academic. No change Israel could make is going to stop the Muslim majority countries wanting Israel wiped out.
> Didnt the jewish concenteation result from decades of "soft" power that evicted palestinian civilians as outcasts? (And in return festered terrorism.)
To which you basically replied:
> But look how bad all the others are and terrorism is almost all islamic.
This ignorance dehumanises and keeps the violence going.
Israel cannot make confessions in a peace effort without acknowledging its decades of palestinian desintegration and apparently, the same is true for you.
You broke the site guidelines badly here. Please make your substantive points without personal attack in the future, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Also, separately from the above, it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. That's not allowed here, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do this. Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
> A former Israeli army commander, Herzi Halevi, has confirmed that more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured in the war in Gaza, and that “not once” in the course of the conflict were military operations inhibited by legal advice.
> Halevi stepped down as chief of staff in March after leading the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for the first 17 months of the war, which is now approaching its second anniversary.
> The retired general told a community meeting in southern Israel earlier this week that more than 10% of Gaza’s 2.2 million population had been killed or injured – “more than 200,000 people”. That estimate is notable as it is close to the current figures provided by Gaza’s health ministry, which Israeli officials have frequently dismissed as Hamas propaganda, though the ministry figures have been deemed reliable by international humanitarian agencies.
> Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.
Coupled with the fact that half of Gaza is under 18, there's really only one rational conclusion here... and it's one the IDF largely doesn't dispute any more.
What reputable contradictory estimate would you like to highlight?
Sorry, but moderators of this forum threaten to ban me if I keep commenting on political topics. So I can't respond to your comment where you provide "non hamas sources".
The obvious conclusion is that the IDF/Israel (nor independent analyses; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02009-8) doesn't meaningfully disagree with Hamas's numbers, and that makes it difficult for you to cite a conflicting much lower claim from them.
The longer you engage in "politics" commenting while citing "mods said no politics" as a reason you can't cite any sources, the clearer this conclusion becomes.
To be maximally fair to their argument, I think it is good to point out (not that it's the point that was made but that it's a good point to make) that 9,100 is a distinct departure from 0 when there are other numbers in the tens and hundreds. It's worth questioning the disparity and whether it's indicative of incorrect or misinterpreted data.
Not sure why I decided to comment specifically on what you posted given the fact that there are various levels of misinformation going on in this thread, but I guess yours is the most blunt.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
It's clearly documented that Mossad committed terror attacks against Jews across the Middle East to terrorize them into fleeing. Iraq, Egypt, etc. Zionist authorities had to bribe, maneuver and scheme to get many of these communities to make the journey. Not a conspiracy - you have actual Jews like Naeim Giladi who wrote, 'Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews,' documenting these efforts.
For instance, Moroccan Sultan Mohammed V protected his country's Jewish population of over 250k instead of straight up handing them over the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime.
Throughout all these countries, the Arabs & other non-Jews had a tight grip on state power and could have exterminated the Jews anytime they wanted. So, why didn't they? Why did the population of Jews in those countries grow for centuries? Isn't that the argument online Zionists use to defend their genocide in Palestine?
Western normies always lick up the 'they expelled us, so we had to expel the Palestinians,' but, please, don't do it here. It's wrong at best, and outright immoral at worst.
I'm always fascinated by the framing of Zionists which your comment aligns well.
Palestine, or what remains of it Gaza and the West bank. Simply are resisting an foreign occupation/invasion. Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
To fight an invading force that is killing your people is very honourable, as old as tale.
It is recognised as an occupation by all British governments in the last two decades, recognised as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ. The only people that think otherwise is Israel and it's followers.
Further, there is no Hamas in the west bank yet we see gruesome killings of children there too.
Attempting to hide behind anti-Semitism no longer works.
Lastly, Israel has lost a new generation of young, infact it has educated them and their parents. Memories of Israel's horrible crimes will live on, and rightly the existence of Israel inside of Palestine will always be controversial.
> recognized as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ.
Neither the ICJ nor the ICC (not even the ICC prosecutor) has made any determination of genocide. The ICC prosecutor sought warrants on (and the ICC itself issued warrants on some and rejected other) various offenses that are typically means of genocide, but not on genocide itself, while the ICJ has allowed to a case to proceed charging genocide, but has made no determination that that took place.
There are other international institutions which have determined that genocide is occurring, but the ICC and ICJ are not among them.
That’s not to say that Israel isn’t committing genocide (it plainly is), but it doesn’t help to misrepresent where determinations about that have been made.
> Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
False. Israel was established on its own by winning its war for independence and you are part of the remnants that still have a problem with that.
I don't know if that is to your own detriment, in most case it is just the usual inferiority complex towards Jews, which basically forms the foundation of the phenomenon of antisemitism. But it certainly is to the detriment of Palestinians.
Disingenuous Zionist rabble. Read up on some other less-biased historical sources (even wikipedia would help here), and please refrain from espousing misinformation to support genocidal states. Israel has never fought or won their independence by themselves, they've had Western imperial support at virtually every step of their journey.
> Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
You make a good argument why a European people should not have established a country there. Doubly so considering it was already populated.
First, 60-70% of Israeli Jews are of Arabic descent, not European.
Second, while it's possible to complain about the circumstances of the creation of Israel, I'm not sure that doing so now, in context, offers anything constructive. It seems that by most reasonable definitions, Israel is a country, if a small one. Do you suggest that Israel be eradicated? If so, what happens to all the Israelis, who likely wouldn't be welcome in the area after the country's destruction? Is it any more justifiable to ethnically cleanse one group from the area than another?
I don't have an answer to this conflict, but it isn't clear to me that suggesting "this country shouldn't have existed at all" is an answer either.
And the endless recriminations continue. I can point out that Gaza was engineered to fail, and that every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored, and things like that. But I'm fairly sure that would fall on deaf ears because those arguments have been made a million times by now, so I'll save both of us some time.
Both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have a long list of legitimate grievances, no doubt. The insistence that no, we are the ONLY ones with legitimate grievances is a major roadblock towards coming together. The refusal to recognise these grievances amounts to a refusal to recognise basic humanity and dignity of people, and is a catastrophic failure of empathy.
And yes, there are people on the Palestinian side who do this also, but they did not respond to my comment and you did.
> every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored
What movement towards peace?
June 10, 2003 — Hamas co-founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi says in an interview with al-Jazeera: “By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews’.”
June 25, 2006 — Hamas militants enter Israel via a tunnel, disable a patrolling Israeli tank, kill two of its four-man crew, seize another crew member, Gilad Shalit, and drag him back to Gaza.
June 7, 2007 — Hamas wins a brief but bloody civil war against Palestinian Authority rule in the Gaza Strip and ousts all Fatah officials.
January 4, 2010 — For Hamas, power is more important than leadership, according to al–Ahram: “Here, we have to direct the following question to Hamas and its leaders: Is power more important to you than the suffering of the Palestinians which you claim to be concerned about? If the Palestinian people are suffering terribly, then relinquishing power, in fact merely returning the PA to the [Gaza] crossing points, is a small price to pay. If not, then this means that the [Hamas 2007] coup and capturing power is more important to you than that suffering.”
April 8, 2011 — “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth because they have displayed hostility to Allah,” former Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh says on Al-Aqsa Television.
December 8, 2012 — Less than three weeks after Pillar of Defense, the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, marks the anniversary of Hamas’ founding by reiterating that the organization will never accept Israel and by calling for its elimination. Israel’s demise remains a core element of Hamas ideology and fervor.
May 5, 2014 — Mousa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chairman of Hamas’ politburo, says in Al-Monitor: “Hamas will never recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. … The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians.
July 25, 2014 — Former head of Saudi intelligence Turki al-Faisal holds Hamas responsible for the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip because of its arrogance. He writes in the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat: “The knowledge that the people of Gaza would be subjected to a savage bloodshed and suffering should have put limits to Hamas’ arrogance, but it did not. Moreover, Hamas’ readiness to cause a huge amount of suffering before the inevitable return to a truce or a cease-fire clearly exposes the abyss of unconcern into which it has fallen.”
July 14, 2019 — “There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help,” Hamas politburo member Fathi Hammad says at a rally on the Israel-Gaza border, as quoted by the Gatestone Institute.
May 26, 2021 — “I’d like to use this opportunity to warn the Zionist occupation and its leaders. We support the eradication of Israel through armed jihad and struggle,” Yahya Sinwar says
Please make your substantive points without personal attack and aggression. You've been doing this repeatedly lately, and it's not ok, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
Do you think a Gish Gallop of tons of quotes is a good way of engaging? Their follow-up post is fine so no hard feelings. But critiquing someone dragging down the quality of the conversation after an attempt to raise the level is not a personal attack.
My post was not in response to "there are legitimate grievances on all sides," which I agree with.
But I cannot accept an off-hand suggestion that Hamas is in any way inclined towards peace with Israel. That is completely untrue, and I consider it dangerous to let that pass unanswered.
Falsely thinking that Hamas does want peace is an attitude that will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars in the years to come.
That's something that the UK, Canada, and France all recognize, by the way. None of them want to see any role for Hamas in the future either.
You are, perhaps, not alone in thinking that Hamas has or has EVER had "peaceful" intentions, so I felt it called for a detailed justification why that was an incorrect position.
What's laughable, is to complain about "one-sided list of grievances" in a post on this issue. Have you seen any of the discussions on HN on this topic in the past two years?
Whether you believe them is another issue of course. But you need to at least try and no one ever did. After many years of refusing to talk to the IRA in the end the British government did, and that was key to the lasting peace. This was hugely controversial at the time and Major government lead talks in secret which were leaked. Lots of drama. But in the end it worked. In 1988 people could have said about the IRA what you're saying about Hamas (and they did). The Good Friday accord didn't even demand immediate disarmament by the way, but rather over time. There were plenty of violent hick-ups too (e.g. Real IRA).
And sure, long-term there is no future for Hamas – certainly not the paramilitary wing – just as there wasn't for the IRA. But Sinn Féin (IRA's political wing) still exists and that's okay. It's impossible to exclude Hamas from any and all negotiations in the short term because they're doing the fighting.
A pure military solution will never be the answer (well, except via genocide, which is hardly an "answer"). Even if one could kill every single Hamas member, you will just end up with a new Hamas-ng and we're back where we started. This is why you need to address some of the underlying injustices, which is that the British government did.
And that was my entire point. Everything may seem impossible and hopeless today. But so did things in 1988 NI. There are real challenges for sure, but the outlines of a solution are actually not all that complicated.
>> but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.
Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.
> In the context of war, what Israel is doing is not outside the norm.
"More children have died in three weeks in Gaza than in the entire sum of conflicts around the world in the past four years."
— Save the Children, October 2023
10,000 children were kidnapped from Ukraine and the Palestinians supporters here said they don't care/it's not worth caring about. This is political/theological, not a pure morality issue.
> As feared and as warned, the situation in Sudan has become fatal for a frighteningly large number of children. In reports UNICEF has received that cover the period from the start of the fighting until 25 April 2023, 190 children have been killed.
> The violations verified in the greatest numbers were the killing (4,676) and
maiming (7,291) of 11,967 children, the denial of humanitarian access (7,906
incidents), the recruitment and use of children (7,402) and the abduction of children
(4,573). The number of children detained for actual or alleged association with armed
groups including those which are currently under sanctions enacted by the Security
Council, or for national security reasons, surged to 3,018, further depriving children
of their rights. The highest numbers of grave violations were verified in Israel and the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (8,554), the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(4,043), Somalia (2,568), Nigeria (2,436) and Haiti (2,269). The sharpest percentage
increases in the number of violations were verified in Lebanon (545%), Mozambique
(525%), Haiti (490%), Ethiopia (235%) and Ukraine (105%).
(A preemptive note: These are verified cases; so the real numbers will be higher. In both conflicts, verifying every or even most cases is… tough.)
> At least 2,406 children have been killed or injured since the escalation of the war in Ukraine nearly 1,000 days ago, according to the latest available verified reports.
High-end estimate for Gaza (provided by hamas, a well known terrorist group): 64 000.
High-end for Mariupol (provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program): 88 000.
When comparing numbers one should also compare high-end estimates vs. high-end estimates and conservative numbers vs. conservative numbers.
Having some difficulty establishing food infrastructure after WW2, in a situation where the whole continent is ravaged, is totally different from deliberately destroying an existing and working aid system.
The US didn't ALLOW aid in for starving children until mid 1946.
The US ORDERED extra food be destroyed.
The US intentionally used food rations as a political tool to shape/punish/reward/control the occupied population.
That isn't having difficulty getting food in due to conflict.
A working pre-war aid system is going to be different during an ACTIVE war that the aided peoples initiated, especially when the aid came via the people that they started the war with. In addition resources have been forced to be diverted by the war that Gaza's government started as that was takes up a lot of resources/funds that were previously available for other things during the prior peacetime.
Normally a government plans for food supply issues prior to starting a war with their neighbors. Especially when all food comes through said neighbor.
From your wiki link, the US Army forbade sharing rations and this led to incidents like destroying 20 lbs of cocoa at a time. By early 1946 foreign aid organizations were let in.
They weren't bulldozing entire cities a year after the Nazi government collapsed. It's totally incomparable to the hate and viciousness we see from the Israelis.
hamas still alive, shooting rockets at Israel and it's leadership is secure in the qatar/turkey. unlike nazi government that surrendered. this is after 80% of berlin was destroyed and hitler committed suicide
There were dead-ender Nazi partisans in Germany, too. The USA actually occupied/governed in good faith instead of just slaughtering civilians randomly.
What's the plan here? Kill 10% and the rest will start liking Israel?
What government? Do they collect taxes and run any government services? Is there a single standing government building?
Look, eventually the dust will settle on this and it will be clear how many people Israel killed and what little it accomplished. All the current rhetorical points are going to look extremely silly if not evil.
by that definition whatever uk, canada and australia recognized is not government either.
i am pretty sure that at end of 1944 you would have demanded allies to stop fighting and leave germany, because germany is pretty much finished, and whatever they are doing is extremely silly of not evil. battle of berlin was totally pointless, it only demolished 80% of city, killed 125k people in a couple of weeks and accomplished absolutely nothing. right ?
I think it's been pretty obvious for decades already that something like solution 3 is what will eventually happen. First two solutions would require compromise and sanity from both sides, which they are clearly not capable of. If roles were reversed, Palestinians would treat Israelis just as bad as Israelis are treating them now.
It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.
What happened in Rhodesia was very different from the situation in South Africa. Whites are still very influential (especially economically) in SA. Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe is maybe closer to French Algiers.
I have no skin in the game, but I will do that for you, if you bring back the children from the death. Can you do that? Let's start from the Nakba. Maybe even from last year.
No one is asking people to go back to Europe. All you have to do is Stop the Genocide, Repair. Reconcile. And stop the apartheid. But you know what, you have decided that Israel is untenable without war. Israel is of no use to the neo Imperialists, unless it keeps the region unstable.
Well majority of the white population in South Africa don’t have a home country to return to either. Afrikaans people moving to Australia, Britain or the US is not much different than forcing the Jewish people in Israel to go to those countries.
Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).
There is now even less hope for Palestine to ever become a country. These states try to keep this hope alive, despite it looking like it could justify terrorism like others see it.
A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.
Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.
Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.
2 million starved, 200,000 murdered or maimed, countless tortured, kidnapped, raped, districts and now cities raised. Never mind the decades of apartheid and similar acts of slaughter. Freedoms removed, and propoganda on a global scale.
There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.
> From POV of Israelies they gave Palestinians (2) and got a genocide in returns.
The one Israeli prime minister who was about to give the Palestinians (2) was killed by an Israeli
> Looking at Palestinians behavior they only want (1) that it's basically genocide for all Jewish Israelies. I guess it more complicated than you think
Wanting their land back does not imply wanting to exterminate its present occupants.
Quoting the one Israeli prime minister who was killed: "Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin used the phrase "less than a state" to describe his vision for a Palestinian entity during negotiations.
After Rabin was killed, there were offers that palestinians refused
actually, hamas took over gaza because of USA. Netanyahu had nothing to do with it. Small refresher on palestinian politics:
- 2006 Elections were general elections in Palestinian Autonomy
- Both Israel and PA were against elections because they were afraid that Hamas will win but USA forced it because "democracy shall prevail and will resolve everything"
- Hamas won general elections in Palestinian Autonomy in 2006 and assembled government chaired by ismail haniyeh as prime minister
- USA is shocked as "nobody saw it coming"
- USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
- Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
- During coup, Hamas killed, dragged behind bikes or threw from rooftops those that opposed it
- After coup, Hamas tortured into obedience or killed all remaining opposition
> - USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
>
> - Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
Adding more context here:
- The training was also provided by Egypt, and Israel
Now, let's go back a few years and tackle what happened before all that. Hamas did not recognize Israel under the Oslo accords, effectively saying if they were in power, the work done towards the accords would be in vain.
What was the accord about?
- "The internationally drafted road map calls for an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence, a freeze in Israeli settlement activity, and the creation of a Palestinian state."
israel allowed training. israel didn't train presidential guard. it would have been major scandal in Israel if something like this happened. quoting wiki
. At that point, the U.S. began to provide training in urban anti-terrorist techniques to members of the Presidential Guard, with the goal of strengthening Abbas's security forces. Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey also began to provide similar training for the Fatah forces, and Britain, Spain, and the European Union began to provide communications equipment, vehicles, and logistical support.
i am not even sure what exactly your second part of message meaning. unlike what OP said netanyahu wasn't PM at this timeframe. Ehud Olmert was, and he engaged in negotiations through his term till he resigned in 2008
The second part highlights the fear around Hamas winning the election. Having done so, the success of the accord was no longer in the hands of both Palestine and Israel. The accord would fail, given Hamas would be in power and showed no interest in following it and violence would prevail.
Apologies for being unclear in the first part, not the intention. Just wanted to point out Egypt was also involved, not just the US. The addition of Israel was for what you said, and there to try and be as neutral as possible (albeit I should have chosen my language better).
(as somebody who actually lived in Israel during that timeframe)
- PA/PLO didn't want hamas to win elections because they didn't want to loose power and money. It extremely corrupt and hamas victory was partly predicated on this
- Israel didn't want hamas to win elections because it didn't want terrorist organization running state.
When hamas did win, negotiations still continued up till the moment that Obama got elected and killed them [0]. When Ismail Haniye got nominated and voted in as PM there was long discussion in Israel that maybe from position of the power hamas will feel responsibility and will became more political and moderate. I remember countless discussions on tv how moderate Haniye is and if he will embrace oslo accords, recognize Israel, etc.
and if we are talking about oslo accords, there were badly wounded [1] by palestinian side by that time (think also second intifada) and everybody just wanted to get to finish line
Yep. To put it simply - just because Jewish people were driven out of their land in the past doesn’t mean it isn’t their land still. They’re the indigenous people of the entire region, to the extent one survives (Canaanites > Israelites > Jews). And it’s obvious - there are so many old Jewish ruins (like the temple the Al Aqsa mosque is literally built on) that are at least a thousand years older than when Islam was even invented (very recently - 7th century).
Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Yair Lapid might be considered third generation as both him and his mother were born in Tel Aviv, while his father is Yugoslavian.
> Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Are you seriously trying to imply that there's some conspiracy trying to lie about Israeli demographics? That's absurd. I'll assume you're not.
Anyone who goes to Israel can see the ratios pretty readily. Many Israelis are fairly "brown" and clearly of Middle Eastern descent. There's also about 2% of the population in Israel who are black Ethiopian Jews. No serious academics contest the numbers of Sephardic / Mizrahim expelled from Arab Muslim nations after 1948 either that I've read.
The Likud, the current ruling party in Israel, has strong Sephardic / Mizrahi base [1]. Yes, there is bias and discrimination in Israeli society. Israelis debate about these things all the time, including Arab Israelis.
Some commentators believe the Mizrahim vote more far right and tend to be pro the Gaza war because of the ethnic cleansing that their parents and grandparents endured from the Muslim states.
The Seohardic Jews and Mizrahim lived in largely Muslim countries for centuries after Islamic empires conquered most of the middle east starting with the Rashidun Caliphate. They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year. It's arguable that the Mizrahim were economically and educationally more suppressed than their European cousins, well at least until WWII.
With France expected to recognize Palestine today, the United States will be the only permanent UNSC member not to recognize Palestine. (And over 75% of the UNGA also recognizes Palestine.)
I think there should first be something resembling a state and only then it could be recognised. Now there isn't any entity that looks like an independent Palestinian state. For that reason this recognition seems pointless to me although I'm sympathetic to finding a peaceful solution.
Do you think it's possible that Israel's campaign of violence and destruction was to result in a scenario not unlike what you're describing: a land so thoroughly bombed and a people so controlled by terrorism that it barely resembles anything self-governing?
That would be rewarding Israels actions though. Similarly your arguments apply to Israel as it doesn't meet all of the standard criteria of statehood, should it's statehood be revoked?
I don't think this from the point of view of who I'm rewarding. To me, Israel looks like a state with its independent foreign policy, army, government.
How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.
Palestine is not allowed statehood by Israels actions, often illegal. Israels illegal settlements and apartheid regime should have resolved the discussion on statehood decades ago.
The only moral viable solution I can see is 2 separate states. At this point support of anything else is supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing. If it doesn't happen then that is a deliberate choice of the US and I fear for the world never mind Israel or Palestine.
Of the top of my head I'd say it takes pressure of Israel. "Our leaders are doing something", which makes western populace feel good about themselves again and move on to the next thing. I'd describe it as a 4d chess move for Israel.
There are many differences between the two cases, and also some similarities. I don't really understand the purpose of your question, or why it's useful to compare?
I suppose it feels inconsistent in my mind not to do both, and personally I feel like Taiwan is a more legitimate case. (afaik they are not actively attacking another nation, the picture with Palestine is far less clear)
Serious question: how is declaring “oh wait, Palestine actually exists!” help the plight of the Palestinian people? I really doubt Bibi and his cronies will lose any sleep over a timid declaration in a climate that is increasingly critical of Israel’s actions.
In UK’s case, it seems to me more of the classic Starmer flailing about to recapture the votes of whatever group fared worst in his opinion polls. After appeasing Reform and the Tory voters, he probably feels it’s time to throw a bone to the Corbynites now.
Recognizing Palestine as a state is an act of diplomacy that certainly has no specific benefit for the people of Palestine.
But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?
Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.
Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.
[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.
It is very unlikely that Israel will ever withdraw its 500,000 citizens from Judea and Samaria, given the result from the 8,000 citizen withdrawall from Gaza.
An equal territorial exchange is much more realistic, as part of a two-state comprehensive package. However, "63% of Palestinians, 65% of Israeli Jews, and 13% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to this two-state comprehensive package.', see https://pcpsr.org/en/node/989 .
Equal territory exchange seems reasonable to me, borders needed to be negotiated; moving borders may be easier than moving population. Ensuring equal territory is equal is a hard problem, and perceived unfairness could lead to future conflicts, but any chosen border could be perceived as unfair.
In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support.
I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's hard to convince the Israel government, since the last time Israel withdrew from Gaza (in 2005), a terrorist organization was elected and it resulted in multiple wars and waves of violence, leading up to the current conflict.
It is far more plausible for any state to accept refugees from a recognized state rather than an unrecognized one.
That this fact is ignored in the debate is deplorable, but fortunately there are those working in states across the world that understand that, in order for there to be reliable, official assistance granted to the people of Palestine, having their state recognized first of all, makes it far more likely to happen.
It means that the Palestinian passport can be recognized, officially, on refugee lines. It means that aid can be declared a state-to-state expenditure.
There are so many benefits to recognizing Palestinian statehood that one really must question the motives of those who do not understand why it is essential that it happen.
If anyone really cared, there should have been drones from every country flying recon over the place for years now confirming or denying evidence of atrocity
Both the Jewish people and Palestinian people are indigenous to the land of Israel/Palestine. Neither has the right to genocide the other.
At some point there will need to be a two state solution if they're going to be able share the land.
The current far-right Israeli government has in it what are basically the Jewish equivalent of Nazis, openly using genocidal language against the Palestinians, so it won't be happening while they're in power.
I hope they recognize the stete of Assyrians, aramiac/Syriac, Chaldeans, Yizdi and every other indigenous nation in the middle east.
As an Assyrian, my nation has been getting exterminated by Arabs, Turkish and Kurdish colonialist for millennia. We live in constant fear and I don't think we will exist in the next 30 years
On the contrary: terrorism is the way to make the west make a symbolic political gesture AGAINST you.
Their terrorism looks a bit less barbaric than what Hamas did, but the scale on which it's perpetrated is much larger and the dead babies don't care how it looked when they died.
Hamas barbaric terrorist attack shouldn't give carte blanche for an even worse response
Presumably not what Israel is doing now. I do fully agree with destroying Hamas. How is the current situation going to achieve that?
Either they will have to eliminate the entire population of Gaza one way or the other (I can’t see any country that would be willing to accept all those people..) or as soon as they leave Hamas will get thousands and thousands of new recruits, due to obvious reasons. There is no better way to radicalize someone than blowing up their house and murdering their family..
But in large part the main goal of what is happening now is the preservation of Netanyahu’s political career (and that of his cronies). Just like when he was supporting Hamas to divide the Palestinians.
I see it as Nazi Germany and the de-nazification process. Reconstruction and economic prosperity combined with re-education program lead by the allies occupying the different zones with a clear time-limited mandate. US occupation of Japan after WW2 might also provide some ideas on how it could work.
I don't think letting the Nazi regime or the Japan regime survive the war would have been a great idea. I think the same about Hamas.
I wonder what would have been the views in the West at the time if TikTok existed and people saw the war as vividly. I can only imagine how the Nazi propaganda would have worked out on the US for example.
It was very superficial, though. The German government was still full of nazis until the entire generation who held power in the nazis regime died out. They became extremely lenient and protective towards war criminals as soon as the allies stopped caring.
Of course that’s unlikely to work in Gaza since Hamas (and similar organizations) are inherently unwilling to compromise about anything unlike the [former] nazis in Germany.
Have you considered that the rest of world is increasingly looking at the Likud Party the same way you view Nazi Germany? Israel is desperately in need of a forceful re-education program. Unfortunately, being a nuclear-armed state makes regime change extremely difficult to achieve on any reasonable timeframe.
It's good you recognize the need of a re-education program and regime change. Once one side gets re-education and the right leadership, the conflict can be solved peacefully and both sides can coexist productively. You seem to have concluded the wrong party needs those things.
There is a fringe minority in Israel (who seem to be very influential politically due to various reasons) who are only marginally better than Hamas, though.
> the Likud Party the same way you view Nazi Germany
Well.. that’s a highly hyperbolized statement. It’s still a very fringe/minority view.
Even if Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons no Western power would be willing to overhaul its regime or let alone invade it (and obviously there wouldn’t be sufficient public support for it either even in France or Britain e.g. even recognizing Palestine is not particularly popular https://www.jns.org/nearly-75-of-french-oppose-macron-push-t...).
I'm not Israeli. I'm part of the rest of the world and many people where I live and many other countries have the same view as I do about the right of Israel to military action to destroy Hamas.
I think there is a much widespread support for Israel than you think. And that the accusation of genocide are meant to silence this support as much as possible.
The US (and the UK) did massive damages to my country and particularly my region, while fighting against the Nazis, leveling cities and killing tens of thousands of French citizens. My grand parents had to flee on foot as far as possible from the combat zones on the request of the allies. There even was reports of hundreds of rape and even murders from US troops at the Liberation. And it was much much worse in Germany...
No one in their right mind would talk about the US pursuing a genocide against the Germans or the Normans.
We don't judge the US based on this, but based on the results they achieved and what they did after the war. I think most Germans also believe this.
I will also judge Israel based on what they do after Hamas is defeated. I hope they do the right thing, as the US did. And I believe they will and that it is in their best interest to do so.
If a cop shoots at a terrorist through a human shield, the terrorist did not kill anyone. They "win" in this scenario.
This is why the concept of patient de-escalation is consistent across all successful doctrines that combat terrorism. Terror is not defeated if the state copies chaotic strategies, only perpetuated.
No, this is a signal that ignoring the PLO was a humanitarian disaster. Israel was complicit in radicalizing Gaza and they should not be rewarded with Gaza's destruction after adopting indiscriminate terror tactics.
That's plain wrong. The PLO was already there before October 7th. They didn't recognize a Palestinian statehood at that time. This is a victory for Hamas, not for the PLO. The timing is everything.
Today Starmer finalized Yahya Sinwar plan. You can try to blame it on Israel but you're playing a music written by Sinwar.
Hamas exists because Israel chose to support them. They wouldn't be dealing with Sinwar had they not deliberately sabotaged the PLO, so of course we're in this scenario now! You can't get angry at the natural response to subverting democracy, same thing happened after the Iran 1953 coup.
It's a sickening thing to see from a modern military. Quite reminiscent of the Bangladesh genocide, which originally had the tacit approval of Nixon before the damages spiraled into genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide
One of the journalists that Wikipedia simply lists as "Killed by Israeli forces", Abdullah Ahmed Al-Jamal, happened to be keeping hostages in his apartment and was killed during their rescue.
Yep this is purposeful confusion created by the anti Israel propaganda. A lot of these lists and reports mix in some collateral damage - which is expected when a terrorist organization hides among civilians - with people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they were the bad guys. It’s hard to trust these claims when you can find these examples hidden among them.
I don't have the capacity to investigate all of them. I would be suspicious of lists that include a hostage-keeper, with no mention of his other activities outside of journalism, as well as many purported journalists with no particular affiliation.
Statistically it's all just a long series of one regrettable incident after another that far exceeds the usual death rate of journalists in every other conflict this century.
Masri's body was recovered alongside his camera in an external stairwell at the hospital, from where he had been broadcasting the view across Khan Younis when the Israeli strike hit, Reuters video shows.
A second blast on the stairwell minutes later killed at least 19 people, including rescue workers and four journalists who had worked for outlets including the Associated Press, Al Jazeera and others.
One of the four, Moaz Abu Taha, provided visuals to Reuters and others.
Reuters photographer Hatem Khaled was injured in the second attack while on the stairs filming the aftermath of the first blast.
Israel's military told Reuters on Tuesday that the journalists for Reuters and the Associated Press were not "a target of the strike." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel deeply regretted what he called the "tragic mishap" at the hospital.
Every individual case of journalists and rescue workers being killed in precision strikes launched with overwatch and followed through on to catch the responders can be quibbled about.
Yes, that incident looked pretty bad. Bad things happen in every war, we just don't tend to hear much when it's not Israel. For example, Ukraine had some cases of prisoner abuse like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_Russian_soldiers_in... (It's still minor compared to Russia's systematic prisoner abuse, though.)
They are opposing genocide. Doing nothing would reward what Israel is doing in Gaza now. This has not been about Hamas for a long time. Listen to what Israeli ministers are saying. There are ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for what they did in Gaza. The UN has described their actions as genocide. All of this is happening two years AFTER October 7.
It wasn't a UNSCR resolution or anything, but three individual UN employees whose credibility is debatable. UN employees is a broad category that includes terrorists such as Faisal Ali Musalam Naami.
Since 16–17 September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (created by the Human Rights Council) has issued a formal report concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That’s a UN investigative mechanism with an official report and UN press release, not a couple of random staffers. Besides that the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory (an independent mandate holder) reported in March 2024 that there are reasonable grounds the genocide threshold was met. And the International Court of Justice (the UN’s principal judicial organ) ordered provisional measures on 26 January 2024 because at least some rights under the Genocide Convention were plausibly at risk, orders it reinforced in May 2024. You can disagree with these bodies, but they’re real UN mechanisms and courts, not "three employees".
And as to Faisal Ali, separate independent review (the Colonna report) found Israel had not provided evidence of widespread militant infiltration across UNRWA’s workforce. Isolated criminality by individuals doesn’t erase findings by UN investigative mechanisms or the ICJ.
It's an independent commission of inquiry making a report to the HRC. The commission could have reported that the moon is made of cheese, and the HRC wouldn't be able to do much about it, other than politely suggesting that they consider a revision.
Even if HRC did have some kind of oversight, current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example.
> UN press release
Again "UN" is imprecise; the press release (at least the one I saw) was by OHCHR. Another of their press releases described Israel's hostage rescue operation as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces".
> the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory
Who has been accused of antisemitism by several countries, and is currently under US sanctions.
The COI issued a 70+ page legal analysis and a formal OHCHR press release summarizing its conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You can dislike the HRC, but the COI is a UN mandated investigative mechanism with its own methodology and evidentiary standards.
> "UN" is imprecise
Fair, but OHCHR hosting a press release doesn’t mean "just staff opinion". OHCHR is the Secretariat for HRC mechanisms, it publishes COI materials. The COI reports to the HRC but operates independently under UN rules for commissions of inquiry. These bodies are designed to feed into accountability processes (state action, sanctions and courts), which is why states and tribunals cite them.
> current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example.
Yes, membership is political, members are elected by the UN General Assembly but that doesn’t erase the COI’s evidentiary record. And the genocide question isn’t hanging only on the HRC, the International Court of Justice (a separate UN organ) has issued multiple provisional measures orders in South Africa vs Israel, finding Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention plausible and ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, ensure aid and (on 24 May 2024) halt the Rafah offensive. Those are court orders, not HRC opinions.
> "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces".
That phrasing came from a joint statement by UN human rights experts (Special Procedures mandate holders) about the 8 June 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, they were independent experts, not the High Commissioner personally or "the UN as a whole". They don’t bind the UN system, but their statements are part of the record governments consider.
> Who is currently sanctioned by the US for her antisemitism.
Judges from ICC are also sanctioned by US, almost anyone being critical about Israel is either condemned, called antisemitic or sanctioned by either US or Israel. I would like to remind you that US (alone) vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions. And US is isolated relative to most of the world (these below are only the ones I found from the last 3 years, there could be more):
UN General Assembly, Dec 12–13, 2023: "Immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza passed 153–10–23. US voted against, with a tiny minority of 9 other countries (Israel and some irrelevant little islands).
UN General Assembly, May 10, 2024: Resolution ES-10/23 upgraded Palestine’s participation rights and urged the Security Council to admit Palestine. It passed 143-9-25. US opposed and then vetoed the related Security Council membership bid on April 18, 2024.
Jun 12, 2025 Emergency Special Session (ES-10): A/RES/ES-10/27
149-12-19 in favor. Demanded an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, unhindered aid access, respect for IHL and protection of UN/NGO workers. The UK and many EU states voted yes, US voted no.
Sep 12-13, 2025 Regular session: "New York Declaration" on a two state pathway
142-10-12 in favor. Endorsed a two state framework that condemns Hamas and envisages a PA led governance track (so "Hamas free"). US and Israel were among the 10 no votes.
You don't punish Israel by giving a victory to Hamas. You punish the next victim of terrorism after you recognized that it works to make you obey.
If killing as many palestinians as possible was the intention of the Israel military, they wouldn't need to go into Gaza city, they would bomb it without sending troops on the ground. The only reason for going on the ground and losing soldiers is to go dig out the Hamas.
Having the intention of annihilating Hamas isn't genocidal.
Your whole argument is a copy paste from Isreal propaganda.
They didn’t "give Hamas a victory", recognition is about Palestinians right to self determination and about rescuing a two state horizon that successive Israeli governments have all but buried. That’s exactly how the UK, Australia, and Canada framed it today: "recognition is tied to 1967 borders, a reformed, non Hamas Palestinian government, and reviving a political track", not rewarding terrorism.
And no, this isn’t "ignoring Hamas". The ICC has warrants for Hamas figures and also for Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes during this war. You can reject the court, but the warrants exist and were recently upheld against attempts to quash them. That reflects how the law sees both sides’ conduct, not some applause for Hamas.
Saying Israel "must" be acting humanely because it risked troops on the ground doesn’t answer the core allegations. International law doesn’t turn on whether an army also undertakes ground ops, it turns on starvation of civilians, collective punishment, disproportionate strikes and incitement. Those are precisely among the acts the ICC cites (starvation as a method of warfare), and why so many governments now insist the political endgame can’t be left to military force alone.
If you want to deter terrorism, you need a credible political alternative that isolates militants rather than letting them claim they’re the only ones "delivering results". Recognition (explicitly conditioned on PA reform and excluding Hamas from governance)does that, it empowers non Hamas Palestinian institutions and puts real stakes on the table for a negotiated peace. That’s not "punishing Israel", it’s trying to prevent the next October 7 and the ongoing mass devastation in Gaza by giving both peoples a political path out.
So recognizing Palestine now isn’t capitulation to Hamas, it’s an attempt to stop a cycle of atrocities that law, courts, and most of the world already recognize as intolerable and to anchor a two state outcome in something more than wishful thinking.
You're arguing as if the debate was about the UK formalizing its intentions to recognize a palestinian transition government that would recognize Israel. It isn't. Otherwise we would probably not have as strong a disagreement.
My disagreement is on the recognition itself at this moment in time, with Hamas still being the strongest military and political force in what could be a Palestinian state in the future.
The conditions are not met, but the recognition is already formalized. Is the plan to rescind the recognition if the PLO don't act or isn't in capacity to act on its promises?
I think it effectively rewards Hamas actions on October 7th even if it isn't the intended purpose.
And when I say that I think it will encourage terrorism, I don't mean only in Israel but in the world. That might well be a possible way out for Israel as you say, but I believe it will become the strongest success for a terrorist organization in a very long time and give ideas to other faction worldwide, especially among jihadists.
All three governments paired recognition with language that explicitly excludes Hamas from any governing role and ties the path forward to PA reform, elections, and 1967 based parameters. Canada spelled out elections in 2026 with Hamas barred and a demilitarized Palestinian state, Australia said plainly "Hamas must have no role in Palestine" the UK framed recognition inside a two state horizon and negotiations, not as an endorsement of whoever currently wields guns in Gaza.
You can recognize a state while withholding recognition and cooperation from a particular authority. That’s what’s happening here: political recognition to salvage a two state outcome while keeping Hamas proscribed and sanctioned. The UK, Australia and Canada continue to list/designate Hamas as a terrorist organization and maintain sanctions, nothing about these decisions lifted that status.
> If conditions aren’t met, what leverage remains?
Plenty. Recognition can be followed by conditional steps (embassies, treaties, budget support, security cooperation) that only move if reforms happen so exactly what Canada, UK and Australia are signaling by tying recognition to PA reform, elections, demilitarization and negotiated borders. If those benchmarks stall, governments can freeze high level engagement, funding and agreements without "rescinding" recognition. The point is to separate Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fortunes, not fuse them.
It’s an attempt to take the oxygen out of their narrative by decoupling Palestinian statehood from Hamas’s fate and putting the burden on reformed, elected, non Hamas institutions to represent Palestinians. If that path advances, Hamas loses relevance. And as I already mentioned, if it stalls, the recognition still strengthens the legal/political basis for a negotiated two state endgame instead of leaving the field to endless war and maximalists on both sides.
It's very fortunate that they didn't change from being Israel allies to Hamas allies.
However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel.
The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...).
You made the best case that I read so far on a recognition though from a diplomatic point of view. I just think it's wishful thinking given the force in presence in the palestinian society, and that it evacuate too casually the optics of a recognition before any condition is met, which will be seen as an unconditional recognition by many (most?) people.
What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example? Not exactly an implausible scenario given the relatively recent history.
I get the optics point but the policy substance is narrower than the headline and there are ways to keep it from becoming the "unconditional victory" you’re worried about. Recognition is not equal to a blank check.
> The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...).
Some will. But policymaking can’t be held hostage to who posts what on Telegram. The question is whether the net effect shrinks Hamas’s political space so give non Hamas Palestinians a credible horizon and resources only if they meet benchmarks that Hamas refuses. That’s how you break the militants monopoly on results.
> However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel.
Because the last 30 years show waiting for perfect conditions just entrenches the status quo. Recognition now creates a legal/political anchor (Palestine exists in principle), while the capacity to exercise that sovereignty is earned. It flips the incentive so reformers can tell their own street, "we can actually deliver borders/freedom if we keep Hamas out and meet X, Y, Z..."
> What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example?
Then you haven’t "rewarded" terrorism, you’ve precommitted the world to a two state endgame while keeping teeth so you freeze benefits, tighten sanctions and preserve the political baseline for the day spoilers weaken. That’s still better than the current loop where only hardliners can claim momentum.
So I’m not hand waving the risks. I’m arguing that recognition + hard conditionality + security guardrails gives you a strategy, not a hope. It separates Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fate, creates leverage over the PA and builds a path where spoilers lose material advantages the moment they act like spoilers.
I see the recognition, where are the hard conditionality or the security guardrails? If the PA doesn't cooperate, what leverage exists?
This move alone could have accomplished a lot of reforms. So far all I've seen is:
1) the PA supposedly end "pay for slay" where Palestinians that commit terrorist attacks or their family gets more money for more dead and injured victims or for longer prison terms (this program may have actually ended, it's just really hard to tell because of mixed signals),
2) Abbas condemn October 7th once in a letter to France and Saudi Arabia in June 2025 (for the first time and a little under 2 years after October 7th happened), and
3) the arrest of a person that committed a terrorist attack in France in the 1982.
I really hope there was a lot more behind the scenes, because those seem pretty small.
Having elections they should have had for many years now wouldn't be that impressive either.
Why not condition recognition on 1) releasing the hostages and 2) Hamas / Palestinian Islamic Jihad / Al-Qassam / etc disarming? Those 2 things could end the current war.
It's time for the cycle of violence to stop, on both sides. Israel is consciously escalating the conflict to preclude the possibility of peaceful reconciliation. You can't even deny it; Israel built Hamas to kill Palestine.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Are you implying that was due to HN right wing bias? If so why is this the topic about Jimmy Kimmel not flagged when it is clearly left wing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482
In general all topics about politics gets flagged when they first appear since they are semi off topic. Then when enough people vouch for them they get unflagged, reports of big political events tend to get unflagged, but political opinion pieces or smaller events typically do not.
>And they think this is a good opportunity to recognise a state?
narrator: yes.
because this is not about recognizing palestine, it's about punishing Israel (and making some people happy internally). UK openly said 2 months ago, "unless Israel does following things, we will recognize Palestine".
Exactly it's pure politics. I'm sure all the people getting blown up in Gaza city and who have lost everything appreciate this gesture.
It's not at all cowardly and disingenous of the UK to link their recognition of a palestinian state to Israels actions. It really shows how deeply they believe in this cause. Also well done for starmer for coordinating this with everyone else so the UK wouldn't be singled out by trump.
But i have to hand it to France and Macron for being the most disingenous and cowardly of the lot. They spearheaded this effort and are bravely waiting to see what Trump will do before putting their money where their mouth is.
Quick comment - I think many lesser known Palestinian leaders have advocated for decades for a “one state solution” that would give Palestinians equal rights but preserve some aspects of the current Basic Law to protect Jewish rights?
This is not about Israel self defense against violence and was not for a long time. Israel has all the power in the region, was trying to expand for years, did nothing with illegal settlements and is literally consciously organizing genocide.
Israel was giving all benefits of the doubt for years and years while actively creating currently present situation. Like common.
My cynical take is that the leadership in these countries has realized that no amount of hiding under the carpet could save them from the culpability of having actively supporting a genocide, so now they are scurrying like cockroaches trying to distance themselves from the genocidal Israeli state.
We should remember that it was those very same governments that happily supplied weapons to Israel and actively blocked resolutions by the UN to recognize and stop the genocide that's been happening in the last two years. We need to hold our "leaders" accountable and not allow them to escape culpability.
>> Does it in any meaningful way help palestinians
Given the Israeli governments ongoing efforts to make them disappear from the face of the earth, other countries recognising that they exist is helpful.
If that was their goal they would have done it on October 8th, quit with the nonsense. They wouldn't send their soldiers in to die when they could obliterate the entire place by air and sea if not for the fact they are purposefully not trying to what you accuse them of.
Unless the definition of genocide has been changed, even if all the buildings were destroyed that would still not constitute a genocide. My question still stands, why are Israel risking the lives of their young men and women inside Gaza if they are perpetrating a genocide which they have the capability to carry it out in less than a day?
You argued that Israel are not “obliterating” Gaza. I simply pointed out to you that they are, by any reasonable definition.
As it happens, they are also committing a genocide. I suspect you won’t accept that, but I don’t care. History will look back on this and agree with me, not you.
I argued that they are not committing a genocide and by every provable metric they aren't. I asked you a very simple question that you can't or refuse to answer, and I suspect its because if you answer honestly you'll come to the only logical conclusion. I'll also put to you that the only actual genocide that took place during this conflict was on October 7th.
October 7th was inconceivably horrible. But if you do not consider the situation in Gaza a genocide (there are rational arguments that can be made to support that) claiming that the massacre that started the whole thing was a genocide doesn’t make much sense at all.
Thanks for letting me know the definition hasn't changed and I'm glad you agree with me that there isn't a genocide taking place but a very intense war. P.S My people suffered an actual genocide and it didn't look like what is happening in Gaza. Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.
To be fair there was no risk of real political or diplomatic consequences for nazi Germany regardless of what they did (it’s not like the allies we particularly bothered by it until the war was over..)
The situation Israel is in now is very different due to their economic and military reliance on other countries.
Also I don’t think ordinary Gazans can somehow return the hostages..
The people in the suicidal death cult called Hamas might be able to (probably not at this point though) but they don’t seem to care much more about civilian deaths than than the Israelis..
"Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says"[1]. I'm going to assume that a man who was president of the international tribunal on Rwanda's genocide has more experience in what defines genocide that you do. It's worth reading if you wish to learn and are open to changing your mind.
>> Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.
How it 'can end' doesn't determine whether or not it is genocide.
It's a war and just because you don't like that doesn't make it a genocide. Your appeal to authority is irrelevant because we're suspicious of the motivation of this commitee and therefore the veracity of their findings.
I find it amazing that you can dismiss one of the primary reasons for the continued state of war as irrelevant.
Hamas will rightly hold this up as a major tactical and strategic victory. It will do nothing at all to help palestinians except the fat cats in the plo and qatar.
"We are ready to immediately conclude a prisoner exchange deal that involves releasing all our prisoners held in your prisons in exchange for freeing all captives held by the resistance"
How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden in World War 2? If people like you were listened to back then, you would be speaking German right now and I wouldn't be here.
Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.
It’s a false analogy, the conventional war is long over and hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore.
The equivalent would be the allies refusing to occupy Berlin and still bombing it well into 1946 despite the war being won.
Allies also had a rather clear plan on what goals they want to achieve and why. Israeli government seems to have no idea what do they want to achieve and how (besides extending Netanyahu’s political career..)
> hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore
They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory. "Destroy military assets and get out" can sometimes be a useful strategy, but it's a pretty short term solution.
> what goals they want to achieve and why
The goal seems to be occupation of the entire strip, to make it difficult for Hamas (and PIJ etc) to operate effectively.
It is not possible to be a member of significant minority, this would be a fallacy. But, I'm not as good as AI in explaining this and thus looked it up in Google:
While "significant minority" is
not an established logical fallacy, it can be used to commit two related fallacies: the appeal to minority and a flawed variation of the appeal to popularity (ad populum). This rhetorical tactic exploits the audience's biases by using the status of a group, rather than evidence, to argue for a claim
> They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory
If so its only because Israel decided to allow them to maintain that control.
> but it's a pretty short term solution.
Exactly, that seems to be Israel’s strategy. If they actually destroyed Hamas the rightwing government in Israel would lose the bogeyman keeping them in power (that’s why they were propping up Hamas for years).
If we hadn't bombed these cities we might not have won the war. Arguably we didn't have to nuke Japan but chose to over the cost of the lives of our own soldiers (including my grandfather a marine in the pacific). War involves doing horrific things you don't want to do and wouldn't normally do (look at Israel's actions pre Oct 7th versus post, this sort of war is not the natural state for Israel). War requires you lean on the side of doing too much damage versus limiting your military actions. War requires you take maximal actions, unlike policing where we try to use minimal. If the US fought Japan how people want Israel to fight the government of Gaza, I would not exist, my grandfather would have died storming Japan. It would have been a more moral victory, but it is very hard for any society to choose sacrificing their 18 years olds in a conflict initiated by the other side, when war strategy dictates that other paths/actions be taken, paths with less of your 18 year olds dead and a higher chance of reaching your goals. War by it's naturing is fought maximally, not as a police action.
This is also not a gentleman's war. A neighboring government supported by their citizens who joined in spontaneously, launched a surprise attack that killed 1000+, and indiscriminately maimed/raped/tortured thousands more, while broadcasting video of themselves kidnapping random 6 year old girls to the world, neighboring citizens who phoned home to their parents to brag 'I killed 10 jews today'.
War sucks. War is horrific. Which is why it sucks Hamas, the government of Gaza, chose this war. Why it sucks Hamas structured things for the war to proceed, with maximal civilian damage and casualties. Why it sucks Hamas chose to use civilian hostages abducted during the murder/rape/maiming of thousands. No country can just let their citizens be abducted and held captive like Hamas choses to do, intentionally ratcheting up the pressure/tempo of the war that they initiated.
But allies stopped bombing Germany after they occupied it?
They had rather specific goals and were willing to directly occupy Germany at great risk and cost instead of continuing to bomb its civilians for an indeterminate amount of time while they starved to death..
Gaza is getting 3,004 calories of energy per day per person.
Official rations in Germany varied from 800–1550 calories per day. 800 airdropped, 1550 the amount post occupation. Are you arguing Israel should fully occupy and partition Gaza, like the allies did in Germany, and cut from the 3004 current calorie target to the 1550 one used by the USA in occupied Germany?
What is different here? Germans in occupied Germany received LESS food than Gazan do today. Are you saying you want less food to go into Gaza because Gaza is getting twice the calorie targets of what the USA targeted for occupied Germany? Germany was fire bombed (much much worse than the bombing in Gaza) and given 1/3 to 1/2 as much food going on years after the conflict ended. I'm really confused what you are pushing for? I thought people wanted more food into Gaza, not severely less like how the USA treated occupied Germany.
It sounds like you are saying Israel would be more just if they firebombed Gaza then partitioned it into smaller pieces isolating residents to those areas, and cut food in half from what Gaza is getting fed today? And that's ignoring the mass mass rapes that occured in Germany. What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.
Putting aside its accuracy, your 3004 calorie count is for the first half of last year. Famously, of course, the food situation in Gaza is much worse now in 2025 than in 2024, starting with the fact that Israel allowed in zero (0) food for months this year. How does that fact change your opinion?
Again I am not condoning what Israel is doing, I am simply continuing the discussion of if the US treated occupied Germany better than Israel is treating Gaza DURING wartime (the US was worse than I list here during wartime), which I don't think the US did. War is absolutely horrible. It took almost a year for the US to allow aid agencies to bring in food for starving German children. It sucks. It sucks the government of Gaza chose to start this war, chose the path to all this suffering. Germans were still on starvation diets in 1947, 2 years after the war ended. Child mortality in Germany was double western Europe until 1948. That is war. War sucks. Fuck Hamas for choosing war.
While WW2 ended in May 1945, relief organizations were not allowed into occupied Germany with supplies for starving children until mid 1946
Which months did Gaza not receive any aid? I see statements like this from the UN:
"Within the enclave, the World Food Programme (WFP) has food stocks sufficient to support active kitchens and bakeries for up to one month, as well as ready-to-eat food parcels to support 550,000 people for two weeks, Mr. Dujarric said."
implying their is future risk, not that there were months with zero aid given out. There were months Germany did not receive new aid shipments as well, but existing aid was still given out. It looks like July of this year aid was down due to Hamas, not Israel. Again remember we are talking post war Germany versus active conflict Gaza where Hamas USES these sorts of things as weapons.
Looking around the GHF food boxes contain 42500 calories for 5.5 people for 3.5 days, making it 2207 calories a day. Still significantly higher than what the US occupation fed to Germans, the comparison that was brought up as 'better'.
So again, they are better off than occupied Germany was in the 1000-1500 calorie occupation/immediate post war 1945–46 years.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying war completely sucks, but that Israel is doing more than the USA did for Germany at the end of and immediately following WW2, the example that was presented to me as being better.
"The German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in Western Europe until the close of 1948."
"In early 1946, U.S. President Harry S. Truman allowed foreign relief organizations to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946, non-German relief organizations were permitted to help starving German children.[19] The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of 1946–47, when German food energy intake ranged from 4,200 to 6,300 kJ (1,000 to 1,500 kcal) per day, a situation made worse by severe lack of fuel for heating."
"Herbert Hoover reported that in the fall of 1946, starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70"
"Also, once it became clear there would be no rising, as threatened by the Nazis during the war, food controls were relaxed." - showing access to food was political on the US side.
"U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population; these orders also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible"
"Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour 20 liters [5 U.S. gallons] of leftover cocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy among my countrymen."
I think we've exhausted this discussion. Objectively occupied Germany had much much lower daily calories than ongoing combat Gaza. The US waited a year before aid agencies could help starving children. The US troops destroyed food IN FRONT OF starving Germans as part of policy for a year.
It looks like during a two month pause in fighting stocks were built up in Gaza. From reading the articles while there were fears, it looks like food was handed out continuously. I can't find calory counts, be if they dropped by half from the target 3000 calories they would still by at the high end for Germans during periods of US occupation (1000-1500 calories a day).
I would argue waiting a year before the USA allowed aid agencies to feed starving children after the war still puts the US occupation in Germany in a worse situation, the fact infant mortality was double in Germany for 3 years after the war, the fact that target calories were 1/3-1/2 for Germans than for the people in Gaza today.
Germans were at much greater risk as the 1000-1500 calories level doesn't leave as much room for issues as Gaza's 3000 calorie one. In addition Germany had really harsh winters during this period which would need more calories than Gaza.
I think we've explored this topic to it's end. I think objectively the occupation of Germany post war by the US was worse than what Israel has done during an ongoing war to feed Gaza. It's horrific that the government of Gaza chose to start this war and chose to head down the path to all the suffering that war can create.
These were major food providers in Gaza. If they had run out of food, I can't imagine that "food was handed out continuously." You are welcome to prove me wrong and find a major provider still providing food in ample quantities in early May.
I don't understand your point with the comparison with Germany. What the US did was barbaric and cruel. Maybe what Israel is doing to Gaza is the 8th circle of hell instead of the 9th, but who cares?
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban.
Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany, the situation in France, Benelux etc. wasn’t that great in 1945 either.) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban. Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
this is all very well-put, but when it comes down to it, Israel is deliberately prolonging this war, has been provoking it for years, and is not acting in the self-defense you're implying. Netanyahu is out of a job and maybe facing prison the second this war ends, nakedly promoted Hamas over a more reasonable power the best he can, and has aggressively pushed illegal settlements. and more than anything, is living on land that was Palestinian within living memory. none of this was true in WW2. you can blame Hamas all you like, but all you're doing is rewarding Israel's strategy to demonise and make Palestinian statehood unpalatable
also, and primarily, if you have any awareness of Japanese history whatsoever, you should be able to know that the nuking of Japan was the special case of all special cases. personally I think they should have just nuked somewhere in rural Japan first to make their point, and then gone for a population centre if that had failed to work, but that's beside the point, which is that Japan did not believe it could be beaten. any time they had been threatened historically, they had triumphed dramatically, often with the weather or random luck seemingly on their side. this sounds silly, but it's true. they needed to be shocked out of their arrogance. the same is not true of Hamas.
also your "war should be fought with maximum force" and--by implication--brutality is just complete bullshit and you've not actually made any effort to justify it other tham just saying that it's true
What a nakedly disingenuous set of questions. It's based in the West Bank, which is decidedly recognized, as a legal matter, as occupied territory, and the "government" is the Palestinian Authority. The PLO hasn't been relevant for some time.
> what message does this send to Hamas?
who cares? Israel has had a genocidal government for some time now that has, until very recently, only received positive reinforcement.
Netanyahu/Israel implemented policies that strengthened up Hamas after the PA started to become more amenable to peaceful agreements that would better secure their future. Whether that was just to keep both sides fighting or a desire to Hamas to actually win out is up for debate.
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."[50][51] -- B Netanyahu
> there is a successful Palestinian state to be recognized
PA being less incompetent and corrupt wouldn’t do much to change that when significant proportion of the West Bank are occupied and Israeli is continuously taking over more territory. A state that doesn’t control its own territory is by definition not very successful..
You point out the 'terrorist government' in Gaza. The 'corrupt' government in the West Bank. Why should we look at these as less legitimate that the government that the UN has concluded has committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law?
And what hope does the Palestinian Authority really have in the West Bank when they continue to be under occupation and the Israeli govern covertly and overtly supports illegal settlements?
Finally - how can you look down on Gaza/West Bank as 'not legitimate' states when large parts of the state of Israel were taken through their own terrorism and invasion of their neighbours. That seems to be easily forgotten. They're 'legitimate' only because they've been backed by a superpower.
This is a typical approach by reactionaries to any change at all: "this is premature and it will only make future progress more difficult". So in the end nothing should change and the status quo should be maintained. Why bother to do anything?
I do agree that this is an empty gesture by complicit regimes that are trying to wash away their sins in arming and funding Israel (while USA is the primary culprit, UK and German have also poured vast ammounts of money into Israel). But calling it "premature" while in the middle of a genocide is ridiculous. Something needs to be done. _Something_ needs to happen.
And what's the rationale for calling Hamas a "terrorist" government? Israel has a government that has commited massacres against civilians in a scale and number much greater than anything Hamas has done, and yet it is recognized by the international community.
Very rarely, if ever, a State has been founded without fighting. Palestineans at this moment are fighting for their survival against genocidical maniacs, and they need weapons and support, not meaningless "sympathy" and prayers.
Hard to have a government or leaders when they get bombed simply for meeting to discuss peace proposals. The Israeli government has systematically stopped the Palestinians from developing a functioning government or economy.
I'm a disagreement on many things that horrifying Israeli government is doing.
Yet I can only imagine what would happen to Qatar if Bean Laden was taking shelter in it, none the less I hope this terrorists will meet their maker soon
Thought they were bombed because they continue to hold Israeli citizens that they abducted from their homes during the process of murdering over 1,000 people while maiming thousands more using indiscriminate violence. We saw this because Hamas were so proud they broadcast videos of themselves spitting on twisted bodies of stripped young women and kidnapping 6 year old girls. That is why they were bombed.
I think it worse than that because this recognition now can be directly traced to 7th October. So in effect this vindicates Hamas against partisans of a peaceful approach and in doing so sends the signal that violence and atrocities should continue since they pay. Hamas and similar organisations are not concerned about civilian deaths it that yields results, and in fact that has been their strategy.
Cynically, this recognition by the UK is domestic politicking. Starmer is at rock bottom and so he is seeking to boost support from the hard left and Muslim demographics.
Unfortunately, this is not a topic conducive to discussion, including here.
> sends the signal that violence and atrocities should continue since they pay.
What signal would it send if Israel came out better after killing 60 thousands people, almost 20 thousand children, razing to the ground most of a people's territory and commiting uncountable war crimes?
Israel had some of the strongest support it ever had after October 7th, and if in the end there will be negative consequences for the country, it will be *entirely* because of how its government chose to respond to it.
I agree it can be traced back to October 7th - but that's not the specific cause. If the Israeli's had reacted in a proportionate way these governments would not be recognising Palestine. It took nearly two full years of war crimes to get to this point. So acting like it's the result of terrorism is disingenuous.
there's an argument to be made that the current world situation(s) is mainly because three men (Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu) are trying their best to stay out of prison.
What is a proportionate way to respond considering the scale of what Hamas (de facto government of Gaza with popular support) did?
How did the US react to Pearl Harbour and 9/11? (Both of which were smaller attacks in relative terms than 7th October).
Should the response to such attacks even be proportionate?
I don't know what response Hamas expected but I suspect they did seek a very bloody one. They must have known and expected it considering the horror of what they did. So, again, I think this is all playing right into their hands, even if Israel has indeed been brutal.
So you saying that US etc. should have continued bombing Japan and Germany indeterminately even after they had full control (or were able to achieve full control) of their territory?
>> Pearl Harbour and 9/11? (Both of which were smaller in relative terms than 7th October
Curious how you're determining this? Unless I'm checking the wrong thing both had higher numbers of deaths than Oct 7. Pearl Harbour I think is different from the other two as it occurred during a world war (albeit the US hadn't entered it yet) and was an attack on the military primarily. And if anything is to be learnt from the reaction to 9/11 it's that it was a total waste of life. Invade a country, destabilise the entire region leading to an explosion in terror attacks in the west, and then hand that country over to the Taliban a couple of decades later. Oh and find Bin Laden in a completely different country a decade after starting the war.
I would say Afghanistan was disproportionate. Interestingly in 20 years of war there, there were less civilian casualties than just two years in Gaza. I think that tells us something about the proportionality of the current war.
>> Should the response to such attacks even be proportionate?
Yes, according to agreed international law.
>> What is a proportionate way to respond
I don't know the answer to that. But 50k+ dead civilians is disproportionate. Preventing aid from entering to the point of famine - disproportionate. Genocide - disproportionate. I think it's also critical to remember that, as despicable as Hamas actions were, they didn't come from nothing. That doesn't justify them, but it does help explain them. If you treat people worse that dogs for generations they might bite.
>> I don't know what response Hamas expected but I suspect they did seek a very bloody one.
No idea but my guess is they thought the hostages would help minimise the damage at least short term. It would be reasonable to assume that if you had innocent hostages in tunnels their government would be hesitant to bomb you from the skies. Sadly the Israeli government has shown they do not care about the hostages. The worst part of all of this is that the civilians killed in Gaza and the abandoned hostages are cared about so little by the people supposedly fighting 'for them'.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
We've banned this account for using HN primarily (exclusively?) for ideological battle and ignoring our request to stop.
(This is not a comment on the current topic. It's about a pattern of account usage that we don't allow here, regardless of topic and regardless of political affiliation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.)
There seems to be an important distinction between “recognizing” a thing and that thing existing in the myriad of real ways the “recognition” would imply.
I’d imagine the parent post is referencing this distinction.
To quote the British Prime Minister, the purpose of recognising a Palestinian state comprising both Gaza and the West Bank is to "revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution".
But how can that work in practice when the stated aim of Hamas is to eradicate Israel? It seems that removal of Hamas from power in Gaza would be a prerequisite.
Hamas isn't Palestine. Hamas is a response to the lack of recognition. Treat the people like humans and the support for violence rapidly decreases.
You see this everywhere again and again. The stated purpose of the IRA was to end British rule in Ireland and bring about a unified Irish Republic. How was it possible for that conflict to end without reunification, why did the support for the violence dissipate? Giving people equal status and the means to better their material position. But as long as the British would have kept the army on the ground shooting protestors? They wouldn't even sit at the table.
Yes, you stop with any idea of "preventing" democratic outcomes you don't like in other countries. As long as you keep that up the only thing you will prevent is a peaceful outcome.
This is exactly what will happen again and is why Israel is moving ahead with gaining more control over the region. Which is all historically Jewish land anyways.
Jewish people grew out of the Canaanites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan) who occupied the region before the Philistines, who migrated there (Greek origin). There’s a lot of religious and cultural stuff that carried over from Canaanites to Israelites (and later to “modern” Jews).
Jewish people are Canaanites. Things about them have evolved over time - language, culture, etc - so they don’t call themselves that today. But they still share lots of commonalities with ancient Canaanites. And also they’re literally descendants of the Canaanites since Israelites were directly from the Canaanite population.
It’s a good proxy since the residents of Gaza voted for them and polls - even after October 7 - show they still support them. This is despite their abhorrent fundamentalist genocidal charter and more than a decade of sustained rocket attacks against Israel.
Israel is fighting a war of self defense. If they wanted to eradicate the people calling themselves “Palestinian”, which isn’t a real legitimate identity (they’re just Islamic Arabs occupying the land), they could have done so in the first week of the conflict. Israel has done far more to avoid unnecessary deaths than any other country would in the same situation.
I am often baffled by this reasoning: A attacks B. A colonizes, kills, occupies, humiliates, etc. B. B swears to destroy A. All of a sudden, it becomes legitimate for A to commit all those crimes cause "hypothetically", B would do worse if they could.
They demand that the children of adam go back through the wardrobe and stop killing the giants.
They also affirmed their ongoing calls for the white witch to thaw her statues and condemned the arrival of spring which according to the leaders of the goblin hordes created adversial conditions for them. "we are well adapted to winter, and the arrival of summer gives hope to our enemies". Read their official statement.
While concerns mount about the fate of the centuars and the sapient horses, the white witch is in the middle of constructing her 15th winter palace. "i think we should be focusing on more important things, like ensuring the supply of food so that my palace can get completed. Just because i've declared perpetual winter for the last 3 centuries doesn't mean we must starve. My team is in negotiations with Aslan and our demands from him are clear. We want him to surrender himself so i can murder him. I was here since the beginning, who is he to tell me what to do? Would you like a Turkish Delight?" she said in response to a question posed to her by our correspondent.
In other news Caloremens Deplorable Word program is close to a major breakthrough according to experts. "we are researching swear words for peaceful purposes only. In order to better train our language models on what to avoid" they insisted. They also denied claims they started the current war in Narnia as a distraction.
You really cannot give a terrorist organization statehood and expect a good outcome.
I am of course referring to the brits, responding to zionist terrorists with Israeli statehood. Look what that did! It created a rogue state hell bent on genocide!
Not only it rewarded the Zionist Terrorists, it continues to support in vetoeing in UN. Gives money and arms to them, so that they can do the Genocide. I don't think US is going to supply Palestinians JDAMs, nor would Palestinians ask for it.
Labour is down really bad in the polls [1] and they need to score political points at least with left-wing voters who are currently split. This doesn't actually change anything on the ground especially as the UK is still arming Israel [2].
In the end, they might just end up tanking more in the polls as they end up having no consistent values.
FWIW: Polling showed American support for interracial marriages was still underwater in 1992, decades after the Loving ruling. Majortity support only happened on the mid-to-late 90s
You have a parlementaire democratie, so do I. It is not illegitimate for a democraticly elected official to do something within his legal rights that is against the opinion of the people. Doesn't matter wether he "lost" the election, he still won it more than you. You calling it illegitimate is more illegitimate than what Macron is doing.
No he didn't. He lost the election and as a result we don't have any government able to get a majority at the Assemblée Nationale.
Which is why he should refrain from acting such a strong policy shift and what could be perceived as a major change of alliance.
What would be equivalent would be Trump deciding to change a long standing geopolitical policy after he lost the mid-terms and without the US congress having any voice in the matter.
When you look at an old version of a wikipedia article it still displays the current version of images. That's why in your link the image legend has eg
>[light green] Countries that have announced their impending recognition of Palestine (Australia, France, Malta, and San Marino)
but Australia is dark green in the current image (France still light green and I can't be bothered zooming to see the small ones)
Just browsing history on MediaWiki will probably show the old tex with recenn image. If you want full article, you'd have to use web.archive.org, archive.is or somethinglike that.
As a Japanese person, I think that Japan before World War II was probably seen by the world much like Israel is seen today.
The difference is that Israel has the United States backing it.
Based on history and looking long term I see three paths out:
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
If you had said in 1988 that The Troubles in Northern Ireland would have a peace accord ten years later no one would have believed you. Everything seemed at a complete stalemate, and there is a history going back hundreds of years. Yet in 1998 the Good Friday accords were signed. And now, almost 30 years later, I think we can safely say it's been a huge success.
There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.
I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.
I don't know that you can describe northern island as being a happy success story. The most you can say is it's stable which is a success in its own right.
You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.
The IRA never expected women and children to be near shopping centres?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Manchester_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing
No because the IRA generally called in warnings. In both the 90s Manchester bombings there, people had 75-90 minutes to evacuate, they moved ~80,000 people each time and saw no fatalities. The warning for Warrington wasn't as effective.
Terror was the aim, not death.
> But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jean_McConville
The parent was alluding to civilians, not spies.
Northern Ireland is absolutely a success. Having family that are from there it's utterly unrecognisable to what existed in the 70s and 80s. It's far from perfect but the difference to those on both sides who live there is vast.
Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.
Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.
Israel pulled out of Gaza en masse in mid-2000's.
The fear of Israeli right hardliners was that Gaza would become a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists who want to wipe out Israel. Obviously.
Idealism prevailed. Israel even unburied its dead so as not to leave them behind, because some realists were present and knew what the Gazans would do to those dead. But Israel withdrew.
Then everything the hardliners feared came true, ultimately culminating in Oct 7th. Immediately after withdrawl, Hamas took over.
Instead of building a near utopia with what was left behind and the billions in aid Gaza received, and building peace with Israel, Gaza armed itself to the teeth, raised generations of terrorists, and entrenched those terrorists in an elaborate sprawling network of tunnels.
October 7th 2023, thousands of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and thousands of unaffiliated everyday Gazan terrorists poured into Israel when the IDF were, to use your analogy, were caught napping.
Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
Israel will always have to sleep with one eye open. As do all civilised nations, lest we have another 9/11, 7/7, Boston Marathon bombing, Manchester Arena bombing etc.
>Israel is a primarily Jewish country
How did that Jewishness result? It didn't materialize out of thin air, but as a result of the Jews expelling the Arabs from their homes at gunpoint, bulldozing their homes, and then building over the rubble. That has been the bone of contention for 70 years now.
Most of the terrorist threat in the West is a result of Israel's meddling in the region and the atrocities that have to be committed to protect them. OBL said as much in his Letter to America.
The concentration of Jews was a direct result of a different process of concentrating Jews, specifically in camps.
And the expulsion and persecution of Jews from Arab countries and Iran.
Regardless of what timescale you use, the presence of Jews in the region predates both other main Abrahamic religions by necessity, as Jesus was himself a Jew.
We can complain about how badly Britain and other colonial powers carved up failing empires til the cows come home. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh certainly can have an opinion on the British Empire. And great swathes of Africa can point in any direction and be pointing at someone who screwed them over.
At some point, we have to deal with how the world is now. History is important to learn from, agreed, but unless it's a really think history textbook it's not saving you from a terrorist putting a 7.62mm-based hole in you, or feeding you pressure-cooked ball bearings.
Most of the terrorist threat to the West is from Islamic extremists, foreign (inc imported) and domestic, and to a lesser extent the opposite end of the horseshoe it emboldens. To blame Israel for global or even regional Islamic extremism is both ironic and myopic. It's also academic. No change Israel could make is going to stop the Muslim majority countries wanting Israel wiped out.
PP asked,
> Didnt the jewish concenteation result from decades of "soft" power that evicted palestinian civilians as outcasts? (And in return festered terrorism.)
To which you basically replied:
> But look how bad all the others are and terrorism is almost all islamic.
This ignorance dehumanises and keeps the violence going. Israel cannot make confessions in a peace effort without acknowledging its decades of palestinian desintegration and apparently, the same is true for you.
[flagged]
You broke the site guidelines badly here. Please make your substantive points without personal attack in the future, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
Also, separately from the above, it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle. That's not allowed here, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do this. Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I do comment here primarily when I see kremlin's (or iran/hamas) propaganda and lies. That is true.
I do understand that it's your forum and your rules. I will try to abide by them.
I hope one day we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness.
I don't think it's "infantilizing" when the vast vast majority of palestians killed are children.
Can you provide any source for that, which is not hamas?
Will you accept the head of the IDF for much of the war?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/12/israeli-ex-com...
> A former Israeli army commander, Herzi Halevi, has confirmed that more than 200,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured in the war in Gaza, and that “not once” in the course of the conflict were military operations inhibited by legal advice.
> Halevi stepped down as chief of staff in March after leading the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for the first 17 months of the war, which is now approaching its second anniversary.
> The retired general told a community meeting in southern Israel earlier this week that more than 10% of Gaza’s 2.2 million population had been killed or injured – “more than 200,000 people”. That estimate is notable as it is close to the current figures provided by Gaza’s health ministry, which Israeli officials have frequently dismissed as Hamas propaganda, though the ministry figures have been deemed reliable by international humanitarian agencies.
Coupled with the IDF's own databases https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21...
> Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.
Coupled with the fact that half of Gaza is under 18, there's really only one rational conclusion here... and it's one the IDF largely doesn't dispute any more.
What reputable contradictory estimate would you like to highlight?
Sorry, but moderators of this forum threaten to ban me if I keep commenting on political topics. So I can't respond to your comment where you provide "non hamas sources".
And yet, you responded several minutes later to me elsewhere on this thread.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45360626
I'm left to conclude the fairly obvious.
Yes, conclude the obvious, keep citing hamas and compare apples to oranges if that makes you feel righteous.
The obvious conclusion is that the IDF/Israel (nor independent analyses; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02009-8) doesn't meaningfully disagree with Hamas's numbers, and that makes it difficult for you to cite a conflicting much lower claim from them.
The longer you engage in "politics" commenting while citing "mods said no politics" as a reason you can't cite any sources, the clearer this conclusion becomes.
[dead]
[flagged]
1948 vs 2025 Jewish Population:
Algeria: 140,000 -> ~0
Morocco: 250,000 -> ~0
Yemen: 550,000 -> ~300
Iraq: 135,000 -> ~0
Lebanon: 20,000 -> ~40
Iran: 135,000 -> ~0
Untrue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews
There are between 300 and 350 thousand Jews living in Iran. I presume the other numbers are similarly nonsensical.
Total population
Regions with significant populations Yeah, you misread this badly.There are 300~350 thousand Jews from Iran, but only 9,100 are estimated to still live there.
To be maximally fair to their argument, I think it is good to point out (not that it's the point that was made but that it's a good point to make) that 9,100 is a distinct departure from 0 when there are other numbers in the tens and hundreds. It's worth questioning the disparity and whether it's indicative of incorrect or misinterpreted data.
Not sure why I decided to comment specifically on what you posted given the fact that there are various levels of misinformation going on in this thread, but I guess yours is the most blunt.
Anyway read the article you linked to again, you completely misread it.
It's clearly documented that Mossad committed terror attacks against Jews across the Middle East to terrorize them into fleeing. Iraq, Egypt, etc. Zionist authorities had to bribe, maneuver and scheme to get many of these communities to make the journey. Not a conspiracy - you have actual Jews like Naeim Giladi who wrote, 'Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews,' documenting these efforts.
For instance, Moroccan Sultan Mohammed V protected his country's Jewish population of over 250k instead of straight up handing them over the Nazi-aligned Vichy regime.
Throughout all these countries, the Arabs & other non-Jews had a tight grip on state power and could have exterminated the Jews anytime they wanted. So, why didn't they? Why did the population of Jews in those countries grow for centuries? Isn't that the argument online Zionists use to defend their genocide in Palestine?
Western normies always lick up the 'they expelled us, so we had to expel the Palestinians,' but, please, don't do it here. It's wrong at best, and outright immoral at worst.
I'm always fascinated by the framing of Zionists which your comment aligns well.
Palestine, or what remains of it Gaza and the West bank. Simply are resisting an foreign occupation/invasion. Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
To fight an invading force that is killing your people is very honourable, as old as tale.
It is recognised as an occupation by all British governments in the last two decades, recognised as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ. The only people that think otherwise is Israel and it's followers.
Further, there is no Hamas in the west bank yet we see gruesome killings of children there too.
Attempting to hide behind anti-Semitism no longer works.
Lastly, Israel has lost a new generation of young, infact it has educated them and their parents. Memories of Israel's horrible crimes will live on, and rightly the existence of Israel inside of Palestine will always be controversial.
> recognized as genocide by Jewish scholars, ICC/ICJ.
Neither the ICJ nor the ICC (not even the ICC prosecutor) has made any determination of genocide. The ICC prosecutor sought warrants on (and the ICC itself issued warrants on some and rejected other) various offenses that are typically means of genocide, but not on genocide itself, while the ICJ has allowed to a case to proceed charging genocide, but has made no determination that that took place.
There are other international institutions which have determined that genocide is occurring, but the ICC and ICJ are not among them.
That’s not to say that Israel isn’t committing genocide (it plainly is), but it doesn’t help to misrepresent where determinations about that have been made.
> Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
Not really, Israel was created 31 years after it.
> ICC
ICC charges do not include genocide; Khan sought an extermination charge which the pre-trial chamber rejected.
> ICJ
ICJ hasn't yet made any finding on the matter.
> there is no Hamas in the west bank yet
Yes there is, though they're not the de facto government there.
> Modern Israel was created through the Balfour declaration.
False. Israel was established on its own by winning its war for independence and you are part of the remnants that still have a problem with that.
I don't know if that is to your own detriment, in most case it is just the usual inferiority complex towards Jews, which basically forms the foundation of the phenomenon of antisemitism. But it certainly is to the detriment of Palestinians.
Israel won the Battle of Beersheba in 1917?
That's quite the alternative history, it took some real guts to charge cavalry four miles across open ground into machine gun nests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)
Disingenuous Zionist rabble. Read up on some other less-biased historical sources (even wikipedia would help here), and please refrain from espousing misinformation to support genocidal states. Israel has never fought or won their independence by themselves, they've had Western imperial support at virtually every step of their journey.
Here's an article from 2019 published by Israeli media about how Netanyahu himself has directly funded Hamas for his own political gain: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_early_...
> Israel is a primarily Jewish country surrounded by neighbours who won't stop kicking each other regardless, and to whom Israel is a common enemy due to religion. Your analogy ignores the neighbours being racist sociopaths that will punch Israel at any opportunity and have done so historically repeatedly.
You make a good argument why a European people should not have established a country there. Doubly so considering it was already populated.
First, 60-70% of Israeli Jews are of Arabic descent, not European.
Second, while it's possible to complain about the circumstances of the creation of Israel, I'm not sure that doing so now, in context, offers anything constructive. It seems that by most reasonable definitions, Israel is a country, if a small one. Do you suggest that Israel be eradicated? If so, what happens to all the Israelis, who likely wouldn't be welcome in the area after the country's destruction? Is it any more justifiable to ethnically cleanse one group from the area than another?
I don't have an answer to this conflict, but it isn't clear to me that suggesting "this country shouldn't have existed at all" is an answer either.
Zionism was 100% an Ashkenazi project.
They didn't. Israel fought for its independence alone. And won. End of story.
And the endless recriminations continue. I can point out that Gaza was engineered to fail, and that every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored, and things like that. But I'm fairly sure that would fall on deaf ears because those arguments have been made a million times by now, so I'll save both of us some time.
Both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have a long list of legitimate grievances, no doubt. The insistence that no, we are the ONLY ones with legitimate grievances is a major roadblock towards coming together. The refusal to recognise these grievances amounts to a refusal to recognise basic humanity and dignity of people, and is a catastrophic failure of empathy.
And yes, there are people on the Palestinian side who do this also, but they did not respond to my comment and you did.
> every movement towards peace that Hamas has made since 2005 has been ignored
What movement towards peace?
June 10, 2003 — Hamas co-founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi says in an interview with al-Jazeera: “By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews’.”
June 25, 2006 — Hamas militants enter Israel via a tunnel, disable a patrolling Israeli tank, kill two of its four-man crew, seize another crew member, Gilad Shalit, and drag him back to Gaza.
June 7, 2007 — Hamas wins a brief but bloody civil war against Palestinian Authority rule in the Gaza Strip and ousts all Fatah officials.
January 4, 2010 — For Hamas, power is more important than leadership, according to al–Ahram: “Here, we have to direct the following question to Hamas and its leaders: Is power more important to you than the suffering of the Palestinians which you claim to be concerned about? If the Palestinian people are suffering terribly, then relinquishing power, in fact merely returning the PA to the [Gaza] crossing points, is a small price to pay. If not, then this means that the [Hamas 2007] coup and capturing power is more important to you than that suffering.”
April 8, 2011 — “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth because they have displayed hostility to Allah,” former Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh says on Al-Aqsa Television.
December 8, 2012 — Less than three weeks after Pillar of Defense, the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, marks the anniversary of Hamas’ founding by reiterating that the organization will never accept Israel and by calling for its elimination. Israel’s demise remains a core element of Hamas ideology and fervor.
May 5, 2014 — Mousa Abu Marzouk, the deputy chairman of Hamas’ politburo, says in Al-Monitor: “Hamas will never recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. … The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians.
July 25, 2014 — Former head of Saudi intelligence Turki al-Faisal holds Hamas responsible for the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip because of its arrogance. He writes in the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat: “The knowledge that the people of Gaza would be subjected to a savage bloodshed and suffering should have put limits to Hamas’ arrogance, but it did not. Moreover, Hamas’ readiness to cause a huge amount of suffering before the inevitable return to a truce or a cease-fire clearly exposes the abyss of unconcern into which it has fallen.”
July 14, 2019 — “There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help,” Hamas politburo member Fathi Hammad says at a rally on the Israel-Gaza border, as quoted by the Gatestone Institute.
May 26, 2021 — “I’d like to use this opportunity to warn the Zionist occupation and its leaders. We support the eradication of Israel through armed jihad and struggle,” Yahya Sinwar says
I think everyone knows what happened in 2023.
[flagged]
Please make your substantive points without personal attack and aggression. You've been doing this repeatedly lately, and it's not ok, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you think a Gish Gallop of tons of quotes is a good way of engaging? Their follow-up post is fine so no hard feelings. But critiquing someone dragging down the quality of the conversation after an attempt to raise the level is not a personal attack.
My post was not in response to "there are legitimate grievances on all sides," which I agree with.
But I cannot accept an off-hand suggestion that Hamas is in any way inclined towards peace with Israel. That is completely untrue, and I consider it dangerous to let that pass unanswered.
Falsely thinking that Hamas does want peace is an attitude that will not lead to peace, it will lead to more wars in the years to come.
That's something that the UK, Canada, and France all recognize, by the way. None of them want to see any role for Hamas in the future either.
You are, perhaps, not alone in thinking that Hamas has or has EVER had "peaceful" intentions, so I felt it called for a detailed justification why that was an incorrect position.
What's laughable, is to complain about "one-sided list of grievances" in a post on this issue. Have you seen any of the discussions on HN on this topic in the past two years?
e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24235665 (many more, just a quick search)
Whether you believe them is another issue of course. But you need to at least try and no one ever did. After many years of refusing to talk to the IRA in the end the British government did, and that was key to the lasting peace. This was hugely controversial at the time and Major government lead talks in secret which were leaked. Lots of drama. But in the end it worked. In 1988 people could have said about the IRA what you're saying about Hamas (and they did). The Good Friday accord didn't even demand immediate disarmament by the way, but rather over time. There were plenty of violent hick-ups too (e.g. Real IRA).
And sure, long-term there is no future for Hamas – certainly not the paramilitary wing – just as there wasn't for the IRA. But Sinn Féin (IRA's political wing) still exists and that's okay. It's impossible to exclude Hamas from any and all negotiations in the short term because they're doing the fighting.
A pure military solution will never be the answer (well, except via genocide, which is hardly an "answer"). Even if one could kill every single Hamas member, you will just end up with a new Hamas-ng and we're back where we started. This is why you need to address some of the underlying injustices, which is that the British government did.
And that was my entire point. Everything may seem impossible and hopeless today. But so did things in 1988 NI. There are real challenges for sure, but the outlines of a solution are actually not all that complicated.
>> but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.
Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
10% of population has been killed or injured. They are in 1940 not 1944/45.
If you don't like the word Genocide you can call it Demographic Engineering, but the fact that it is happening is beyond debate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15npnzpd08o
[flagged]
> In the context of war, what Israel is doing is not outside the norm.
"More children have died in three weeks in Gaza than in the entire sum of conflicts around the world in the past four years." — Save the Children, October 2023
10,000 children were kidnapped from Ukraine and the Palestinians supporters here said they don't care/it's not worth caring about. This is political/theological, not a pure morality issue.
[flagged]
The statement appears to be entirely accurate.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/least-10-children-kill...
> In 2024 alone, at least 600 children have been killed or injured in Myanmar.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/geneva-palais-briefing...
> As feared and as warned, the situation in Sudan has become fatal for a frighteningly large number of children. In reports UNICEF has received that cover the period from the start of the fighting until 25 April 2023, 190 children have been killed.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unimaginable-horrors-m...
> In total, more than 50,000 children have reportedly been killed or injured since October 2023.
Mariupol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
> Ukrainian officials reported that approximately 25,000 civilians had been killed…
Even if every one of those 25k were kids, still no.
The actual report "Save the Children" cites is available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4084012?ln=en&v=pdf - page three of the English report states:
> The violations verified in the greatest numbers were the killing (4,676) and maiming (7,291) of 11,967 children, the denial of humanitarian access (7,906 incidents), the recruitment and use of children (7,402) and the abduction of children (4,573). The number of children detained for actual or alleged association with armed groups including those which are currently under sanctions enacted by the Security Council, or for national security reasons, surged to 3,018, further depriving children of their rights. The highest numbers of grave violations were verified in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (8,554), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4,043), Somalia (2,568), Nigeria (2,436) and Haiti (2,269). The sharpest percentage increases in the number of violations were verified in Lebanon (545%), Mozambique (525%), Haiti (490%), Ethiopia (235%) and Ukraine (105%).
(A preemptive note: These are verified cases; so the real numbers will be higher. In both conflicts, verifying every or even most cases is… tough.)
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/average-least-16-child...
> At least 2,406 children have been killed or injured since the escalation of the war in Ukraine nearly 1,000 days ago, according to the latest available verified reports.
High-end estimate for Gaza (provided by hamas, a well known terrorist group): 64 000. High-end for Mariupol (provided by Uppsala Conflict Data Program): 88 000.
When comparing numbers one should also compare high-end estimates vs. high-end estimates and conservative numbers vs. conservative numbers.
That's total. Now, as the claim is about children, do the proportion of each place under 18.
Half of Gaza are minors, which is quite unusual, and very much not the case in Ukraine.
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... (6,609,605 / 37,732,836 )
https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-... (2,415,888 / 5,409,202)
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-popul... "The median age in Ukraine is 41.8 years."
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale... "The median age in the State of Palestine is 20.1 years."
I will do the proportions as soon as I find more sources on what is the median age of hamas member. Maybe you have some data on that?
Having some difficulty establishing food infrastructure after WW2, in a situation where the whole continent is ravaged, is totally different from deliberately destroying an existing and working aid system.
The US didn't ALLOW aid in for starving children until mid 1946.
The US ORDERED extra food be destroyed.
The US intentionally used food rations as a political tool to shape/punish/reward/control the occupied population.
That isn't having difficulty getting food in due to conflict.
A working pre-war aid system is going to be different during an ACTIVE war that the aided peoples initiated, especially when the aid came via the people that they started the war with. In addition resources have been forced to be diverted by the war that Gaza's government started as that was takes up a lot of resources/funds that were previously available for other things during the prior peacetime.
Normally a government plans for food supply issues prior to starting a war with their neighbors. Especially when all food comes through said neighbor.
From your wiki link, the US Army forbade sharing rations and this led to incidents like destroying 20 lbs of cocoa at a time. By early 1946 foreign aid organizations were let in.
They weren't bulldozing entire cities a year after the Nazi government collapsed. It's totally incomparable to the hate and viciousness we see from the Israelis.
hamas still alive, shooting rockets at Israel and it's leadership is secure in the qatar/turkey. unlike nazi government that surrendered. this is after 80% of berlin was destroyed and hitler committed suicide
There were dead-ender Nazi partisans in Germany, too. The USA actually occupied/governed in good faith instead of just slaughtering civilians randomly.
What's the plan here? Kill 10% and the rest will start liking Israel?
they are not partisans. they are government.
What government? Do they collect taxes and run any government services? Is there a single standing government building?
Look, eventually the dust will settle on this and it will be clear how many people Israel killed and what little it accomplished. All the current rhetorical points are going to look extremely silly if not evil.
by that definition whatever uk, canada and australia recognized is not government either.
i am pretty sure that at end of 1944 you would have demanded allies to stop fighting and leave germany, because germany is pretty much finished, and whatever they are doing is extremely silly of not evil. battle of berlin was totally pointless, it only demolished 80% of city, killed 125k people in a couple of weeks and accomplished absolutely nothing. right ?
No, i think what the allies did worked out pretty well. It's just not at all comparable to the currently ongoing genocide.
Notably, the end goal was a sustainable self-governing state rather than expulsion and annexation.
I think it's been pretty obvious for decades already that something like solution 3 is what will eventually happen. First two solutions would require compromise and sanity from both sides, which they are clearly not capable of. If roles were reversed, Palestinians would treat Israelis just as bad as Israelis are treating them now.
It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.
What happened in Rhodesia was very different from the situation in South Africa. Whites are still very influential (especially economically) in SA. Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe is maybe closer to French Algiers.
Neither is comparable to Israel since there's no home country for most Israelis to return to.
If a person's great-grandparent is the colonizer can you really say they have a "home country" beyond the one they were born in?
grant me safe passage to Algeria then… and return my family’s property while you’re at it.
Well.. Afrikaans people are as native to SA as Americans and Canadians are to their countries.
Netherlands loses control of it about the same time as US became independent and they developed mostly independently since then
I have no skin in the game, but I will do that for you, if you bring back the children from the death. Can you do that? Let's start from the Nakba. Maybe even from last year. No one is asking people to go back to Europe. All you have to do is Stop the Genocide, Repair. Reconcile. And stop the apartheid. But you know what, you have decided that Israel is untenable without war. Israel is of no use to the neo Imperialists, unless it keeps the region unstable.
Well majority of the white population in South Africa don’t have a home country to return to either. Afrikaans people moving to Australia, Britain or the US is not much different than forcing the Jewish people in Israel to go to those countries.
Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).
There is now even less hope for Palestine to ever become a country. These states try to keep this hope alive, despite it looking like it could justify terrorism like others see it.
A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.
Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.
Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.
2 million starved, 200,000 murdered or maimed, countless tortured, kidnapped, raped, districts and now cities raised. Never mind the decades of apartheid and similar acts of slaughter. Freedoms removed, and propoganda on a global scale.
There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> From POV of Israelies they gave Palestinians (2) and got a genocide in returns.
The one Israeli prime minister who was about to give the Palestinians (2) was killed by an Israeli
> Looking at Palestinians behavior they only want (1) that it's basically genocide for all Jewish Israelies. I guess it more complicated than you think
Wanting their land back does not imply wanting to exterminate its present occupants.
Quoting the one Israeli prime minister who was killed: "Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin used the phrase "less than a state" to describe his vision for a Palestinian entity during negotiations.
After Rabin was killed, there were offers that palestinians refused
There were some you consider particularly generous?
After the Netanyahu-backed Hamas take over of Gaza, there was little hope for discussions, of course
actually, hamas took over gaza because of USA. Netanyahu had nothing to do with it. Small refresher on palestinian politics:
- 2006 Elections were general elections in Palestinian Autonomy
- Both Israel and PA were against elections because they were afraid that Hamas will win but USA forced it because "democracy shall prevail and will resolve everything"
- Hamas won general elections in Palestinian Autonomy in 2006 and assembled government chaired by ismail haniyeh as prime minister
- USA is shocked as "nobody saw it coming"
- USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government
- Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
- During coup, Hamas killed, dragged behind bikes or threw from rooftops those that opposed it
- After coup, Hamas tortured into obedience or killed all remaining opposition
> - USA trained Fatah to coup against legitimate Palestinian government > > - Coup succeeded in west bank and failed in gaza in 2007
Adding more context here:
- The training was also provided by Egypt, and Israel
Now, let's go back a few years and tackle what happened before all that. Hamas did not recognize Israel under the Oslo accords, effectively saying if they were in power, the work done towards the accords would be in vain.
What was the accord about?
- "The internationally drafted road map calls for an end to Israeli-Palestinian violence, a freeze in Israeli settlement activity, and the creation of a Palestinian state."
israel allowed training. israel didn't train presidential guard. it would have been major scandal in Israel if something like this happened. quoting wiki
. At that point, the U.S. began to provide training in urban anti-terrorist techniques to members of the Presidential Guard, with the goal of strengthening Abbas's security forces. Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey also began to provide similar training for the Fatah forces, and Britain, Spain, and the European Union began to provide communications equipment, vehicles, and logistical support.
i am not even sure what exactly your second part of message meaning. unlike what OP said netanyahu wasn't PM at this timeframe. Ehud Olmert was, and he engaged in negotiations through his term till he resigned in 2008
The second part highlights the fear around Hamas winning the election. Having done so, the success of the accord was no longer in the hands of both Palestine and Israel. The accord would fail, given Hamas would be in power and showed no interest in following it and violence would prevail.
Apologies for being unclear in the first part, not the intention. Just wanted to point out Egypt was also involved, not just the US. The addition of Israel was for what you said, and there to try and be as neutral as possible (albeit I should have chosen my language better).
(as somebody who actually lived in Israel during that timeframe)
- PA/PLO didn't want hamas to win elections because they didn't want to loose power and money. It extremely corrupt and hamas victory was partly predicated on this
- Israel didn't want hamas to win elections because it didn't want terrorist organization running state.
When hamas did win, negotiations still continued up till the moment that Obama got elected and killed them [0]. When Ismail Haniye got nominated and voted in as PM there was long discussion in Israel that maybe from position of the power hamas will feel responsibility and will became more political and moderate. I remember countless discussions on tv how moderate Haniye is and if he will embrace oslo accords, recognize Israel, etc.
and if we are talking about oslo accords, there were badly wounded [1] by palestinian side by that time (think also second intifada) and everybody just wanted to get to finish line
[0] https://www.meforum.org/israeli-settlements-american-pressur...
[1] http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/WhitePaper.htm
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yep. To put it simply - just because Jewish people were driven out of their land in the past doesn’t mean it isn’t their land still. They’re the indigenous people of the entire region, to the extent one survives (Canaanites > Israelites > Jews). And it’s obvious - there are so many old Jewish ruins (like the temple the Al Aqsa mosque is literally built on) that are at least a thousand years older than when Islam was even invented (very recently - 7th century).
[dead]
Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Yair Lapid might be considered third generation as both him and his mother were born in Tel Aviv, while his father is Yugoslavian.
> Why are all of Israel's prime ministers either first or second generation immigrants of European persuasion? If so much of the population is either local to Palestine or at least the Middle East in general, shouldn't that be reflected in the highest echelons of power?
Are you seriously trying to imply that there's some conspiracy trying to lie about Israeli demographics? That's absurd. I'll assume you're not.
Anyone who goes to Israel can see the ratios pretty readily. Many Israelis are fairly "brown" and clearly of Middle Eastern descent. There's also about 2% of the population in Israel who are black Ethiopian Jews. No serious academics contest the numbers of Sephardic / Mizrahim expelled from Arab Muslim nations after 1948 either that I've read.
The Likud, the current ruling party in Israel, has strong Sephardic / Mizrahi base [1]. Yes, there is bias and discrimination in Israeli society. Israelis debate about these things all the time, including Arab Israelis.
Some commentators believe the Mizrahim vote more far right and tend to be pro the Gaza war because of the ethnic cleansing that their parents and grandparents endured from the Muslim states.
The Seohardic Jews and Mizrahim lived in largely Muslim countries for centuries after Islamic empires conquered most of the middle east starting with the Rashidun Caliphate. They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year. It's arguable that the Mizrahim were economically and educationally more suppressed than their European cousins, well at least until WWII.
1: https://www.972mag.com/why-mizrahis-dont-vote-for-the-left/
Perhaps my point wasn't clear enough:
"If Israel isn't a European colonial project, then why are all of the Israeli heads of state European?"
> They and other non-Muslims were treated as second class citizens and forced to pay jizyah tax every year.
If they were paying the jizya then they weren't paying the zakat. Jizya also typically exempted People of the Book from military service.
With France expected to recognize Palestine today, the United States will be the only permanent UNSC member not to recognize Palestine. (And over 75% of the UNGA also recognizes Palestine.)
I think there should first be something resembling a state and only then it could be recognised. Now there isn't any entity that looks like an independent Palestinian state. For that reason this recognition seems pointless to me although I'm sympathetic to finding a peaceful solution.
Do you think it's possible that Israel's campaign of violence and destruction was to result in a scenario not unlike what you're describing: a land so thoroughly bombed and a people so controlled by terrorism that it barely resembles anything self-governing?
None of the groups who rule Palestine have surrendered to Israel.
The allies did not stop bombing Germany and Japan until they surrendered.
Why do we expect Israel to behave differently than we would have?
That would be rewarding Israels actions though. Similarly your arguments apply to Israel as it doesn't meet all of the standard criteria of statehood, should it's statehood be revoked?
I don't think this from the point of view of who I'm rewarding. To me, Israel looks like a state with its independent foreign policy, army, government.
How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.
Palestine is not allowed statehood by Israels actions, often illegal. Israels illegal settlements and apartheid regime should have resolved the discussion on statehood decades ago.
The only moral viable solution I can see is 2 separate states. At this point support of anything else is supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing. If it doesn't happen then that is a deliberate choice of the US and I fear for the world never mind Israel or Palestine.
The irony is the British signed the Balfour declaration back in the day that in many ways helped to create Israel in the first place.
Indeed. Some analysis say this serves Israel's plan and it's smoke and mirrors.
I guess we shall see how Israel actually benefits from this soon.
Haven't come across this take before, what's the idea behind it?
Of the top of my head I'd say it takes pressure of Israel. "Our leaders are doing something", which makes western populace feel good about themselves again and move on to the next thing. I'd describe it as a 4d chess move for Israel.
[flagged]
For the sake of discussion.
Is there any objective difference to recognizing a Palestinian state, and Taiwan?
China will not stop having diplomatic relationships with a state that recognizes Palestine, as opposed to those who recognize Taiwan.
And if a country does not recognize taiwan why would they recognize palestine? is it simply that there are greater consequences to the former?
There's less pressure to do something about Taiwan because people are not currently starving or dying violent deaths at a high rate in Taiwan.
Perhaps Tibet might be a better example?
There are many differences between the two cases, and also some similarities. I don't really understand the purpose of your question, or why it's useful to compare?
I suppose it feels inconsistent in my mind not to do both, and personally I feel like Taiwan is a more legitimate case. (afaik they are not actively attacking another nation, the picture with Palestine is far less clear)
Serious question: how is declaring “oh wait, Palestine actually exists!” help the plight of the Palestinian people? I really doubt Bibi and his cronies will lose any sleep over a timid declaration in a climate that is increasingly critical of Israel’s actions.
In UK’s case, it seems to me more of the classic Starmer flailing about to recapture the votes of whatever group fared worst in his opinion polls. After appeasing Reform and the Tory voters, he probably feels it’s time to throw a bone to the Corbynites now.
Recognizing Palestine as a state is an act of diplomacy that certainly has no specific benefit for the people of Palestine.
But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?
Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.
Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.
[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.
It is very unlikely that Israel will ever withdraw its 500,000 citizens from Judea and Samaria, given the result from the 8,000 citizen withdrawall from Gaza.
An equal territorial exchange is much more realistic, as part of a two-state comprehensive package. However, "63% of Palestinians, 65% of Israeli Jews, and 13% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to this two-state comprehensive package.', see https://pcpsr.org/en/node/989 .
Equal territory exchange seems reasonable to me, borders needed to be negotiated; moving borders may be easier than moving population. Ensuring equal territory is equal is a hard problem, and perceived unfairness could lead to future conflicts, but any chosen border could be perceived as unfair.
In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support. I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's hard to convince the Israel government, since the last time Israel withdrew from Gaza (in 2005), a terrorist organization was elected and it resulted in multiple wars and waves of violence, leading up to the current conflict.
This is basically it. It provides the backbone for international rule based order to apply pressure.
It’s better than the alternative, which is to NOT recognise Palestine.
For whom and how it’s better?
For the people in Gaza who are now being blown to bits by an occupying force.
For the people in the west bank who is having their land stolen daily by foreigners.
Does recognising a state stop people from being blown to bits? Not in my experience.
So your experience, which doesn't matter by the way, calls to do nothing. You need to self reflect.
It is far more plausible for any state to accept refugees from a recognized state rather than an unrecognized one.
That this fact is ignored in the debate is deplorable, but fortunately there are those working in states across the world that understand that, in order for there to be reliable, official assistance granted to the people of Palestine, having their state recognized first of all, makes it far more likely to happen.
It means that the Palestinian passport can be recognized, officially, on refugee lines. It means that aid can be declared a state-to-state expenditure.
There are so many benefits to recognizing Palestinian statehood that one really must question the motives of those who do not understand why it is essential that it happen.
If anyone really cared, there should have been drones from every country flying recon over the place for years now confirming or denying evidence of atrocity
We don’t need drones for that. There’s plenty of Jordanian airdrops that confirm the destruction just fine:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/05/wasteland-rubb...
[flagged]
I wonder if their experience with Black September impacts their decision w.r.t Gaza.
If anyone really cared, they would have pushed out Hamas years ago.
they would do anything but concrete steps to help
First step is acceptance?
Australia is doing 2 way arms trade with Israel, UK is helping Israeli planes refuel and doing recon for them. Seems pretty paltry
Bargaining is definitely one of the other steps.
Both the Jewish people and Palestinian people are indigenous to the land of Israel/Palestine. Neither has the right to genocide the other.
At some point there will need to be a two state solution if they're going to be able share the land.
The current far-right Israeli government has in it what are basically the Jewish equivalent of Nazis, openly using genocidal language against the Palestinians, so it won't be happening while they're in power.
I hope they recognize the stete of Assyrians, aramiac/Syriac, Chaldeans, Yizdi and every other indigenous nation in the middle east.
As an Assyrian, my nation has been getting exterminated by Arabs, Turkish and Kurdish colonialist for millennia. We live in constant fear and I don't think we will exist in the next 30 years
[flagged]
On the contrary: terrorism is the way to make the west make a symbolic political gesture AGAINST you.
Their terrorism looks a bit less barbaric than what Hamas did, but the scale on which it's perpetrated is much larger and the dead babies don't care how it looked when they died.
Hamas barbaric terrorist attack shouldn't give carte blanche for an even worse response
Do you think Israel need to destroy Hamas after October 7th?
If you do, what is your magical way to destroy Hamas without killing any civilian?
Presumably not what Israel is doing now. I do fully agree with destroying Hamas. How is the current situation going to achieve that?
Either they will have to eliminate the entire population of Gaza one way or the other (I can’t see any country that would be willing to accept all those people..) or as soon as they leave Hamas will get thousands and thousands of new recruits, due to obvious reasons. There is no better way to radicalize someone than blowing up their house and murdering their family..
But in large part the main goal of what is happening now is the preservation of Netanyahu’s political career (and that of his cronies). Just like when he was supporting Hamas to divide the Palestinians.
I see it as Nazi Germany and the de-nazification process. Reconstruction and economic prosperity combined with re-education program lead by the allies occupying the different zones with a clear time-limited mandate. US occupation of Japan after WW2 might also provide some ideas on how it could work.
I don't think letting the Nazi regime or the Japan regime survive the war would have been a great idea. I think the same about Hamas.
I wonder what would have been the views in the West at the time if TikTok existed and people saw the war as vividly. I can only imagine how the Nazi propaganda would have worked out on the US for example.
> de-nazification
It was very superficial, though. The German government was still full of nazis until the entire generation who held power in the nazis regime died out. They became extremely lenient and protective towards war criminals as soon as the allies stopped caring.
Of course that’s unlikely to work in Gaza since Hamas (and similar organizations) are inherently unwilling to compromise about anything unlike the [former] nazis in Germany.
Have you considered that the rest of world is increasingly looking at the Likud Party the same way you view Nazi Germany? Israel is desperately in need of a forceful re-education program. Unfortunately, being a nuclear-armed state makes regime change extremely difficult to achieve on any reasonable timeframe.
It's good you recognize the need of a re-education program and regime change. Once one side gets re-education and the right leadership, the conflict can be solved peacefully and both sides can coexist productively. You seem to have concluded the wrong party needs those things.
There is a fringe minority in Israel (who seem to be very influential politically due to various reasons) who are only marginally better than Hamas, though.
> the Likud Party the same way you view Nazi Germany
Well.. that’s a highly hyperbolized statement. It’s still a very fringe/minority view.
Even if Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons no Western power would be willing to overhaul its regime or let alone invade it (and obviously there wouldn’t be sufficient public support for it either even in France or Britain e.g. even recognizing Palestine is not particularly popular https://www.jns.org/nearly-75-of-french-oppose-macron-push-t...).
I'm not Israeli. I'm part of the rest of the world and many people where I live and many other countries have the same view as I do about the right of Israel to military action to destroy Hamas.
I think there is a much widespread support for Israel than you think. And that the accusation of genocide are meant to silence this support as much as possible.
The US (and the UK) did massive damages to my country and particularly my region, while fighting against the Nazis, leveling cities and killing tens of thousands of French citizens. My grand parents had to flee on foot as far as possible from the combat zones on the request of the allies. There even was reports of hundreds of rape and even murders from US troops at the Liberation. And it was much much worse in Germany...
No one in their right mind would talk about the US pursuing a genocide against the Germans or the Normans.
We don't judge the US based on this, but based on the results they achieved and what they did after the war. I think most Germans also believe this.
I will also judge Israel based on what they do after Hamas is defeated. I hope they do the right thing, as the US did. And I believe they will and that it is in their best interest to do so.
[flagged]
[flagged]
If a cop shoots at a terrorist through a human shield, the terrorist did not kill anyone. They "win" in this scenario.
This is why the concept of patient de-escalation is consistent across all successful doctrines that combat terrorism. Terror is not defeated if the state copies chaotic strategies, only perpetuated.
[flagged]
[flagged]
No, this is a signal that ignoring the PLO was a humanitarian disaster. Israel was complicit in radicalizing Gaza and they should not be rewarded with Gaza's destruction after adopting indiscriminate terror tactics.
That's plain wrong. The PLO was already there before October 7th. They didn't recognize a Palestinian statehood at that time. This is a victory for Hamas, not for the PLO. The timing is everything.
Today Starmer finalized Yahya Sinwar plan. You can try to blame it on Israel but you're playing a music written by Sinwar.
Hamas exists because Israel chose to support them. They wouldn't be dealing with Sinwar had they not deliberately sabotaged the PLO, so of course we're in this scenario now! You can't get angry at the natural response to subverting democracy, same thing happened after the Iran 1953 coup.
The only way to legitimize terrorism worldwide is to let Israel persist unpunished. Precision-striking civilians cannot be the basis for future conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
The link listing journalists killed by Israel is crazy. Some recent examples:
> Killed when Israeli forces struck a tent sheltering Palestinians.
> Killed by an Israeli airstrike on his home.
> Killed by drone fire while collecting water near the Hamad Towers in Khan Yunis.
> Killed along with her husband and children after Israeli forces shelled a residential apartment.
> Shot by Israeli forces.
> Killed in her home by an Israeli airstrike along with her two brothers.
> Killed by an Israeli helicopter strike, along with three of his relatives.
> Killed in an Israeli airstrike along with her husband and four of their children. She was also pregnant at the time of her death.
It's a sickening thing to see from a modern military. Quite reminiscent of the Bangladesh genocide, which originally had the tacit approval of Nixon before the damages spiraled into genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_genocide
One of the journalists that Wikipedia simply lists as "Killed by Israeli forces", Abdullah Ahmed Al-Jamal, happened to be keeping hostages in his apartment and was killed during their rescue.
Yep this is purposeful confusion created by the anti Israel propaganda. A lot of these lists and reports mix in some collateral damage - which is expected when a terrorist organization hides among civilians - with people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time because they were the bad guys. It’s hard to trust these claims when you can find these examples hidden among them.
No comment on the other 260+ deaths? You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
I don't have the capacity to investigate all of them. I would be suspicious of lists that include a hostage-keeper, with no mention of his other activities outside of journalism, as well as many purported journalists with no particular affiliation.
Statistically it's all just a long series of one regrettable incident after another that far exceeds the usual death rate of journalists in every other conflict this century.
~ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/obituary-huss...Every individual case of journalists and rescue workers being killed in precision strikes launched with overwatch and followed through on to catch the responders can be quibbled about.
Overall - it's a shameful pattern.
Yes, that incident looked pretty bad. Bad things happen in every war, we just don't tend to hear much when it's not Israel. For example, Ukraine had some cases of prisoner abuse like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_Russian_soldiers_in... (It's still minor compared to Russia's systematic prisoner abuse, though.)
They are rewarding and encouraging terrorism by doing this at this very moment.
Do it before October 7th and that's another subject. Do it after Hamas has surrendered and that's also another subject.
They chose to do it precisely now, giving Hamas the victory they desired.
They are opposing genocide. Doing nothing would reward what Israel is doing in Gaza now. This has not been about Hamas for a long time. Listen to what Israeli ministers are saying. There are ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for what they did in Gaza. The UN has described their actions as genocide. All of this is happening two years AFTER October 7.
> The UN has described their actions as genocide.
It wasn't a UNSCR resolution or anything, but three individual UN employees whose credibility is debatable. UN employees is a broad category that includes terrorists such as Faisal Ali Musalam Naami.
Since 16–17 September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (created by the Human Rights Council) has issued a formal report concluding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That’s a UN investigative mechanism with an official report and UN press release, not a couple of random staffers. Besides that the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory (an independent mandate holder) reported in March 2024 that there are reasonable grounds the genocide threshold was met. And the International Court of Justice (the UN’s principal judicial organ) ordered provisional measures on 26 January 2024 because at least some rights under the Genocide Convention were plausibly at risk, orders it reinforced in May 2024. You can disagree with these bodies, but they’re real UN mechanisms and courts, not "three employees".
And as to Faisal Ali, separate independent review (the Colonna report) found Israel had not provided evidence of widespread militant infiltration across UNRWA’s workforce. Isolated criminality by individuals doesn’t erase findings by UN investigative mechanisms or the ICJ.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...
https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/unrwa_claims_vs_fa...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-review-israel-hasnt-prov...
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/t...
It's an independent commission of inquiry making a report to the HRC. The commission could have reported that the moon is made of cheese, and the HRC wouldn't be able to do much about it, other than politely suggesting that they consider a revision.
Even if HRC did have some kind of oversight, current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example.
> UN press release
Again "UN" is imprecise; the press release (at least the one I saw) was by OHCHR. Another of their press releases described Israel's hostage rescue operation as "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces".
> the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory
Who has been accused of antisemitism by several countries, and is currently under US sanctions.
> widespread militant infiltration
I wasn't claiming this.
The COI issued a 70+ page legal analysis and a formal OHCHR press release summarizing its conclusion that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You can dislike the HRC, but the COI is a UN mandated investigative mechanism with its own methodology and evidentiary standards.
> "UN" is imprecise
Fair, but OHCHR hosting a press release doesn’t mean "just staff opinion". OHCHR is the Secretariat for HRC mechanisms, it publishes COI materials. The COI reports to the HRC but operates independently under UN rules for commissions of inquiry. These bodies are designed to feed into accountability processes (state action, sanctions and courts), which is why states and tribunals cite them.
> current HRC members include Qatar, Cuba, and DRC for example.
Yes, membership is political, members are elected by the UN General Assembly but that doesn’t erase the COI’s evidentiary record. And the genocide question isn’t hanging only on the HRC, the International Court of Justice (a separate UN organ) has issued multiple provisional measures orders in South Africa vs Israel, finding Palestinian rights under the Genocide Convention plausible and ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, ensure aid and (on 24 May 2024) halt the Rafah offensive. Those are court orders, not HRC opinions.
> "the umpteenth massacre by Israeli forces".
That phrasing came from a joint statement by UN human rights experts (Special Procedures mandate holders) about the 8 June 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, they were independent experts, not the High Commissioner personally or "the UN as a whole". They don’t bind the UN system, but their statements are part of the record governments consider.
> Who is currently sanctioned by the US for her antisemitism.
Judges from ICC are also sanctioned by US, almost anyone being critical about Israel is either condemned, called antisemitic or sanctioned by either US or Israel. I would like to remind you that US (alone) vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions. And US is isolated relative to most of the world (these below are only the ones I found from the last 3 years, there could be more):
UN General Assembly, Dec 12–13, 2023: "Immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza passed 153–10–23. US voted against, with a tiny minority of 9 other countries (Israel and some irrelevant little islands).
UN General Assembly, May 10, 2024: Resolution ES-10/23 upgraded Palestine’s participation rights and urged the Security Council to admit Palestine. It passed 143-9-25. US opposed and then vetoed the related Security Council membership bid on April 18, 2024.
Jun 12, 2025 Emergency Special Session (ES-10): A/RES/ES-10/27 149-12-19 in favor. Demanded an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire, unhindered aid access, respect for IHL and protection of UN/NGO workers. The UK and many EU states voted yes, US voted no.
Sep 12-13, 2025 Regular session: "New York Declaration" on a two state pathway 142-10-12 in favor. Endorsed a two state framework that condemns Hamas and envisages a PA led governance track (so "Hamas free"). US and Israel were among the 10 no votes.
There is an obvious pattern here.
I cannot open the second link on UNRWA facts with any .pdf reader I own. Is that a me-problem or is the link really broken?
You don't punish Israel by giving a victory to Hamas. You punish the next victim of terrorism after you recognized that it works to make you obey.
If killing as many palestinians as possible was the intention of the Israel military, they wouldn't need to go into Gaza city, they would bomb it without sending troops on the ground. The only reason for going on the ground and losing soldiers is to go dig out the Hamas.
Having the intention of annihilating Hamas isn't genocidal.
Your whole argument is a copy paste from Isreal propaganda.
They didn’t "give Hamas a victory", recognition is about Palestinians right to self determination and about rescuing a two state horizon that successive Israeli governments have all but buried. That’s exactly how the UK, Australia, and Canada framed it today: "recognition is tied to 1967 borders, a reformed, non Hamas Palestinian government, and reviving a political track", not rewarding terrorism.
And no, this isn’t "ignoring Hamas". The ICC has warrants for Hamas figures and also for Netanyahu and Gallant for crimes during this war. You can reject the court, but the warrants exist and were recently upheld against attempts to quash them. That reflects how the law sees both sides’ conduct, not some applause for Hamas.
Saying Israel "must" be acting humanely because it risked troops on the ground doesn’t answer the core allegations. International law doesn’t turn on whether an army also undertakes ground ops, it turns on starvation of civilians, collective punishment, disproportionate strikes and incitement. Those are precisely among the acts the ICC cites (starvation as a method of warfare), and why so many governments now insist the political endgame can’t be left to military force alone.
If you want to deter terrorism, you need a credible political alternative that isolates militants rather than letting them claim they’re the only ones "delivering results". Recognition (explicitly conditioned on PA reform and excluding Hamas from governance)does that, it empowers non Hamas Palestinian institutions and puts real stakes on the table for a negotiated peace. That’s not "punishing Israel", it’s trying to prevent the next October 7 and the ongoing mass devastation in Gaza by giving both peoples a political path out.
So recognizing Palestine now isn’t capitulation to Hamas, it’s an attempt to stop a cycle of atrocities that law, courts, and most of the world already recognize as intolerable and to anchor a two state outcome in something more than wishful thinking.
You're arguing as if the debate was about the UK formalizing its intentions to recognize a palestinian transition government that would recognize Israel. It isn't. Otherwise we would probably not have as strong a disagreement.
My disagreement is on the recognition itself at this moment in time, with Hamas still being the strongest military and political force in what could be a Palestinian state in the future.
The conditions are not met, but the recognition is already formalized. Is the plan to rescind the recognition if the PLO don't act or isn't in capacity to act on its promises?
I think it effectively rewards Hamas actions on October 7th even if it isn't the intended purpose.
And when I say that I think it will encourage terrorism, I don't mean only in Israel but in the world. That might well be a possible way out for Israel as you say, but I believe it will become the strongest success for a terrorist organization in a very long time and give ideas to other faction worldwide, especially among jihadists.
They recognized a state, not Hamas.
All three governments paired recognition with language that explicitly excludes Hamas from any governing role and ties the path forward to PA reform, elections, and 1967 based parameters. Canada spelled out elections in 2026 with Hamas barred and a demilitarized Palestinian state, Australia said plainly "Hamas must have no role in Palestine" the UK framed recognition inside a two state horizon and negotiations, not as an endorsement of whoever currently wields guns in Gaza.
You can recognize a state while withholding recognition and cooperation from a particular authority. That’s what’s happening here: political recognition to salvage a two state outcome while keeping Hamas proscribed and sanctioned. The UK, Australia and Canada continue to list/designate Hamas as a terrorist organization and maintain sanctions, nothing about these decisions lifted that status.
> If conditions aren’t met, what leverage remains?
Plenty. Recognition can be followed by conditional steps (embassies, treaties, budget support, security cooperation) that only move if reforms happen so exactly what Canada, UK and Australia are signaling by tying recognition to PA reform, elections, demilitarization and negotiated borders. If those benchmarks stall, governments can freeze high level engagement, funding and agreements without "rescinding" recognition. The point is to separate Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fortunes, not fuse them.
It’s an attempt to take the oxygen out of their narrative by decoupling Palestinian statehood from Hamas’s fate and putting the burden on reformed, elected, non Hamas institutions to represent Palestinians. If that path advances, Hamas loses relevance. And as I already mentioned, if it stalls, the recognition still strengthens the legal/political basis for a negotiated two state endgame instead of leaving the field to endless war and maximalists on both sides.
It's very fortunate that they didn't change from being Israel allies to Hamas allies.
However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel.
The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...).
You made the best case that I read so far on a recognition though from a diplomatic point of view. I just think it's wishful thinking given the force in presence in the palestinian society, and that it evacuate too casually the optics of a recognition before any condition is met, which will be seen as an unconditional recognition by many (most?) people.
What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example? Not exactly an implausible scenario given the relatively recent history.
I get the optics point but the policy substance is narrower than the headline and there are ways to keep it from becoming the "unconditional victory" you’re worried about. Recognition is not equal to a blank check.
> The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...).
Some will. But policymaking can’t be held hostage to who posts what on Telegram. The question is whether the net effect shrinks Hamas’s political space so give non Hamas Palestinians a credible horizon and resources only if they meet benchmarks that Hamas refuses. That’s how you break the militants monopoly on results.
> However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel.
Because the last 30 years show waiting for perfect conditions just entrenches the status quo. Recognition now creates a legal/political anchor (Palestine exists in principle), while the capacity to exercise that sovereignty is earned. It flips the incentive so reformers can tell their own street, "we can actually deliver borders/freedom if we keep Hamas out and meet X, Y, Z..."
> What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example?
Then you haven’t "rewarded" terrorism, you’ve precommitted the world to a two state endgame while keeping teeth so you freeze benefits, tighten sanctions and preserve the political baseline for the day spoilers weaken. That’s still better than the current loop where only hardliners can claim momentum.
So I’m not hand waving the risks. I’m arguing that recognition + hard conditionality + security guardrails gives you a strategy, not a hope. It separates Palestinian national rights from Hamas’s fate, creates leverage over the PA and builds a path where spoilers lose material advantages the moment they act like spoilers.
I see the recognition, where are the hard conditionality or the security guardrails? If the PA doesn't cooperate, what leverage exists?
This move alone could have accomplished a lot of reforms. So far all I've seen is:
1) the PA supposedly end "pay for slay" where Palestinians that commit terrorist attacks or their family gets more money for more dead and injured victims or for longer prison terms (this program may have actually ended, it's just really hard to tell because of mixed signals),
2) Abbas condemn October 7th once in a letter to France and Saudi Arabia in June 2025 (for the first time and a little under 2 years after October 7th happened), and
3) the arrest of a person that committed a terrorist attack in France in the 1982.
I really hope there was a lot more behind the scenes, because those seem pretty small.
Having elections they should have had for many years now wouldn't be that impressive either.
Why not condition recognition on 1) releasing the hostages and 2) Hamas / Palestinian Islamic Jihad / Al-Qassam / etc disarming? Those 2 things could end the current war.
> You punish the next victim of terrorism
We already do that supporting Israeli doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
It's time for the cycle of violence to stop, on both sides. Israel is consciously escalating the conflict to preclude the possibility of peaceful reconciliation. You can't even deny it; Israel built Hamas to kill Palestine.
Fundamentalist Islamists are responsible for radicalizing themselves. You’re victim blaming.
[flagged]
practically means little
however a clear display of the end of the US soft power, after an interesting 6 months of foreign policy
> does nothing to stop the suffering of innocent people caught in this war
No shit. You are welcome to go further. Why people would use this as an argument against recognizing statehood baffles me.
[dead]
Yet another flagged post, this should be unflagged and returned to the default homepage.
It's off topic for HN:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Charlie Kirk was off topic but yet it didn't get flagged…
Are you implying that was due to HN right wing bias? If so why is this the topic about Jimmy Kimmel not flagged when it is clearly left wing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482
In general all topics about politics gets flagged when they first appear since they are semi off topic. Then when enough people vouch for them they get unflagged, reports of big political events tend to get unflagged, but political opinion pieces or smaller events typically do not.
This is real life not some made up rule book, people like you refer to when faced with things they don't like.
[flagged]
>And they think this is a good opportunity to recognise a state?
narrator: yes.
because this is not about recognizing palestine, it's about punishing Israel (and making some people happy internally). UK openly said 2 months ago, "unless Israel does following things, we will recognize Palestine".
Exactly it's pure politics. I'm sure all the people getting blown up in Gaza city and who have lost everything appreciate this gesture.
It's not at all cowardly and disingenous of the UK to link their recognition of a palestinian state to Israels actions. It really shows how deeply they believe in this cause. Also well done for starmer for coordinating this with everyone else so the UK wouldn't be singled out by trump.
But i have to hand it to France and Macron for being the most disingenous and cowardly of the lot. They spearheaded this effort and are bravely waiting to see what Trump will do before putting their money where their mouth is.
They also said that Hamas needs to give up the hostages, which they never did.
If they surrendered, the war would be over tomorrow.
Quick comment - I think many lesser known Palestinian leaders have advocated for decades for a “one state solution” that would give Palestinians equal rights but preserve some aspects of the current Basic Law to protect Jewish rights?
This is not about Israel self defense against violence and was not for a long time. Israel has all the power in the region, was trying to expand for years, did nothing with illegal settlements and is literally consciously organizing genocide.
Israel was giving all benefits of the doubt for years and years while actively creating currently present situation. Like common.
My cynical take is that the leadership in these countries has realized that no amount of hiding under the carpet could save them from the culpability of having actively supporting a genocide, so now they are scurrying like cockroaches trying to distance themselves from the genocidal Israeli state.
We should remember that it was those very same governments that happily supplied weapons to Israel and actively blocked resolutions by the UN to recognize and stop the genocide that's been happening in the last two years. We need to hold our "leaders" accountable and not allow them to escape culpability.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Finally is this anything more then an empty gesture?
You might think it is “empty”, but diplomacy is conducted via gestures like this.
Israel is rightfully becoming a pariah state. You should probably get used to headlines like this.
Canada and Australia are famously invested in how the left wing of the U.K’s Labour Party feel, and how British Muslim voters feel.
sarcasm?
What are the borders of the genocidal state of Israel? I think they haven't been defined either... They seem to be expanding...
>> Does it in any meaningful way help palestinians
Given the Israeli governments ongoing efforts to make them disappear from the face of the earth, other countries recognising that they exist is helpful.
If that was their goal they would have done it on October 8th, quit with the nonsense. They wouldn't send their soldiers in to die when they could obliterate the entire place by air and sea if not for the fact they are purposefully not trying to what you accuse them of.
30% of Gaza’s buildings have been destroyed or severely damaged.
Unless the definition of genocide has been changed, even if all the buildings were destroyed that would still not constitute a genocide. My question still stands, why are Israel risking the lives of their young men and women inside Gaza if they are perpetrating a genocide which they have the capability to carry it out in less than a day?
You argued that Israel are not “obliterating” Gaza. I simply pointed out to you that they are, by any reasonable definition.
As it happens, they are also committing a genocide. I suspect you won’t accept that, but I don’t care. History will look back on this and agree with me, not you.
I argued that they are not committing a genocide and by every provable metric they aren't. I asked you a very simple question that you can't or refuse to answer, and I suspect its because if you answer honestly you'll come to the only logical conclusion. I'll also put to you that the only actual genocide that took place during this conflict was on October 7th.
> by every provable metric they aren't.
Why does the UN say they are? Do you think destroying the entire people in one day would be as easy to pass politically as what they gave done?
October 7th was inconceivably horrible. But if you do not consider the situation in Gaza a genocide (there are rational arguments that can be made to support that) claiming that the massacre that started the whole thing was a genocide doesn’t make much sense at all.
Was September 11 also a “genocide”?
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c...
Historians will probably have a range of opinions on this matter.
No they won't.
Of course, holocaust deniers exist too. Some of them do it even for free.
The definition of genocide has never changed, but you probably never read it.
Thanks for letting me know the definition hasn't changed and I'm glad you agree with me that there isn't a genocide taking place but a very intense war. P.S My people suffered an actual genocide and it didn't look like what is happening in Gaza. Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.
To be fair there was no risk of real political or diplomatic consequences for nazi Germany regardless of what they did (it’s not like the allies we particularly bothered by it until the war was over..)
The situation Israel is in now is very different due to their economic and military reliance on other countries.
Also I don’t think ordinary Gazans can somehow return the hostages..
The people in the suicidal death cult called Hamas might be able to (probably not at this point though) but they don’t seem to care much more about civilian deaths than than the Israelis..
"Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says"[1]. I'm going to assume that a man who was president of the international tribunal on Rwanda's genocide has more experience in what defines genocide that you do. It's worth reading if you wish to learn and are open to changing your mind.
>> Interesting to note is how the "victims" of this genocide can end it immediately by simply returning the hostages but refuse to.
How it 'can end' doesn't determine whether or not it is genocide.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go
It's a war and just because you don't like that doesn't make it a genocide. Your appeal to authority is irrelevant because we're suspicious of the motivation of this commitee and therefore the veracity of their findings.
I find it amazing that you can dismiss one of the primary reasons for the continued state of war as irrelevant.
Hamas will rightly hold this up as a major tactical and strategic victory. It will do nothing at all to help palestinians except the fat cats in the plo and qatar.
I'm sorry for your people, but most recognized genocides look very different from every other.
And despite your history you don't seem very knowledgeable of what a genocide is, or willing to listen who actually studied the matter.
Hamas is not the victim of the genocide, but I guess you don't think there's any victim here, given the quotes.
The Israeli government said countless times that having all the hostages back wouldn't end the military operation.
And frankly, if all this abomination would actually succeed in forcing the hands of hamas, it would set a terrible precedent.
Others would have an argument to repeat it everytime someone holds hostage something.
Interesting to note, instead, how the Israeli government could have freed all the hostages for years, had it accepted any of the many offers of hamas.
What hamas offered: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/hama...
Or this, a few days earlier:
https://worldisraelnews.com/hamas-leader-in-gaza-yahya-sinwa...
"We are ready to immediately conclude a prisoner exchange deal that involves releasing all our prisoners held in your prisons in exchange for freeing all captives held by the resistance"
ah, yeah. "give us back all the convicted murderers and we will continue shooting rockets". sounds like a great deal.
also, those offers ain't mutually exclusive.
Yeah, or the minors held without even a charge.
For sure it's preferable to exterminate a few thousand more Palestinian children.
The second "offer" came after the first one was brushed off.
they want not minors that kept for a few months, but their comrades.
second offer is literally their charter.
"We could have dropped a nuke, but instead, opted to drop so many bombs over time which equal a couple of nukes! Totally not a genocide!"
How do you feel about the bombing of Dresden in World War 2? If people like you were listened to back then, you would be speaking German right now and I wouldn't be here.
Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.
It’s a false analogy, the conventional war is long over and hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore.
The equivalent would be the allies refusing to occupy Berlin and still bombing it well into 1946 despite the war being won.
Allies also had a rather clear plan on what goals they want to achieve and why. Israeli government seems to have no idea what do they want to achieve and how (besides extending Netanyahu’s political career..)
> Germany was still launching ballistic missiles at England a month after Dresden.
Just in the past 24 hours, there were rockets launched from Gaza toward Ashdod - https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-rockets-fired-at-ashdod-id...
> hamas has no real military capacity to do much anymore
They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory. "Destroy military assets and get out" can sometimes be a useful strategy, but it's a pretty short term solution.
> what goals they want to achieve and why
The goal seems to be occupation of the entire strip, to make it difficult for Hamas (and PIJ etc) to operate effectively.
"significant minority of Gaza territory" you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Do you have some kind of response that isn't just an ad hominem?
There is no such thing as significant minority. Therefore your argument is predicated on nothing, and a loss of time.
> There is no such thing as significant minority.
Huh? You'll have to explain that one.
It is not possible to be a member of significant minority, this would be a fallacy. But, I'm not as good as AI in explaining this and thus looked it up in Google: While "significant minority" is not an established logical fallacy, it can be used to commit two related fallacies: the appeal to minority and a flawed variation of the appeal to popularity (ad populum). This rhetorical tactic exploits the audience's biases by using the status of a group, rather than evidence, to argue for a claim
> They're still in control of a significant minority of Gaza territory
If so its only because Israel decided to allow them to maintain that control.
> but it's a pretty short term solution.
Exactly, that seems to be Israel’s strategy. If they actually destroyed Hamas the rightwing government in Israel would lose the bogeyman keeping them in power (that’s why they were propping up Hamas for years).
how does this follow?
If likewise fighting the Nazis had been stopped because of people calling it a "genocide" the outcome would have been catastrophic.
Hamas doesn’t have tanks, bombers, cruise or ballistic missiles though.
Destroying their capacity to wage war didn’t require blowing up every building in Gaza.
Unlike the Nazis, Hamas isn't capitulating. If the Nazis hadn't capitulated, the allies wouldn't just have gone home.
That’s true. However Israel is allowing Hamas to maintain some presence and control over Gaza instead of directly occupying it like the allies did.
[dead]
Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were destroyed without it being a genocide.
and so were many British towns and cities. atrocity /= genocide. how does the speaking German or non-existence of the commenter follow?
If we hadn't bombed these cities we might not have won the war. Arguably we didn't have to nuke Japan but chose to over the cost of the lives of our own soldiers (including my grandfather a marine in the pacific). War involves doing horrific things you don't want to do and wouldn't normally do (look at Israel's actions pre Oct 7th versus post, this sort of war is not the natural state for Israel). War requires you lean on the side of doing too much damage versus limiting your military actions. War requires you take maximal actions, unlike policing where we try to use minimal. If the US fought Japan how people want Israel to fight the government of Gaza, I would not exist, my grandfather would have died storming Japan. It would have been a more moral victory, but it is very hard for any society to choose sacrificing their 18 years olds in a conflict initiated by the other side, when war strategy dictates that other paths/actions be taken, paths with less of your 18 year olds dead and a higher chance of reaching your goals. War by it's naturing is fought maximally, not as a police action.
This is also not a gentleman's war. A neighboring government supported by their citizens who joined in spontaneously, launched a surprise attack that killed 1000+, and indiscriminately maimed/raped/tortured thousands more, while broadcasting video of themselves kidnapping random 6 year old girls to the world, neighboring citizens who phoned home to their parents to brag 'I killed 10 jews today'.
War sucks. War is horrific. Which is why it sucks Hamas, the government of Gaza, chose this war. Why it sucks Hamas structured things for the war to proceed, with maximal civilian damage and casualties. Why it sucks Hamas chose to use civilian hostages abducted during the murder/rape/maiming of thousands. No country can just let their citizens be abducted and held captive like Hamas choses to do, intentionally ratcheting up the pressure/tempo of the war that they initiated.
But allies stopped bombing Germany after they occupied it?
They had rather specific goals and were willing to directly occupy Germany at great risk and cost instead of continuing to bomb its civilians for an indeterminate amount of time while they starved to death..
That’s perhaps a bit different?
Gaza is getting 3,004 calories of energy per day per person.
Official rations in Germany varied from 800–1550 calories per day. 800 airdropped, 1550 the amount post occupation. Are you arguing Israel should fully occupy and partition Gaza, like the allies did in Germany, and cut from the 3004 current calorie target to the 1550 one used by the USA in occupied Germany?
What is different here? Germans in occupied Germany received LESS food than Gazan do today. Are you saying you want less food to go into Gaza because Gaza is getting twice the calorie targets of what the USA targeted for occupied Germany? Germany was fire bombed (much much worse than the bombing in Gaza) and given 1/3 to 1/2 as much food going on years after the conflict ended. I'm really confused what you are pushing for? I thought people wanted more food into Gaza, not severely less like how the USA treated occupied Germany.
It sounds like you are saying Israel would be more just if they firebombed Gaza then partitioned it into smaller pieces isolating residents to those areas, and cut food in half from what Gaza is getting fed today? And that's ignoring the mass mass rapes that occured in Germany. What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.
https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-025-...
https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/oconnell-washington-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany
> What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.
What do you think I’m arguing for?
Besides saying that Israel should finally decide what do they want to do instead of prolonging the current situation?
If they want to resettle or otherwise “remove” the population they should get on with it.
Otherwise they should trying to figure out a more sustainable solution.
Except Netanyahu’s political career seems to be taking precedent over everything else..
Putting aside its accuracy, your 3004 calorie count is for the first half of last year. Famously, of course, the food situation in Gaza is much worse now in 2025 than in 2024, starting with the fact that Israel allowed in zero (0) food for months this year. How does that fact change your opinion?
Again I am not condoning what Israel is doing, I am simply continuing the discussion of if the US treated occupied Germany better than Israel is treating Gaza DURING wartime (the US was worse than I list here during wartime), which I don't think the US did. War is absolutely horrible. It took almost a year for the US to allow aid agencies to bring in food for starving German children. It sucks. It sucks the government of Gaza chose to start this war, chose the path to all this suffering. Germans were still on starvation diets in 1947, 2 years after the war ended. Child mortality in Germany was double western Europe until 1948. That is war. War sucks. Fuck Hamas for choosing war.
While WW2 ended in May 1945, relief organizations were not allowed into occupied Germany with supplies for starving children until mid 1946
Which months did Gaza not receive any aid? I see statements like this from the UN:
"Within the enclave, the World Food Programme (WFP) has food stocks sufficient to support active kitchens and bakeries for up to one month, as well as ready-to-eat food parcels to support 550,000 people for two weeks, Mr. Dujarric said."
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161146
implying their is future risk, not that there were months with zero aid given out. There were months Germany did not receive new aid shipments as well, but existing aid was still given out. It looks like July of this year aid was down due to Hamas, not Israel. Again remember we are talking post war Germany versus active conflict Gaza where Hamas USES these sorts of things as weapons.
Looking around the GHF food boxes contain 42500 calories for 5.5 people for 3.5 days, making it 2207 calories a day. Still significantly higher than what the US occupation fed to Germans, the comparison that was brought up as 'better'.
So again, they are better off than occupied Germany was in the 1000-1500 calorie occupation/immediate post war 1945–46 years.
I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying war completely sucks, but that Israel is doing more than the USA did for Germany at the end of and immediately following WW2, the example that was presented to me as being better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany
"The German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in Western Europe until the close of 1948."
"In early 1946, U.S. President Harry S. Truman allowed foreign relief organizations to enter Germany in order to review the food situation. In mid-1946, non-German relief organizations were permitted to help starving German children.[19] The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of 1946–47, when German food energy intake ranged from 4,200 to 6,300 kJ (1,000 to 1,500 kcal) per day, a situation made worse by severe lack of fuel for heating."
"Herbert Hoover reported that in the fall of 1946, starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70"
"Also, once it became clear there would be no rising, as threatened by the Nazis during the war, food controls were relaxed." - showing access to food was political on the US side.
"U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population; these orders also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible"
"Your soldiers are good-natured, good ambassadors; but they create unnecessary ill will to pour 20 liters [5 U.S. gallons] of leftover cocoa in the gutter when it is badly needed in our clinics. It makes it hard for me to defend American democracy among my countrymen."
I think we've exhausted this discussion. Objectively occupied Germany had much much lower daily calories than ongoing combat Gaza. The US waited a year before aid agencies could help starving children. The US troops destroyed food IN FRONT OF starving Germans as part of policy for a year.
> Which months did Gaza not receive any aid?
Zero (0) food entered Gaza from March 2, 2025 to May 19, 2025.
Two and a half months.
Barbaric.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-halts-aid-into-gaza-ove... https://aijac.org.au/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-aid-into-gaza/#f... https://gaza-aid-data.gov.il/media/sftjdsg2/cogat-humanitari...
It looks like during a two month pause in fighting stocks were built up in Gaza. From reading the articles while there were fears, it looks like food was handed out continuously. I can't find calory counts, be if they dropped by half from the target 3000 calories they would still by at the high end for Germans during periods of US occupation (1000-1500 calories a day).
I would argue waiting a year before the USA allowed aid agencies to feed starving children after the war still puts the US occupation in Germany in a worse situation, the fact infant mortality was double in Germany for 3 years after the war, the fact that target calories were 1/3-1/2 for Germans than for the people in Gaza today.
Germans were at much greater risk as the 1000-1500 calories level doesn't leave as much room for issues as Gaza's 3000 calorie one. In addition Germany had really harsh winters during this period which would need more calories than Gaza.
I think we've explored this topic to it's end. I think objectively the occupation of Germany post war by the US was worse than what Israel has done during an ongoing war to feed Gaza. It's horrific that the government of Gaza chose to start this war and chose to head down the path to all the suffering that war can create.
A number of organizations announced during the 2.5 month pause that they had run out of food:
* UNRWA ran out of flour April 24. https://abcnews.go.com/International/malnutrition-gaza-worse...
* World Food Program ran out of all food April 25. https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-runs-out-food-stocks-gaza-borde...
* World Central Kitchen ran out of all food May 7. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/world-central-kitc...
These were major food providers in Gaza. If they had run out of food, I can't imagine that "food was handed out continuously." You are welcome to prove me wrong and find a major provider still providing food in ample quantities in early May.
I don't understand your point with the comparison with Germany. What the US did was barbaric and cruel. Maybe what Israel is doing to Gaza is the 8th circle of hell instead of the 9th, but who cares?
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban.
Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany, the situation in France, Benelux etc. wasn’t that great in 1945 either.) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
This is not WW2. This is much closer to the 2001 war in Afghanistan.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They can stage terror attacks their conventional military capacity is insignificant. Much like US vs the Taliban. Also it’s not like there isn’t anyone willing to supply enough food and other resources needed by the Gazan population (unlike in postwar Germany) it’s just that Israel is heavily limiting that.
this is all very well-put, but when it comes down to it, Israel is deliberately prolonging this war, has been provoking it for years, and is not acting in the self-defense you're implying. Netanyahu is out of a job and maybe facing prison the second this war ends, nakedly promoted Hamas over a more reasonable power the best he can, and has aggressively pushed illegal settlements. and more than anything, is living on land that was Palestinian within living memory. none of this was true in WW2. you can blame Hamas all you like, but all you're doing is rewarding Israel's strategy to demonise and make Palestinian statehood unpalatable
also, and primarily, if you have any awareness of Japanese history whatsoever, you should be able to know that the nuking of Japan was the special case of all special cases. personally I think they should have just nuked somewhere in rural Japan first to make their point, and then gone for a population centre if that had failed to work, but that's beside the point, which is that Japan did not believe it could be beaten. any time they had been threatened historically, they had triumphed dramatically, often with the weather or random luck seemingly on their side. this sounds silly, but it's true. they needed to be shocked out of their arrogance. the same is not true of Hamas.
also your "war should be fought with maximum force" and--by implication--brutality is just complete bullshit and you've not actually made any effort to justify it other tham just saying that it's true
[dead]
What a nakedly disingenuous set of questions. It's based in the West Bank, which is decidedly recognized, as a legal matter, as occupied territory, and the "government" is the Palestinian Authority. The PLO hasn't been relevant for some time.
> what message does this send to Hamas?
who cares? Israel has had a genocidal government for some time now that has, until very recently, only received positive reinforcement.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>genocidal Hamas
Genocidal Israel has no issue being recognized in the West.
[flagged]
Netanyahu/Israel implemented policies that strengthened up Hamas after the PA started to become more amenable to peaceful agreements that would better secure their future. Whether that was just to keep both sides fighting or a desire to Hamas to actually win out is up for debate.
> there is a successful Palestinian state to be recognized
PA being less incompetent and corrupt wouldn’t do much to change that when significant proportion of the West Bank are occupied and Israeli is continuously taking over more territory. A state that doesn’t control its own territory is by definition not very successful..
You point out the 'terrorist government' in Gaza. The 'corrupt' government in the West Bank. Why should we look at these as less legitimate that the government that the UN has concluded has committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under international law?
And what hope does the Palestinian Authority really have in the West Bank when they continue to be under occupation and the Israeli govern covertly and overtly supports illegal settlements?
Finally - how can you look down on Gaza/West Bank as 'not legitimate' states when large parts of the state of Israel were taken through their own terrorism and invasion of their neighbours. That seems to be easily forgotten. They're 'legitimate' only because they've been backed by a superpower.
This is a typical approach by reactionaries to any change at all: "this is premature and it will only make future progress more difficult". So in the end nothing should change and the status quo should be maintained. Why bother to do anything?
I do agree that this is an empty gesture by complicit regimes that are trying to wash away their sins in arming and funding Israel (while USA is the primary culprit, UK and German have also poured vast ammounts of money into Israel). But calling it "premature" while in the middle of a genocide is ridiculous. Something needs to be done. _Something_ needs to happen.
And what's the rationale for calling Hamas a "terrorist" government? Israel has a government that has commited massacres against civilians in a scale and number much greater than anything Hamas has done, and yet it is recognized by the international community.
Very rarely, if ever, a State has been founded without fighting. Palestineans at this moment are fighting for their survival against genocidical maniacs, and they need weapons and support, not meaningless "sympathy" and prayers.
You are missing the point entirely: this is not about future peace attempts, this is an attempt to stop an ongoing genocide.
Hard to have a government or leaders when they get bombed simply for meeting to discuss peace proposals. The Israeli government has systematically stopped the Palestinians from developing a functioning government or economy.
I'm a disagreement on many things that horrifying Israeli government is doing. Yet I can only imagine what would happen to Qatar if Bean Laden was taking shelter in it, none the less I hope this terrorists will meet their maker soon
> Yet I can only imagine what would happen to Qatar if Bean Laden was taking shelter in it
You don’t have to imagine; Bin Laden took shelter in Pakistan and all that happened was a single commando raid.
Actually first Bin Laden took shelter in Afghanistan. Could you please remind me what happened to it ?
Thought they were bombed because they continue to hold Israeli citizens that they abducted from their homes during the process of murdering over 1,000 people while maiming thousands more using indiscriminate violence. We saw this because Hamas were so proud they broadcast videos of themselves spitting on twisted bodies of stripped young women and kidnapping 6 year old girls. That is why they were bombed.
[dead]
I think it worse than that because this recognition now can be directly traced to 7th October. So in effect this vindicates Hamas against partisans of a peaceful approach and in doing so sends the signal that violence and atrocities should continue since they pay. Hamas and similar organisations are not concerned about civilian deaths it that yields results, and in fact that has been their strategy.
Cynically, this recognition by the UK is domestic politicking. Starmer is at rock bottom and so he is seeking to boost support from the hard left and Muslim demographics.
Unfortunately, this is not a topic conducive to discussion, including here.
> sends the signal that violence and atrocities should continue since they pay.
What signal would it send if Israel came out better after killing 60 thousands people, almost 20 thousand children, razing to the ground most of a people's territory and commiting uncountable war crimes?
Israel had some of the strongest support it ever had after October 7th, and if in the end there will be negative consequences for the country, it will be *entirely* because of how its government chose to respond to it.
I agree it can be traced back to October 7th - but that's not the specific cause. If the Israeli's had reacted in a proportionate way these governments would not be recognising Palestine. It took nearly two full years of war crimes to get to this point. So acting like it's the result of terrorism is disingenuous.
there's also the massive elephant in the room of Netanyahu, whose only thread holding him in power is the continuation of this war
there's an argument to be made that the current world situation(s) is mainly because three men (Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu) are trying their best to stay out of prison.
Trump and Netanyahu I know about, but Putin much less so, and I also feel like there's no way Putin would be arrested if he stepped aside tomorrow
What is a proportionate way to respond considering the scale of what Hamas (de facto government of Gaza with popular support) did?
How did the US react to Pearl Harbour and 9/11? (Both of which were smaller attacks in relative terms than 7th October).
Should the response to such attacks even be proportionate?
I don't know what response Hamas expected but I suspect they did seek a very bloody one. They must have known and expected it considering the horror of what they did. So, again, I think this is all playing right into their hands, even if Israel has indeed been brutal.
So you saying that US etc. should have continued bombing Japan and Germany indeterminately even after they had full control (or were able to achieve full control) of their territory?
>> Pearl Harbour and 9/11? (Both of which were smaller in relative terms than 7th October
Curious how you're determining this? Unless I'm checking the wrong thing both had higher numbers of deaths than Oct 7. Pearl Harbour I think is different from the other two as it occurred during a world war (albeit the US hadn't entered it yet) and was an attack on the military primarily. And if anything is to be learnt from the reaction to 9/11 it's that it was a total waste of life. Invade a country, destabilise the entire region leading to an explosion in terror attacks in the west, and then hand that country over to the Taliban a couple of decades later. Oh and find Bin Laden in a completely different country a decade after starting the war.
I would say Afghanistan was disproportionate. Interestingly in 20 years of war there, there were less civilian casualties than just two years in Gaza. I think that tells us something about the proportionality of the current war.
>> Should the response to such attacks even be proportionate?
Yes, according to agreed international law.
>> What is a proportionate way to respond
I don't know the answer to that. But 50k+ dead civilians is disproportionate. Preventing aid from entering to the point of famine - disproportionate. Genocide - disproportionate. I think it's also critical to remember that, as despicable as Hamas actions were, they didn't come from nothing. That doesn't justify them, but it does help explain them. If you treat people worse that dogs for generations they might bite.
>> I don't know what response Hamas expected but I suspect they did seek a very bloody one.
No idea but my guess is they thought the hostages would help minimise the damage at least short term. It would be reasonable to assume that if you had innocent hostages in tunnels their government would be hesitant to bomb you from the skies. Sadly the Israeli government has shown they do not care about the hostages. The worst part of all of this is that the civilians killed in Gaza and the abandoned hostages are cared about so little by the people supposedly fighting 'for them'.
[flagged]
Plenty of commenters have been making that case in plenty of threads on this site.
p.s. Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
[flagged]
We've banned this account for using HN primarily (exclusively?) for ideological battle and ignoring our request to stop.
(This is not a comment on the current topic. It's about a pattern of account usage that we don't allow here, regardless of topic and regardless of political affiliation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.)
[dead]
> This seems practically impossible
What does? They have recognised Palestine in practice, it's done. Therefore it was possible.
There seems to be an important distinction between “recognizing” a thing and that thing existing in the myriad of real ways the “recognition” would imply.
I’d imagine the parent post is referencing this distinction.
To quote the British Prime Minister, the purpose of recognising a Palestinian state comprising both Gaza and the West Bank is to "revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution".
But how can that work in practice when the stated aim of Hamas is to eradicate Israel? It seems that removal of Hamas from power in Gaza would be a prerequisite.
Hamas isn't Palestine. Hamas is a response to the lack of recognition. Treat the people like humans and the support for violence rapidly decreases.
You see this everywhere again and again. The stated purpose of the IRA was to end British rule in Ireland and bring about a unified Irish Republic. How was it possible for that conflict to end without reunification, why did the support for the violence dissipate? Giving people equal status and the means to better their material position. But as long as the British would have kept the army on the ground shooting protestors? They wouldn't even sit at the table.
The Israeli political left agrees with you and as such retreated from Gaza in 2006 to allow Gazans self determination.
They voted in Hamas and started a 19 year long terror campaign against both their neighbours.
Any pointers to prevent such a thing happening but 10x bigger when all of Palestine get self determination?
Yes, you stop with any idea of "preventing" democratic outcomes you don't like in other countries. As long as you keep that up the only thing you will prevent is a peaceful outcome.
This is exactly what will happen again and is why Israel is moving ahead with gaining more control over the region. Which is all historically Jewish land anyways.
The Philistines were Jewish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
Jewish people grew out of the Canaanites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan) who occupied the region before the Philistines, who migrated there (Greek origin). There’s a lot of religious and cultural stuff that carried over from Canaanites to Israelites (and later to “modern” Jews).
So neither the Canaanites nor the Philistines were Jewish and Gaza isn't historically Jewish land then?
Jewish people are Canaanites. Things about them have evolved over time - language, culture, etc - so they don’t call themselves that today. But they still share lots of commonalities with ancient Canaanites. And also they’re literally descendants of the Canaanites since Israelites were directly from the Canaanite population.
You are using the name Hamas as a proxy for Palestinian. Everyone can see what you are doing.
It’s a good proxy since the residents of Gaza voted for them and polls - even after October 7 - show they still support them. This is despite their abhorrent fundamentalist genocidal charter and more than a decade of sustained rocket attacks against Israel.
I am not.
[flagged]
Israel is fighting a war of self defense. If they wanted to eradicate the people calling themselves “Palestinian”, which isn’t a real legitimate identity (they’re just Islamic Arabs occupying the land), they could have done so in the first week of the conflict. Israel has done far more to avoid unnecessary deaths than any other country would in the same situation.
Incredible gaslighting.
As horrible and utterly inexcusable as it is it will take a very long while to accomplish that at the current rate.
If Hamas had the military capacity that Israel has, millions would already be dead.
Of course having different standards for an (supposedly) democratic state and a murderous death cult obviously makes sense.
I am often baffled by this reasoning: A attacks B. A colonizes, kills, occupies, humiliates, etc. B. B swears to destroy A. All of a sudden, it becomes legitimate for A to commit all those crimes cause "hypothetically", B would do worse if they could.
> becomes legitimate
I never said or claimed anything of the sort.
Candada? really?
[flagged]
They demand that the children of adam go back through the wardrobe and stop killing the giants.
They also affirmed their ongoing calls for the white witch to thaw her statues and condemned the arrival of spring which according to the leaders of the goblin hordes created adversial conditions for them. "we are well adapted to winter, and the arrival of summer gives hope to our enemies". Read their official statement.
While concerns mount about the fate of the centuars and the sapient horses, the white witch is in the middle of constructing her 15th winter palace. "i think we should be focusing on more important things, like ensuring the supply of food so that my palace can get completed. Just because i've declared perpetual winter for the last 3 centuries doesn't mean we must starve. My team is in negotiations with Aslan and our demands from him are clear. We want him to surrender himself so i can murder him. I was here since the beginning, who is he to tell me what to do? Would you like a Turkish Delight?" she said in response to a question posed to her by our correspondent.
In other news Caloremens Deplorable Word program is close to a major breakthrough according to experts. "we are researching swear words for peaceful purposes only. In order to better train our language models on what to avoid" they insisted. They also denied claims they started the current war in Narnia as a distraction.
You really cannot give a terrorist organization statehood and expect a good outcome.
I am of course referring to the brits, responding to zionist terrorists with Israeli statehood. Look what that did! It created a rogue state hell bent on genocide!
Cant have another one of those.
Not only it rewarded the Zionist Terrorists, it continues to support in vetoeing in UN. Gives money and arms to them, so that they can do the Genocide. I don't think US is going to supply Palestinians JDAMs, nor would Palestinians ask for it.
Labour is down really bad in the polls [1] and they need to score political points at least with left-wing voters who are currently split. This doesn't actually change anything on the ground especially as the UK is still arming Israel [2].
In the end, they might just end up tanking more in the polls as they end up having no consistent values.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
Macron wants France to recognize a palestinian state as well.
His party lost the last legislative elections. Polls show 78% against recognizing palestinian statehood NOW and without conditions.
He is totally illegitimate in doing so.
He's still going to do it.
That's not what illegitimate means. Polls are no legitimate basis for policy.
No, but losing the legislative elections does.
The polls just reinforce the issue.
Which polls ?
This one from june[0]. 78% that are against recognizing a Palestinian state now, emphasis on now.
0: https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/exclusif-reconnaissance-d-un-et...
FWIW: Polling showed American support for interracial marriages was still underwater in 1992, decades after the Loving ruling. Majortity support only happened on the mid-to-late 90s
You do what you want in the US, but I prefer my country to be a democracy.
You have a parlementaire democratie, so do I. It is not illegitimate for a democraticly elected official to do something within his legal rights that is against the opinion of the people. Doesn't matter wether he "lost" the election, he still won it more than you. You calling it illegitimate is more illegitimate than what Macron is doing.
No he didn't. He lost the election and as a result we don't have any government able to get a majority at the Assemblée Nationale.
Which is why he should refrain from acting such a strong policy shift and what could be perceived as a major change of alliance.
What would be equivalent would be Trump deciding to change a long standing geopolitical policy after he lost the mid-terms and without the US congress having any voice in the matter.
[dead]
[flagged]
I think a more correct title would be they recognized the potential of a Palestinian state.
> I state clearly, as Prime Minister of this great country…
> That the United Kingdom…
> Formally recognises the State of Palestine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-the-r...
I think a more correct title would be anything not containing "Candada" :)
save me Candaddy from geopolitical feuds
Last month the Wikipedia article for "International recognition of Palestine" had these countries in dark green, what am I missing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_rec...
When you look at an old version of a wikipedia article it still displays the current version of images. That's why in your link the image legend has eg
>[light green] Countries that have announced their impending recognition of Palestine (Australia, France, Malta, and San Marino)
but Australia is dark green in the current image (France still light green and I can't be bothered zooming to see the small ones)
If you're talking about the image, I think you need to look at the image history itself:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_recognit... (“File History”)
Just browsing history on MediaWiki will probably show the old tex with recenn image. If you want full article, you'd have to use web.archive.org, archive.is or somethinglike that.
Thank you very much, this is the answer.
They already announced they intended to do this a month ago
As a Japanese person, I think that Japan before World War II was probably seen by the world much like Israel is seen today. The difference is that Israel has the United States backing it.