These terrorists, yield? Already faulty logic. Their proclaimed goals and historic record show that will never happen and their budget for violence knows no limit.
It's as tough as desalinating water, but removing the civilians from the terrorists must happen. Otherwise the result will either be genocide of the 'salt water', or of the 'plants' the salt in that water is bent on destroying.
What is an acceptable plan for reaching the result of the civilians on both sides being safe? This is a political question, but it is one all must consider; at least as it informs our own votes where we reside.
I'll give you my honest opinion here and a criticism of Israeli government all at once. Israel should have moved the Palestinians civilians into Israel proper, e.g. the Negev. It should have created refugee camps for them there and provided them with all the support/aid while it went after Hamas. They'd be able to filter the people going in, make them surrender their weapons etc. No tunnels, no weapons caches, etc.
It's a very tough one to swallow for Israelis. I'm also not positive it would have worked. But I think it would be worth a try.
I think in the beginning of the war there was some thought of Egypt playing that role but it was pretty clear that wasn't going to happen.
The problem is throughout the war Israel had no appetite/desire to own the problem of Gazan civilians. Israel intentionally left that part to Hamas and the UN and at no time during this conflict has controlled any piece of land with Palestinian civilians.
>I'll give you my honest opinion here and a criticism of Israeli government all at once. Israel should have moved the Palestinians civilians into Israel proper, e.g. the Negev. It should have created refugee camps for them there and provided them with all the support/aid while it went after Hamas. They'd be able to filter the people going in, make them surrender their weapons etc. No tunnels, no weapons caches, etc.
It should have simply returned the refugees to their land. But then they wouldnt be stateless individuals, they would have (minimal, as second class subjects) rights, and present a greater challenge to settlement like those in the west bank. Ultimately this is a settlement project, and distracting from that, and the right of those refugees in gaza to return to their land, is the ultimate point of the conflict.
The return of the so called 1948 refugees to Israel is never going to happen. Other wars from the same era had a lot more refugees and nobody returned anywhere.
Just like the Jewish refugees from Arab countries or Europe are not returning there either.
It the Palestinians are stuck in 1948 over the war they and the Arabs started and lost they're never going to get anywhere. They had a chance when Israel was established to be equal citizens and they decided not to take it. It might be tough, it might not be "just", but that clock is never turning back.
The sad thing is how Palestinians and Arabs treat those people. Everywhere else in the world refugees were taken in. But other than Jordan all Arab countries have decided to just keep those people as refugees for eternity. Including the Palestinians, and Gazans, who treat the refugees like second class people.
All your arguments and justifications sound so hollow in the face of starving palestinians in Gaza being shot while lining up for humanitarian aid.
The thing being stuck in the past seem to be your arguments.
But this is happening right now and the majority underage population starving to death right now is on Israel‘s watch.
"Malnutrition has been rising rapidly in the first half of July and has reached the Famine
threshold in Gaza City. Over 20,000 children have been admitted for treatment for acute
malnutrition between April and mid-July, with more than 3,000 severely malnourished.11
Hospitals have reported a rapid increase in hunger-related deaths of children under five
years of age, with at least 16 reported deaths since 17 July"
This is not good but it's a far cry from the entire population starving to death. I'm not even gonna go into the Hamas runs the hospitals (which is true) angle here, let's just accept this at face value.
"Reductions in international aid funding to fight severe malnutrition in children under 5 could lead to 369,000 additional deaths each year, a consortium of experts in nutrition and food systems has warned."
...
"shrinking budgets could cut off treatment for 2.3 million severely malnourished young children worldwide. Nearly half of the projected additional deaths stem from the loss of support from the United States, which has axed thousands of grants worth tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid since President Donald Trump took office."
Famine in Sudan and Yemen, nobody cares. Who is taking to the streets and posting daily to Hacker News about the 369,000 people who are really starving to death due to actions of the United States (in this example)? No. The interesting story is how Israel has to provide for the polity that attacked it and murdered, raped, and took hostage its citizens and keeps fighting and not surrendering. It's the 16 children that Hamas reports died from starvation that are more deserving of people's anger than the 369,000 preventable deaths. It's the 20,000 cases of malnutrition Hamas reports and not the 2.3 million.
Israel should do better but the attacks on Israel are not about that. This is why I'm arguing here. The point is not that Israel doesn't have responsibilities - it does. The point is that Israel is being singled out. The western countries that are pressuring Israel now have never met the bar they try to hold Israel to or even cared about meeting it in their own actions. Not to even mention the non-western players like Russia or China where the bar is set significantly lower.
Israel is, as it should be, accelerating aid delivery to Gaza given the objectively worsening conditions. The difference in Gaza vs other people starving all over the world is that it is at war with Israel and the populated areas are controlled by Hamas.
An interesting by the way is that Egypt has refused to allow aid trucks through Rafah once Israel took the Gazan side of the border, now they've changed their minds:
Throughout the war Egypt was partly responsible for not allowing aid into Gaza.
Gazans are in a terrible condition. They are in this condition partly due to their ongoing war on Israel. Israel is still responsible but it can't be held solely responsible. The UN sabotaging the efforts to provide aid via the GHF. Hamas attacking aid centers and aid convoys while trying to maximize and use their own civilians suffering. All those have a fair bit of responsibility. Israel has a right to defend itself by defeating Hamas. Hamas is using their own people's suffering as a tactic to survive this war.
Gazans were also shot by Hamas while lining up for aid.
"While Hamas promotes a campaign of so-called “starving Gaza,” its terrorists are feasting underground."
I would much prefer that the war ends in Gaza. But the war is not ending with Hamas in power. All those people attacking Israel should offer some alternative course of action that ensures that Hamas can not retake Gaza, re-arm itself, and keep attacking Israel. Israel can not "separate" the civilians from Hamas because Hamas won't allow that. What is really happening is that the international and media attacks on Israel are fueling Hamas' determination to hold on and prolonging the war.
>Who is taking to the streets and posting daily to Hacker News about the 369,000 people
Whataboutism
>Israel is being singled out.
Finally
>Israel is, as it should be, accelerating aid delivery to Gaza given the objectively worsening conditions.
International pressure has forced Israel to alleviate conditions somewhat. The only pressure being responded to is that of recognising a Palestinian state. And thats only threatening as it would conclude or at best pause the project of genocide.
>Israel is still responsible but it can't be held solely responsible.
Israel could immediately return Rafah, leave Gaza, remove settlers from the west bank, repatriate the refugees, return them to their land and investigate (civilly) the population for Hamas.
Much like how Russia could simply turn around and leave Ukraine today.
>What is really happening is that the international and media attacks on Israel are fueling Hamas' determination to hold on and prolonging the war.
"If only people would stop complaining about our ongoing genocide, we could hurry up and complete the genocide"
Taking in those refugees, or having them leave and go anywhere is deeply unpopular everywhere. Because those refugees, have a right to return. They have land to go to, it might currently be illegally occupied, but their claim is valid.
Letting Israel force those refugees into another country just guarantees the completion of their racist genocidal settlement project.
Its weird to imply that refusing to help force them from their land is somehow inhumane, when the inhumanity is being driven by the force that drove them off their land and will shoot them if they try and return.
"The clock is never turning back". I really don't care which state controls the land, the people have a right to return. Really the 2 state solution is a distraction from Israels obligations to these people.
When the Nazis were driven out? I hope you mean when the USSR fell, because Poland was under their control for about 45 years. The Red Army entered Poland in 1944.
How many Jewish refugees did the allies take in WW2? This was literally a talking point used by antisemites to demonize Jews (the refugees nobody wanted) in the 1930s. And now the same talking points are being used in the same way by Jewish supremacists (most of whom are Christian by the way) to demonize Palestinians in 2025.
First of all, most of the Palestinian families in Gaza come from Israel. They lived in what is now southern Israel until 1948, when they were driven out in an extremely brutal Israeli military operation (Operation Barak).
Secondly, comparing the Palestinians to Nazi Germany is absurd and grotesque. The Palestinians are an oppressed people who were driven out of their homeland by an invading force in 1947-48, and who have lived in squalid refugee camps ever since. Since 1967, they have lived under direct military occupation by the very people who originally expelled them from their homeland, and are subjected to a racist regime in which their land is slowly taken away, piece by piece. The Palestinians have no country, no passport, no sovereignty, no rights.
Comparing them to the citizens of an industrialized power that tried to conquer Europe is insane.
In 1947, arabs refused the UN partition plan and decided to wage war against jews ( which accepted that plan) to remove them from the map. They were 100% certain to be able to do so, and nobody bet a penny on the jews winning at 1 vs 10.
They never stopped trying to do so since that dat, with the latest example being 2 years ago, on october 7.
Now you can try to blame it on the jews on X, but HN is an educated forum. Those kinds of arguments won't fly here.
"In 1675, the native tribes of New England refused to accept a partition of the land, and decided to wage war against Christians (who accepted the plan) to remove them from the map. They were 100% certain to be able to do so, and nobody bet a penny on the Christians winning at 1 vs. 10. They never stopped trying to do so since that date. Now you can try to blame it on the Christians on X, but HN is an educated forum. Those kinds of arguments won't fly here."
I'm sure you can find ten reasons why my above little story is wrong. They're the exact same reasons your little story is wrong. To name a few:
1. The Zionists / Europeans were trying to colonize Arab / Native American land. They were the aggressors in a very fundamental sense. Asking for the native population to "partition" the land amounts to demanding that they cede part of their homeland to you.
2. The conflict has nothing to do with Judaism or antisemitism. By framing it in that way, you're trying to draw a connection to the Holocaust and the history of persecution of Jews in Europe. But in this situation, the Zionists just happened to be Jewish, but that was totally irrelevant for the Arab population of Palestine. What the native population cared about was that an outside group - it didn't matter who - was trying to come in and take over the land.
3. And contrary to your framing, the Zionists were the group that held the upper hand, for a whole number of reasons that apply across the colonial world. In Palestine, they weren't some little oppressed minority. They had more resources, better education, were better organized, and had the backing of the imperial rulers of Palestine, the British.
4. The Arabs were the underdogs in the 1948 war. This runs completely counter to Israeli national mythology, but the fact is that the Israelis had a larger, better trained and better equipped army. They had military training from the British. They had funding from a significant foreign base of donors. They were able to purchase large amounts of weaponry from Czechoslovakia. The Palestinians themselves never stood a chance against the Zionists / Israelis. The Arab states only intervened after the Zionists had begun carrying out mass expulsions and other atrocities against the Palestinian civilian population. From the point of view of the Arab world, they were attempting to save their brothers from vicious foreign colonizers. You present it as if "the Jews," by which you actually mean the Zionists in Palestine, were in a fight for survival. But that's like saying that a guy who walks into a bar and starts punching people wildly is in a fight for his own survival. It might be true, but he got himself into that situation.
I don't think you know much about jewish history. Not even the very beginning, as in "where does this name come from".
All the rest follows. Really, you should start from the very beginning.
About israel, you're probably reading the pov of a fringe minority that only sounds plausible because people analyze the past in today's context. Israel was many times on the brinks of defeat in the multiple wars that followed. Only since the fall of the soviet union did it become clear they were here to stay and started to build unmatched military superiority.
I know a fair bit about Jewish history, given that I'm generally interested in history and am Jewish myself.
The "fringe minority" POV that I'm reading is the mainstream historiography on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the standard works by Israeli historian Benny Morris.
> Israel was many times on the brinks of defeat in the multiple wars that followed. Only since the fall of the soviet union did it become clear they were here to stay and started to build unmatched military superiority.
This is a completely false and indefensible take on the history. Israel showed massive military superiority over the Arab states in 1967, when it defeated them in a matter of days, and it has been backed by the world's top superpower since then. Israel has been the only nuclear power in the Middle East since the 1960s. Its closest brush with defeat was in 1973, but it still managed to turn that around (with massive American aid), and has never faced any serious military threat since. Israel walked all over Lebanon in the 1980s, and nearly every Israeli war since then has had the same character: they've almost all been wars against small militant groups, not even other states. The only exception was the recent war Israel initiated against Iran, but even there, all Iran could do was lob missiles from a distance while Israel pummeled Iran from the air almost unchecked.
As I said, a major part of Israeli mythology is the idea that Israel is the scrappy underdog that manages to pull off miracles. But that is really just mythology. The reality is quite different, and Israel has had a distinct military advantage in every conflict it has ever fought, going back to its founding.
If they had done this they would be accused of ethnic cleansing as well as genocide. the negev isn't an altogether welcoming place, any death natural or otherwise that happened there would be blamed on the jews as proof and it would be an even bigger PR disaster. Egypt and the sinai would have a similar problem. Even Trump's recent suggestion of temporary resettlement to a populated area has been met with calls of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most of the supposed supporters of the palestinian people don't care so much about their fate so much as they hate Jews and love the easy cudgel they make for attacking jews.
Putting that aside, no one, not Hamas, not the Israeli public, not Netanyahu, and certainly not the IDF, not any neighboring countries, not the wider world believed the war would drag on this long. Everyone thought it would be over fairly soon. Hamas probably didn't think there would be a war because israel itself was on the brink of a civil war, the Israeli public with their strong belief in their military might thought the war would be over before the new year and the IDF and politicians (BN included) likely had a similar belief, that A) Hamas didn't have an apatite for a long war, and B) the IDF would be able to quickly return the hostages. Everyone else also believed in the might of a stronger more organized force against a much weaker force that supposedly also had to care for their own people.
Instead Hamas showed they had no concern for their own people, and they had significantly deeper fortifications than the israeli security establishment knew about. So here we are almost two years later, and no end in sight.
Still it would be better for civilians even if not any better from PR standpoint. Also with some of the civilians filtered out Israel might have easier time acting boldly against Hamas in Gaza.
Israel's real enemy won't stop and won't surrender until that country and it's people don't exist. They have taken the innocent civilian's of Gaza / Palistine / whatever you want to call the area hostage. They are also so ingrained into the region that resources are literally siphoned from humanitarian sites like hospitals into deep tunnels beneath; as just one example of reporting I'm inclined to believe is credible, even with the mutual atrocities both sites are carrying out.
What would winning look like from a moral and ethical standpoint? Liberating the people of that region from the violence and suffering. Return them to a functioning society with social and civic infrastructure. Fully deny major violence and terrorism in the region for LIFETIMES to the point that the hate and anger finally cool off enough for people to move on.
...
Winning is going to require a multi-generational investment in humanity by humanity. It's going to require the buy in of the people on the ground. It's going to require a United Nations coalition and boots on the ground from interests in that region who want to raise everyone above the hate. Also the afflicted country will need to be an absolute DMZ for that entire time. Membership in the UN peacekeeping organization the only military service allowed (and then likely in other countries).
Getting from here to there? Even less popular than the hugely unpopular war(s) anywhere else in the world. Don't ask me how anyone could do it, those skilled in the art of diplomacy have tried for longer than my lifetime and probably longer than your's and NOTHING has stuck.
There are subfactions, both among the Jewish and the Muslims, that do better if the problem isn't solved and goes on forever, but there is very little in-faction policing: If anything, atrocities make them stronger. There is no peace while the criticism to the other side quiet in-faction criticism. You need people that want peace to be in charge, but what leadership wants is victory. Nobody that believes in human rights is going to like the costs of victory
> Israel's real enemy won't stop and won't surrender until that country and it's people don't exist
Funny, this seems to be a pretty accurate description of Netanyahu's current position. He understands that he exists politically only as long as he can keep the war going. So, of course there is going to be no end to the 'war' against Hamas, even though it has transformed into mass genocide of civilians using starvation.
I don't believe any part of my statement endorsed or supported the leader of that country either.
I offered a supposition for what real peace might look like in the region. One component of which is a peace keeping force that is not too close to the action, but also not from so far away as to be entirely insensitive or invasive themselves.
Understood. My point was that the current state is entirely of Israel's choosing. At this point, there is no functional Hamas resistance left in Gaza. There is no need to starve people by restricting aid and then gunning down desperate civilians when they try to get the meager food aid that trickles in.
Israel has lost all moral superiority at this point and probably alienated an entire generation across the globe. All so that Bibi can cling to power a bit longer.
you bring up an interesting point, in that after two years of war, almost none of the pre-war hamas leadership is left alive. why is hamas refusing to surrender even though all of it's higher leadership is dead? it should be clear that the "axis of resistance" wasn't coming to help on oct 8th itself, and two years later iran and it's proxies are toast. yet hamas opts to continue fighting, at this point it looks like a suicide cult that wants to drag civilians down with it for the purpose of martyrdom
>why is hamas refusing to surrender even though all of it's higher leadership is dead?
How's an organization supposed to surrender when all of its leaders have been assassinated? Who's going to walk up to an IDF emplacement while claiming to lead Hamas? How would such a death-defying individual prove that they had any actual significance to Hamas?
the recent talks in qatar suggested that even though disorganized, enough of a hierarchy still exists within hamas to negotiate. the main complaints from the american side was that hamas seemed to be inconsistent / fractured in their demands, outside of forcing the israelis to return to pre-war status-quo via a ceasefire that protects hamas rule
It's entirely possible there's no longer any single person in charge in practice, but rather a bunch of more or less individually operating cells - each with their own leader.
Imagine you are a 19 year old in charge of some Hamas survivors. Let’s say you want to surrender.
1. Would it even mean anything? It’s not like you or anyone else has the control to stop everyone else. And Israel will use any attack as a sign of bad faith and ignore the surrender.
2. Would it improve anything for your people? If Israelis are intentionally starving babies, there is no reason to think they will stop the genocide just because the militarized part has given up. Have you even heard any news of Hamas even fighting back recently or has it all just been killing civilians?
All a surrender would do is get you tortured for information and executed for no gain.
ironically only indian and pakistani news really report on the IDF casualties / hamas attacks, make of that what you will (IDF journalism blackout backfiring, news bias, maybe south asians love telegram war footage, etc)
What Netanyahu is doing in Gaza to Palestinians is broadly popular in Israel. The "opposition" coalition leader has made genocidal statements about Palestinians and there's no reason to think his leadership would be any better. This is a society where people directly benefit from ethnic cleansing and have spent decades already justifying it to themselves to get to this point. It's not going to be an easy fix of replacing one guy and focusing on him misses all the institutions that were constructed to facilitate genocide.
Wait, didn’t they launch 6500 rockets on Israel civilians in the 8 months before October? How doesn’t that moot your point, attacking while in a peace period?
When you use a phrase like "genocidal rhetoric", I assume that you consider certain comments to be wrong and bad. From that perspective your question could be generalized to "what's the best way to respond to wrong and bad comments on this site?" Keeping in mind that "bad" here doesn't just mean the comment is badly written—in internet jargon, it means the commenter is bad.
Curiosity doesn't exclude wrongness or badness—it's interested in it. How did this comment (or person) get so wrong and bad? Could that change? Is there a response that could pull them out of wrongness and badness into rightness and goodness? Why do most of my (<-- I mean any of us, of course) attempts to do this fail so badly? Is there a more effective way to respond? Might there be something interesting here beyond wrongness and badness?
That's the spirit we're trying for on this site, so that's the answer to your question.
If I ask myself what other approaches are possible, there's one obvious option, and that is to crush/destroy/defeat the wrong and bad argument (and person) utterly. This is the desire to kill the other person (if only metaphorically (and maybe not always so metaphorically)), and thus establish rightness and goodness over wrongness and badness.
So the "accepted way" here is to listen to the other and dance with them, rather than killing them (or their position). Dance rather than war, if you like.
Is there a third option? I'm not sure. When I look inside myself, I can find the listen/dance option (or one could say give-and-take), and I can find the kill option. But I'm not sure I can find a third.
---
Edit: reading this the next day, I think the word 'dance' could have trivializing associations (e.g. let's just dance rather than deal with violence and tragedy). I don't mean it that way. I mean something like moving and changing in response to each other. If anyone can do that in response to the other, even just a little, then one's self becomes a place for at least a modicum of change.
As someone who abandoned rightness/wrongness 9+ years ago (except in the idea of alignment with the cosmos), I can say that "genocidal rhetoric" doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness. There exist language patterns that indicate a perspective that, when culturally carried and compounded for years, has the effect of cultivating behaviors that lead to extinguishing a people, whether intentional or not. This is genocidal rhetoric.
As for options as to what to do with it, I find this useful for finding more.
> "genocidal rhetoric" doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness
I believe you when you describe your perspective this way, but it's so far beyond conventional usage that it may be misleading to express it in this way. Certainly I didn't understand your GP comment as being anywhere near what you're saying here, and I doubt others would.
It's true...conventional usage is rooted in addiction to violence, which includes dualistic myths of right/wrong, life/death, like/dislike, belief/disbelief.
Perhaps a site-wide call for curiosity when encountering such myths could help spur people to pull themselves out of such ways of "killing" nondual animist views of experience.
I appreciate you dang and the culture you are trying to cultivate, but I think in a genocide civility politics are inappropriate. I'm jewish, and I am certain that "raising questions" about whether jews should live or die or are intrinsically evil terrorists would not be allowed on this site. For balance, this should be accorded equally to palestinians, who are in fact being killed mercilessly in line for food by Israeli forces and US mercenaries. pg in fact has been loudly talking about the genocide, which I appreciate.
I will try to be less flippant in my comments. Nonetheless, it is a lot of work to cut through genocidal lies that are often supported (at least in editorials if not in actual reporting) by the mainstream media. The north of Gaza has been nearly obliterated and still these guys get to cast aspersions justifying the annihilation of a people.
> "raising questions" about whether jews should live or die or are intrinsically evil terrorists would not be allowed on this site. For balance, this should be accorded equally to palestinians
What are examples of such comments not being flagged and/or moderated? I'd appreciate links. Such comments are unacceptable by any interpretation of HN's guidelines, and the only reason we wouldn't crack down on them (same as with antisemitic comments of course) is if we didn't see them.
> I think in a genocide civility politics are inappropriate
I'm not talking about civility and stopped using that word years ago. Shallow words like civility or politeness don't reflect how we think about moderation. (I listed a few past explanations about that below*, if anyone wants them.)
What are we looking for? Not sure I can answer that better than I did in the GP comment. We want people to listen to each other, because of the two available options—listening and killing—only listening is compatible with the core value of the site.
I know it's a provocation to use the word "killing" in this context, and obviously I mean it metaphorically, but I think it's accurate. When people stop listening and seek to destroy the other's argument/position/view, killing energy is the quality that shows up. I don't think it takes too much emotional self-awareness to feel this, nor too much self-honesty to admit it.
That is the dynamic behind weaponized internet comments. It's easy to deny, because the genre itself is so trivial, and so are the weapons (snark, tropes, etc.). But one need only sense into the feeling level and it's no longer so trivial—in fact, it's all there.
This explains the distinctive mix of rage and pain that flares up when one reads a comment fired against one's position, and also the distinctive mix of...let's call it righteousness and triumph that flares up when a comment is fired in favor of one's position.
Perhaps it would be less provocative to use the word "war" rather than "killing" for the non-listening option, but I'm not sure that abstraction is beneficial in describing this. It creates distance from the reality inside ourselves, and room for denial and evasion.
Regardless of what the best names are, we want the listening option, because the alternative is just more destruction.
(Needless to say, I'm not talking about you here, I'm talking about all of us.)
---
* Here are a few posts touching on how we stopped thinking in terms of 'civility'...lots more can be found in HN Search if anyone cares...
how are refugees from russia and germany colonizers? are venezuelan refugees colonizing america by your logic? if the zionists aren't the colonizers, but allied with colonizers, then who is the backer? the ottomans? the british? the french? the russians? what prevented the palestinians from allying with outside powers if the israelis were doing the same?
when you claim colonizers, you're just making an excuse for the repeated strategic errors that the palestinians made, and will continue to make, that led them into this humiliating situation.
You're touching on a very true point by saying that the high-level ideas, like ancient homelands or Marxist theory, create a lot of argument that in the end seems to distract people from the obvious reality, which is the mass slaughter of civilians, many of them children.
In reality, the challenge remains, what is a better solution from the Israeli perspective? If the proposed alternative is they all pack up and leave or dissolve their government, there is 0% chance that will happen.
It may be in the interests of someone to kill a witness to a murder, but it's up to law and society to stop them. Likewise I am sure plenty of genocides have been in the interests of the victors, but it is up to law and civlization to stop them. What I am not sure about is that it is truly in Israel's interest to be known forevermore as one of the racial exterminators in mankind's long and fraught history.
It seems like you are dodging the question by claiming it doesnt matter what Israel wants or will accept (like a murderer). Do you actually think that is true in reality, or do you simply wish that it did not matter?
Calling Jews “colonizers” of their historical homeland is ridiculous, not to mention that about half of Israeli Jews fled there from Arab countries, not from Europe.
Sources from the early Zionist movement are replete with discussion of colonization. It's only now when the connotation (not the reality) of the term has changed that Israel supporters try to pretend it never happened.
Apartheid South Africa’s real enemy—the ANC, the liberation movements, the “terrorists”—wouldn’t stop and wouldn’t surrender until white minority rule and its entire system didn’t exist. They had taken the innocent Black civilians of South Africa hostage. They were also so ingrained into the townships that resources were literally siphoned from humanitarian sites like churches and schools into hidden safehouses and underground networks; as just one example of reporting that many at the time were inclined to believe was credible, even with the mutual atrocities both sides were carrying out.
What would “winning” look like from a moral and ethical standpoint? Liberating the people of that region from the violence and suffering. Returning them to a “functioning society” with social and civic infrastructure. Fully denying major resistance and insurgency in the region for lifetimes—to the point that the hate and anger finally cooled off enough for people to “move on.”
Winning would require a multi-generational investment in humanity by humanity. It would require the buy-in of the people on the ground. It would require a United Nations coalition and boots on the ground from “responsible” countries who wanted to raise everyone above the hate. And of course, South Africa would need to be an absolute DMZ for that entire time—no armed liberation movements allowed, only peacekeeping forces sanctioned by the “international community.”
Getting from here to there? Even less popular than the hugely unpopular interventions elsewhere in the world. Don’t ask me how anyone could do it—those skilled in the art of diplomacy had tried for longer than my lifetime and probably longer than yours, and NOTHING had stuck.
———
wait; that’s not what it took.
It took the abolishment of apartheid; colonisation and oppression, peace was achieved. Your framing is flawed , it is framed as equal sides. Not the reality a colonial apartheid state.
south africa is not a good analogue since it's fate is different from that of palestine, and you are making this obtuse analogue to stir up feelings of decolonisation as a sort of nationalism
Think you are missing the point. This wasn’t an analogy about the actors , but rather the framing.
During apartheid , and towards the end plenty were making arguments for gradual control ; gradual processes which just would have further perpetuated oppression. I was highlighting the similarities to that. We also had people saying the ‘blacks’ just want to ‘kill the whites’ and it would result in violence.
Your mapping of roles is completely incorrect, Indians cannot be the Zionist since they were an oppressed minority and did not have power. Equating Afrikaners to ottomans / British is incoherent.
You, and the original comment completely ignores the power imbalance as was the case in apartheid South Africa. This framing further perpetuates oppression and is a way to prop up the apartheid state.
I won’t post all of the evidence here confirming that Israel functions as an apartheid state. Numerous reports exist that describe and draw the comparison.
> During apartheid , and towards the end plenty were making arguments for gradual control ; gradual processes which just would have further perpetuated oppression. I was highlighting the similarities to that. We also had people saying the ‘blacks’ just want to ‘kill the whites’ and it would result in violence.
If you are then making comparison to modern times instead of colonialism, then still not really applicable to gaza since gaza was not occupied Oct 7th. Therefore, Israel (colonization conspiracies aside) had no interest in gaza except for security.
I do believe the apartheid example / comparison makes sense when thinking of the west bank, and I do believe myself the west bank is experiencing settler colonization and apartheid conditions along that settler boundary.
If you do not believe that zionists in palestine were an oppressed minority until the mass immigration in the 1930s and the failed arab revolts, I suggest you restudy the history. Palestine would have easily ended up like Uganda if the Palestinians hadn't made strategic errors / failed their invasion of the newly declared state of Israel.
The Orwell link is a great read, and part of it suggests that both decolonization and underdog-centered pacifism are forms of nationalism. Here is a quote that I love, heavily relates to the troubles in ireland and some reactions to the current gazan war:
"But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough."
Ban the stop and go hell of rush hour. Cars rolling at freeway speed without stopping pollute way less than drivers stuck behind idiots who can't just go forward down the road at the speed limit.
The human suffering and ecological impact reduced if only there would be a focus on enforcing speed minimums...
It isn't just slow or distracted drivers. It is congestion. It is too many cars, and the impossible task of making them all "go" at the same time.
What we need is fewer cars and better shared transportation.
Heck, we should replace ALL cars with busses, and then they could go super fast with all the other buses. Make 'em small, so it's maybe 20 people per bus. That's 20 cars off the road, right there.
Quality of operation absolutely is a factor in the equation. The overall results seem to get dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Something like a park-and-ride lot after an arrival cleans out way faster/better than a school despite both more than saturating whatever their entry onto the main road is.
Even if everyone drove optimally, every road is going to reach a capacity where its physically impossible to maintain a certain speed. It's similar to network congestion. Mandating that everyone drive faster won't solve anything.
It would reduce the duration of rush hour... once the least skilled drivers were improved or removed from the pool. I do agree it wouldn't solve a complete lack of capacity, civic planning, transportation infrastructure. Including lack of busses that travel frequently enough and where people want to go.
>It would reduce the duration of rush hour... I do agree it wouldn't solve a complete lack of capacity,
Exactly. Rush hour is like dumping 5gal bucket into a sink. You'll always be bottlenecked by the drain but a better drain will mean all the drops get where they're going faster and with less waiting around.
I think if find a way to fix the worst of the worst it'd probably up the throughputs and speeds a lot in the same way that quashing TCP retrans problems does.
What causes stop and go is actually pressure waves that propagate backwards through traffic once density hits a critical point.
When everyone is following at a reasonable distance (ie, there's a couple of car lengths between cars), if someone has to hit the brakes for some reason (sun in their eyes, car cuts them off, etc), then the car behind can slow instead of stopping, and it doesn't propagate. Notably, the person who triggered the wave doesn't even need to stop. If the person behind them is following close enough, just slowing down a little bit will cause the person behind to slow _more_, and the person behind them to stop.
Once everyone is stacked on top of each other, any interruption in the flow of traffic propogates backwards. That's why when you get to the "end" of the traffic congestion it looks like people stopped for "no reason". But you've just hit the front of a pressure wave. You'll probably hit another one in a little while if density doesn't ease up ahead of you.
The only way to eliminate stop and go traffic is to stop people from entering onto the freeway after it hits a certain density.
That is a problem particular to King County and their own politics. I-5/90/405 as well has 502 and 99 have always been a divisive issue when it comes to infrastructure investment.
"You have opened your Word 97 document in Office 2003. The quirks have been removed, so it might look different now. Check every page before saving as docx."
"You have pasted from a Word 97 document into an Office 2003 OOXML document. Some things will not work."
If you want a look at how this (doesn't) work in practice, just look at Libreoffice. I once made 3 hours worth of comments on a Word doc, and as soon as I saved it, they all vanished into thin air.
And for the pedantic, yes it warns you when saving as a .docx that "not all features are supported", but it does that every time, for every document, so nobody pays attention to it or has any idea what it even means. To me the way it handles this is just completely unacceptable.
Office could freely continue to support their old proprietary formats if they wanted.
In an ideal world a converter would generate E.G. a 1200 PPI render of each page, then compare it to a similar render as provided in the nearest rendition in the allowed simple new format. Those could be diffed to produce a highlight of areas that changed.
The software could then ask if the transcription from one format to the other was close enough, or if there were some corner case that wasn't good enough.
Bonus points, collect feedback if the end user is willing to submit examples.
I wouldn't say you are wrong, but I would also postulate.
The smallest, simplest, 'useful' (in terms of useful enough that lots of devs did good work with it and thus it might also be 'popular') ASM sets are probably also sufficient to start with. Provided you've got a good guide to using them, and also ideally a good sheet for why given instructions are packed the way they are in binary.
I do agree you're more likely to find pointers to such resources in more classic architectures. They're also more likely to be easy to find free copies of useful literature.
Flip Jump is amazing. I understand the theory and how it works but it still amazes me that it does. Things like this is why I love the science in computer science.
I was lucky enough to have it as part of my college literature course. I had a choice of Greek classics or SciFi and, though I'm missing a TON of Greek classic context these days I do not regret reading ANY of the scifi books! IMO it's a pity I couldn't take both!
There's a lot of content in the book that reads differently years later. It's extremely easy to criticize outside of the situations present in the book.
Fiction is a good a place to consider alternate worlds, situations outside of the norm, and people with circumstances you'll never (or hope to never) encounter yourself. That makes it a great place to refine morals and reach a deeper understanding of why things might be good or bad.
reply