←back to thread

517 points xbar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
voisin ◴[] No.39143281[source]
Perhaps I am unlearned in this area but I am unclear why the Jewish state, after its people experienced the atrocities of World War II, would act in this manner toward the Palestinians. Can anyone shed light on this? I understand completely the need to rid the world of Hamas terrorists, but in the process they have shown a reckless disregard (to put it mildly) for Palestinian people and their wellbeing.
replies(26): >>39143315 #>>39144129 #>>39145467 #>>39145571 #>>39146315 #>>39146325 #>>39146355 #>>39146585 #>>39146677 #>>39146736 #>>39146745 #>>39146904 #>>39146922 #>>39146989 #>>39147190 #>>39147193 #>>39147229 #>>39147339 #>>39147811 #>>39147831 #>>39147998 #>>39148384 #>>39148695 #>>39149047 #>>39150144 #>>39155501 #
throwaway55479 ◴[] No.39144129[source]
Israel's tactic has always been deterrence: I will inflict you so much pain that you will think twice before doing this again. Despite being proven wrong, a "realist politician' will automatically think of adding more (and then some) deterrence as the only solution.

I remember 20 years ago, during the first bombing of Gaza, they hit just ONE building and felt pressured enough to apologize for the handful of civilian deaths. Unfortunately, faced with larger threats (real or imaginary) and weak international pressure, Israel has been able to escalate the level of deterrence through the years to what we are witnessing now.

That is why any ruling to curb that "automatic" escalation (like today) is wholeheartedly welcomed.

IMO there are also subtler layers of racism coloring these policies. It's not as blatant as the far-right rhetoric, but a persistent undertone within elements of Israeli society justifies severe deterrence tactics and totally overide any empathy learnt from historical lessons.

replies(2): >>39146476 #>>39146503 #
objektif ◴[] No.39146476[source]
No essentially it is as simple as how any abuser bully behaves. They will continue their behavior as long as they are allowed to. Look at US for enabling them.
replies(2): >>39146607 #>>39148679 #
exe34 ◴[] No.39146607[source]
Doesn't really matter what you choose to call it, they will make sure there's no Hamas to do it again.
replies(1): >>39146676 #
objektif ◴[] No.39146676[source]
Hamas should not exist that is not the point. It is the civilians. They will also not exist if it goes on like this.
replies(1): >>39146717 #
exe34[dead post] ◴[] No.39146717[source]
[flagged]
objektif[dead post] ◴[] No.39146758[source]
[flagged]
dang ◴[] No.39146958[source]
You've been posting repeatedly to this thread in a way that has been crossing into flamewar and breaking the intended spirit that I tried to express in my pinned comment at the top. Could you please stop doing this? It leads to hellish flamewar, and we don't want that here.

I am certain that you have very legitimate reasons for feeling strongly. Whatever your reasons may be, I respect them. At the same time, posting in a thread like this has to do with how one manages one's feelings: do they express themselves in (let's call it) a weaponized way? if so, that's against the intended spirit here. Or can you post in a way that is somehow larger than that? No one can be asked to do the latter, but I do think we can ask commenters to refrain from posting if they can't get there.

replies(1): >>39147301 #
bitcharmer ◴[] No.39147301[source]
Dang, I think it would be better if you just didn't take sides on this and stopped policing vigorously. Both comments here are nowhere flame war territory.
replies(1): >>39147526 #
dang ◴[] No.39147526[source]
The moderation issue here is not those two comments but the repeated pattern in each case.

Past experience has unfortunately made it clear that moderation needs to be relatively active on topics that are as divisive as this one. I wish it weren't so.

replies(1): >>39150834 #
objektif ◴[] No.39150834[source]
Hi Dang can you please specify what I did wrong here? Is it the back and forward?
replies(1): >>39151728 #
1. dang ◴[] No.39151728[source]
That, plus using inflammatory rhetoric rather than trying to relate to or connect with the other person.

You're far from the only person who has been posting that way, but it's what we're trying to avoid here.