Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza

Seeing the number of flagged comments, and going from past discussions where any discussion seen as pushback was flagged, this discussion really doesn't belong on hacker news.

The problem is there obviously isn't any discussion happening. People are so entrenched on one side or the other and that's pretty apparent by this comment section. Everyone wants to virtue signal without taking any responsibility. The unfortunate reality of this situation is that it's extremely complex and weaves in a lot of historical context. But nobody cares about nuance anymore it's all just "killing bad!" within the framework of whatever controversial event is on the inciters mind. Well duh, but how did we get here? If we can't stop and consider both sides constructively then clearly we're never going to get anywhere and shit like this will just continue.

That's essentially the pro-Israel argument for decades (Including the opinion that killing somehow weren't always bad). It hasn't prevented the current situation.

But don't let that stop you. Feel free to make a nuanced and well-researched counterargument why the UN report is wrong.

I'm not sure what you're pointing to in my response to attribute it to Israeli support. I was attempting to make light of the fact that 'discussion' requires two sides. Right now both sides live in a different reality. I am in no way condoning Israel's genocide against Palestinians. But to say Israel is the only one at fault for this situation and to only point fingers to one side betrays the historical facts of the situation. I in no way tried to downplay the situation or play sides so please don't twist my words as if I did.

The problem is that there is a massive power imbalance in the conflict and insisting on "both sides" without acknowledging that is itself muddying the waters.

Accusations of "one-sidedness" for everything that doesn't follow the Israeli narrative of the conflict has been a standard defense for decades, last employed against the two-states UN resolution.

That's why I find (naive) insistence on seeing "both sides" problematic in this conflict. By all means, do see both sides, but see them with their respective amounts of power and historical context.

I 100% agree with you here. Which is why it's important to have the acknowledgement that this isn't an isolated situation. There is a 'one-sidedness' for Israel against the Palestinians, in the same way that there's a 'one-sidedness' for the entirety of the Arab nations against the Israeli's. For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place? I find no love for Israel, but we make it waaaay too easy for them to justify these positions. Like it or not it's not as simple as everyone seems to make it out to be. The western nations and the other Arabs were the ones to give up on the Palestinians first, but now all of a sudden we care? Like I said, it's all virtue signaling.

> For as long as Israel has existed they've been fighting against their own genocide. I haven't seen anyone acknowledging that? Or that the Arab nations were the ones to provoke the Israeli's in the first place?

It was so obvious that you were trying to carefully push Zionist propaganda from the very start, but here you went from 0 to 100% hasbara real quick. This isn't 1990, you won't get away with this kind of blatant Zionist revisionism; there are about 10000+ academic articles and videos now that teach the history in painful detail. So give it a rest with your lazy propaganda.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20231029055310/ojp.gov/ncjrs/vir...

It's sad that we can't take an objective look at the facts of the matter without trying to point to one side and saying it's propaganda. Like is it so hard to say that both sides did bad things? I have no problem acknowledging that Israel is being the ultimate bully right now, is it not okay to say they have a reason? Or should we just ignore all reasoning and condem "killing bad" like I initially said this would devolve to? The US literally has the same problem right now it's kind of insane. How can you try to swat away historical facts, then in the same breath link me a random master's thesis from 1977... Like can we just go to Wikipedia, start from the beginning and then disagree over the facts that actually happened instead of trying to see it through the lens of some 20s something from the 70s?

so after trying to mislead people with outright lies and historical revisionism based on zionist fantasies, you are trying to "both sides" a livestream genocide and about a century of brutal zionist colonialism. That's your strategy.

>How can you try to swat away historical facts

The cognitive dissonance of Zionists needs to be studied in Universities across the world. You are straight up lying into people's faces and in the same breath projecting your own behavior on others "trying to 'swat away historical facts'". It's truly astonishing.

Sorry, can you point out exactly where I've lied and how? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire history of this conflict goes back to the UN partition plan in 47, which established a Jewish and Palestinian state. Which then lead to the 47-48 civil war, which from everything I've found relating to it, the Arab's were the ones to retaliate against the Jews in the region which started the war and it's been basically tit for tat ever since. A Palestinian petition to the Security Council in 48 even said this: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."

I have no issue discussing this situation, in fact that was the whole point of my original statement. Which is that most people seem too emotionally attached to this situation to the point where they can't even have a proper discussion without trying to talk down to me about a position I don't even hold.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101003080945/http://unispal.un...

I would go back to the founding principle of Zionism, and claim that the start of the conflict was when Zionists decided to colonize Palestine and found their own nation state on other people’s lands.

But if you insist on starting with the Palestinian civil war then you will soon find that a lot of Palestinians were expelled from their lands and never granted the right of return. It was not merely the partition, but the fact the international human rights granted the right of return for Palestinians illegally expelled, but this international human rights was promptly denied to Palestinians and has been till this day. There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.

I'm starting with 47 on the basis of the Jewish/Arab conflict. If we claim that the idea of Zionism started the conflict in the area then it doesn't seem like the history fully supports that idea. Jews in the late 1800s were getting worried about the antisemitism in Europe and wanted their own solution to "The Jewish Question" which to them was the formation of their own state. There were even talks about settling in different parts of Africa. But it wasn't until the Balfour Declaration that Zionism was completely focused on Palestine, mostly because the British didn't know what to do with the region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the region.

>There is no tit for tat here, as Zionists have not been illegally displaced and Zionists don’t have their rights of return denied to them.

The claim Zionists make here is that the land was originally Jewish land to begin with. History does support this claim as the Roman Empire took over Judaea in the early first century and then subsequently exterminated and enslaved the Jews in the region renaming the area to Syria Palaestina about 100 years later.