- Maybe to spark curious conversation, when a world power seems to be supportive of actions that an international body considers negative, what structure can help resolve these? It does seem like UN is unable to really make a dent here.
- We kinda went through this with South Africa.
The only thing saving Israel is the US protection and the nukes. US protection can change. Nukes are harder.
South Africa successfully utilized "strategic ambiguity". They never explicitly acknowledged they had the weapons, while making sure world leaders knew they were a credible threat.
during South Africa's border wars (specifically against the Cubans in Angola), there were internal discussions about deploying tactical nuclear weapons. Because world leaders viewed that threat as entirely credible, it gave South Africa massive leverage.
Feels like world leaders view modern Israeli threats through the exact same lens and i'd agree given recent covert operations like the beeper bombings hence this UN posture.
Could we replicate the SA situation? probably not but maybe partially?
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, South Africa’s strategic leverage evaporated overnight. The US and UK no longer had a reason to shield them from crippling global economic sanctions.
Feels like we are watching this in real time with Israel post Iran war. If the US entirely removed its diplomatic shield and allowed full global economic isolation to set in, the economic cost of maintaining a pariah state might eventually outweigh the perceived security benefit of the weapons. ('might' doing a lot of heavy lifting there)
Also SA was also motivated by fear of the nukes getting in the hands of the incoming leftist government, Israel does not have that fear.
- Not sure if it used to be the case with South Africa too, but I'm baffled how much ideological support Israel still has, in various population groups. There are at least two religious groups who seem to view it as integral part of a divine plan that trumps all other considerations. ("mainstream" Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians)
Then there various secular narratives around the Jewish homeland, the rebirth (and Germany's redemption) after the Holocaust etc.
For western politicians, it seems far easier to chime in to the dehumanization of Palestinians and either paint the daily suffering there as "tragic but necessary", make fun of it or dismiss it completely - than to object to those stories.
This seems to work on a different layer than geopolitics, so I have doubts that a shift in geopolitics alone would change this. (I may be wrong)
Though maybe the changed perception of Israel after the Gaza war might change it.
- I can try explain the Orthodox Jewish one.
Before 1939 there were large Jewish communities across Europe and the Middle East. There were many schools for rabbis and philosophy. But Antisemitism and the Holocaust destroyed the European communities and antizionism forced the Jews from Arab countries to Israel in the 1950s. These communities have never been rebuilt, but what was left built Israel.
Israel is now the centre of Jewish life and religious life. It is also where Jews are most protected. For example, most rabbis are trained in Israel and many Jews have moved there. So many modern Jews have a spiritual, historical and familial connection to Israel.
Jews see a different side of the conflict. Most want peace but believe their Arab enemies do not.
- I think this is a good argument why a singular world power is actually a bad thing - because no matter how much it will promote itself as the "good guys" (and of course it will), at the end of the day, it will push through its own interests by that dominance - whereas if power is more evenly distributed, countries might be more willing to agree to common, formalized rules and a "neutral" body to evaluate them.
I think the emergence of nation states with democratic institutions and a strong system of law is actually a hopeful precedent here. Somehow we got from a world of fiefdoms and lords that literally stood above the law to states with checks and balances. (Yes, we're sliding back towards the "fiefdoms" situation right now, but we're still far better than things used to be)
So I'm gonna be a starry-eyed idealist and keep the hope up that we might archive the same on a global level at some point.
- History has shown that having a multitude of roughly-equal competing powers results in more per-capita death from war than when there is 1 or two dominant nations. The 1800's and early 1900's were bloody. Post WWII has had less death from war.
- True, though post-WWII was not a single power either until the 90s. We've had several decades of Cold War in which there were at least two great powers.
- > when a world power seems to be supportive of actions that an international body considers negative, what structure can help resolve these?
Apply the Apartheid South Africa treatament. Gather the larger number possible of complying members, and apply a coordinated boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign to put pressure in the party engaged in genocide, ethnic cleansing or other abhorrent actions.
- If the latest Gaza war taught us anything, is that UN is powerless. And, unfortunately, it is the highest entity that could apply leverage here, so... Not much we can do. In the long term I hope other nations realize they are very vulnerable and begin to invest more in defense, but that escalation can have other downsides.
- > highest entity that could apply leverage
What is the lowest entity that can apply leverage? Regardless of what US or UN does or doesn't, you can start boycotting today.
- [flagged]
- The UN is really just meant to prevent World War 3 and nuclear war. It has succeeded in this for the last 70 years. The structure of the UN is basically unanimous consensus between the major world powers with each power getting a veto.
There is no unanimous consensus on this issue at all.
- Did it? Because this was also always the argument for the "League of Nations" that came before it. If you read 1930s newspapers that's what they give as a reason for the organization's existence ...
Now after WW2, consensus is that the League of Nations may have outright caused WW2, and certainly contributed more than any other individual factor. The League of Nations was the embodiment of the treaty of Versailles. As if that wasn't bad enough, the League of Nations was also the league of nations that stopped most reactions against Hitler immediately before the war.
I'm not even going to bother drawing the obvious parallel with how the UN is treating nuclear powers, and people defending themselves against attacks by a nuclear (or trying-to-be-nuclear) power.
- It did because world war 3 hasn’t happened and it’s been about 80 years vs the short time between world war 2 and world war 1.
- > when a world power seems to be supportive of actions that an international body considers negative, what structure can help resolve these
If recent history is any indicator, UN isn't that structure; probably EU / G7 / BRICS & other such blocs are:
How very massive atrocities end: A dataset and typology (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319900912... we construct a new dataset covering all 43 very large mass atrocities perpetrated by governments or non-state actors since 1945 with at least 50,000 civilian fatalities. This article introduces and summarizes these data, including an inductively generated typology of three major ending types: those in which (i) violence is carried out to its intended conclusion (37%); (ii) the perpetrator is driven out of power militarily (26%); or (iii) the perpetrator shifts to a different strategy no longer involving mass atrocities against civilians (37%). We find that international actors play a range of important roles in endings, often involving encouragement and support for policy changes that reduce mass killings. Endings could be attributed principally to armed foreign interventions in only four cases, three of which involved regime change. Within the cases we study, no ending was attributable to a neutral peacekeeping mission. - The UN is stuck in 1945. The UNSC needs to throw out the UK, France, and bring in Brazil, India, South Africa and Germany.
And this veto nonsense needs to go away.
- And how do you suggest they do that?
- Many countries have strict laws how to deal with genocide, genocide support, and genocide deniers! So just enforce local laws, report supporters of genocide to police.
- This doesn't seem to even relate to the question. How am I suppose to out the Israeli government to my local police? Or the miriad entities that support it?
- Pro-tip (observe what the UK does closely): Don't call it a genocide and then you don't need to do anything about it.
- Indeed. It has to be a particular kind of recognized genocide, and then people just don't agree on what is and isn't a genocide. Turkey is the worst offender there, but it's quite a widespread problem.
And, of course, the problem is people don't agree. Turkey refuses to accept many of it's actions as genocidal (because that's how Turkey was created: when the last islamic state ("the Ottoman empire") got destroyed by Turks (who at that point were the ottoman army), they massacred a LOT of population groups, famously the Armenians but academics name more than a dozen separate genocides: Greeks, Kurds, Azeri, Jews, ...)
Oh and of course they kept doing it. Technically what Turkey did in Cyprus is also a genocide, and they have an active policy of replacing Kurd population groups but that's, if that's even possible, an even worse sore point.
The sad fact is that these genocides happened to gain territory. And, most of that territory, go look at Google Maps. This was mostly deep inland Turkey. And ... Turks obviously don't want it. There's no big cities there, and the more east you go, the less little towns, the less people, the less everything (except on the border). After the genocides what was a European landscape, a village every 5km or so is now empty. Hundreds of kilometers of nothing. Names on a map , with nothing or ruins below them. You don't really need a line to find the Armenian or Georgian border: where the farms begin, the rectangular fields, the villages, you've crossed the Turkish border. In other words: what repopulation the Turks did ... is a failure. And what little remains, mostly near the black sea, is losing young people at an astonishing rate. This is huge empty space, mostly ecologically destroyed land, not productive farmland. Not nature preserves. Nothing.
Also the reverse also doesn't apply. The UN may have trouble with Israeli actions, but where the UN took control to resolve the situation, where the UN took action, most famously southern Lebanon, it has not just failed but it systematically kept getting worse for 50+ years now. Whereas at least for Israel you can say: look at Tel Aviv. Look at Jerusalem. Look at Haifa. They really built something. Where the UN "helped" ... there's nothing.
- Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions.
- Were are the UN sanctions on Israel? Still none? UN can go f*k themselves then.
Needing so many years to get the courage to say the world genocide, where everybody had seen for years Israel turning little children into little flesh chunks, slowly unfurl in horrid technicolor in world TV, is just another part of the problem.
- See also this This American Life episode, where doctors visiting Gaza saw a disturbing number of children with direct gunshot wounds to the head and chest: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/859/transcript
- This is really sickening - if North Korea or any other less connected country did this, you would quickly see their national (tech) companies being sanctioned by the west. I never understood how a country like Israel, given the history of its own tribe, can themselves become so gruesome and have a hugely state-supported private spy-tech sector that supports the worst autocrates in the world as long as the money flows to them.
- First thing coming into mind is the number of companies and individuals blocking Russians in the beginning of the war before any sanctions out of virtue signalling.
- Israel has had a hand up each US politician’s ass since the 1980s. Israel owns all of them.
- Many many countries got sanctioned into oblivion or color-revolutionized into US-loyalty for far far less (often just for not being aligned with the US).
It is even more sickening and outrageous if you view it through that lens.
- Anybody surprised at this point? In any case, this is the same UN that has accepted israel, and israel lobbied US vetoes to Palestine entry into the UN again and again, even then a broad majority of the world have voted in favor of granting membership, does any of what they do or pretend to represent matters anymore?
- At this point, leaders should create a new security council excluding the permanent SC members, set rules around voting on issues where every country has an equal voice, create enforcement frameworks and then invite the SC members with equal footing.
The proposed reforms led by the likes of Brazil, Germany and India are not getting a lot of traction. Maybe if they included everyone else they'd have a better chance.
- If your state finds that it needs to murder children in its defense then it is a failed state and should be refactored by its citizenry, immediately.
Because that which war criminals bring to their victims, they will also - ALWAYS - bring back to their own state.
Prosecute your war criminals. Now!
- The excuse will be that these are just casualties of war and we'll shrug it off and move on, whereas the imaginary beheaded babies from October 7 are unforgivable and excuse any action on Israel's behalf.
Boycott. Divestment. Sanctions. Use any legal means to stop funding this genocide and make Israel's leadership accountable. We all love our comfy white collar jobs and would rather not rock the boat, but not doing the little we can do (e.g. stop using Israeli suppliers and services) makes us supporters.
- [dead]
- [dead]
- We need to build beach resorts, with casinos and golden statues!
- [dead]
- [flagged]
- Is the killing of five-year-old Hind Rajab, alongside six of her family members, and two paramedics who came to rescue her, also a reach? Please, help me draw the line.
- > is a reach
Israel's targeting of neonatal and maternity care centres during its war on Gaza directly endangered Palestinians' reproductive future and the survival of newborns – driving a rise in miscarriages, birth defects, and lasting vulnerabilities. Israel's aid blockade in Gaza last year also took a severe toll on Palestinian children, causing starvation-related deaths and a rise in disease as immunisation rates fell. Palestinian children have been arrested and subjected to torture in Israeli prisons and other severe forms of mistreatment, including sexual abuse. Israeli forces have destroyed orphanages and education facilities in the occupied West Bank, which has affected Palestinian children's cognitive, social and emotional care and development. - I mean, if you are sure there are children and there is a quite a lot of children there, it's deliberate.
It's actually one of the places in the Middle East with a higher birth rate than Israel itself, and a very high population density.
If you are shooting into the crowd which includes children, you are shooting at children even when you are not pointing at them precisely.
- Flagging a serious topic like this indicates motive in a way that's unbecoming.
- This is rising fast. 61 points at this moment.
- Doubled to 103 points in 6 minutes
- And flagged 36 minutes after submission right around 104
- Flagged and off the home page. Now at 106 points.
- After another half hour it is at 134 points despite being flagged.
- It's taken another 5 hours to reach 201 points, despite being flagged and removed from the home page at around 100 points.
It is no longer flagged.
- [retracted]
- [flagged]
- Or it could be that the Reuters article just came out a few hours ago
- [flagged]
- mods are still sleeping
- [flagged]
- If you look at the bottom of the page, you’ll find guidelines that mention which content is welcomed: “Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.”
That said, I find this particularly of interest here given the growing attention to the use of algorithms and AI (including generative AI) for surveillance and targeting of palestinians.
- > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Personally, I find the political machinations around this conflict particularly interesting.
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
- > In October 2025, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion [wikidata] finding that Israel's claims that UNRWA had been infiltrated by Hamas were unsubstantiated. The advisory opinion also said that Israel's decision to end cooperation with UNRWA and restrict humanitarian aid to Gaza breached its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. It furthermore found that Israel's Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was not an adequate substitute, noting that more than 2,100 Palestinians had been killed near its distribution points and that conditions in Gaza had deteriorated to the point that international experts declared a famine in some areas in August. The ICJ further held that the mass transfer or deportation of civilians within occupied territory is prohibited, citing Israeli measures that forced large populations into overcrowded areas and severely restricted UN access. It also ruled that the two Knesset laws ending cooperation with UNRWA in the occupied territories were unlawful, noting that 360 UNRWA staff had been killed during the conflict. The court concluded that Israel, as an occupying power, had unlawfully impeded aid delivery, used starvation as a method of warfare, and failed to respect the immunities of UN personnel and premises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNRWA_and_Israel#International...
- the UN claimed that the UN agency was just fine... no s**.
- The ICJ is legally and structurally independent of the UN. What specifically do you disagree with about the advisory opinion?
- "The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice, CIJ), or colloquially the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN)"
"The Court is composed of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms"
Literally, from the first few paragraphs of wikipedia. People don't read these days.
If the UN general assembly (mostly anti israel) selects the judges how is it "structurally independent of the UN"?
- I've often heard defenders of Israel crap on the UN General Assembly like it's some woke antifa type organization, but it's one representative per country, chosen by the country's government. If almost every country in the world is constantly officially condemning you, perhaps they are not the problem.
- Well, given that between 2015 and 2024 alone, the General Assembly adopted 154 resolutions against Israel. That's more than Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Russia, China *combined*, I find it a bit ... unfair, wouldn't you say?
- It’s disingenuous to pretend that the Middle East conflict does not align people according to tribal, religious, and political groupings, as well as international alliances.
Given that Jews are 0.2% of the world’s population, in contrast to a very large population of people openly biased against Israel, it’s no surprise that when you take a global popular vote that Jews will lose. The UN is not a neutral institution.
- Sure I understand how Arab or Muslim countries might vote against Israel reflexively, but it's not just them, it's almost the entire world.
Go look at this list of Israel related General Assembly resolutions in 2025:
https://unwatch.org/2025-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-...
The typical vote is like 142-6. The Israeli claim is that almost the entire world are a bunch of anti-Semites that hate them for who they are. Perhaps it's not who they are but what they are doing.
- There are roughly 50 to 57 countries where Muslims make up the majority of the population. Add the countries that are heavily dependent on them, and you end up with a game that is often decided before a single ballot is cast.
- From your link: “From 2015 through 2024, the UN General Assembly has adopted 173 resolutions against Israel and 80 against other countries.”
Do you seriously think that throughout this time Israel has been that much worse than all other countries?
There are many other indications that the UN is biased about Israel:
Only one country has its own permanent agenda Item 7 in the UN.
Palestinian refugees have their own organization vs refugees from all over the world, with almost 10x the budget per person.
In the UNESCO description of Jerusalem it says “The Wailing Wall delimits the quarters of the different religious communities”.
There are many other examples like this.
Not a single country in the world opened its doors to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. So the majority of the world can absolutely be wrong.
- It’s still pretty surprising that a country so armed to the teeth with ground troops and missile defense systems would have let Oct 7 happen for as long as it did, and with so many people dying. I agree that it was wrong of Israel to do that.
- [flagged]
- The report states they are not bombing military targets, so you can't explain the numbers away just by saying Hamas may recruit children.
> Israeli forces continued to use high-payload munitions and weapons with wide-area effects in densely populated residential areas despite mounting child casualties, the commission said.
- Ok, first: The author sits on the board of HonestReporting and writes for NGO Monitor, UN Watch, and the Henry Jackson Society. These are pro-Israel media-monitoring and advocacy organisations.
It paints Hamas's Ministry of Health as a propaganda machine incapable of an honest number (sure) while Israeli military estimates (the 25,000 combatant figure, al-Ahli) are accepted at face value -- seriously? The IDF has been proven to lie numerous times.
Also, the article still relies on the MoH's numbers when it's convenient to the point it's trying to make.
The Gaza Mortality Survey, published in The Lancet Global Health in early 2026, run by Michael Spagat who's a war-mortality specialist (Kosovo, Iraq), with a long record of debunking inflated war-death claims, estimated 75,200 violent deaths between Oct 7, 2023 and Jan 5, 2025, which is around 25,000 more than the official Gaza Ministry of Health figure for that period.
The Lancet survey found that women, children, and older people comprised 56.2% of violent deaths. An OHCHR analysis separately found that 70% of those killed in residential buildings were women and children.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
Let's see, what else: A ratio of 1.5 civilians per combatant means roughly 40% of all deaths are fighters. If 56% of the dead are women, children, and elderly, then every adult male death would have to be a combatant to reach 40% — which is obviously false.
The Washington Institute concluded that the available data cannot yield a civilian-combatant ratio because the MoH doesn't classify combatant status. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat...
The combatants numbers: The 25k combatants figure is an estimate from IDF statements while it dismisses the 8.9k figure (militants the IDF actually identified) as absurd. "Let's make up a number and call the only real documented count" -- and whether it itself is real or not is debatable.
Then lies about natural deaths: Yes, there were about 6.3k deaths in Gaza before the genocide started, however it cherry-picks this subtraction while ignoring the corresponding addition. the same surveys that quantify baseline deathhs also find thousands of excess non-violent deaths caused by genocide. The lancet survey has 8.5k excess deaths. The 3.3k confirmed deaths the article cites are below the 6k baseline. Natural deaths are undercounted. Not inflating it.
Hamas kiling Gazans: Sure, but thousands? It's overblowing numbers for the al-Ahli hospital case and then extrapolating a bunch of bs as a result.
There is a genocide going on. We've seen the footage. We have the testimony about the horrors from both IDF soldiers and Palestinians. Why are we disputing numbers like holocaust deniers?
- Ok, at least you are engaging.
A few rebutals: > Yes the author is pro-Israel. I would assume the author the Reuters article is anti-Israel. This doesn't automatically disqualify either account.
> The issue is with the MoH is the breakdown of the numbers, not the overall number. No contradiction.
> He provides an alternative to Lancet. His numbers do not follow Lancet, so mixing his calculations with Lancet's is disingenuous.
> Hamas said they had 40k trained fighters which was about 2% of the population. They also recruited heavily throughout the war. Israel has a standing army of 170,000. The area is an active war zone. These numbers are feasible.
> The 8900 is fighters identified by Israel by name. This is an extremely high standard you are applying to identify fighters overall. For example in Ukraine, this standard would identify most of the 200,00 Russians they have claimed to kill to be civilians.
> Your logic is inconsistent. According to you over a 2 year period Israel couldn't kill tens of thousands of fighters in a large active military all over Gaza but could kill tens of thousands of exposed and trapped civilians in the crossfire but Hamas couldn't have harmed a few thousand of those same civilians.
> No genocide.
> This is not disputing numbers. It's disputing the nature of the conflict.
- If you try very hard, you can understand the reason for bombardment, at least from the BEGINNING. Surely, not the reason for killing these poor children.
But I never came to better conclusion about West Bank annexation that that it is pure imperialism. Basically what russians are trying in Ukraine. I'm still not quite sure what is the purpose, there is really not enough land or it's all just bs?
I wonder if this ends up Flagged.
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
- > Firing from schools, hospitals and resendential buildings.
I really don't want to descend into countless counterexamples, but that's how virtually every military or militia wages war, including the IDF. I assume your confusion on this issue may be due to a lack of familiarity with the subject.
Usually never ever has anything to do with malevolence (eg. in an attempt to use the counter strike as a propaganda story). More often, it's just a matter of convenience, logistics, and the realities of operating in populated areas.
If there's one thing that CIA manuals on training militias stressed on, or any military history book in that regard, it's that soldiers need to be fed and supported. Or they'll find ways to meet those needs without you.
- Are you saying that every militia and army use hospitals as a base from which to wage war? (e.g. firing rockets, artillery shells, etc)
- Units will use any reinforced or cover position to carry their objective.
Even roofs of civilians apartments, let alone reinforced structures such as hospitals, town halls, schools, etc if they can't use alternatives.
Even antique frontal wars used terrain to their advantage. That's why we wrote rules of engagement, but if the bigger powers themselves abuse them, how can you expect militias that have to carry guerrilla or urban tactics to stand by them?
- Well, every choice has a consequence. For Israel the choice was accept rockets fired on Israeli towns on a regular basis(not settlements, btw, just towns within the 1948 UN recognized borders of Israel) or respond.
BTW, The response came after texting the residents, distributing leaflets and annoncening in every way possible that the place is going to be bombed.
BTW (2), For years Israel avoided bombing dense residential areas, despite knowing the origin of those rockets.
- There is a severe lack of construction materials in Gaza. My guess is that Hamas has a choice between using what's left for tunnels, or losing the war.
- That's a slight mix of cause and effect. There is a shortage of construction material because Hamas uses it not for the wellbeing of the citizens of Gaza, but for the construction of border crossing tunnels into Israel.
- Sure, that's Israel's purported reason for all of its blockades. The result, as in most cases in history, is that civilians bear the overwhelming brunt of the impact while the military resistance digs further in, switches to guerilla tactics, and becomes increasingly popular amongst civilians.
Regardless, my original point stands that Hamas do not have the means and resources both to build public shelters for everyone and to continue its military efforts.
- They are deliberately targeting tent encampments. Given the IDF mil tech I guess they can deliberately target and destroy any kind of shelter.
May, 2024: At least 21 killed in Israeli attacks on tent camp near Gaza’s Rafah [4]
September, 2024: An Israeli strike on humanitarian tent camp for displaced Gazans killed at least 19 people [5]
December 2024: Seven attacks on tent encampments in the past two weeks kill 34 Palestinians including 10 children [2]
April 2025, Israeli strikes kill Palestinians in tented area for displaced in Gaza [3]
January, 2026: Israeli airstrikes targeted tents belonging to displaced people [1]
[1] https://www.reutersconnect.com/item/israeli-airstrikes-targe...
[2] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ohchr-opt-press-release-...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yrl891j23o
[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/5/28/at-least-21-kil...
[5] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/an-israeli-strike-on-huma...
- That's why I mentioned that it was very shallowly understandable at the beginning. Not after few years of massacre.
Interesting part about your commentary is, that you completely ignored the West bank I mentioned. Place when Israel forces killed hundreds of children with sole reason or colonisation of land belonging to someone else. Or at least I never found any other explanation for behavior at the West Bank.
- How do you place millions of people in bomb shelters when your neighbour of a few kms away bombs you any time it wants from fighter jets? Have you not seen the footage of bombs dropped with no warnings in the middle of the streets, on residential buildings, on schools, on hospitals?
Israelis have bomb shelters because have ample warning and an enemy that is barely able to hit anything.
This blaming the victims of your own bombings for not taking shelter- actually accusing them to be responsible for their own deaths and those of their relatives, parents, wives, children, is some of the most revolting and shameless Israeli propaganda.
- [flagged]
- "Israeli authorities and security forces deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, and war crimes in the occupied West Bank, an independent U.N. inquiry said on Tuesday."
Literally the first paragraph of the article we're commenting.
- > Basically what russians are trying in Ukraine.
Not sure it's the same thing. Russians want political and territorial control in Ukraine, not expelling Ukrainians to resettle the place with "ethnic Russians". Israel wants to conquer the whole of Palestine (West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem) to replace the native population with its own. There is no possible equal integration of Palestinians or their descendants into a Jewish state, not in a thousand years, and by design.
- Well russians over the history resettled the native population numerous times, even resettle russians there. But the truth is they mostly want control for whatever reason they made up. Part of their propaganda is thet Ukrainians are basically confused russians so you got the point here.
But I wouldn't be sure about your claim regarding Israel. Even now there are millions of Palestinians with Israel citizenship. I understand the deeply rooted animosity with hamas but I do not understand the whole point of this type of colonisation of west bank. I suppose it have something to do with their extreme religious part of goverment?
You've had a point. Maybe it's more like Native Americans and colonizer type of situation.
- Those Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are no longer allowed into Israel. That's my understanding after watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrmE-WiC4eA
- You’ve either misunderstood or the youtuber is lying to you.
- > I do not understand the whole point of this type of colonisation of west bank
Besides the obvious religious/ ideological motivation, there's also a simple matter of territory: Israel is a small country and the West Bank and Gaza have a lot of value, both for the country as a whole (more space for more people, more natural resources, nobody to share with) as well as commercial value- think developments, real estate, industrial and agricultural areas, seafront properties, etc. Very hard to keep your hands off this bounty, for decades, when the rest of the world basically allows you everything.
- > not expelling Ukrainians to resettle the place with "ethnic Russians"
The similarity might be stronger than you suspect. Russia abducts and transports Ukrainian children to controlled territories [0], and actively encourages its own citizens to relocate to captured Ukrainian areas through economic incentives, subsidized housing, and aggressive long-term repopulation strategies.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7g5xnvl2eo
[1] https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russias...
[[ Edit - added references in response to flagging ]]
- The USA, the most powerful nation the world has ever see, is powerless to do anything about it.
If the US can't do anything about it, what hope is there for the underfunded UN?
- I think powerless is entirely the wrong word as they are actively supplying the arms to do it
- The USA won't do anything about it because the USA is also guilty of heinous war crimes, crimes against humanity and massive violations of human rights at scale - in fact, it is the worst criminal on the world stage when it comes to un-prosecuted war crimes... so Israel facing justice will only mean that the USA will face the same justice, and we all know that there is nothing more heinous in all the world to an American than to be embarrassed by their state facing justice at the hands of any other international entity.
But the terrible tragedy is that this situation is not going to resolve until these countries actually prosecute their war criminals, who have been getting away with it in the current context for 20+ years. Which means the only ones with any power to do anything about the USA/Israels' war criminals, are the citizens of those countries themselves - which is why the situation is just so dire.
Until there is a real appetite for prosecuting ones own war criminals instead of bleating like sheep for the blood of perceived enemies of other states, there will not be the moral stance/altitude required for Americans to do anything effective about the war crimes of any other nation.
Until Americans prosecute their own war criminals they can do nothing effective about Israels', Russias', Ukraines' war criminals, either ...
- [dead]
290 points by supercopter 9 hours ago | 88 comments