Thread

Updated Google Maps shows destruction of the city of Rafah

943 points · 947 comments · slowin

saturn_vk · 1790616232 · focus · HN ↗
It's sad that most world leaders do nothing to combat such genocide. There are so few sanctions against the state, or specific people, of Israel. Foreign forums are very much still open for business to them.
1. bjork · 1790617326 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. ImPostingOnHN · 1790617639 · focus · HN ↗
    Please. We can judge for ourselves, and don't need you to try this "jedi mind trick" schtick.
    Please try posting more constructive content than unconvincing, blanket denials. It doesn't make for good discussion.
  2. phantompeace · 1790618646 · focus · HN ↗
    History will look back on people like you quite unfavourably.
2. lenerdenator · 1790629687 · focus · HN ↗
  1) Ultimately, money means more to foreign nations than what happens with internal affairs of their trading partners
  2) Accusations of genocide, whether they stand up or not, are great fodder for whataboutism discussions. Let's say the world's two largest economies, the US and China, decided to start sanctioning Israel for what's happening in Gaza. You could expect other countries to start threatening actions against the US and China over their previous or current genocidal behaviors. These are obviously not things that the US and China want to deal with.
3. bamboozled · 1790636445 · focus · HN ↗
  What do you think world leaders should've done differently?
  1. skywhopper · 1790637409 · focus · HN ↗
    The post you are responding to lists several possible actions. Another good start would be to stop providing the weapons that have done this damage.
  2. sdenton4 · 1790637619 · focus · HN ↗
    Cut off weapon gifts+sales to Israel, impose sanctions. Same way we dealt with the South African apartheid state.
    dboreham · 1790639434 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel has both nuclear weapons and the Epstein files, so that's not really an option (granted: SA had nuclear weapons too, but nobody really to drop them on).
    almogo · 1790642917 · focus · HN ↗
    Nuclear weapons sure, but what is this about Epstein?
    slim · 1790648294 · focus · HN ↗
    he's referring to the fact that epstein is a mossad agent and that compromised world leaders are being blackmailed to support the genocide
    MC995 · 1790648297 · focus · HN ↗
    Epstein (and Ghislaine Maxwell in particular) are widely believed to have operated as a massive Mossad blackmail operation, collecting (and creating) blackmail material against western politicians and influential individuals to ensure their support for Israel.
    I won't go into details that support or refute this claim, but that is what the parent poster likely meant.
    KoftaBob · 1790674803 · focus · HN ↗
    and it seems pretty likely that's exactly what was happening.
    The idea that a nation-state was/is running a child sex trafficking ring, and we're *not* turning over heaven and earth to investigate that so that country faces unprecedented consequences...I don't even know what to say
    bamboozled · 1790675731 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is it likely ? Why not Russia ? I’ve heard it’s Russia ?
    someonebaggy · 1790680879 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Epstein had ties to Israel and not to Russia. There might be a similar ring run by Russia as well, who knows.
    bamboozled · 1790682467 · focus · HN ↗
    Didn't he have ties to basically all powerful people? Is there something special about his Israel ties that are different to his Bill Gates ties?
    I thought this was interesting, from Al Jazeera to boot:
    Political Reactions: While critics and unverified intelligence memos pointed to the deep relationship as a sign of state ties, current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly dismissed the notion, stating on social media that Epstein's close ties to Barak (a political opponent of Netanyahu) actually "proves the opposite" of Epstein working for the Israeli state.
    someonebaggy · 1790684703 · focus · HN ↗
    He has ties to all powerful people as his clients, but he has ties to Israel that look closer to them being his employer.
    bamboozled · 1790687167 · focus · HN ↗
    Without some pretty good evidence, it sounds like conjecture, which is fine, but nothing of substance is being presented here.
    someonebaggy · 1790690903 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course. A very valid way to view it, and the same way I would've viewed it in 2016 if you told me there was a global elite pedophile ring that helped get Trump elected.
    cassepipe · 1790691135 · focus · HN ↗
    Epstein definitely had ties to Russia. I don't know how to assess how important those were but they did exist
    someonebaggy · 1790680794 · focus · HN ↗
    Epstein is thought to have been working for Mossad. If that's true, they probably have copies of all the video tapes (which we know were made) of all the stuff rich people did on Epstein island. This theory would single-handedly explain why almost everyone in the Epstein files supports Israel so strongly.
    crote · 1790660135 · focus · HN ↗
    So you're suggesting that Israel would drop a nuke on a Western country imposing a boycott? Somehow, I doubt it.
    lelanthran · 1790666805 · focus · HN ↗
    > Same way we dealt with the South African apartheid state.
    Who's this "we" who dealt with the SA apartheid state?
    The international pressure on SA did absolutely nothing to change their mind (I'm old enough to have seen PW Botha's Rubicon speech live on TV). The NP (political party in charge) was slowly and carefully convinced to push out the hardliners.
    The people left, like FW De Clerk, actually did the dismantling - unbanned the ANC, released Mandfela from prison, switched to allowing black voters, etc.
    The rest of the world's pressure had absolutely no effect on the leadership. Change only came when leadership started changing.
    See this for more background: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_in_South_Africa#Early_contact:_1980s" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_...
    sdenton4 · 1790689899 · focus · HN ↗
    The actual on the ground resistance was of central importance in the end of South African apartheid, but the international pressure and sanctions greatly increased the need for negotiations to begin. The point is to increase the pressure to change leadership through democratic means.
    This could hopefully happen somewhat faster with Israel, given that the government isn't a literal Nazi remnant, as the South African government was. (Though, ironically, the main arms supplier to South Africa during the arms embargo was Israel, often reselling weapons from the United States. Sigh.)
    "By the late 1980s, the South African state was in profound crisis, crippled by international sanctions, a stagnant economy, and widespread resistance. Recognizing the unsustainable nature of the perpetual conflict, the government under P.W. Botha began tentative, secret contact with the imprisoned Nelson Mandela and the exiled African National Congress (ANC) leaders."
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_(1948%E2%80%931994)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_(1948%...
  3. cogman10 · 1790637983 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot.
    Literally on Oct 7, Hamas tried to return civilian hostages, who the IDF killed. This is why Hamas changed policies to only give up hostages through 3rd parties. They reached out to israel to try and return hostages and were ignored. They reached out to the US to return hostages and were ignored. [1]
    So for starters, the US could have pressured Israel to negotiate with Hamas to return the hostages.
    As Israel started to show genocidal intent (for example, killing aide workers multiple times). The US could have at a minimum threaten to withhold aide. In fact, there are laws on the books that a country such as Israel committing war crimes is ineligible for aide.
    Finally, the UN should have deployed peace keepers to gaza specifically to stop the genocide.
    Actions could have been taken, but they weren't because our politicians are so bribed by Israeli lobby money as to turn a complete blind eye to it's misdeeds.
    [1] <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-politics/2026-09-15/ty-article/.premium/hostage-families-release-list-of-govt-decisions-preceding-oct-7/000001a0-a521-dea8-afe0-e5adef4a0000" rel="nofollow">https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-politics/2026-09-...
    bamboozled · 1790639274 · focus · HN ↗
    So you feel like after October 7, there should've just been a talk about what happened and some form of negotiation ?
    cogman10 · 1790639345 · focus · HN ↗
    Quote exactly where I even implied that.
    ebbi · 1790640739 · focus · HN ↗
    Well what else do you expect when you subjugate a native population for decades? Just expect perfect victims?
    The peaceful route didn't work. Only idiots will think continuing with the status quo will result in anything different.
    bamboozled · 1790641801 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry buddy, you can't just attack children ad a music festival and get away with it, even if you're desperate.
    ebbi · 1790642014 · focus · HN ↗
    sorry buddy, you can't just kill 700k people, displace the rest into an open air prison for decades, and expect no blowback.
    You can't just continue to 'mow the lawn' where children are killed and kidnapped, put into Israeli prisons, and expect no blowback.
    You can't just shoot people in the knees while protesting peacefully, and then expect no blowback
    You can't just rape Palestinian prisoners (most of whom have been arrested under no charges), and expect no blowback.
    You can't just install bombs in pagers, and set it off amongst civilians, which resulted in children being injured or killed, and expect no blowback.
    Sorry buddy, but your days of gaslighting is over.
    bamboozled · 1790642452 · focus · HN ↗
    You provided a list of reasons why you feel like teenagers at a music festival should be murdered, right?
    Like my personal sentiment is, war is senseless, and both sides are wrong in some way or another. But yeah, I don't think children should be murdered period, so I'm not going to try and give a list of reasons why it's OK, because there isn't one.
    Anyone committing war crimes should be punished for it, period.
    My original question was simply, what should have been done differently "by the world leaders"?
    ebbi · 1790642953 · focus · HN ↗
    How many teenagers were killed by Hamas? And are there independent sources that verify this?
    Also, is Oct 7 enough justification to shoot 335 bullets at 6 year old Hind Rajab?
    Your questions reek of bias by trying to centre everything to Oct 7, as though history began there. If you really cared about children, you'd have referenced the thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israel before Oct 7.
    someonebaggy · 1790681613 · focus · HN ↗
    World leaders should stop giving free money to the guys who are doing a holocaust. I think we can all agree on that.
    bamboozled · 1790687635 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you think Israel should do now? What would be a sensible course of action going forwards?
    someonebaggy · 1790692533 · focus · HN ↗
    Their options are to prolong this forever-war (it's worked so far, 75 years, but getting precarious), or actually do the thing and destroy Palestine once and for all (won't be hard - they have nukes), or negotiate peace (also not difficult - it's always Israel who rejects reasonable peace deals), or accept their own destruction and flee.
    cindyllm · 1790702394 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    hamsteredf · 1790640340 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    cogman10 · 1790641356 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh look, brand new account doing hasbara. Where have we seen this before? Are you a part of Israel's $1B spent on online propaganda? [1]
    I cited my source. But there were also sources in October 2023 about Hamas wanting to return the hostages. The Haaretz articles reveal that it was privately even earlier than expected and the Netanyahu was warned of the attack in advance yet he chose to do nothing about it.
    Why not just drop them off? Well for 1 they actually wanted the hostages to get home alive. The IDF didn't care about killing hostages as they relentlessly bombed the region.
    Why not let the Red Cross see them? Because the IDF was closely watching and, shocker, if you take someone directly to the hostages guess what building gets blown up next?
    > They kept them locked up and starving.
    What a strange lie. Yes they were locked up but the hostages themselves reported that Hamas treated them well. Why wouldn't they? They aren't Israel who anally rapes their hostages [2]. The Israeli government would LOVE for Hamas to have mistreated the hostages. But alas, this is just projection.
    [1] <a href="https://quincyinst.org/research/the-eighth-front-inside-israels-1-billion-influence-campaign/" rel="nofollow">https://quincyinst.org/research/the-eighth-front-inside-isra...
    [2] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-detention-base.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/world/middleeast/israel-g...
    tourist2d · 1790644003 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    monideas · 1790664585 · focus · HN ↗
    Essentially your point is that Hamas protected the hostages from the IDF by not returning them.
    This is abject insanity and it’s a good representation of what is going on in the minds of most of humanity.
    someonebaggy · 1790681212 · focus · HN ↗
    Are they wrong? On October 7, Hamas released three hostages. Israel shot and killed the hostages, so Hamas said they won't release any more hostages without some kind of security deal. That sounds like protecting them to me.
    monideas · 1790681524 · focus · HN ↗
    These are the types of conflicts over basic values and senses of right and wrong for which distinct countries with borders and militaries exist. Basically I don’t think discussions like this are fruitful. Historically these types of cross cultural exchanges were very rare, now they’re very common because of the internet.
    someonebaggy · 1790685952 · focus · HN ↗
    Very interesting to compare this wording with your previous comment.
    When it's about Hamas imprisoning hostages: "Hamas kept them underground in chains in near starvation conditions. This is abject insanity."
    When it's about Israel murdering hostages: "Well, you know... We don't always agree on right and wrong. That's why different countries exist. Is this discussion really fruitful?"
    monideas · 1790686327 · focus · HN ↗
    Again to use the word murder to describe the accidental killing of hostages is insane and why we have countries and militaries.
    someonebaggy · 1790686648 · focus · HN ↗
    My dude, they pointed a sniper rifle at an unarmed naked Israeli man holding a white flag and shouting for help in Hebrew, centered him in the scope, and pulled the trigger.
    monideas · 1790686842 · focus · HN ↗
    Obviously it was not done on purpose. That wouldn’t make any sense to do on purpose. If they knew they were Israelis they wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. Surely despite how mentally ill you are this should be understandable.
    What was done on purpose was killing 50k Palestinian terrorists, destroying all the buildings, killing Nasrallah and blowing up thousands of Hezbollah terrorists with beepers, in many cases wounding their genitals and eyes.
    What are you going to do about that?
    halflife · 1790689852 · focus · HN ↗
    That is completely incorrect. The terrorists that were put in charge of these hostages fled and left them alone in a war zone. They were definitely NOT released.
    They were killed because of mistaken identity, which is horrible, but it happens in war, some IDF soldiers died from friendly fire.
    Hamas definitely didn’t ask protection for the hostages, they asked protection for themselves.
    There are many hostages reports of Hamas terrorists saying to hostages that if IDF will draw near, they will shoot the hostages.
    someonebaggy · 1790690849 · focus · HN ↗
    They accidentally sniped the naked guy holding a white flag and shouting in Hebrew?
    halflife · 1790701174 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, because Hamas routinely does that to lure IDF soldiers.
    Let’s use occams razor hear.
    Option A - mistaken identity because the enemy wears no uniform, embeds itself in civilians, and uses inhumane tactics to confuse IDF soldiers (like putting explosives on dead bodies, placing speakers with hostages recording as bait)
    Option B - IDF decided to kill the hostages they came to rescue for some evil reason
    someonebaggy · 1790714917 · focus · HN ↗
    Awfully convenient for them that whenever a hostage gets released they can just say "whoopsie" and justify it as they thought it was a lure.
    halflife · 1790726296 · focus · HN ↗
    It happened once.
    And I see you’re sticking with the “evil IDF just decided to kill these 3 hostages without any reason” plot.
    monideas · 1790664463 · focus · HN ↗
    What he means is they could have been traded for all of the concessions Hamas wanted in exchange for them.
    And yes this is true but the reason you couldn’t comprehend his point is because his point is insane.
    cogman10 · 1790681095 · focus · HN ↗
    This is an uncharitable reading of my point and not what I meant.
    monideas · 1790681847 · focus · HN ↗
    What did you mean then?
    cogman10 · 1790685292 · focus · HN ↗
    > They reached out to israel to try and return hostages and were ignored. They reached out to the US to return hostages and were ignored.
    That Hamas was open extremely early on in the conflict to negotiations for returning hostages and Israel and the US knew this while they waged a bombing campaign and pretended like Hamas wasn't trying or willing to return hostages.
    Negotiations weren't happening because Israel didn't want those negotiations, not because they weren't available.
    And, I don't know if you are aware, but negotiations involve give and take. Israel didn't need to "traded for all of the concessions Hamas wanted in exchange for them".
    The reason the hostages weren't returned sooner is because Israel didn't want them. In 2024 Hamas accepted all of Israel's terms multiple times only for Israel to change terms. Israel knew they'd have fewer justifications for their genocide if they got the hostages back.
    That's my point.
    monideas · 1790685478 · focus · HN ↗
    This is exactly what I said you were saying
    cogman10 · 1790685628 · focus · HN ↗
    You said.
    > What he means is they could have been traded for all of the concessions Hamas wanted in exchange for them.
    Where in my writing did I say that Israel needed to accept all concessions. Please quote me.
    Do you think it's unreasonable or "insane" for Israel to have accepted some concessions for the safe return of hostages?
    monideas · 1790686087 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes it would have been insane to accept any concessions. If you don’t understand that then you have work to do on yourself. This is a very weak and suicidal position to take.
    cogman10 · 1790686332 · focus · HN ↗
    > Yes it would have been insane to accept any concessions.
    Any? Like even a temporary ceasefire? That's a suicidal position?
    Notice how you had to change from "all" to "any".
    monideas · 1790686608 · focus · HN ↗
    There were many temporary ceasefires in exchange for hostages but this was done as part of the broader war effort, ultimately Israel is not bound to anything in these “agreements”. It’s basically just saying and doing whatever needs to be said and done to accomplish the war goals.
    cogman10 · 1790687038 · focus · HN ↗
    A ceasefire is a concession. And my point, which I think is clear, is there's a pretty wide gap between "They have to accept all hamas concessions" and "they have to negotiate".
    It's pretty hard for you to argue against the fact that there are, in fact, reasonable concessions that aren't "suicidal".
    monideas · 1790687265 · focus · HN ↗
    The context of this discussion is the idea that war could have been avoided if Israel had been willing to negotiate with Hamas over the hostages.
    cogman10 · 1790688396 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not the context of the discussion. The context is "what should world leaders have done differently".
    And, I never said that the war was either avoidable or that Israel was wrong to use force after Oct 7.
    What I am saying is that the war could have ended years ago and that Israel has committed genocide. I'm also saying that the pretext that it was about "getting the hostages home" was false.
    And with that context, yes there are things world leaders should have done to stop Israel from committing genocide.
    cromka · 1790640660 · focus · HN ↗
    > Finally, the UN should have deployed
    UN has no such power. I am still amazed how people do not get this.
    Members need to vote for such things to happen. It wouldn't, not in this climate.
    cogman10 · 1790641587 · focus · HN ↗
    The question was
    > What do you think world leaders should've done differently?
    Members should have voted in the UN to deploy peace keeping troops. The UN does have that power if it's voted for. This isn't a question of the current realities but a question of what the right actions are.
    bamboozled · 1790641983 · focus · HN ↗
    This is where you notice that the world is more complicated than social media posts.
    Like it would've been a nice idea, until you realize that Hamas is heavily backed by Iran, Iran is helping Russia, Russia is invading Ukraine, and it starts to look like that level of intervention is a step towards a world war.
    Then you notice world energy markets are going to be effected by a massive conflict etc.
    If the UN went into Gaza, got attacked by Iran, then had to respond, next minute they're attacking a close Russian ally, and maybe even China might have to get involved in that.
    What would've been good is if October 7 didn't happen, and that goes for both sides.
    cogman10 · 1790643088 · focus · HN ↗
    Iran would WELCOME UN peace keepers in gaza, are you kidding? Hell, I think even Hamas would welcome their presence. UN peace keepers would mean the likes of UNRA could operate once again in Gaza to deliver aid. It would also mean that Israel would have to stop it's aggression.
    > Iran is helping Russia
    lol, no, other way around. Though the Russia hasn't really been involved with Iran since Ukraine started. It's actually China that's the biggest Iranian trade partner.
    The only party that'd be upset over UN peace keepers in Gaza is Israel.
    bamboozled · 1790682584 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think what you're saying is actually right, if peacekeepers came in, it would (likely) mean a freezing of the current borders / situation, and isn't that what most people say justified October 7, "the theft of land"?
    manyaoman · 1790684116 · focus · HN ↗
    Allowing international journalists in would make the genocide even harder to deny and at that point there's no more returning to the "current situation". Regarding the border, at least for Hamas the 1967 borders would be just fine: <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full" rel="nofollow">https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full (article 20).
    bamboozled · 1790687493 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you actually sending the Hamas charter and expecting me to read that and think it's reasonable ?
    manyaoman · 1790689661 · focus · HN ↗
    By all means enlighten me, what's unreasonable about it?
    yyyk · 1790753973 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    manyaoman · 1790758440 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm immune to Hasbara and not wasting more time debating it, but just leaving some Wikipedia snippets below as a kind of a "community note".
    > They never cancelled their original charter
    Wikipedia [0]:
    This document [the 2017 charter] reflects our position for now (...) The old charter was a product of its era, 30 years ago. We live in a different world today.
    > Also, Hamas literally operated the 'March of Return' (demanding the 'right of return') that year.
    Wikipedia [1]:
    The first demonstrations were organized by independent activists, but the initiative was soon endorsed by Hamas, the governing party of Gaza, as well as other major factions in Gaza.
    [0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter#Since_2017" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter#Since_2017 [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...
    cogman10 · 1790684286 · focus · HN ↗
    Only if you think Israel is entirely correct in their assessment that every single civilian building actually houses dangerous hamas terrorists. I don't think that assessment is correct so I don't think the UN peacekeepers would be behaving exactly like Israel and the IDF has behaved in Gaza. Nor do I think the UN would put the same restrictions on aid coming into Gaza. They wouldn't stop peanut butter and baby formula from entering.
    yyyk · 1790753686 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    cromka · 1790673878 · focus · HN ↗
    That's not how that answer was phrased. It directly indicated that the UN should have taken that action.
    cogman10 · 1790680986 · focus · HN ↗
    Make it make sense. The question is what should have happened. You say I answered what should have happened. But you also say "that's not how the answer was phrased".
    How is my "should have" happened not a direct answer to the question?
    someonebaggy · 1790681029 · focus · HN ↗
    That would result in the USA going to war against the UN. There is a reason the UN only takes action when the security council agrees. Countries on the security council can plausibly use their military might to prevent any UN action, so to prevent the senseless deaths of peacekeepers, they are given a verbal veto instead.
    cogman10 · 1790684019 · focus · HN ↗
    No it wouldn't? We are talking hypotheticals. When talking about what world leaders should do I include the US in world leaders.
    I wasn't engaging in what's likely, just what should be. Biden and Trump should have been on board with deploying peace keepers. They were not.
    someonebaggy · 1790684662 · focus · HN ↗
    If Biden or Trump would simply cut off funding there probably wouldn't be a need for peace keepers any more.
    cogman10 · 1790685497 · focus · HN ↗
    I tend to agree. The US bears a pretty large amount of blame here and I don't think Israel would have continued their aggression had the US withdrawn aid (or threatened to). But if they had continued, then that's where UN peacekeepers should have been deployed.
    yyyk · 1790641604 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    cogman10 · 1790642699 · focus · HN ↗
    > Lie. It was a deal to get complete immunity for a massacre. Also, 'Civilian' per Hamas is anyone over 60. 'Let Hamas murder and keep nearly all hostages' was not in Israel's playbook.
    You are making stuff up. Nobody reports that Hamas was shooting for a "get out pillaging free" card. And the fact still remains that they tried to return 3 hostages to show good faith who the IDF proceeded to kill.
    > Lie. There was repeated negotiations for two years after, with plenty of Hamas demands for the hostages. It was totally public too.
    Hamas, on multiple occasions, agreed to all the terms only for Israel to reject the agreement and change the terms. That was all public. It's why the hostage families became really mad at the government.
    > Literally not relevant. The US has much bigger errors in the current conflict.
    Two wrongs don't make a right and yes, it's relevant when the IDF explodes clearly marked aid vehicles rendering aid. There's no reason to not do that.
    > Snort. Look at how successful they were in Lebanon. Peace keepers need to be willing to fight to keep the peace, and in this case, it meant fighting both sides. LOL.
    Does that really matter? The question wasn't "how effective will this be" it's "What world leaders should have done". That's what world leaders should have done.
    > I suggest looking at the far bigger Qatari and Saudi expenditures (didn't they just grant an entire 747?). It's more that US politicians recall the war on terror, and know all this nonsense will one day be sent back at them with much greater force (wasn't it 4 million deaths or so?), they have no wish for the precedent to be set and deployed at them.
    These are weaker lobbies because of US laws. The likes of AIPAC and CUFI get around campaign finance restrictions because they are operated by US citizens (in behest of Israel). No other nation has that sort of organizations in the US. The closet you can find is things like the weirdo Shen Yun cult.
    This allowed them to spend $60M in a democrat primary. You won't find that sort of direct spending from Qatar or the Saudis (barring the clear bribe in the Jet. They aren't exactly giving away jets to every primary run).
    yyyk · 1790644009 · focus · HN ↗
    >Nobody reports that Hamas was shooting for a "get out pillaging free" card
    'Israel to withdraw and grant all other Hamas demands' is a 'get out free' card.
    > they tried to return 3 hostages to show good faith who the IDF proceeded to kill.
    These hostages _escaped_ and were shot in error. Not 'tried to return'. Note that there was a week's ceasefire a month earlier and Hamas could have returned everyone then if they cared to.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_war_ceasefire" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_war_ceasefire
    <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/israel-hostages-camera-dog-intl-hnk/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/21/world/israel-hostages-cam...
    >Hamas, on multiple occasions, agreed to all the terms only for Israel to reject the terms.
    You mean all of 'Hamas's terms'. Right. The Israeli government had very different terms as the final deal (very different from what Hamas demanded) shows. The Israeli gov insisted on controlling the Egyptian border, Gaza demilitarization, etc.
    >It's why the hostage families became really mad at the government.
    Of course. They wanted the hostages out ASAP, and could only pressure the Israeli government (obviously Hamas wouldn't care for the families).
    >Two wrongs don't make a right
    Right, but there's such a thing as hypocrisy. One could make a 'genocidal' case against the country who started a war by bombing a schoolhouse and spoke of 'destroying an entire civilization' (it would still be wrong though). But they're a little too strong, and it's easier to pick on Israel.
    >That's what world leaders should have done.
    Most world leaders want to be reelected (or not be overthrown if they're dictators). Sending out troops to die in a foreign land for an arguably hopeless cause is not very helpful to that end. They're likely aware of the history of military involvement in the Middle East.
    >The likes of AIPAC and CUFI get around campaign finance restrictions because they are operated by US citizens
    Qatar etc. gets around it by donating billions to US universities or using organizations like ISNA. Everyone seems to have found a way.
    someonebaggy · 1790681155 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't it interesting how Israel always seems to do bad things in error. Have they ever improved their processes to stop doing things in error? Nope. In fact it seems they just continue doing more and more very bad things in error.
    Remember they know exactly who everyone is and where everyone is at all times. Gaza is the most thoroughly surveilled place on earth.
    halflife · 1790643792 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    someonebaggy · 1790680908 · focus · HN ↗
    Typo correction: Palestinian hostages
    jameshilliard · 1790720079 · focus · HN ↗
    > Literally on Oct 7, Hamas tried to return civilian hostages, who the IDF killed.
    This is literally terrorist propaganda, they tried to offer a return of a subset of the hostages in exchange for Israel not invading and dealing with the Hamas security threat. Obviously Israel was not going to leave such a severe security threat like Hamas intact.
  4. thinkingtoilet · 1790638500 · focus · HN ↗
    If you had to guess, what do you think they might do? I feel like questions like this are in bad faith. Think about it for a minute, and try to come up with some things that they might do.
  5. hedora · 1790643288 · focus · HN ↗
    Send all collaborators to the international criminal court. (In the US, especially congress critters and members of the executive branch.)
    Also, blockade Israel proportionally to the Gaza blockades. I doubt they would have kept murdering red cross members in Gaza once the supermarkets started running out of food.
    selfmodruntime · 1790676920 · focus · HN ↗
    How can they forcibly imprison the leaders of a soverein, nuclear armed state?
    hedora · 1790689379 · focus · HN ↗
    The remaining non-corrupt members of the executive branch (or the state governments) would uphold the oaths they took, lock potus and friend in boxes, and ship them off.
    As for Israel, as I understand it, the next election will mean domestic jail time for the incumbents unless the polls are wildly wrong.
    At that point, it would be easy for Israel to start climbing out of lawlessness too.
    noumenon1111 · 1790778268 · focus · HN ↗
    And while they're at it, forget about Israel being an ethnostate and give the 5 million Arabs without any representation a vote.
  6. 7734128 · 1790660363 · focus · HN ↗
    At the very least diplomatic condemnation and a South African level sanction.
  7. someonebaggy · 1790680705 · focus · HN ↗
    Immediately stop all exports and money flows to Israel. Food and medical aid should still be allowed to both sides, of course.
4. 762236 · 1790638596 · focus · HN ↗
  Do not forget that world leaders are heads of sovereign states that are in charge of their self defense. Those that actually have to defend themselves, like the US, rather than relying on strong allies, need to make public statements that are not hypocritical about what they would do for self defense. This is why both U.S. administrations support Israel's actions
  1. dboreham · 1790639386 · focus · HN ↗
    Pretty sure that's not why US administrations support Israel's actions.
    762236 · 1790643154 · focus · HN ↗
    Bad phrasing on my part. That is one of many reasons
  2. slim · 1790647903 · focus · HN ↗
    need to make public statements that are not hypocritical
    wow, you hold a very high opinion of american politics. you must have been reading new from paper news paper for the last 30 years
  3. rixed · 1790650428 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, the need to self defense against US dangerous neighbors. Looking at you, Canada!
  4. dartharva · 1790654312 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you been living under a rock? The time when "public statements" used to work is long, long gone.
  5. crote · 1790660967 · focus · HN ↗
    > Those that actually have to defend themselves, like the US, rather than relying on strong allies
    Sure, but are we going to ignore about the US having to rely on its "helpless" allies to provide staging points and cannon fodder for its illegal imperialistic wars? How much of a superpower would it be without its overseas bases?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.