The dynamics of how they unfold is that I am dropping links from well respected (and frequently Jewish Israeli) institutions and getting bombarded by whataboutisim, misinformation and semantic arguments that interest no one but the commenter.
The dynamics is that one side cares about history and the truth and the other side is a whitewashing campaign for genocide.
"Hamas surely deserves some credit for the deaths" This is literally equivalent to saying the Jews deserved [some credit for causing] the holocaust.
There are people in this thread breaking down the history from literally 139 BC to the current day (although hardly anything before 1920 is actually relevant to the current conflict).
To handwave all the complexity away when it's presented to you in a form that would take only a few hours to fully digest and say "both sides"... it's definitely a choice.
Is Hamas technically at fault for giving Israel an excuse for committing genocide?
I guess, if you think such a thing is even possible.
> wouldn't have happened no matter what Hamas wanted back then
Very difficult to predict. Israel unilaterally rejecting a ceasefire plays very differently in the Congress and Tehran than both sides telling the other to fuck off.
> these are always the dumbest disputes
They’re a test on the source. (And I’d argue that yes, there is a meaningful difference between ten thousand and tens of thousands of deaths.)
I just mean the dynamics of how they unfold on HN. I'm pretty cynical about these threads. Yeah, it's not great that I participate anyways.
The dynamics of how they unfold is that I am dropping links from well respected (and frequently Jewish Israeli) institutions and getting bombarded by whataboutisim, misinformation and semantic arguments that interest no one but the commenter.
The dynamics is that one side cares about history and the truth and the other side is a whitewashing campaign for genocide.
"Hamas surely deserves some credit for the deaths" This is literally equivalent to saying the Jews deserved [some credit for causing] the holocaust.
There are people in this thread breaking down the history from literally 139 BC to the current day (although hardly anything before 1920 is actually relevant to the current conflict).
To handwave all the complexity away when it's presented to you in a form that would take only a few hours to fully digest and say "both sides"... it's definitely a choice.
Is Hamas technically at fault for giving Israel an excuse for committing genocide?
I guess, if you think such a thing is even possible.
2 replies →
> They should have taken the deal in May.
It wouldn't have happened no matter what Hamas wanted back then, as Netanyahu was fighting the ceasefire anyway.
> wouldn't have happened no matter what Hamas wanted back then
Very difficult to predict. Israel unilaterally rejecting a ceasefire plays very differently in the Congress and Tehran than both sides telling the other to fuck off.