| HN Mirror

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gd01g1gxro

It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no?

> In cases where civilians are shot (what Israel defines to be civilians), there are investigations and sometimes even punishments for the perpetrators.

Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians

thyristan 344 days ago

> It makes sense that people don't want to become citizens and legitimise the entity occupying their country and committing genocide, no?

I can accept not wanting to be part of that. But in that case, whining about missing democratic representation is just silly, of course you won't be represented if you chose not to be, no matter the reason.

> Obviously Israel doesn't consider children to be civilians

You seem to assume that all children are always civilians, but that is wrong. The articles of war don't put an age limit on being an enemy combatant. If you take up arms, you are a legitimate target, no matter your age. Many armies use child soldiers, and it is totally OK to shoot those child soldiers in a war.

I assume children queuing for food are not soldiers. Yes, yes I do.

If they are killed while they are in uniform and holding a gun during a gunfight, then they are soldiers.

> legitimise the entity occupying their country

What’s country? Palestine never existed as independent country.

Exactly, what's a country?

Israel never existed either, until it was administratively created in 1948. Maybe it shouldn't have been created where other people were already living?

You started with “occupying their country”. Can you tell me what country is that?

DiogenesKynikos 344 days ago

If it's not a different country from Israel, then give them Israeli citizenship.

There's a very simple reason Israel doesn't give the Palestinians citizenship: Israel wants to make sure the large majority of voters are Jewish. It wants the land, but not the people who live there.

> If it's not a different country from Israel, then give them Israeli citizenship.

The period we are talking about had no Israel either, so I am not sure what was supposed to happen there in your view.

> There's a very simple reason Israel doesn't give the Palestinians citizenship: Israel wants to make sure the large majority of voters are Jewish.

Of course. We all (1) see what happens to non-muslims in other middle eastern countries, and (2) saw what happened to the middle eastern jewry after 1948. I doubt that Iraqi jews living in Israel want to live under Islamic rule again.

> It wants the land, but not the people who live there.

This is false. Israel multiple times traded land for peace. The latest one was leaving Gaza in 2005.

Why are you keeping twisting the facts to suit your narrative?

Indeed. But what is a country? Is it a place where people live and have their identity, or does it need to be "ratified" by the UN? Before 1945 were there no "countries"?

Does it legitimise the invasion of someone's land? I don't think so

> Before 1945 were there no "countries"?

There were. They had their own government, and were able to have relationships with other countries.

At what point in time Palestinians had their own government and country? I’ll remind you that during the mandate there was no Jordan as well.

> Does it legitimise the invasion of someone's land? I don't think so

Jews also owned land there during the mandate, the ottomans, and even before. Is it okay to take their land?

I'll reply here

> And that is the basis of all this fighting, why doesn't Israel stick to the initial borders they agreed to?

You mean the ones that Palestinians do not want to stick to?

thyristan 344 days ago

Phrase it "occupy their land", then it will certainly be correct.

What about the Jewish people of the land? Do they have a say?

sva_ 344 days ago

> committing genocide

I've been hearing this for as long as I can remember, yet the population numbers tell a completely different story. It makes no sense to speak of a genocide if the birthrate far outpaces any casualties. In fact, the Palestinian population has been growing at a faster pace than Israeli over the past 35 years (that's how far the chart goes on Google)

Ah, OK. So, in that case they can be killed, but just in a culling kind of way, is that it? Your children can be killed as long as you keep making them?

reliabilityguy 340 days ago

How do you propose to fight an asymmetric war?

Genocide requires intent, not just a number of dead. If you judge by the numbers only, then US committed many genocides in the past 50 years.

tim333 344 days ago

It tends to be in a defensive or retaliatory way rather than culling. Like things largely peaceful October 6th Hamas kill 1200 Israelis, rape, hostages etc. Israels amazingly enough hits back. Hamas: "help! genocide!"

lostlogin 344 days ago

So genocide hasn’t happened if the population grows?

‘Just adjust the frame of measurement. With this one simple trick, you can remove any genocide.’

thyristan 344 days ago

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/v78... PDF page 289ff (numbered 277).

> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

> (a) Killing members of the group;

> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The tricky part isn't about (a) to (e), it is in "intent to destroy".

DiogenesKynikos 342 days ago

"Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track.

reliabilityguy 340 days ago

> "Intent to destroy" is usually difficult to prove, but in this case, it's the easiest part to prove. Israeli leaders (including the President, Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and other ministers), politicians, generals, soldiers and TV commentators (not to mention opinion polling of the general population) have made so many genocidal statements that it's difficult to keep track.

So, if you can’t prove the intent, you are saying it’s enough to use “polling”, TV interviews, and what the politicians had to say? I guess it’s bad news for the Palestinians, then. With Palestinians we have official policy that pays money to kill Israelis regardless of their status and political views. Way more convincing than “polling”.

Palestinian citizens in Israel do not have the same rights as the Israeli Jew, with more than 50 laws discrimination against them. They also face systemic discrimination and also you cannot marry between faiths, all the hallmarks of apartheid. Initially Palestinians within the Green lines were also under military occupation and only after 80% of the other Palestinians were either massacred or ethnically cleansed, so it was basically a forced acceptance. Israeli policy has always been to have a an ethnic supremacy for Jews, so the representation in the Knesset is tokenistic at best. If Israel decides to expel Palestinians in Israel, there's nothing they can do, its the tyranny of the majority.

Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the option of becoming Israeli citizens, except under rare circumstances.

Its laughable that when you say that there are investigations. The number of incidents of journalists, medics, hospital workers being murdered and even children being shot in the head with sniper bullets is shockingly high.

One case is the murder of Hind Rajab where more 300 bullets were shot at the car she was into. Despite managing to call for an ambulance, Israel shelled it killing all the ambulance crew and 6 year old Hind Rajab.

Another example is the 15 ambulance crew murdered by Israel forces and then buried.

Even before the genocide, the murder of the Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was proved to have been done by Israel, after they repeatedly lied and tried to cover it up. Another case was this one, where a soldier emptied his magazine in a 13 year old and was judged not guilty (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/16/israel2)

The examples and many others are many and have been documented by the ICC and other organisations. Saying that it's not nothing is a distinction without a difference

> and also you cannot marry between faiths, all the hallmarks of apartheid.

Marriage laws have nothing to do with apartheid, a system that uses race to differentiate peoples.

There are plenty of countries where marriage is done on religion basis and there is no civil marriage at all. What does it have to do with Palestinians?

Because it is imposed by a a colonial population on the native Palestinians in order to maintain a jewish majority in the ethnostate.

> Because it is imposed by a a colonial population on the native Palestinians in order to maintain an ethnic majority.

So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?

Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?

Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?

> So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?

Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism. In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.

> Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?

> Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?

If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.

Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).

> Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism.

But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.

> In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.

The same way numerous NGOs help migrants today to move and settle in the EU. I am willing to bet $100 you do not see them as colonizers, right?

> If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.

You are twisting facts and lying again. The purchase of lands happened way before the British mandate even. Are you saying it never happened?

> Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).

How can jews be white when they were never considered the same class citizens in Europe at the time? LOL

Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?

xdennis 344 days ago

> with more than 50 laws discrimination against them

List them.

> you cannot marry between faiths

Which law bans this. C'mon show it.

> Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the option of becoming Israeli citizens

Because they're a different country, remember?

> List them. - Citizenship and Entry into Israel lay (2003), denies the right to acquire Israeli citizenship to Palestinians from occupied territories even if married to citizens of Israel - Absentee's property law, which expropriates the ethnically cleansed palestinians in 1948 - Land Acquisition for Public Ordinance, which allows state to confiscate Palestinian land - Jewish Nation state law that stipulates that Jews only have the right to self determination

There's actually 65 apparently https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/7/19/five-ways-israeli-l...

> Because they're a different country, remember?

They are being occupied illegaly for decades, remember? by a supremacist ethno state, remember?

> which allows state to confiscate Palestinian land - Jewish Nation state law that stipulates that Jews only have the right to self determination

Similar law exists in Palestinian Authority -- no land can be owned by Jews. Selling land to jews is punishable offense.

> They are being occupied illegaly for decades, remember?

Who? You have to be specific.

> by a supremacist ethno state, remember?

Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-05-28/ty-article-ma...

> Similar law exists in Palestinian Authority -- no land can be owned by Jews. Selling land to jews is punishable offense.

Source? but even if true, I suspect this is an act of resistance against settlers who are already encroaching on Palestinian land through intimidation and terror tactics (poisoning goats, burning trees, cars, houses and evening murdering palestinians, with the protection of the IOF). In any case, the PA is a puppet dictatorship controlled by Israel, so these laws are essentially powerless to stop the stealing of land by Israel. This argument ignores the fact that Israel is gradually ethnically cleansing the rest of Palestine by seizing more and more land every year.

> Who? You have to be specific. Palestinians are being occupied by Israel, the West Bank since 1967 more specifically.

> Israel is not supremacist ethno state. Multiple ethnicities live in Israel and have the same rights. Find me another state in the Middle East that offers at least the same rights as Israel to its own minorities.

Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.

Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel. Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals. Given the current genocide, and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.

> Source?

Here you go: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/3/article/962044#:~:text=The%20conc...

> but even if true, ...

Continues to justify discriminatory laws.

> Having multiple ethnicities does not negate ethno nationlist policies. South Africa was also multi ethnic, having for example people of Indian ancestry and yet there was still discrimination and apartheid. Palestinian citizens in Israel suffer from systemic discrimination and there are numerous laws that prioritise Jews.

Stop shifting goal posts. The fact that Israel is a jewish state does not mean that it is a "supremacist" state (what does it even mean?). There are plenty of countries around the globe that have priority for specific ethnic group. For example, Spain, Poland, Austria, etc. Are these all "supremacist ethnostates" as well?

> Pointing to the poor human rights records of Middle Eastern countries doesn’t absolve Israel.

Ah, right. So, why are you focused on Israel though? Don't you think that there is a bigger fish to fry in all these other countries, where minorities by law are disenfranchised?

> Israel is the only country in the world that puts children through military tribunals.

This is a lie. For example, during the invasion to Iraq, allied forces prosecuted teenage fighters as well. Why do you lie? Like, all your claims are easily disputed with a simple google search. It seems to me you are obsessed with human rights violations only when they are done by Israeli forces.

> Given the current genocide,

There is no genocide. There are plenty of conflicts with even higher civilian casualty rate, with a clear intent to destroy the population as a whole that the current iteration of a war in Gaza. I know that today, for some reason, everyone expects wars have no civilian casualties, but in reality is not achievable.

> and its tacit support of that, those are not the hallmarks of a tolerant society.

Waging wars tells you nothing about the tolerance of a country and its populace. If I were to use your line of argument then I can say that any society that engages in war is intolerant, which is absolute bs.

It would be hard to demand love to Gazans from Israelis after October 7th. And if you do, then I can make the same argument and ask the Palestinians to stop their "resistance" and simply be friends with everyone around them.