Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by permo-w 266 days ago
how does this follow?
2 comments

If likewise fighting the Nazis had been stopped because of people calling it a "genocide" the outcome would have been catastrophic.
Hamas doesn’t have tanks, bombers, cruise or ballistic missiles though.

Destroying their capacity to wage war didn’t require blowing up every building in Gaza.

Unlike the Nazis, Hamas isn't capitulating. If the Nazis hadn't capitulated, the allies wouldn't just have gone home.
That’s true. However Israel is allowing Hamas to maintain some presence and control over Gaza instead of directly occupying it like the allies did.
Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were destroyed without it being a genocide.
and so were many British towns and cities. atrocity /= genocide. how does the speaking German or non-existence of the commenter follow?
If we hadn't bombed these cities we might not have won the war. Arguably we didn't have to nuke Japan but chose to over the cost of the lives of our own soldiers (including my grandfather a marine in the pacific). War involves doing horrific things you don't want to do and wouldn't normally do (look at Israel's actions pre Oct 7th versus post, this sort of war is not the natural state for Israel). War requires you lean on the side of doing too much damage versus limiting your military actions. War requires you take maximal actions, unlike policing where we try to use minimal. If the US fought Japan how people want Israel to fight the government of Gaza, I would not exist, my grandfather would have died storming Japan. It would have been a more moral victory, but it is very hard for any society to choose sacrificing their 18 years olds in a conflict initiated by the other side, when war strategy dictates that other paths/actions be taken, paths with less of your 18 year olds dead and a higher chance of reaching your goals. War by it's naturing is fought maximally, not as a police action.

This is also not a gentleman's war. A neighboring government supported by their citizens who joined in spontaneously, launched a surprise attack that killed 1000+, and indiscriminately maimed/raped/tortured thousands more, while broadcasting video of themselves kidnapping random 6 year old girls to the world, neighboring citizens who phoned home to their parents to brag 'I killed 10 jews today'.

War sucks. War is horrific. Which is why it sucks Hamas, the government of Gaza, chose this war. Why it sucks Hamas structured things for the war to proceed, with maximal civilian damage and casualties. Why it sucks Hamas chose to use civilian hostages abducted during the murder/rape/maiming of thousands. No country can just let their citizens be abducted and held captive like Hamas choses to do, intentionally ratcheting up the pressure/tempo of the war that they initiated.

But allies stopped bombing Germany after they occupied it?

They had rather specific goals and were willing to directly occupy Germany at great risk and cost instead of continuing to bomb its civilians for an indeterminate amount of time while they starved to death..

That’s perhaps a bit different?

Gaza is getting 3,004 calories of energy per day per person.

Official rations in Germany varied from 800–1550 calories per day. 800 airdropped, 1550 the amount post occupation. Are you arguing Israel should fully occupy and partition Gaza, like the allies did in Germany, and cut from the 3004 current calorie target to the 1550 one used by the USA in occupied Germany?

What is different here? Germans in occupied Germany received LESS food than Gazan do today. Are you saying you want less food to go into Gaza because Gaza is getting twice the calorie targets of what the USA targeted for occupied Germany? Germany was fire bombed (much much worse than the bombing in Gaza) and given 1/3 to 1/2 as much food going on years after the conflict ended. I'm really confused what you are pushing for? I thought people wanted more food into Gaza, not severely less like how the USA treated occupied Germany.

It sounds like you are saying Israel would be more just if they firebombed Gaza then partitioned it into smaller pieces isolating residents to those areas, and cut food in half from what Gaza is getting fed today? And that's ignoring the mass mass rapes that occured in Germany. What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.

https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-025-...

https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/oconnell-washington-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_in_occupied_Germany

> What you are arguing for would be very, very bad.

What do you think I’m arguing for?

Besides saying that Israel should finally decide what do they want to do instead of prolonging the current situation?

If they want to resettle or otherwise “remove” the population they should get on with it.

Otherwise they should trying to figure out a more sustainable solution.

Except Netanyahu’s political career seems to be taking precedent over everything else..

Putting aside its accuracy, your 3004 calorie count is for the first half of last year. Famously, of course, the food situation in Gaza is much worse now in 2025 than in 2024, starting with the fact that Israel allowed in zero (0) food for months this year. How does that fact change your opinion?
this is all very well-put, but when it comes down to it, Israel is deliberately prolonging this war, has been provoking it for years, and is not acting in the self-defense you're implying. Netanyahu is out of a job and maybe facing prison the second this war ends, nakedly promoted Hamas over a more reasonable power the best he can, and has aggressively pushed illegal settlements. and more than anything, is living on land that was Palestinian within living memory. none of this was true in WW2. you can blame Hamas all you like, but all you're doing is rewarding Israel's strategy to demonise and make Palestinian statehood unpalatable

also, and primarily, if you have any awareness of Japanese history whatsoever, you should be able to know that the nuking of Japan was the special case of all special cases. personally I think they should have just nuked somewhere in rural Japan first to make their point, and then gone for a population centre if that had failed to work, but that's beside the point, which is that Japan did not believe it could be beaten. any time they had been threatened historically, they had triumphed dramatically, often with the weather or random luck seemingly on their side. this sounds silly, but it's true. they needed to be shocked out of their arrogance. the same is not true of Hamas.

also your "war should be fought with maximum force" and--by implication--brutality is just complete bullshit and you've not actually made any effort to justify it other tham just saying that it's true