Flagging is not the only strategy. At 7 hours It's already been pushed to page 7, rank 196 alongside posts from days ago. No one else will see it. Mission accomplished.
Was it flagged? I haven't seen that and was wondering why it isn't flagged yet. Reports of harsh realities aren't usually allowed to ruin the celebration of money-printing schemes here.
Unsure why this comment merely copy pasting the summary of TFA is voted dead [0]. Perhaps this is how low the bar for "antisemitism" has fallen these days? Or is vote manipulation taking HN in the direction of /. and reddit?
austin-cheney 6 minutes ago [dead] [–]
This visual shows the names of 60,199 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces
in Gaza from 7 Oct 2023 to 31 Jul 2025. This staggering figure includes
only those whose names and ages could be identified by the Ministry of
Health in Gaza up to that date.
but people copy and paste pertinent info from articles all the time and have done for many many years, so why would you think it's a hard and fast sign of bot activity
If any of that were true why does Israel forbid foreign journalists from reporting facts on the ground? Why did they kill more journalists than all prior conflicts in human history?
It's more or less the same with any modern military. Ukraine for example doesn't allow journalists (foreign or not) in the more dangerous areas near front lines, with rare exceptions for journalists that they invite and escort.
It's perfectly reasonable to not want unrestricted journalists leaking information about military assets, or possibly getting themselves killed. Most people seem to understand (or at least not care) when Ukraine imposes press restrictions. The question should be, why are people suddenly outraged when Israel does roughly the same thing?
That is not the same. When the US invaded Iraq there were over 3000 journalists in Iraq. None of them were in firing zones to be used as human shields. That said, there are still journalists operating in Ukraine even today.
How many journalists does Israel allow in Gaza, anywhere in Gaza? The answer is 0. Worse still is that they appear to directly target journalists for elimination, as became evident when they shot a rocket at a building stairwell that contained only journalists trying to transmit video and then shot a second rocket at the exact same location shortly after to kill any first responders. The entire event, both rocket attacks, was caught on video that made it out of the enclave.
Iraq isn't the most useful comparison because it wasn't feasible for the US to fully control access; determined journalists could find ways into the warzone. They still tried to encourage embedded journalists, who they could protect and also censor, so that they weren't tweeting photos showing artillery locations or what not.
There are journalists operating in Ukraine, but they're either
- embedded/escorted (IDF did a bit of that also)
- in safe ("green") areas far away from fighting (Gaza is too small to really have those; Ukraine is ~1650x larger)
- or just ignoring the laws, and illegally reporting from dangerous yellow or red zones
> or just ignoring the laws, and illegally reporting from dangerous yellow or red zones
I skimmed Wikipedia [1] but couldn't find any mention of laws in Ukraine that forbid reporting from certain areas. I see laws forbidding statements of support for Russia, and laws enabling censorship. Maybe I've misunderstood: are you referring to anti-trespassing laws in general, and not specifically about reporters?
> The rules bar journalists from working in so-called “red zones” deemed most dangerous, and require a military press officer’s escort to work in less dangerous yellow zones. Journalists can work freely in green zones.
> ow, when ukraine shows that they are strong, people on the internet look horrified how russian soldiers are annihilated with fpv drones and scream about how such things are war crimes and should be stopped.
Sorry who are those people and where I can find them? In my bubble Ukraine is still the victim who lost 20% of its land, and Russians are still bombing the country daily, both military and civilian targets. All male Ukrainians are basically prisoners in their own country who can only pray they don't die soon.
Hamas as financed, and helped grow, and fostered as an entity, and rid of its more middle-of-the-road competitors, by two you-know-who parties in this farcical tragedy, parties that comically keep identifying themselves as one another's mortal enemy... glad I never set foot in that madhouse in 20 year and most likely won't ever again.
Not sure if I understand it correctly, are you saying:
1. western countries bomb civilians, kill them, put them in jail without court, have ethnonationalistic racist state where some races has more rights and others have less, steal land from others, bomb neighbours because someone is hiding there, ignite wars, lobby/bribe powerful country politicians to reach their own goals
or
2. are you saying Israel didn't commit any of this?
> Not sure if I understand it correctly, are you saying: 1. western countries bomb civilians, kill them, put them in jail without court, have ethnonationalistic racist state where some races has more rights and others have less, steal land from others, bomb neighbours because someone is hiding there, ignite wars, lobby/bribe powerful country politicians to reach their own goals
Sir, have you read about Western countries' imperial and colonial past, even over the last century alone? What about just the last 2 years, as they stood by Israel in every meaningful way while from time to time 'expressing concern' and issuing statements that 'international law must be respected' as the hypocrites that they are? The original commenter was correct: Israel fits right in.
I understand that appealing to myths of noble intentions of western populations is ultimately a good thing if it gets them to act more like it, but a part of me can't resist pointing out that it's just a myth and it's never been anything other than 'might makes right'. I agree with your goal, just please don't frame it as if western countries are these beacons of morality when they're anything but.
They were not framing it that way. They were proposing a retort to someone else that suggested Israel is a civilized western country.
The person you are responding to was saying that for that to be true (Israel = civilized western nation) that either it is civilized to do all those awful things or that Israel is not doing those things.
Obviously, both are false. So you are responding to someone who agrees with you all the way.
Israel doesn't target civilicans specifically, but they don't really care about coladeral damage. i don't see any problem with this
what do you mean "put in jail without court"? give me examples
whaat is the problem with having an ethnonationalistic racist state? and also, arabs have the same rights as jews in israel, because israel is a civilised western country where the law has power.
>lobby/bribe powerful country politicians to reach their own goals
yes, they do this. and who is to blame? you, who elected the said politicians, and allowed it to happen, or israel, that utilized its power to achieve its goals?
i don't support israel lobbying, and i wish it didn't happen, but everyone is so easyly fooled, and it is so obvious, that we can no longer say it's israels fault. it's the west who has to do something about it.
> 2. are you saying Israel didn't commit any of this?
some of the things they didn't comming, some things that did commit and it is not a problem as you present it, and some things they did comming, which indeed as a problem. but there's no perfect state.
i hate israel, but definitely not because it bombs hamas terrorists.
That number is just recovered dead bodies. There are people in the rubbles, still, there are people who died or will die from accompanying factors - such as mass evacuation, living for years in a horrible camp, hunger, diseases, destruction of hospitals and infrastructure that otherwise would kept those people alive.
And Israel definitely conducts very questionable actions, similar to genocide, such as withholding any humanitarian aid for months, and them distributing it only through one controlled organisation, that distributed it in just a few spots, with machine guns pointed at people. Thats one of the main reasons Netanyahu is wanted by ICC.
This is all not mentioning actions in the West Bank, where settlers with army support drive people away from their homes, destroy and take over the land. This is not what a “civilised” nation does.
Well, it's certainly not limited to bodies that were confirmed by officials in a hospital or morgue. A lot of the casualty reports were from a Google form, or later, a self-hosted form (https://sehatty.ps/moh-registration/public/add-order).
> Well, it's certainly not limited to bodies that were confirmed by officials in a hospital or morgue. A lot of the casualty reports were from a Google form, or later, a self-hosted form
Yes it is. Literally on that form "Not registered with the Palestinian Ministry of Health". This is a form to report missing people, the number of the dead are people identified by a doctor.
Though that number has stagnated because all the hospitals have been destroyed by Israel.
No, that's just saying that the form is for reporting casualties that are not already registered with the MoH.
Hamas' casualty numbers came from hospitals and morgues only in the first few months of war; that hasn't been the case for a long time. This isn't controversial - Hamas has been fairly open about incorporating "reliable media sources".
I think only Hamas knows the breakdown for their latest numbers, but earlier they used to acknowledge how many casualty reports were based on online form submissions. For example you can see some old data in Figure 11b here:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/...
Sorry, I'm not going to take seriously a report by an AIPAC funded institution from a guy who's basically spent all of Israel's genocide talking about how fake the Hamas numbers are.
Basically all his reports have one narrative "It's not that bad, and actually it is all terrorists that Israel has killed".
NGOs that have managed to get aid workers and doctors in (which, btw, are often killed by Israel) all say that the death toll is a massive undercount. [1]
There, of course, is a solution here. It's for Israel to let in aid works and stop killing them [2]
AP: "As Gaza’s hospital system collapsed in December and January, the ministry began relying on hard-to-verify “media reports” to register new deaths. Its March report included 531 individuals who were counted twice, and many deaths were self-reported by families, instead of health officials." https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-cas...
Many of the worst genocides in history were by "civilized western countries". Just look at what happened in the Americas (many native ethnic groups are now entirely extinct), in the Congo, Ireland, British oppression and famines in India, and so on and so forth.
Nearly every genocide starts with "we're civilized. That means we're doing the right thing. Some casualties are unavoidable" When someone thinks like that, you know they're doing the wrong thing. You know you cannot trust them. You cannot reason with them because they refuse to see their actions objectively and have ceased to see others as equal to themselves.
The next step could be to attempt to link as many of these as possible to a news article describing the Israeli actions that led to their death, and/or stories about their lives. Obviously it will be hard to attribute most of them, but I think even hundreds of accounts would be powerful.
The higher on the scale the people, the younger they are. This is depressing and completely unnecessary, this is cruel and still ongoing with the recent incursion in Lebanon.
It's insane that so many innocent people continue to die and Tsahal continues to justify their invasion and the death of these people. Heartbreaking.
That number is absolutely staggering, and the fact that at least 20,000 of these are children is literally making me sick every time I think about it.
To Israelis who think this is justified because your country was attacked - for every person killed in the initial attacks, your military has killed 20 children(and many more adults). And that's the ones that were outright killed, and not "just" had their limbs torn off and given lifelong disabilities. How is that proportionate, fair or in any way justifiable?
I'm not looking to defend Israel's actions or to take a political stance here, but just wanted to ask about the proportionality/fairness argument - to the best of my knowledge, a proportionality between casualties on the two sides is not an expectation of any rules of war, and I don't recall ever seeing it applied to other conflicts.
> to the best of my knowledge, a proportionality between casualties on the two sides is not an expectation of any rules of war
If you were talking about combatants, you'd be correct. The main point about Gaza is that the majority of those who are killed are civilians[1]. And most civilized countries recognize[2] that civilians should be spared during armed conflicts.
That is correct, but every war should have an end at some point. To maybe ask this in a different way - how many more palestinian children have to die for the Israeli government to say "ok yeah we're done now". What is that number going to be? 20k? 100k? Every single one of them? Their stated objective is to eliminate th Hamas militants, but on the path to that goal the truly astounding civilian cost cannot justify the end, can it? Or if someone thinks it can, I'd ask - really? Surely there is a number between 0 and "every single person in Gaza" that would cause even the most hardened supporter of Israel to stop for a second?
(although maybe not, given that there are Israeli politicians saying everyone above the age of 5 in gaza should be cut down, so maybe I'm too optimistic).
It kinda doesn't have a body count limit. After October 7, practically all Israelis (even ones who are deeply opposed to the current government, the settlers, etc) said "This will not happen again, ever. And if that means sterilizing the Gaza Strip of all life, so be it."
I heard that from many people, including a 90 year old nun. (I could not have imagined what Sister Claire-Edith would look like furious.) They simply couldn't imagine any course of action that would allow that to occur again.
That didn't mean that exterminating Gaza was inevitable. They would have accepted a complete and unconditional surrender of its leadership, along with freeing all of the hostages, and allowing an outside force to establish a new government.
I'm not saying that's fair; I'm trying to explain what the parameters were.
It's clear (now more than ever) that the current government would have faced a quandary if that had happened. They wanted the war, more or less as it was carried out. But had Hamas surrendered, a lot of Israelis would have said "that's enough", and it would be much harder to continue in the face of public opposition.
That never happened, so it continued. Eventually they did get fatigued, with time more than body count. Hostages were exchanged and Israel started to prep for the Iran war. (Iran played a significant part in funding that October 7 attack, though it's indirect enough that a lot of Israelis do not support this war.)
The question I have is - what now then? Because the war is still going on. What event is the Israeli state waiting for now, exactly? Whatever remains of Hamas leadership to say "we give up"? Would that even suffice? Because right now it looks like Israel will just continue killing people in Gaza until they get bored or run out of munitions, or have something else to do(like the war with Iran and other neighbours - which doesn't formally end the hostilities in Gaza anyway, just might ignore them for a bit). If that's the "plan" then yeah, it will continue until everyone there is dead, moved out, or.....I don't know if there is a 3rd option. And at that point it's just a systematic eradication of the entire population, which is precisely what genocide is.
The war in Gaza is over. There are still deaths, but they're the "ordinary" deaths of two countries who hate each other. Hamas is back to chucking rockets over the wall; Israel is back to disproportionate responses.
At that pace, it can continue indefinitely. They are replacing people and ammunition faster than they're killing/using them.
The war in Iran is supposed to end that, or at least shift it. Without Iranian support, Gaza could collapse.
What happens after that, I cannot even begin to guess. Maybe the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank takes over. They've got an OK-ish relationship with Israel, though Israel keeps testing that relationship with more and more settlements by religious fanatics.
It's at least as likely that Netanyahu loses the election in October, at which point he may be prosecuted. Nobody in Israel is exactly in favor of the Palestinians, but there are at least some who aren't going to actively antagonize them. That will depend on their relationship with the US, which may change in November.
Proportionate casualties is not a requirement, but targeting civilians is a war crime. The IDF has repeatedly and actively targeted civilians, even when no military targets are present in the area. They have not prosecuted the soldiers and commanders that have carried out those crimes.
This makes the entire regime culpable, and given that it is a democracy, the electorate shares a part in that culpability.
Notice that the entire polity of Palestinians is being held fully culpable for the actions of... Its unelected leadership.
... Also, using a war to displace an occupied civilian population is a genocide.
White text on a mostly white background is not really a good choice, especially if you want to communicate something important.
Kinda unrelated, but are any good sources for deaths in that whole conflict before the 7th October, including other areas? Throwing around that number does have some impact, but does not tell the whole picture and is often dismissed as being "just" a reaction to the attack on 7th October.
The audio you hear when you open the website is from the record of one of the greatest Arabic and Palestinian Poet Mahmoud Darwish reading his poem "On This Land" (English translation here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_jtTj26Q0).
HN is not unbiased, and not above censorship. Political things make it to the front page all the time, but this is the wrong kind of political thing. We're not supposed to talk about ----cides, at least, this ongoing one.
Literally the first comment I read was of the sentiment "Palestinians are all terrorists and deserve this" so it's not really a wonder why no one wants to read this style of conversation
Presumably for the same reason things related to e.g. American politics gets flagged: everyone knows where they stand on the topic, and there's no good discussion to be had about it here – just flame wars.
> There are a lot of casualties on both sides of conflicts around the world. It is a bit suspicious when certain communities want to focus almost exclusively on one side of one conflict, while also leaving out any context about the terrorists that started the conflict and fight in civilian clothing.
You make it sound like both sides experienced the same amount of casualties, blockades and massive displacement from their homes during the conflict
They somehow manage to find uniforms when they do parades. In any case, the principle of distinction merely requires combatants to wear distinguishing marks. Hypothetically if they ran out of uniforms, they could use something as simple as colored armbands.
It's a basic tenet of IHL which is essential for the protection of civilians in a war zone. If the pro-Palestinian community was genuinely focused on the well-being of Gazans, they would have extremely concerned about this particular war crime, and would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So the 20 thousand children killed in Gaza should have been wearing what kind of uniform to avoid behind killed? Just so I understand correctly.
>>would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So if the international community somehow pressured Hamas to wear uniforms, IDF would kill fewer children? Or they would stop their policy on waiting until a suspected Hamas combatant returns home and then blowing them up along with their family?
I just feel like that's such a dishonest, morally bankrupt take. For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children. But hey, Hamas militants don't wear uniforms sometimes, damn I wish the world would talk more about this war crime too.
I'm just trying to think of when my own country was under German occupation and 2 millions of our citizens were killed by Nazis - if internet was around back then I'm sure someone would have said that it's really suspicious no one talks about how our resistance forces don't walk around the streets in their uniforms or you know "at least wear an armband". If only anyone really cared about our well being surely someone should have pointed it out, maybe UK could have sent some strongly worded letters to the underground leaders to just wear uniforms when outside, then(and only then) talking about the genocide would finally be fine.
Civilians don't have to wear distinguishing marks, combatants do if they care about the laws of war and protecting the civilian population.
Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help. If you care about limiting civilian harm, you should be focused on ensuring Gaza has a government that doesn't keep starting wars, or at least put on uniforms before they attack Israel. Maybe even letting civilians shelter in bunkers, rather than reserving them for terrorist use only.
Can you name a single conflict in a comparable urban setting, against terrorists that dressed as civilians, that definitely had a better civilian casualty ratio? Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
> For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children.
It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios. By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
>>Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
I'm sure I can name a few militaries in the world that would manage to not shoot at a marked ambulance and kill the medics inside. And a few others that actually manage to successfully prosecute their soldiers raping and torturing captured enemies, not have the prosecutors let them free as heroes of the nation.
>>Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help
And why is that? I think if we continue sanctioning Israel as much as we can that will help. If we keep putting pressure on Israel to let journalists in, that will help.
>>By this logic
I don't know what logic that is. The ratio alone doesn't make you good or bad.
Well, when are you planning to name them? If Israel is so evil, it must be very easy to name a few militaries that are much better at fighting terrorists, who dress as civilians and hide among them, without much collateral damage.
> actually manage to successfully prosecute
There are countries that never let off suspected criminals due to insufficient evidence?
Also if we're just bringing up random stories to paint one side in a bad light, what happened to the Gazans who paraded their rape victims around the streets? They didn't seem at all worried about being arrested.
> if we continue sanctioning Israel as much as we can that will help
Sanctions can't convince a nuclear state to ignore the attacks against it and give up on its own defense. If we want Israel to stop fighting messy wars, the focus should be on its neighbors who keep attacking it.
Is there a reason why you cut off the second part of that first sentence when you quoted it? Or was it again because you wanted to argue against a point in your head instead of the one I actually made? Because I'm sure even you can name militaries that generally don't shoot at ambulances, or if they do the people responsible tend to go on trial and be prosecuted.
>>There are countries that never let off suspected criminals due to insufficient evidence?
Funny how Israel always finds insufficient evidence against all of its soldiers.But maybe that just doesn't bother you.
>>what happened to the Gazans who paraded their rape victims around the streets?
Oh wait, it's Gazans now? not Hamas? Or are they one and the same for you?
>>Sanctions can't convince a nuclear state to ignore the attacks against it and give up on its own defense
Of course they can't, and no one advocates anything of that sort. We do want Israel to stop killing Palestinian civialians in the numbers that they do. We want food and medical supplies to be restored. No one says Israel shouldn't defend itself - but this has crossed the line of defence long time ago. Maybe it hasn't for you, but that's your morality that you have to live with.
>> the focus should be on its neighbors who keep attacking it.
You do realize that both of these things can happen, right. We should be criticizing Israel for how it's leading this war, and we should focus on it's neighbours to stop the terrorists inside them. Do you feel Israel is being unfairly treated in this case?
It seems like you're unable to name any military that broadly deals with terrorists in a cleaner manner, so you've resorted to cherry picking specific alleged incidents that are more specific to Israel.
This is like saying that the US is the most evil country, because it's the only one that bombed the girls' school in Minab. Or Ukraine is the most evil country, because they're the only ones accused of who executed Russian POWs (in recent memory).
> Oh wait, it's Gazans now? not Hamas? Or are they one and the same for you?
I'm sure you know that Hamas fighters were not the only ones committing atrocities on Oct 7. The Gazans who were parading their rape victims didn't hold signs saying "I'm with Hamas", "I'm with PIJ", "I'm just a random Gazan", etc. Why should we make assumptions about their affiliation?
> We do want Israel to stop killing Palestinian civialians in the numbers that they do.
If you can't name any real-world military capable of dealing with terrorists disguised as civilians with less collateral damage, than just blaming Israel for the collateral damage is rather unproductive.
> You do realize that both of these things can happen, right.
That's a nice sentiment, but in reality those who are ostensibly pro-Palestinian are way more focused on trying to harm Israel than on actually helping Palestinians. Where were the protests for getting Hamas to put on uniforms? For getting other countries to accept war refugees? For pressuring Hamas to step down, ceding power to a government that will stop starting wars? There were none.
Israeli civilian death ratios are actually terrible, worse than Bosnia, Syria, or even WWII (including the Holocaust!). I assume it’s because Israel wants to kill as many civilians as possible, while still claiming the faintest hope of plausible deniability.
Frost is using quite a long chain of creative assumptions to claim that fighting age male casualties (almost half of all casualties) were mostly civilian. His conclusions are contracted by Hamas' own admissions. Earlier in the war they acknowledged losing 6,000 fighters, when the claimed total was ~29k.
If we believe Hamas, and conservatively assume that everyone other than Hamas fighters were civilians, that's still a CCR around 3.85:1. If we believe Israel it's around 1.5:1.
> worse than Bosnia, Syria, or even WWII
As I said elsewhere in the thread, CCR comparisons need to be apples-to-apples. Gaza is tiny, civilians have nowhere to evacuate to (no state accepted significant numbers of war refugees), and Hamas disguises as civilians. Your examples are not comparable.
> By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
Can you elaborate on this? I thought that the Nazis were pretty obviously the "bad guys" due to committing genocide and mass casualties (combatant and civilian) while trying to expand their borders.
> It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios.
Really, even the ratio of civilian casualties, or ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties? Those seem pretty relevant to morality in my book, but I might be misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly in agreement? I agree civilian casualty ratios can be meaningful signals about morality, provided that we account for context (e.g. whether civilians are trapped in a warzone or able to evacuate) and are careful to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.
But the parent wasn't really comparing these ratios; it was closer to a "total deaths on either side" sort of comparison. Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral. That dubious logic would suggest e.g.
- The Nazis were morally superior to Western Allies, since the Western Allies killed more Germans than the reverse.
- The Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, since Iraq suffered several orders of magnitude more casualties.
- Israel is bad partly because it goes to extreme lengths to protect its people (Iron Dome, bomb shelters everywhere, etc.). Letting more of its people get killed would "even out the scales" and suddenly make Israel's military operations more moral.
>>Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral.
And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that, instead of what I'm actually saying - which sure, would lead to the nonsensical logical conclusions that you wrote.
What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation is the fact that they target civilians on purpose. That they shoot at medics, deny food supplies, shoot rockets at refugee camps, hospitals, schools, they shoot at little kids playing around, they torture their prisoners, they use AI to guess which person needs to be eliminated and they blow them up with their families to maximise casualties - and all of the above happens without any oversight or consequence for any people involved. The 20k children dead is a consequence of all of these decisions, the number itself isn't what makes Israel bad - it's how they got to it, through a culmination of decades of decisions on how they see Palestinians - as subhuman scum needs to die. There is no effort to protect civilian life, and IDF saying otherwise is just lying.
But I feel like you're keen to say that Israel is "defending" itself and Gaza is a narrow urban zone, so of course it can't be done any other way.
Let me maybe ask you this, just to satisfy my own curiosity more than anything - if Israel decided to kill everyone in Gaza, based on the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified, would you just go "yeah that's fair"? Or would you just make some argument about how no army in the world would do better.
> And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that
Then what was the point of your numeric comparison? If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
> What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation [...]
It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light. Should we try this game with another country, like say Palestine?
> the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified
>>It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light
I really don't understand your train of thought. Are you saying these things didn't happen? Or they did happen but Palestine also is doing despicable things so they don't matter? Or they do matter but they aren't worth being upset about? Or it's worth being upset about them, but they shouldn't be discussed?
>>No I certainly don't think that.
Well what did you bring it up as the first point then? I said - hey I'm bothered by the fact that Israel killed 20k children in this conflict, and then you said hey I wish someone was talking more about the fact that hamas doesn't wear uniforms when fighting. Like, what is the conclusion here? That Israel is killing civilians because anyone can be a militant(since hamas militants don't wear uniforms), or.......what is the alternative?
>> If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
I don't agree with that - I just said it's a consequence of every other choice that Israel made up to this point.
I just don't see the point of engaging with a big laundry list of random accusations against Israel. Some are likely true. Urban wars aren't rainbows and butterflies, and no military is perfect. Ukraine has had a bunch of incidents with soldiers abusing and even executing POWs, should we sanction them too? US recently obliterated a girls' school, should we sanction ourselves for our mistake?
> what is the conclusion here?
Maybe something like "Israel's neighbors should probably stop attacking it", "Hamas should put on uniforms", or "countries that supposedly care about Gazans' well-being should accept war refugees"?
If your takeaway is that it's all Israel's fault, but you can't name any other military that does a better job of dealing with terrorists who embed themselves among civilians, that seems like the wrong takeaway.
I’m betting the age and gender breakdown of deaths will be a lot different, as most Palestinians were killed in their homes with their entire families whereas most Iranians were killed in the streets.
Iran government claims ~3000 deaths, this report attributes ~7000 deaths to government response. The numbers thrown around on twitter seem to grow higher as this war drags on though.
This visual shows the names of 60,199 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza from 7 Oct 2023 to 31 Jul 2025. This staggering figure includes only those whose names and ages could be identified by the Ministry of Health in Gaza up to that date.
Note: Flagging on topics like this typically occurs from user action, not moderators.
These are not typical sockpuppet accounts either, but mostly established users that (conjecture) don't care about having the same non-technical debate among non-experts devolve into flaming and namecalling.
See relevant statements and context from moderators here:
I'll give it time, perhaps the post was auto flagged from bots and mods can correct for it. Because political content is often here, and this is also a tech project as well.
If it stays removed this is probably my last interaction on HN.
It's just blatant censorship. There's not even any real political message here. It's just a fucking memorial for the tens of thousands of children (and tens of thousands of adults) that were killed, that someone coded up.
> There's not even any real political message here.
Of course there is, it’s right there in the title of the website. Even making a website to remember these deaths and not other ones is a political choice.
This might not be 100% technical content, but the work, visualizations are technical.
So many people upvoted because they have empathy to both types of content, and downvotes to this type of content comes most of the time from bots controlled by IDF
Which countries? Negative submissions about China and Russia get flagged near-instantly. Frequently also about the USA. People don't like a topic - they flag it.
Being "technology" doesn’t make something interesting. A writeup of the author about their work would have been interesting, but they haven’t even published the code nor written anything about it.
Right, especially 8 and 10 year old that are Hamas operatives. Get a grip on reality and realise that killing that many people is not the right approach to the situation and is an unnecessary loss of life. wtf dude.
They are not, and it's not helping the message to spread this wrong picture.
Nazis had a dedicated machinery, based on crude racism and conspiracy ideology, which was actively seeking and executing their genocide. Israels lunatics lack this, their aim is stealing land, and the mass killings are just a side effect of their religious bullshit.
Not understanding this difference derails the communication about this problem.
Can you explain the difference then between "crude racism and conspiracy ideology" on the one side and "Israel's religious bullshit" on the other? Because I don't see much difference between the nazi view that Aryan blood is superior and Israel's view that Arabic lives are inferior. And Israel's perpetual self-victimization and insistence that every Palestinian civilian is a Hamas terrorist and that they're hiding in every building sure sound like conspiracy ideologies to me.
> Can you explain the difference then between "crude racism and conspiracy ideology" on the one side and "Israel's religious bullshit" on the other?
Jews have a history of 3000 years. Nazis have a history of around 20 Years.
Jews have religious scriptures, whose purpose is more practical and positive overall (I guess). Nazis build their whole Ideology mainly on fake news, greed and their harmed ego, completely negative.
> Because I don't see much difference between the nazi view that Aryan blood is superior and Israel's view that Arabic lives are inferior.
Israel is not moving out to cleanse the world from inferior blood. The Nazis did. Their whole history is a big copping on the big wars outcome and how bad Germany suffered from it and how they seek reparation for it and revenge on those they consider the culprits. Of course, it's significant more complicated than that. My point is, they both are bad, doing stupid shit, but their motivation and the lines they are willing to cross are very different. Israel whole purpose is to control their holy country, they don't care about the rest of the world, but they do care about anyone threatening their little paradise. And everything else is just result of the process.
Yes, agree. Nazi are typical fascists. Apartheid regimes might look fascistic at first glance, but they do not fill all the Umberto Eco criteria, or, if I go deeper (and imho to a more universal way to detect fascism), they do not have the same mythos as fascists, in particular those needs to point to internal enemies, 'traitors' if you will, that apartheid state don't (the discriminated population are not considered traitors, merely inferior). While some mediatic Zionists are fascist or at least have huge fascistic tendancy for sure (calling someone 'self-hating Jew' is to me a sign), the state isn't.
That every mouse movement highlights lives lost is harrowing. Grains of sand on the beach, each with their own world and community.
Shame on the flaggers.