Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza
Scope and Fit for Hacker News
- Long back-and-forth over whether this story belongs on HN:
- One side cites guidelines against political/TV-news content and notes flamewar dynamics, heavy flagging, and low signal.
- Others argue tech’s deep entanglement with modern warfare (AI targeting, cloud providers, spyware, social media propaganda) and with Israel specifically makes it relevant.
Legitimacy and Bias of the UN Genocide Finding
- Supporters highlight:
- Detailed legal framing: acts (killing, starvation, preventing births) plus explicit and circumstantial evidence of genocidal intent by Israeli leaders.
- Consistency with long‑standing occupation, blockade, and patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric.
- Alignment with findings from other NGOs and UN bodies about mass civilian harm, starvation, and destruction of civilian infrastructure.
- Critics emphasize:
- The finding comes from a UN Human Rights Council commission seen as structurally anti‑Israel and politically stacked; alleged double standards versus other conflicts.
- Reliance on casualty figures and secondary sources they view as politicized; comparison to “urban warfare” and other modern conflicts.
- Concern that the legal threshold for “genocide” is being stretched via selective quotes from officials.
Nature of the War and Responsibility
- One camp stresses:
- Systematic destruction of housing, hospitals, utilities, economy; famine conditions and deliberate obstruction of aid; targeting of civilian life-support systems.
- Structural power imbalance: Israel as occupying power with overwhelming military capacity versus a besieged, largely defenseless population.
- The other camp argues:
- Israel is fighting a quasi‑governmental militant group embedded in a dense urban civilian population that uses human shields and tunnels.
- High civilian death tolls and devastation are framed as consequences of “ugly urban war,” not an extermination plan; they note Hamas’ own attacks and rhetoric.
US, Elections, and AIPAC / BDS
- Widespread view that US policy is the decisive external factor:
- Cutting arms or vetoes at the UN is seen as the only realistic lever to stop or limit the campaign.
- Recognition that both major US parties have strongly backed Israel; some see Democrats as “less bad,” others say both are complicit.
- Intense argument over tactics:
- Some become single‑issue voters, refuse to support any “genocide‑enabling” candidate, or insist on anti‑Zionist options only.
- Others warn abstention or protest votes helped elect a more aggressively pro‑Israel administration, worsening conditions on the ground.
- Discussion of anti‑BDS laws and professional risks for outspoken critics; concern about shrinking space for dissent.
Prospects for Solutions
- Proposed endgames include:
- Two‑state solution with full withdrawal from occupied territories and a viable Palestinian state.
- One democratic state with equal rights and right of return, implying end of an explicitly ethno‑national state model.
- Hardline views ranging from total defeat of Hamas “Sri Lanka/Chechnya‑style” to dissolution of Israel itself.
- Many commenters are pessimistic:
- Expect either continued escalation toward ethnic cleansing or a “frozen conflict” with periodic massacres.
- Skepticism that UN or ICJ/ICC rulings will be enforced against a US‑backed state; international law seen as norm‑setting but toothless.