Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

59% Positive

Analyzed from 1675 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#israel#palestine#hamas#don#both#genocide#state#actually#side#more

Discussion (82 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

gritspants•about 4 hours ago
Seems this has more to do with Palestine and Google's involvement with Israel to provide cloud computing.
BLKNSLVR•about 2 hours ago
In this seemingly forever argument, it seems there is some nuance in that Palestine is not Hamas and vice versa. One of the perspectives as I understand it is that Hamas is actually a threat to the existence of Palestine; the militaristic behaviour undermines Palestinian efforts at independence (and this is an avenue for exploitation by those who don't want to see an independent Palestine).

It is a similar situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

You can argue that the government of Israel isn't the will of the people of Israel (in the same way the US government isn't the will of the people of the US), but in my opinion there's more of a separation between 'Palestine' and 'Hamas' than there is between 'Israel' and 'the will of the people of Israel'.

There's a lot of wrongdoing, which means there are a lot of innocents being harmed, and the harming of innocents is the greatest wrongdoing. Harm by inaction is also wrong. Harm by preventing aid and assistance is also wrong.

None of this stuff is easily answered.

The joys of ideology, or maybe more correctly, the joys of living amongst those who take ideology so seriously that they attempt to enforce their fantasies upon the real world.

In my personal logic bubble: Protesting in support of Palestine is not protesting in support of Hamas. Declaring support for Israel is protesting against Hamas and their acts of terrorism against Israel. I can do both of these things without being hypocritical (like I said, in my personal logic bubble).

yodsanklai•about 2 hours ago
There's simply no excuse for what Israel has been doing and everyone with a functioning moral compass should be denouncing it. Debating about Hamas is a distraction. They have a right to defend their country, but not treating a whole population as collateral damage.
BLKNSLVR•about 2 hours ago
I agree with your first sentence.

The rest is the messy middle around which negotiation is required for any form of minimal co-existence.

seanmcdirmid•about 1 hour ago
Wait, you mean there is “no excuse for what Israel is doing” and “Hamas kidnapping and murdering Israelis” was just a distraction?

This is why we should just move on to EVs and stop getting involved at all in the Middle East. I see no morally right way of engaging with either side. Both positions seem to end in “let one side genocide the other side.”

donsupreme•about 1 hour ago
I am tired boss
ameminator•21 minutes ago
I mostly agree, except for the blatant calls for genocide from the Israeli side, and the blatant calls for genocide from the Palestinian side. I honestly don't know who to support - neither side wants to live with the other, and it seems, eventually, one of those sides will get their wish. To the detriment of us all.
jmyeet•about 2 hours ago
No, it's actually really simple. You start with these two questions:

1. Is Israel an apartheid state?

2. Is Israel committing a genocide?

At this point (IMHO) you need to do some serious mental gymnastics not to answer "yes" to both questions. As soon as you do, it gets real simple. The existence of Hamas doesn't justify either of these things.

The people who bring this up are engaging in respectability politics or engaging in weaponized cvility. Instead of addressing the underlying issues, the focus is on the methods and the actions of the oppressed when it is the oppressor that sets the level of violence. As Nelson Mandela put it:

> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

People understood this quite clearly with apartheid South Africa. Can you imagine protesters having to do the performative "does apartheid South Africa have a right to exist?" pledge? No, me neither.

gamblor956•about 1 hour ago
Hamas has unilaterally broken every ceasefire and peace treaty. This war started with them unilaterally breaking a peace treaty, invading, kidnapping 1000+ civilians, and raping and murdering most of them.[1]

Does this justify what Israel is doing to the West Bank? Most people would say no. On the other hand, before the invasion normal Palestinians were chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" on a daily basis, and they still refuse to recognize the existence of the nation of Israel. If your counterparty doesn't agree that you have a right to exist, there's no negotiating.

[https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/12/middleeast/report-sexual-viol...]

ameminator•about 2 hours ago
While I actually have sympathy for people on both sides of the struggle, I also find it hard to answer "yes" to both questions, mostly because of how muddied the definitions of everything are. It's obvious to me, that both the Israeli government and Hamas are both committing serious warcrimes, and that there no good actors here, here are some questions I don't have an answer to.

For example, is Palestine its own country? Is Hamas is its rightful government? Does that extend to the West Bank or only in Gaza? Palestinians seem to say that Palestine is its own country, Israelis say that Palestinians are not a part of Israel - so how can it be an apartheid state if BOTH sides say they aren't part of the same country at all?

Is Israel committing a genocide? Well, what does a genocide look like? Israel is still distributing food in Gaza, to this day. I don't think it would look like this, but at the same time, there are terrorists on both sides (Itamar ben-Gvir being the most prominent on the Israeli side, in my opinion).

There are more issues and questions and uncertainty around the problems in Israel, Palestine, the Levant as a whole, Iran's involvement and so on.

Even worse, for most Israelis (who are 70% of Arab descent), the country of Israel no longer existing could mean a real genocide for the Israel side! (A counter-genocide?) Regardless, if this issue were easy to solve, it would have been solved already.

Honestly, the situation seems to complicated to boil down to two "simple" questions and I admire that you can have such an "obvious" outlook, but the more I look at Israel and the Middle East (and read, and research), the more questions I have.

keypusher•about 2 hours ago
Hamas has been the democratically elected government of Palestine since 2006. That was the year after Israel pulled all their military out of Gaza.
mptest•about 2 hours ago
"democratically elected" being an extremely load bearing sentiment if you know anything about what people's lives are actually like on the ground. did you know a large majority of the populace didn't even vote in 2006? since 2006? there hasn't been elections since. The median age is 18.

Pulled all their military out? Oh, they still controlled their airspace, critical infra, borders tho? Sounds very self determined!

Serious, bad faith or extremely reductive misrepresentation that I can't tell is borne from ignorance willful or accidental.

your comment is the equivalent of acting like cuba's economy is all their own choosing, without analyzing the immense damage sanctions (and why sanctions were there in the first place) have done to the country, or accosting haiti without knowing why their struggles exist. context matters.

crote•about 2 hours ago
2006 is 20(!) years ago, the elections had a 70% turnout, and Hamas received only 44% of the vote.

Considering that about 60% of the Gaza population is age 20 or younger, that means about 18% of the current population voted for Hamas.

And of course Israel directly helped this by arresting a huge number of Hamas politicians right before the elections, and openly interfering with the election process in general.

So no, Hamas does not represent the will of the people in Gaza, and calling it "democratically elected" is at this point a straight-up lie.

mthoms•about 2 hours ago
That's a weird way of saying there hasn't been an election in 20 years.
keeda•about 1 hour ago
Aww, does that mean we won't get to see whether he could avoid getting booed when he inevitably mentions AI?
smallerize•about 4 hours ago
If only there weren't so many reasons.
themafia•about 2 hours ago
If only Google kept "don't be evil."
sva_•about 3 hours ago
I wonder what percentage of total graduates walked out? The video shows maybe around 50 people at all. The title makes it seem like everyone graduating walked out.
Freedom2•about 1 hour ago
Which part of the title indicates that everyone walked out? I assumed it was merely some of the cohort.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
It does not.
Venn1•about 4 hours ago
Tech leaders from this era will not be remembered well.
dragonelite•about 3 hours ago
There's not much good to remember them by for the past decade they have been implementing a global panopticon system etc.

At least in the 1990s and 2000s it felt they were doing some good stuff for humanity. But the 2010s and 2020s the masked pretty much slipped.

jameson•about 2 hours ago
I wonder which spectrum Steve Jobs would be on if he was still alive to this day.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
Hate him or not, Steve Jobs understood humans. He spoke and behaved as a human. He was flawed and may be considered "cringey" now, but I think he'd be liked better than the rest.
LeFantome•about 2 hours ago
That is a bold prediction
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
It doesn't seem like a stretch. I don't know what you mean.

(You may disagree with the opinion of course, but "bold" is a counterintuitive adjective here)

Larrikin•about 2 hours ago
No it is not.
ares623•about 2 hours ago
There's two opposing forces at work. Everyone wants to be Steve Jobs, and no one wants to be Steve Ballmer. So the only choice is to go to the extreme to stay as far away from the other end as possible.
layer8•about 1 hour ago
I'd take Steve Ballmer over most of the current big-tech CEOs, to be honest.
happytoexplain•about 2 hours ago
Regardless of the details of this speech, I believe Sundar Pichai is uncommonly out of touch with reality and with the nation of the United States of America, even among tech CEOs.

He should step down.

arjie•about 3 hours ago
Speech itself was kind of fun: https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/s...

Pretty light hearted, and honestly considering that he's given a speech to an empty stadium before (as referenced in the first few sentences, I think he'll have handled it just fine.

> But people have also been giving me a lot of advice on what to say. Actually, it’s been the same advice, and it’s about what not to say. People thought it would be really difficult for me; it is the last two letters of my last name, after all.

Ha, chuckle-worthy. Of course he'd find it hard to not pitch AI.

The only thing I find surprising is no-one points out that Stanford is a truly elite education system: Some 2 in 5 of students enter disabled, but almost all of them end up successful over time.

stevenwoo•about 3 hours ago
I went to the Electrical Engineering ceremony, the only speakers were from the faculty and one newly minted B.S.E.E. I biked there and saw there were a lot of smaller ceremonies across the campus outside of the stadium the photo captures.
jfkeinfmsn38•about 2 hours ago
Everyone loves the "free Palestine" slogan, but I've never actually seen the people who call it offer a concrete realistic solution that could achieve that - is it a two state solution? Is it a one state solution that will burst into a civil war? What's the plan?

What does it actually look like?

I still think a two state solution is the only realistic plan.

blackqueeriroh•about 2 hours ago
Unless the people who shout “Free Palestine” are part of the Knesset or Hamas, I don’t think their offering of a “concrete realistic solution” matters one bit.
triyambakam•about 2 hours ago
I'm very uninformed but could "free Palestine" not mean a two state solution?
GlacierFox•about 2 hours ago
It's a fashion statement for some people I've found. Like the Anarchy symbol on a T-Shirt. I've run in to people with such a hard line opinion on the matter who couldn't even point to where Palestine is a on a map.
khaledh•about 2 hours ago
Free Palestine simply means a sovereign Palestinian state separate from Israel, which Israel has rejected many times over the years, most recently in the Knesset vote in February and July 2024, opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. Any time there was outside attempts to recognize Palestine as a state (e.g. through UN efforts) Israel responded with building more settlements in the West Bank.
crote•about 2 hours ago
Let's start by Israel no longer committing a genocide on the Palestinians and go from there.

Most "free Palestine" protestors probably don't care an awful lot about the final outcome of the conflict, they just want the mass killing of innocent people to stop.

There's a reason the movement only flared up when Israel started carpet bombing Gaza, and not during the mostly-quiet years before.

762236•about 2 hours ago
It's performance for social standing. They don't actually care.
Gagarin1917•about 2 hours ago
I wish I’d skipped my graduation ceremony as well. What a complete waste of time.
ChrisArchitect•about 1 hour ago
wxw•about 4 hours ago
What was the speech on?
hoppyhoppy2•about 4 hours ago
It was a commencement speech. Here's a transcript: https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/message-ceo/s...
inatreecrown2•about 4 hours ago
No mention of AI at all.
smashah•about 4 hours ago
Good kids - proud of them.
Advertisement