Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's odd this has been downvoted. There isn't anything factually incorrect. All statements have been proven.


Because it has nothing to do with the story, perhaps?


I would say it is relevant as it shows that the company are potentially being dishonest about their intentions and marketing.


Every Israeli is drafted when reaching adolescence age. Intelligent tech people end up in Unit 8200 (part of IDF). These young people end up with a plethora of experience, using it for their career or even security related startups, yet loyalty often lies with state of Israel.

The legal presence / country of a company very likely performing a genocide is very much relevant and ontopic. Look up the dark history of companies like IBM and IG Farben and the term "Wir haben es nicht gewußt".


It speaks to the credibility of the people involved when they claim to protect journalists.


[flagged]


If you ignore any statement other than form the Israeli government then sure

> The world's leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

> A resolution passed by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) states that Israel's conduct meets the legal definition as laid out in the UN convention on genocide.

> Across a three-page resolution, the IAGS presents a litany of actions undertaken by Israel throughout the 22-month-long war that it recognises as constituting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And then there’s

> B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel released separate reports on Monday based on studies of the past 21 months of conflict. The organisations, which have been active in Israel for decades, said in a joint statement that "in these dark times it is especially important to call things by their name", while "calling on this crime to stop immediately".

What level of proof would you find acceptable?


Not a single one of these is even close to be a proof. All of them are just opinions of specific groups of people - most of them have their own agenda, so they can't even be considered to be unbiased opinions.

If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven.

For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century.

This is how things work in real world.


It seems unwise to require centuries of investigation before we can start talking about an ongoing genocide.


We are after legal proof, not scientific proof. Science is too slow to stop genocide from occurring and hold those accountable.

Netanyahu is wanted for warcrimes by ICC. Is he convicted? No, he is a suspect. Is he trying to avoid getting arrested? Yes, just like Putin. Both of these countries are likely to have recently commmited warcrimes.

After WWII and 'Wir haben es nicht gewußt' we set up international organizations to avoid this happening again. Unfortunately, not everyone recognizes these organizations but that is also a tell tale of their intentions.


there are a couple of problems with these "international organisations": first and foremost - they are created by the few former colonial powers who were never hold accountable for their own war crimes - but instead gave them the additional power to judge over their former victims (and the rest of the world).

the second point is - these organisations are used to cement the status quo - which is also created by the colonial powers and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality in the world - thus on one hand making all conflicts unavoidable and on the other hand mostly illegal.

the third point is - the rules are not applied to all countries in the same way - e.g. Turkey occupied half of Cyprus and displaced a large part of its population, Turkey is bombing innocent people in Syria, Turkey keeps refugees that originally headed to Europe under very inhuman conditions - not only there are no sanctions for that, Europe is basically funding all of this. As Russia occupied Georgia and annexed parts of it, there were no investigations, no sanctions, nothing. As China occupied Tibet, there were no sanctions but huge investments instead. And there are many more examples.

If you want to have an accepted legal system then it may not be biased and has to apply to everyone without exceptions - what we have at the moment is not even a joke. It's the opposite of a legal system.


The countries which don't accept the current legal system have every interest to undermine its legal system by questioning it, spreading FUD, nitpicking on how it isn't perfect, playing the history card about colonies, and everything else from the dark triad handbook.

If countries such as China and Russia would recognize ICC, then these instances would've been investigated. For on paper they are worse than Srebrenica. The reason nothing happened with regards to Tibet is because of China's soft power. Same regarding Russia and Georgia, and if USA and IL are in cahoots with the Axis of Evil the West's soft power diminishes because the USA was the one keeping it all together. Hence you see the rest of West's defense industry scaling up.



https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c...

I'm curious what your angle here will be - that these events never happened, that these events don't constitute genocide, or that this isn't "proof."


Are you kidding me - of course it's not a proof. It's already in the description - they are not claiming that they have proven something - they just say it looks like something. It's not even an opinion.


You are dreadfully insistent on proof yet provide none of your own that there is no genocide, despite multiple credible organisations and experts, and the consensus of the international community, contradicting you.


Followup, not that you care:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...

> The Commission concludes on reasonable grounds that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit the following actus reus of genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, namely (i) killing members of the group; (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.


Okay, so the third thing. You believe Israel is doing things that constitute genocide, but also that nobody has proved it.


I would say at this point given government statements and declarations and then actions that occur directly after prove they have broken international law


Not really - it may be sufficient for you to develop an opinion, but it definitely not a legal proof.


Just because a court hasn't said it doesn't mean that it isn't proven.

If, someone proves something, it's proven right then and there, even if it takes years for people to understand it, or for it to make its way into textbooks. This stuff really is very obvious.


most obvious things are often enough the mostly wrong ones - this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat or that the Sun and stars are orbiting the Earth. and this is why people invented specific protocols to ensure (or at least come close to) correctness of theories. these are called proofs.

and, for example - if you are using one specific LEGAL definition of a genocide then you have to prove LEGALLY, following the regular process. if you're not doing it, then it's per definition not a proof.


> this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat

Nope. There was a pretty smooth transition from "Nobody has ever wondered about this" to "All educated people know it's a ball shape" a very, very long time ago.

Eratosthenes comes up with a pretty good approximation both for how big the ball is, and how much its axis is off (you also if you think about it realise the planet must be spinning, that's why there's a day-night cycle)

Flat Earthers are a weird modern thing, they aren't somehow a remnant.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: