This was flagged by the users who don’t like the news, cause it’s not related to them. Shame on you, cowards! We humans are killing each other. There’s no human value left. Hope you ignorant people will realize it soon
No comments yet
CommanderData · 7h ago
Logged in to vote this and flagged. Nicely done HN.
joshcsimmons · 7h ago
Crazy how vehemently people seek to suppress this information.
Sporktacular · 7h ago
Was there a threshold as to why it wasn't one last month, for example.
mongol · 7h ago
The resolution is an outcome of a process descibed in this organization's bylaws. Quoting:
ARTICLE 6. Resolutions
A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.
B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.
C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.
D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.
Sporktacular · 7h ago
Ah, got it. Thanks.
DataDaemon · 7h ago
This will be flagged.
jehejej · 7h ago
Can't have anyone talking about anything important on HN, someone's feelings might get hurt!
artninja1988 · 7h ago
Hope people will vouch for it to stay up
mongol · 7h ago
Yep, flagged now. Edit: Not by me
hellgas00 · 7h ago
Flagged less than 20min after posting. Seemingly coordinated.
Sporktacular · 7h ago
No matter how civilised the discourse, for some it's too much. Is there a way to take away the veto of any 10 people who don't like what they see?
Sporktacular · 6h ago
Ah, this comment was apparently too much too. All, very quickly as well. The threshold for taking down a post should be higher.
Seriously, do the people doing this think they're doing Israel any favours? Everyone knows about the Hasbara farms by now.
joduplessis · 7h ago
No shit, Sherlock.
anal_reactor · 2h ago
One aspect of this whole thing that doesn't get discussed enough is how Israel specifically arguing that genocide is okay when acting in situation of perceived danger puts into question the moral consensus we have regarding the Holocaust. As in, if it's justified for Israel to commit genocide in the face of perceived danger, then why exactly wasn't same thing justified for nazi Germany?
Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:
1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally
2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.
I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.
The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.
calf · 1h ago
I read Scott Aaronson's blog posts this week and he makes a seemingly similar argument, behind his tendency for heated rhetoric.
If the international community will barely lift a finger to resolve the I/P issue, then it is predictable and rational for Israel to take matters in their own hands and use violence (implemented as a "preemptive war") to "solve" their national security threat problem. It's a type of political realism argument to support this outcome. No appeal to a country being enlightened or democratic, etc., will work.
Sporktacular · 6h ago
Flagged. Pretty shameless how blatant and coordinated it all is. People will remember this stuff.
YeGoblynQueenne · 2h ago
Flagged because descending into flame war.
daft_pink · 4h ago
I don’t think it’s very useful to take a word that’s absolutly terrible and then change the definition of that word to apply to some other definition that you don’t like.
bevr1337 · 3h ago
That doesn't seem to be the case. The UN has a legal definition of genocide, and the assertion is that the criteria are met. So what's the change in definition?
alkyon · 3h ago
I don't think it's really about applying a definition A to a definition B incorrectly, but rather about expanding or restricting the meaning of a given definition.
Is the Gaza genocide on the same level as what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto, certainly not.
However, it is already surpassing Kosovo/Bosnian War genocide by a huge margin.
daft_pink · 30m ago
Genocide generally means to try and eliminate a group. It’s not about the total quantity of people killed. When the US went to war with Nazi Germany, they weren’t committing a genocide on Germans or genocide against Japanese people when they attacked Japan.
The Warsaw Ghetto specifically targeted Jews and not other Polish people. Kosovo/Bosnia sought to create ethnically pure territories.
You can’t start a war from a homogenous country on a country that will crush you militarily, start losing brutally, refuse to surrender or give up, continue to fight, and then hide behind the word genocide as though the other country doesn’t have the right to continue fighting until you lose.
cholantesh · 22m ago
Does the other country have the right to wantonly flout international law and the social conventions it claims to be a standard bearer for at every turn while doing so?
No comments yet
ARTICLE 6. Resolutions A. Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot. For a proposed resolution to pass, voting must have been undertaken by a quorum of more than 20% (20% plus 1) of paid up IAGS members at the time of the vote.
B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.
C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President and the Executive Board for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Boardwhether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.
D. After consulting with the Advisory Board, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote within two weeks of submission by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least thirty days before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of thirty days of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS.
Seriously, do the people doing this think they're doing Israel any favours? Everyone knows about the Hasbara farms by now.
Well, my personal opinion is obviously that both situations are abhorrent, but what I'm trying to point out the PR damage that Israel is doing to itself. I see two reasons why Israel might be okay with that:
1. They focus on short-term gains and they're acting irrationally
2. They know they'll always have US support because US needs them to do shady stuff in Middle East while at the same time they know that Arabs will always hate them anyway, so there's not much point trying to be the good guys. They don't care what Europe thinks because Europe won't be politically influential in foreseeable future anyway. By committing the genocide they confirm they're ready to do real dirty jobs, which is the core reason behind the US support in the first place.
I have a feeling that the part of Israel's wrath is that this whole war pretty much voided painstaking process of normalizing relations with Arabs. Therefore they thought "you know what, fuck this shit, if we can't have you like us we'll have you fear us". And that's how we ended up with a democratic country committing genocide.
The saddest thing is that the whole idea "it's 21st century, we won't do comically evil shit anymore" turned out to be a mirage, and as a species collectively we're not that far from ancient rulers massacring entire cities just for shits and giggles.
If the international community will barely lift a finger to resolve the I/P issue, then it is predictable and rational for Israel to take matters in their own hands and use violence (implemented as a "preemptive war") to "solve" their national security threat problem. It's a type of political realism argument to support this outcome. No appeal to a country being enlightened or democratic, etc., will work.
Is the Gaza genocide on the same level as what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto, certainly not. However, it is already surpassing Kosovo/Bosnian War genocide by a huge margin.
The Warsaw Ghetto specifically targeted Jews and not other Polish people. Kosovo/Bosnia sought to create ethnically pure territories.
You can’t start a war from a homogenous country on a country that will crush you militarily, start losing brutally, refuse to surrender or give up, continue to fight, and then hide behind the word genocide as though the other country doesn’t have the right to continue fighting until you lose.