Comment by AdamJacobMuller | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdamJacobMuller | Hacker News Reader

AdamJacobMuller

While i'm generally not a huge fan of organizations taking unrelated political stands there is important context here:

> In the past, the CNCF has also clearly positioned itself on other socio-political issues.

The devil is in the details on something like this though and this being a german language article i'm reading via google translate doesn't help.

> The CNCF, on the other hand, has so far been silent on the terrorist attacks by Hamas.

If that's entirely accurate and CNCF is refusing to condem the actions of Hamas on 10/7 that's pretty terrible and I respect the Israeli members for refusing to attend (but I find it hard to believe). If the Israeli CNCF members are asking CNCF to release a statement saying Israel should do whatever it wants to Gaza with no thought for civilians, well, CNCF is quite obviously in the right for refusing to release something like that, but again, I doubt that's what is happening and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

If you condemn Hamas you're "anti-Palestine" but if you don't you're "anti-Semitic". If you say "it's complicated" you're also canceled. Truly the only winning move is not to play.

> If you condemn Hamas you're "anti-Palestine"

This is the first time I'm hearing that sentiment. Folks who are loudly shouting "Free Palestine" are also condemning Hamas.

Bullshit. I've been to several of these protests, and I saw plenty of people holding signs indicating that any Palestinian action was justified because of Israel, pretty clearly being okay with the initial attacks.

Piers Morgan has spent roughly a month talking to various pro-Palestine and pro-Israeli pundits. Each one has loudly condemned Hamas; but many pro-Israeli pundits have refused to even entertain the thought that the Israeli government may be wrong in their response. I know some 19 year old at a protest makes a convenient boogeyman, but be real here, a peon at a protest holds no power. That said "what initial attacks" are you referrering to? Why is retaliation after roughly decades Israeli occupation referred to as an "initial" attack.

This doesn't dispute that there are people out there, people who are supporters of Palestine who think that what happened on 10/7 was somehow justified. Just because Piers Morgan didn't interview them doesn't mean they don't exist.

There are also plenty of pro-Palestine people who understand that Hamas is just as much of an enemy to Palestine as it is to Israel.

I guess the difference is it's a normal position to be supportive of the IDF, or Israeli policy in Gaza. That's one side of the debate.

It is absolutely not a normal position to be supportive of Hamas amongst pro-Palestinian voices. That's like a teenage edgelord position. So when you frame the debate as 'Pro-Israel' vs 'Pro-Hamas', it's just as misleading as if you framed it as 'pro nuking Palestine' vs 'pro Peace'.

Of course there are people with that opinion. Think of any thinkable opinion and you'll always find some people who hold that opinion. The problem, I think, is that we often give too much importance to minority opinions, or generalize them and think the majority of a whole group of people think that way. I'm not saying we should always ignore those opinions; just that we should be very careful generalizing.

>This doesn't dispute that there are people out there,

Yes there are people out there, but who are those people? One one side you have edgy 19 year olds who are "pro-hamas" who will probably never even see an AK-47 up close. On the other side you have Isreali ministers, with direct access to Bibi Netanyahu, who are calling to nuke gaza, a claim so violent and egregious, that the Russian government had to take the claim seriously.

It's very scary that the voices of the most violent nobodies on the largely pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide side get amplified, but literal members of the Isreali government calling for dropping nukes get swept under the rug. Being pro-hamas is in no way a mainstream position. To call "bullshit" so strongly when the other side is literally threatening to use nukes is insane.

> On the other side you have Isreali ministers, with direct access to Bibi Netanyahu, who are calling to nuke gaza

Ok but that's just nonsense.

Amichay Eliyahu is the "minister of heritage" e.g. someone with no military involvement and a position so pointless it's been left vacant for decades before.

Regardless of that, he wasn't suggesting to do it, he was asked if it was an option and, yes, it is technically an option, albeit a completely horrific and bad one.

Regardless of all of that, he made the comments in an interview on a Sunday morning and was fired on Monday, as he should have been.

Nothing he did was swept under the rug, it was swiftly and roundly dealt with.

When was the last time you saw someone in palestinian society be so quickly condemned for chanting the far more genocidal "from the river to the sea" ?

Well, Hamas members at least would generally claim this. So the set of people isn't zero.

I've long since passed the point of caring if someone wanted to "cancel" me (whatever that might mean). I will speak my mind. I've also long since passed the point of thinking it's going to do anything, but, I'll play anyway.

I'm surprised one of the options isn't "pro-them killing eachother off" because that seems like the best of the bunch.

That would be in incredibly poor taste while their colleagues/contributors are being held hostage

There's probably more instances, but searching the phrase "Statement from CNCF General Manager" finds some past statements they made about bigotry, race, and violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com