Hacker News Reader

Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

Starlink is not a human right. In any case, what you quoted is not international law.

Sure, but the reason for the denial is.

What if I tell your water provider, they can't serve you anymore, and they're yor only viable water provider?

Oh no sorry, I'm not denying you access to water, just access to your only source of water. And my only issue is they were providing water to you. They can keep operating everywhere else.

See the difference?

You're presuming that Starlink is a public utility in another country.

Meh. There was never this water provider, nor he is the only water provider.

Starlink facilitates internet access. Thus by blocking their operation they violating Palestinian human rights and engaging in collective punishment an aggravated violation of human rights.

The way I interpret the current situation since October 7th: Israel is disrupting enemy communications capabilities during warfare triggered by an invasion of its territory and murder of civilians.

Seems perfectly within the accepted laws of war to me.

Now, specifically re. Starlink: They do not even offer service in Gaza (or Israel?) at the moment so I don't see how asking them not to start without specific approval could be deemed anything other than business as usual.

> Seems perfectly within the accepted laws of war to me

I don’t think you know the laws of war at all if you think the actions of Israel before or after October 7th fall within them.

Just a very small example:

> To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/middleeast/casualties-gazas-s...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/23/israels-army-a...

If you spray a crowd of people with bullets to get one criminal you get collateral damage. This is the same exact thing but with internet. The ends do not justify the means and anyone who thinks they do are wrong and will hopefully end up in shackles in The Hague. This is not even a war, Palestine is a free range concentration camp. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is a war as evidenced by the fact that Ukraine is not reliant on their aggressors consent to access life’s necessities. Do you see the difference?

Just because Palestine is weak doesn't mean this conflict isn't a war. You usually don't see wars like this because generally governments know better than to attack states far more powerful than them.

> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.

http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality

Does that mean Hamas fighters are treated as enemy combatants/soldiers instead of terrorists/militants? You can't have it both ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com