Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.
Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake.
Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example.
I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
Cites what findings? They don't quote the opinion at all, except for one vague observation. You can read the opinion yourself here [1].
Reminding Israel about its obligations is not a finding of breach. It's more like that ICJ language from a prior opinion reminding Israel about its obligations under the genocide convention [2]. That obviously doesn't constitute a finding that Israel breached those obligations, though that didn't stop the various anti-Israel disinformation outlets from misrepresenting it as such.
[2] "Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission ..."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On-Topic:
Nope: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
Nope: Anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic:
Yup: Most stories about politics, ..., unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Yup: If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 provides some insight on this.
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.
You are welcome.
Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake.
Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example.
I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
isn't it's interesting ? it's almost like there is unconscious bias /s
on the other side stuff like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046 disappears into the void
Few posts on this subject gain any traction.
Title says "ICJ orders". Article says "advisory opinion". Typical clickbait guardian
Opinion of vice president of icj showing how court disregarded facts of case https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196...
The same vice president under investigation for putting rather odd religious considerations before legal ones: https://www.icj.org/icj-communication-to-the-international-c...
"i don't like presented facts so i'll have to go with character assassination"
Nowhere in the dispositif does the court find a breach; this is just more misinformation from The Guardian.
The article clearly cites the findings, including breaches of the Geneva convention.
Cites what findings? They don't quote the opinion at all, except for one vague observation. You can read the opinion yourself here [1].
Reminding Israel about its obligations is not a finding of breach. It's more like that ICJ language from a prior opinion reminding Israel about its obligations under the genocide convention [2]. That obviously doesn't constitute a finding that Israel breached those obligations, though that didn't stop the various anti-Israel disinformation outlets from misrepresenting it as such.
[1] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196...
[2] "Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission ..."
article title is already misleading. icj doesn't order israel to do anything