Item — HN Reader

> Among the most egregious cases are those of an 82-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s jailed for six weeks and of a single mother separated from her young children. When the mother was released after 53 days she found the children begging on the streets.

> At that point in May Israel had detained 6,000 people under its “unlawful combatants” legislation, which allows indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial, official data released after legal appeals showed.

> “I remember [the 82-yo woman with Alzheimer's] limping badly toward the clinic. And she’s classified as an unlawful combatant. The way that label is used is insane,” the medic said. Photographs confirm his presence at Anatot at the time.

The indefinite detention under dubious justifications without charge or trial. Such a profound violation of human rights and dignity, but it's OK, because they're "animals".

1 comments

The other issue is that someone working for the local government (Hamas) in 2023 or after, is often treated by the IDF as being a combatant. So even the claimed combatant numbers will include those from the cleansing department or local civilian police and many others in civilian and necessary jobs.

> someone working for the local government (Hamas) in 2023 or after, is often treated by the IDF as being a combatant

To be fair, guilty-until-proven-innocent for card-carrying affiliates is deeply precedented during wartime. (Though I'm not sure how we'd classify e.g. a janitor on a military base, casualty-wise.)

Jailing elderly single mothers who haven't been charged with a crime is not. It's important to distinguish between these because while both are horrible, one departs from the way the great powers have fought modern wars.

Since every adult in Israel joins the IDF, that would make them valid targets then right?

> Since every adult in Israel joins the IDF, that would make them valid targets then right?

Iran launched into Israel, broadly, including targeting cities. Same as Russia in Ukraine. America in Iraq. Indian peacekeepers in Sri Lanka.

The question asked, goes directly to your arguments rationale, but you've avoided it. Would it not be better to be consistent in your position, or reconsider it?

> Would it not be better to be consistent in your position, or reconsider it?

Didn’t mean to deflect. Current and former IDF members as well as reservists are absolutely valid military targets.

As for detention, absolutely, an Israeli citizen in Iranian or proxy territory should expect to be detained. (They would not be valid military targets.)

Whilst I don't wholly agree with your position, you are definitely consistent on it. Thanks for responding.

Iran made targeted strikes against military installations.

> Iran made targeted strikes against military installations

And civilian targets [1].

You didn’t hear about this because this category of war crime is happening in every currently-active war zone. If a population chooses war, this is essentially part of what they’re consenting to doing and potentially have happen to themselves.

[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/09/04/iran-missile-strikes-on-...

This is not a modern war though. It's asymmetric warfare, in that there is one overwhelming military power and they are choosing to enact widespread military action, including dropping megatons of explosives on a civilian population.

So I'm can't see how your point about how great powers and modern warfare applies.

The IDF and contractors are just enacting methodical slaughter and starvation techniques in an indiscriminate manner surely? There isn't really an actual war scale action other than on the Israeli side.

> not a modern war though. It's asymmetric warfare

Modern (i.e. post nuclear) war is always fought asymmetrically. And great powers constantly fight asymmetric wars. (Israel isn't a great power, but it is an emerging regional hegemon.)

In this case, we have a proxy war between America and Israel, on one hand, and Iran and its proxies, on the other hand, with Gaza and to a lesser degree Yemen being the board's pawns.

> IDF and contractors are just enacting methodical slaughter and starvation techniques in an indiscriminate manner surely?

I genuinely can't figure out why anyone in this war is doing what they are doing.

Hamas' winning move is to return the hostages--they're greater leverage for Netanyahu at this point than the villa-dwellers in Doha. Tel Aviv's winning move is to end hostilities with a tight security cordon around Gaza to prevent Iran from resupplying Hamas. Tehran's winning move is to offer dropping support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis if the Security Council agrees to (a) an independent Palestinian state and (b) dropping sanctions. (And, like, not bomb Australian Jews. Though Tehran's position makes the most sense, not because it's rational, but because Iranian hardliners gain domestic power when Iran is isolated. Sort of like Netanyahu.) The only folks without a winning line are America, the EU and the people of Palestine and Israel.

That said, detaining a Hamas member is not indiscriminate. Even if the paperwork says they're a librarian, it's reasonable to act on hunches in wartime provided they're treated like POWs.

But we know they are not treated as POWs. That is well documented: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Israeli_cust... - see Human Rights abuses.

The mistreatment includes obvious civilians and children and their mistreatment includes heinous, evil acts.

Theoretical arguments that don't reflect the actual facts really shouldn't be a point of discussion.

I don't agree with the entire premise that military power can enact a war and that allows it to detain, torture and kill anyone associated with the other side. That doesn't meet any moral or ethical threshold that should be acceptable.

The might is right argument is just self-serving to those that don't want to be accountable no matter how horrifying what they have done.

> we know they are not treated as POWs

Sure. Nothing I suggested is being done.

> military power can enact a war and that allows it to detain, torture and kill anyone associated with the other side

Nobody argued this.

> Sure. Nothing I suggested is being done.

Does that not invalidate a reasonable amount of your points above?

> Nobody argued this.

I view what Israel is doing now as exactly that.

There is an argument it has been doing it for decades.

Hamas has offered to return the hostages many times and Israel refuses to stop the killing. Missing in your analysis is Israel’s primary goal: ethnically cleanse all of Palestine and enforce Jewish supremacy.

> Hamas has offered to return the hostages many times and Israel refuses to stop the killing

Offering and doing are different. Unilaterally returning the hostages is the winning move for Palestinians. It is not for Hamas’ leadership, however, so it won’t happen.

> Missing in your analysis is Israel’s primary goal: ethnically cleanse all of Palestine and enforce Jewish supremacy

This is like equating hard liners with Iran or Hamas with Palestine.

There are elements in Israel who want this. There are elements without who are okay with it. Nobody is particularly motivated to intervene because the burden is purely moral—there isn’t a unique industry or diaspora for Palestinians to call on.

Hamas and Likud benefit from the war continuing. (Their right wing elements are both exterminationist. They have been for years. Nothing new there.)

Let's say Hamas returned the hostages. What would happen next? What makes that the "winning move?"

My guess is that Netanyahu would say that the war can't end until "all the terrorists are dead" (impossible), and the Palestinians have given up the one bit of leverage that they have.