Hamas Releases Israeli Hostages

Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago

evo_9

36 points

34 comments

npr.orgOtherstory

heatedmixed

Debate

80/100

Israel-Hamas ConflictHostage ReleaseMiddle East Peace

Key topics

Israel-Hamas Conflict

Hostage Release

Middle East Peace

Hamas releases Israeli hostages, sparking mixed reactions in the HN community, with some expressing skepticism about the motives behind the release and others discussing the broader implications for the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Moderate engagement

First comment

17m

Peak period

0-3h

Avg / period

3.2

Comment distribution19 data points

Loading chart...

Based on 19 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
Oct 13, 2025 at 10:29 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Oct 13, 2025 at 10:46 AM EDT
17m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
7 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Oct 15, 2025 at 12:57 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (34 comments)

Showing 19 comments of 34

leakycap

3 months ago

3 replies

> Hamas released the last 20 living Israeli hostages who had been captive for just over two years.

> In turn, Israel freed nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees.

edit to add: I have expressed no opinion here, I'm just quoting the part of the article I was curious about after seeing pictures of the very small convoy

stronglikedan

3 months ago

1 reply

Yes, that's how compromises work. Some progress is better than no progress.

leakycap

3 months ago

You have replied as if I complained or said anything about the deal/compromise.

I simply quoted the numbers from the article because it was what I was curious about when I saw the headline & picture of the small convoy.

kyawzazaw

3 months ago

1 reply

a lot of them are prisoners with no charge

brabel

3 months ago

2 replies

Sounds highly illegal. But yeah I know , rules do not apply to war, Geneva Convention notwithstanding.

palmotea

3 months ago

2 replies

> Sounds highly illegal.

As opposed to literal hostage taking?

> rules do not apply to war, Geneva Convention notwithstanding.

I don't know what so-called international law says, but if you're going to try to apply rules to war, it seems pretty essential that they apply to all sides or no sides, otherwise you create an exploitable situation that's ripe for abuse. The reward for following the rules should be that the other parties in the conflict follow them, too. The punishment for breaking them should be that the other parties no longer follow them.

hbogert

3 months ago

1 reply

If both sides abide by the rules a war couldnt have started

SAI_Peregrinus

3 months ago

The rules allow for wars. They don't prevent killing every combatant the other side has. The two sides agree to have a war, then their combatants kill one another until one side gives up or runs out of people to draft as combatants. The rules prohibit killing various classes of noncombatants, with some situational exceptions.

IAmBroom

3 months ago

The supposed force behind the Geneva Convention is the threat of being tried for war crimes after the dust settles.

If you are Putin, and can accept never traveling to a list of western countries again, that threat is toothless.

But if you are literally defeated (as opposed to being forced to retreat from Ukraine, the most anyone could hope for in the invasion), it could weigh heavily on you. Or not. Politics are stupid.

illiac786

3 months ago

that’s a very manichean view. War ist all shades of (horrible) gray and you can have rules, a lot, none, everything is possible. Don’t know what you mean with “Geneva Convention notwithstanding” here, it’s exactly the kind of rules that _can_ exist in times of war – or be completely ignored on both sides.

It’s not because it’s war time that one should just resign, shrug and accept any atrocities. The less atrocities during war time, that more chances for a stable peace afterward.

oytis

3 months ago

It's much easier for Israel to detain Palestinians than for Hamas to kidnap Israelis, so asymmetry makes sense.

vladgur

3 months ago

1 reply

Im curious why this post has been flagged.

It should be positive for both Pro-Israelies and pro-Palestinians.

Really educating to see where the narrative will shift now.

coumbaya

3 months ago

1 reply

It's getting flagged has it should be, according to the hn guidelines that you should read:

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

vladgur

3 months ago

2 replies

Search for genocide or Israel on hn.algolia.com and you will see which stories get flagged and which don’t

coumbaya

3 months ago

1 reply

Look I'm far-left and pro palestinian but I do flag stories like that because there are places on the internet to discuss current world news/atrocities and hn isn't one of them ?

vladgur

3 months ago

1 reply

I absolutely agree with you but that policy is not applied fairly on HN - one side gets flagged more than the other.

Wisdom of the crowds as they say

coumbaya

3 months ago

Ah, I see, maybe you're right.

illiac786

3 months ago

> Really educating to see where the narrative will shift now.

Indeed, that was quick.