>I'm afraid the answer is boringly straightforward: users flagged those articles, and either we didn't see them or we chose not to turn off the flags. Most likely we didn't see them.
The usual pattern is that flags come from a 'coalition' of users: some because they hold opposing views, while others just think the story doesn't belong on HN. Maybe they think it's off-topic or otherwise against the site guidelines, or they think the story has already been covered a lot recently, or who knows what.
"Sir, this is a Wendy's" is unrelated to ordering off-menu. It's a response where someone delivers an overly detailed or unrelated speech in a setting where it is entirely inappropriate—such as a fast-food restaurant like Wendy's. It's a brusque reminder to someone that their current behavior or conversation is out of place and irrelevant to the current context. It is often used when someone is being overly dramatic, off-topic, or unnecessarily complex in a simple or straightforward situation.
>Can HN moderators explain why and how the majority of anti Israel posts get flagged quickly ? If HN is pro israel, moderators should update the website guidelines to explicitly say that.
This is not about this story. It asserts that dang is "pro-Israel" and that HN has a group of Zionists that flag anything anti-Israel. dang stated why these stories get flagged and generally by whom, which had a banal answer. There's not a conspiracy against anti-Israel posts, there's a group of people that want certain hysterical people to stop polluting the commons with their off-topic divisive and histrionic screeds.
Probably best to avoid charged words like 'cabal' on this of all topics.
I haven't seen any evidence that the flags aren't in good faith, including from users who feel the most passionately, and there are many of those on both sides.
In other words, "Sir, this is a Wendy's."