Instagram, Twitter blame glitches for deleting Palestinian posts
reuters.com
reuters.com
In that sense, the "glitch" is that the removal algorithms are susceptible to being gamed.
I think both are occurring in social media networks to some extent
More context: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8b4x/twitter-said-it-restr...
The censored tweets were _hand edited_.
https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-insiders-saudi-arabia-sp...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/former-twit...
To what extent, and if leadership knows and directs it are real questions.
Israeli, Jewish, and zionist are not all different words for the same thing.
Yeah, I wonder why is that. It's not like they have any valid reason to be against Israel, like having their land being taken away from them in what is basically a lebensraum, so it's surely has to be just some kind of irrational hatred towards Jews.
I will concede that this is a common framing of the facts from the Palestinian side. It's not nearly as easy to describe it as 'neutral' however, or to ascertain with any certainty what counts as any "valid reason" as opposed to "irrational hate".
But you have neglected to describe those other perspectives.
Do they exist? What other way could one possibly frame this?
>> According to a 2017 survey by University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha, 16% of the Arab population prefers the term "Israeli Arab", while the largest and fastest growing proportion prefers "Palestinian in Israel", and 17% prefer "Palestinian Arab"
All cultural and ethnic identities are synthetic. Whether we choose to accept a definition of Palestinian identity "in opposition to Israel" or not, we are not simply reading off a list, but creating new language. The area that became Israel and Palestine was partitioned between the Sanjuk of Jerusalem and the Vilayet of Beirut under the Ottomans, and the local and regional cultures and identities formed then were not in opposition to anything. To build a future, we are better off taking the good things from the past, rather than the bad ones.
This is a situation prior generations of Israelis created in the midst of Palestinians who preferred not to be evicted and harassed from their homeland. This isn't some impossible situation in which Palestinians instinctively hate Israelis with no specific grievances. Moreover, Israel's idea of "durable peace" as proposed in agreements seems to be highly conditional on keeping the land they occupy, in excess of what is recognized by the Palestinians or even by international agreements.
The problem is that the lines between many of these words are confusing and often intentionally blurred by people on various sides.
While the definition of Semite includes Arabs and other people[1], anti-Semite is specifically defined as hostility towards Jews.[2]
Also not all Jews are Israelis, not all Israelis are Jews, not all Israelis or Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews or Israelis.
It therefore is anti-Semitic when Jews are blamed for the actions of either Israelis or Zionists the same way it would be anti-Muslim to blame any random Muslim person for the actions of the Saudi government or any other specific group of Arab people.
[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semite
[2] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semite
Generally from the start the word meant hating Jews (not Semitic peoples as in those that speak Semitic languages - Jews specifically). If it didn't originally, it certainly came to mean that over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Etymology
Maybe people that speak Semitic languages are Semitic (I don't know - feels like pseudoscience, though there could be a lot of commonality in different ways). That being said, "Antisemitism" means hating Jews. It's not a special prize or anything. More than anything, the terminology is an unhelpful distraction from the more important things around when it comes up. I wish they stuck with "Judenhass".
We can certainly agree on that point. If nothing else, it makes much clearer the implications of characterizing Israeli–Palestinian enmity as a matter of Jew-hatred: no less than the invocation of Godwin's law as a thought-terminating cliche.
You are basically doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction.
Equating all Jews with Israel is anti-Semitic because Israel does not represent all Jews and isn't exclusively populated by Jews.
Insinuating all anti-Semitism is related to Israel is anti-Semitic because it ignores the hostility and violence that has been directed towards Jews that has nothing to do with either historic or modern politics of The Holy Land.
> Equating all Jews with Israel is anti-Semitic because Israel does not represent all Jews and isn't exclusively populated by Jews.
I think I agree with at least the letter of this claim, but I'm very puzzled at what you mean to say by it. I'm not sure whether we have a real disagreement or are talking past each other.
Throwing the word "anti-Semitism" around in the context of the politics of the Holy Land robs it of meaning. The present Israeli–Palestinian enmity has fundamentally different bases, only tenuously connected to the Western tradition culminating in "anti-Semitism". To call one by the other's name is a rhetorical trick to point at an outward similarity (hostility directed toward a majority-Jewish group) to equate Palestinian grievances with a more familiar form of Jew-hatred, to paint them as illegitimate and thereby dismiss them out of hand. And this has never been such a simple black-and-white conflict.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This simply isn't true though. The line is intentionally blurred by one side in order to suppress any valid criticism of Israel or Zionism by labelling (libelling) that critique as a criticism of Jews. There is no "various sides" to this blurring of lines.
> It therefore is anti-Semitic when Jews are blamed for the actions of either Israelis or Zionists
Hypothetically it would be but does it happen? This myth that blaming of Jews is happening broadly (not just Israel/Zionists) is exactly the misinformation that's being discussed. Your comment only perpetuates this.
Linking to dictionary definitions is a bit of a strawman; everyone knows the difference, that's not evidence that conflation is actually widespread at all. I've certainly not seen any criticism of Jews.
The conflict is with Israeli Jews which is the largest ethnic group in Israel.
Even aside from the fact that Israel is typically rated a "flawed democracy" in most indices due to the lack of press freedom, even it were a so-called "full democracy", no democracy even claims to be representative of constituents in any direct way (even those with relatively broad suffrage like NZ). Their goal is to be a best-of-alternatives approach in contrast to more regressive systems, along with known limitations such as majoritarianism, plutocratic platform access issues, etc.
So yes, it's the government. Some subset of the population may agree with them yes, but they are still very separate entities.
By the way Israel has normalized relations with three Arab countries, the last agreement made in 2020. Unfortunately the palistinean peace effort is now close to 20 years, with no real progress there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_E...
[0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-t...
If it has been given the "trusted reporter" status that similar organizations have it could certainly be abused at times like this.
[T]he Israeli government’s “Cyber Unit” [is] an entity that, among other things, reaches out to major online platforms like Facebook and Twitter with requests that the platforms remove content. It’s one of a number of such agencies around the globe, which are known as Internet Referral Units. Earlier in April, the Israeli Supreme Court gave a green light to the unit’s activities, rejecting a legal challenge that charged the unit with infringing on constitutional rights.
one doesn't have to be part of some government-sponsored conspiracy group for this, as some allege here
People who think of centralised social media as an empowerement of voice of minority dissent have made a grave mistake. It's only contingently supportive as long as the position of the minority voices isn't in conflict with political or economic interests of the powers that be. And big anything be it government, business and so on is always run by people who come from the same power-centres that minorities are trying to speak up against.
Normally, consensus reporting is a good sign that something is undesirable. In this case it has clearly been weaponized. This is a TUNING problem and it seems like social media companies have to find a way to balance on this
OK -- to play nice, let's say it's a tuning problem.
Why didn't this 'tuning problem' get fixed the first few times politically motivated messages got 'disappeared'?
At what point does the responsibility lie on those massaging the tuning methods?
my personal view is that social media is heavily gamed by the three-letter-agencies and all of their equivalents abroad. The existence of internal 'squads' within most of these groups that focus on social media networks reinforces that personal view -- if it wasn't an important battle ground then why form squadrons to seize and control it?
I don't think anyone expects Twitter or other social media companies to get this perfect. The nature of the problem means there will always be edge cases, debatable calls, and algorithms automatically doing unfortunate things. I do think there is a reasonable expectation for these companies to both do more and make progress.
That's exactly what nearly everyone expects, for exactly their own individual definition of perfect.
This is the result of letting cooperations own communication channels, something we were escaping until smartphone apps became popular.
Meaning a lot of "moderators" are conditioned to be anti-modi and anti-hindu and pro communist or Islamic inspite of India's tragic history with both.
> anti-modi and anti-hindu and pro communist or Islamic
You can be anti modi without being Anti Hindu. Lot of educated people are pretty rational. Opposing Hindu votebank politics is not anti Hindu. (Of course there are a bunch of liberal arts graduates posing as liberals but being actually anti Hindu, but no way they constitute the majority of "English educated elite".)
your comment sounds like a collection of all insults that extreme right wingers throw around a lot.
Sounds like you grew up in an upper caste household with all those conspiracy theories of India being suppressed from being a superpower by outside powers and colonial tendencies. I know this happens because I grew up in similar environment. :(
Unlike Nazis, colonialism did not face trial, so it continues on in its many old ways.
I grew up in a Brahmin household, and that's part of why I came to dislike and question all religions. I am not some pseudo liberal like you'd like to dismiss of (If you read my comment carefully, you will observe I have bashed them too).
The biggest problem is elitist attitude among ourselves. We should accept we were not some innately superior civilization that somehow got looted and screwed by colonialists, and that we have things to learn from outside as well. That's what the right wingers in India would never get.
Savarkar must be crying in the heaven seeing all nonsense "right wingers" perpetrate today.
You as well as the leftists are part of this elite.
You really need to read my first comment carefully before using your libed powered psychoanalyst powers.
It is the western, Islamic and communist countries that want to export their ideology, not us.
Your first comment was just a blanket name calling lumping everyone you disagree with as anti Hindu anti Modi and COMMUNIST [sic].
Before talking about liberal education, realize your faction of extreme nationalists is busy perpetrating nonsense about vedic indians having invented all science and whatnot. I call out anything I perceive as biased, no matter right or left wing.
> You as well as the leftists are part of this elite.
Assume everyone you disagree with is elite, conveniently ignoring the 2000 years of religious elitism, ultimately leading to rise of a lazy preisthood to prominence, in midst of which we lost half of the country to invaders. If the europeans you hate so much did not colonize us, we would be under even more shitty religious rulers for more years.
Hating colonialists is just a trend among right wingers, conveniently ignoring that was the game then. You can't paste history with black and white.
We cannot play victim card here, brother.
> It is the western, Islamic and communist countries that want to export their ideology, not us.
Sort of, because our Rightwing ideology is not concerned about every nation. Otherwise you guys would be trying to propagate it as well. Not to mention you speak as if all these are united conspiracy to suppress some "superpower India".
Every fucking religion tried to spread itself. Even Vedic religion spread itself to South India through Brahmin migrations. Communism and western wokeism are just that - some kind of religions thinking everything can be painted black or white. We need to be aware of them, but thinking they are a unified conspiracy against Indian corrupt incumbents who claim themselves to be "Dharma Rakshakas" is stupid beyond imagination.
The colonialism narrative of every native civilization is to demonize them. The fact that you believe it is that you have accepted the white man's burden line, hook and sinker.
If you can not be helpful at least stop being a Macauly's sepoy.
Every civilization is built on a unifying grand narrative, real or imagined. There is nothing in the Hindutva grand narrative that involves wiping out other civilizations or dominating/enslaving them.
I see no harm in indulging in it. Especially when every other alternative involves wiping us out.
And stop bragging about your Brahmin background. 90% of Brahmins will sell their identity for a dollar and munch on beef burgers given a chance.
Identity and culture is the only valuable thing that 90% of poor Indians inherit from their ancestors and it is important for them to preserve it.
Every civilization does that. They write history from their viewpoint. But at least they don't rely on sources of dubious credibility to reinforce their points. The grand hindutva narrative is often dubious and science-defying.
> I see no harm in indulging in it. Especially when every other alternative involves wiping us out.
You don't have to buy into a political narrative. You can just try to see objective truth.
> And stop bragging about your Brahmin background. 90% of Brahmins will sell their identity for a dollar and munch on beef burgers given a chance.
I did not brag about it. I told growing up in a Brahmin household made me realize we are also a stupid outdated religion, like all other religions. I also despised lazy preisthood in last comment.
And what's wrong with eating beef? It was just a tradition not to eat it due to religious reasons. You can follow good & reasonable things from Indian culture and be an atheist, Savarkar was.
The Brahman was supposed to be intellectual, even having an authority over the ruler class, being the face and brain of the society. What did __most__ Brahmins over the history do? Being lazy preists who did not contribute anything to society. Of course there are exceptions, but most did not value intellectual rigour, rather continued as religion preachers doing mystic rituals which position reinforced their wellbeing. If anything I am guilty of being born brahmin.
> Identity and culture is the only valuable thing that 90% of poor Indians inherit from their ancestors and it is important for them to preserve it.
It's also important to see what's good and what's bad for the current era. Even our sacred books say what's Dharma changes with time.
I generally don't argue with people indoctrinated with right or left wing philosophy and see everything as black and white. But on this site, it's disappointing to see someone repeating all the usual rightwing insults at the people they disagree with.
We are a decolonising nation, Modi is the first significant power shift away from the Lyuteans.
Our education is so full of leftist propaganda and whitewashed history.
For all your fears of pseudoscience, I am yet to see evidence of Modi pushing for it.
If you think "beef" is a religious issue and not a civilizational issue, I do not think you know enough about India to have an opinion. Just like Raul Vinci.
If you selectively attack Hindus or Hindu vote bank that makes you anti-hindu.
1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Forc...
https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsw...
For example, look at the top comments on any Justin Bieber post lately: https://www.instagram.com/p/COwqsQRH3Rj/
This probably happening all over the internet and these posts got swept up with the latest bot catching algorithms.
What I mean is that if the model they use for flagging would infer that legit spam (comments to a post by Justin Bieber AFAIK isn't related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) could mean that similar content when applied to relevant content is still spam (or marked for deletion for other reasons).
It's a bit like if google page rank algorithm identified a website being copied by multiple websites and punished the website that was the first to publish that content instead of other way around. If that was the case, it would have obviously been exploited to bury competitors pages.
Which is very similar to what a spam bot ring would do.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/13/facebook-...
Social media will continue to be important for societies, but the commercial ones failed to the point of being dangerous. We need to decentralize that
Moderation is not just about removing illegal content (yes, most countries make certain content illegal, and publishing it, punishable). It's also about removing or de-emphasizing legal but unwanted content, various hooliganism, but also things the public sees as unwholesome, and flags as such. This, of course, also differs from country to country.
Israel / Arab conflict is one of the worst in this regard. One half of it will tell you about terrible oppressors who capture land, bring military force, and keep peaceful people under a blockade. And they'd be correct. The other side will tell about terrible oppressors who rain rockets on peaceful cities, engage in acts of terror, and proclaim the need to eradicate the other side. They'd also be right.
There is no way to make it peaceful and nice on Twitter when it is not peaceful and nice in the real life, for last like 60 years. There's no way any algorithm would look "fair" to people leaning either side, or even to people not caring enough to take sides.
Sorry, this is an intrusion of ugly reality which technical means cannot conceal. In this regard, there's no good, fair, nice, etc solution for Twitter, or any other social media.
No, they really wouldn't. An occupied people cannot be considered "oppressors"--they are the ones being oppressed. Palestinian casualties over the last few decades are roughly 10x Israeli casualties. Israel is a nuclear-armed state backed by the US government. The Palestinians don't even have a formal military.
Trying to put equal blame on the Palestinians is just providing cover for the Israeli's on-going genocide of Palestinians.
That's because Israel is better at defending from attacks by Hamas and also prioritizes the defense higher than Hamas. Saying that one side has fewer casualties, implying that they are "the bad ones", is smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile we should blame Israel for building effective missile defense systems...
People really like to throw the word genocide around, but I really can't see how it's applicable here. The population has been steadily growing for many many years now[0]. If you consider this genocide, it must be the least effective genocide in recorded history.
Considering the huge imbalance of military power, it seems entirely reasonable that if Israel wanted to commit genocide, they could do it. Why waste all this money on targetted air strikes when you could just indiscriminately drop bombs? They say that each Iron Dome counter missle costs ~40k, instead of investing in counter missles, why not just use that to flatten Gazza and the West Bank?
There are many statements you can make about Israel and it's treatment of Palestinians, but trying to claim that they are committing genocide seems very disingenuous to me.
[0] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale...
Obviously Israel is doing intelligence work too, but probably subtly enough that it doesn't get flagged.
Doesn't mean your local jewish accountant goes to secret robed meetings to further their domination of the world :p
It's simply censorship not a glitch.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-n...
That suggests that they actually stretched their policies to accommodate NOT banning a political figure - since a non-political figure was banned for the same content.
It has not been fixed.
[1] https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1392175039181623301
Who determines this? If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Who should Twitter ban?
1. ban people for threatening violence
2. what if both sides are?
3. then consider which side is killing people
4. count up how many people each side is killing, and only ban sides with a large number
and that's what doesn't make sense to me.
Well unless you have specific evidence, that seems to be a reality we don't live in, so not really something we need to worry about. The point of the GP was to point out the power differential. That seems to remain the consant even in your hypothetical world.
More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.
Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1]
Based on a recent statement from the UN, I don't believe Israel has this right (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091492). My inclination to evaluate the situation purely on the facts of the dispute implies that Israel does. Regardless of how long ago this all came to be, Israel remains an occupying power in the eyes of International Law. The laws and courts of Israel should not apply here.
[Edit: I did not downvote you.]
My understanding from the UN link that I shared is that international law applies here as Israel is an occupying power. I am not sure whether there is an international court to hear this dispute and rule according to the applicable international law. If there isn’t, though, I can’t bring myself to justify that Israel has the right to apply its laws and courts in order for there to be some system of law and order. Even if the PA is in effect ceding this responsibility to Israel through incompetence, applying Israeli law and adjudicating in Israeli courts sets a precedent that any occupying nation can do this in land that is not internationally recognized as their own so long as there is no functioning law and court system in that land. To me accepting this as precedent feels like a slippery slope toward an invitation for nations to engage in annexation and colonialism.
(For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. The Egyptian government has repeatedly closed the border with the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas using that border to import rockets and for trying to use Egyptian territory to fire rockets into Israel. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has sanctioned Hamas by refusing to pay for various things in the Gaza Strip. Obviously the Israelis have no patience for Hamas, but let's not pretend that this is the typical Zionists-vs-Palestinians dispute.)
The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
Yitzhak Segev, once the Israeli military governor of Gaza, funded Ahmed Yassin and encouraged antagonism in him against secular Palestinian political forces.
It's funny for Israel to fund the founding of Hamas, encourage Muslim religious antagonism against more internationally appealing secular Palestinian figures, and then turn around and whinge about the people that they bankrolled. Hamas was bankrolled by Israel and its no secret.
Working people around the world know this and stand in support of Ahmad Sa'adat and other Palestinians to live free of the barbarism and tyranny Zionism is inflicting on them right now.
Instead of blaming Israel for all that is wrong why don't you demand the liberation of the Gaza strip from Hamas, why don't you demand a better lives for the Palestinians in the refuges camps in Lebanon and Jorden where they are treaded as second class citizens. Where are all those big Arab countries who stand by the Palestinians but don't really want to make their lives better but to perpetuates their suffering so they'll have someone to blame.
Refugees should return to their homeland, in case you don't know how to let them get the normal life of a citizen.
International laws put all the responsibility on the colonizer's shoulder (i.e. The Netanyahu regime). So please stop spreading more red herrings.
When Egypt was in control of Gaza were the Gazans citizens? No
When Jorden ruled east Jerusalem and the west bank were they citizens? No
Did they mistreat them? Yes
Did they try and hold the peace and avoid conflict? No
Was there an International cry for Palestinians self determination? No
Did they encourage violence and throwing Jews to the sea? Yes
I'm not saying Israel is an angel who did nothing wrong, horrible things did happen, and could have done things better but this should not all be on Israel shoulders.
The bottom line is that the world doesn't really want to get involved, they don't want to solve the conflict, the Arabs don't want to look weak and ashamed and the Israeli side doesn't want to make hard concessions.
It's also quite difficult to actually solidly connect accounts with real-world persons - and equally difficult to find reliable streams on who has committed violent crimes (ones that aren't likely to be poisoned by political silencing) and integrate that into your system.
Social media has definitely made this problem on their own, but it isn't surprising to me that they're all struggling to weave a line between becoming tools of political repression and being full to the brim with extremism.
Inciting violence is a broad definition. There are two sides at war, each one using what they have at hand to fight the other side, however when we see regular well equipped troops our brain thinks "Army", while when there are random masked citizens with AK47s, we immediately think "Terrorists", also thanks to well crafted western propaganda. As Peter Ustinov said: "terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich"; I see two sides battling, but one side just follows orders while the other defends their homes, therefore I am 100% with the Palestinians.
Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
I feel like this is similar to a false dichotomy. The GP is pointing out a difference in resources and thus power. It doesn't mean one does not empathize with anyone suffering. That's just not something that follows. Any case of someone who is having their home, workplace and life destroyed is an absolute tragedy. I don't think that distracts from GPs point at all which has to do with power dynamics and the media's presentation of events.
> Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
Why would they do this? I don't understand the relevance.
You’re right, civilians should be off limits. But don’t forget that many of those civilians are trained soldiers and could be deployed in a matter of days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_...
No, that will not satisfy me because they are shooting for maximum civilian casualties not military targets, what's the purpose of firing into Tel-Aviv, Rishon, Ashkelon, Jerusalem? It's to create terror.
Imagine a much more powerful group was occupying your area, and you didn't have the technology to target your strikes carefully against only military targets. Should you simply roll over and allow their occupation to continue?
I'm not saying that Israel isn't in the West bank, it is. Are their life better than the ones in Gaza? Absolutely yes. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Defensive_Shield and that there is corporation between the PA defense forces and Israel. Do they live normal life? No. Israel stand is that peace will be met with peace Israel is rarely the aggressor.
"Palestine is firing into cities because it has no other means to defend itself" this isn't self-defenses that's terrorism. You want to fire at military checkpoints, at soldiers at military vehicles and compounds fine, it's an armed conflict. If by your standards anything goes then don't hold Israel to a different value.
If I was under occupation I would target the military, I would target the the ones that are in my city I wouldn't go to a busy shopping center and blow myself up. I wouldn't fire rockets to kills as many people as I can, I wouldn't add ball bearings to create maximum affect.
>>>...Israel is rarely the aggressor.
This completely depends on whether you consider military occupation aggression. I certainly would. If Israel stopped occupying Gaza and the West Bank and removed the settlements, then it would be a very different situation. As long as they're occupying Palestine, I don't know how you can see them as not being aggressors.
>>>If I was under occupation I would target the military
I suggest that if you were under military occupation, and you saw fellow civilians injured (or killed) and their homes destroyed, you might consider any methods that could stop that acceptable.
Maybe show us an example by ending the illegal occupation of Canada and return to which ever country your family came from and give it back to the poor natives who suffer immensely under the Canadian occupation.
1) No modern Palestinian group (not even Hamas) is pushing the "kill all Jews" idea, thankfully. The majority seem to want a two state solution with Israel continuing to exist. And again, Israel is occupying territory; why isn't the onus on them to stop doing that?
2) What does it matter if it's religious or not? Call it religious or political or economic, what does that change?
3) And which of the countries my ancestors left ~150 years ago, that I don't have citizenship in, that (in some cases) don't exist any longer, should I return to, exactly? It was wrong for my ancestors to colonize and occupy Canada; we should take steps to undo that harm in the ways we can. I don't think that's the same situation as asking settlers who actively started occupying an area in the West Bank in the last five/ten/fifteen years to move back into Israel.
Let's look at this another way. How do you think this whole mess should be resolved, ideally? I think a two-state solution is really the only way. What would you like to see?
2) It matters because even if you believe the occupation is wrong you need to understand the reason for it, the hostilities didn't not start in 47 and not in 67. Hell the PLO was founded in 64 to liberate Palestine by force.
3) It's the same situation, it's just it was hundreds of years ago going back to the 16th century. By that logic lets wait 100-200 years and then there will a statute of limitation? The only reason this is a thing is because news media, tv and radio which distort reality into small chunks to be feed to the masses. If this was Muslims conquering other Muslims that's fine but when it's Jews? Oy vey that won't do. You have to understand that it's not the settlements in the west bank, they consider every Jew a settler and want them to go back to Europe or Russia. What about the 850K Jews who were expelled from Arab countries?
Ideally? Palestinians stop all hostilities. Denounce violence. Disarm. Recognize Israel right to exists. Israel stop building more settlements. Israel sees that they hold on to their word, ease road blocks, ease the blockade. Help them have a sea port and airport (which Israel already agreed to do but was declined), connect the gaza and west bank somehow. Both sides agree on borders with land and population exchange, Israel retains security controls, Israel and the Palestinians reduce friction to a minimum but there is a joined council with daily meeting with cooperation on security, economics, health and holy sites.
A non ideal solution is that neither side agrees to anything, all the settlers go back to Israel and the west bank and gaza become a nature reserve because no one can play nicely.
People aren't that much religious in Palestine, at least not the younger generations. Things change, generations come and go.
But I can understand if you think people are, because of so much silly things to read on Facebook etc.
However a 2-3 hours bus trip to get to the University (can be in total 4-5 h in the bus, per day), when normally it'd been 20? minutes by train (on a railroad that hasn't yet been built), doesn't make Israel and the checkpoints popular.
How else do you propose they quell the proliferation of arms that they know will eventually be fired into populated areas of Israel out of pure hatred, killing innocent civilians? They certainly don't run checkpoints because they're fun.
Indeed among both the Israelis and Palestinians, there's a small percentage violent men (mostly men), for example, a small fraction of the people in IDF shot a thousand people in Gaza some years ago (about 100 died, don't remember exactly).
And a small fraction of the Palestinian men in Gaza fire rockets against civilians (although they pretend they target military but they don't) and I think eventually some people like them would blow bombs if they could get past the barrier. And that would restart a circle of violence, bad for everyone.
> How else do you propose they quell the proliferation of arms
That might take about a generation.
Examples: Stop doing bad things to one's neighbor: Don't send soldiers with weapons to the West Bank, building settlements and taking other people's land, forcing them to leave. You can websearch for "Breaking the silence IDF" maybe combined with "male soldier Gaza" or "female border police" to find out other things individuals in IDF or the border police sometimes do, that can create and keep alive such hatred you mention. (And maybe is that kind of hatred, just this time from some Israelis against Palestinians.)
And do kind things to one's neighbor: Share the Covid-19 vaccine with the Palestinians: Reverse time and give it to high risk group in Palestine, instead of first to low risk groups in Israel. Support women in Palestine who start their own businesses -- women are generally more peaceful and the more influence they have, the better.
And about the barriers: More buses, more checkpoints, and more staff in each checkpoint, so takes less time to pass the checkpoints. To respect other people's time.
There're probably 100s of things to stop doing, and 1 000s of things one could start doing, to create peace and friendship. Then, continue like that, for one (maybe two) generations, and it'll be fine.
(Plus doing kind things to the people in nearby Arab countries, so it'll be harder for dictators or corrupted politicians there, to say bad things about Israel -- which they apparently do a bit much, maybe to divert attention from problems in their own countries. For example, share the covid vaccine with the people in Lebanon.)
However I think Netanyahu and Hamas or Jihad group leaders, need conflict, to get more votes and stay in power. Isn't Netanyahu popular partly because many voters think he's saving them from danger. Too many of the voters don't realize that he is part of creating the danger. And the same goes for Hamas and jihad groups. And they'll want to continue taking land, and firing rockets, doing the opposite to what I mentioned above.
Those who do that, make Netanyahu stronger -- I think many people vote for him because they think he's better at stopping such things. (When in fact he encourages it by eg using military to take more land)
By firing rockets, they are Netanyahu's best recruiters for the elections.
Please don't say that "Palestinians" fire rockets? It's a small fraction, one in a thousand or less? who does that.
> firing into cities because it has no other means
That's like, "we cannot reach the military so let's stab a bunch of school children instead". Doesn't solve any problems, doesn't make a good impression
(And btw I think it'd be a bad and sad idea to fire rockets at military too. It's just ordinary people, there's general conscription in Israel. Now when I've said that I suppose I have to mention that I don't like violent settlers (those who are) and talking land from others.)
I didn't know that the commanders in IDF were doing that just now -- they've killed 40 Palestinian children and 139 adults, and comparing 40 with 139 indicates that most (almost all?) adults were civilians.
Those "let's stab a bunch of school children" type of people -- some of them are military commanders in IDF, and gives orders about those reckless bombings (of Gaza). That makes Hamas and jihad groups more popular in Gaza. (Whilst the rockets being fired makes Netanyahu more popular in Israel.)
In a war there are potentially no good people; war makes everyone capable of committing atrocities if there is a higher motivation. During WWII the insurgents in my country did nasty things as well, but the ultimate goal was to fight against the Nazi, which were a greater evil, heavily armed and more numerous. In such a situation you don't think twice but rather throw at the enemy every weapon you have. That's why I don't judge Palestinians if they also do bad things as I'm pretty sure that if they could they would rather hit an armed tank rather than a car with a family inside, but as the Ustinov line says, terrorism is the war of the poor, and they are just fighting with what they have at hand, also with no control on how events are reported.
Regarding who started it, there are well known maps that give an idea on who invaded who. Example: https://wikispooks.com/w/images/8/86/Palestinian_land_loss.j... This is not the only one, and minor inaccuracies, if any, don't invalidate the trend that is shown there.
Feel free to dissect each and every sentence of my post in order to find six lines to hang me Richelieu style, but be aware that the more effort you put in this the more you reveal to be a lot more biased than I am.
There won't be any more replies by me on this subject. Now back to technical stuff.
Hundreds of thousands upvoted a fake hitler quote… will they get banned for inciting violence? Hopefully…?
This precedent was set in the late 2000s when Facebook, Google, and Twitter started massive campaigns to investigate, report and remove Islamic extremist content on their platforms. A lot of legitimate non-extremist Islamic content and users got caught up in the censorship.
Technical aspects aside, you know that there is one Twitter, and one Facebook, where "everybody" is, and "everything" gets reported.
You can possibly think about a few dozen Mastodon instances where to look for "everything"? A bunch of Gnu Social nodes? A hundred of key large Telegram groups?..
The damned network effect pushes everything to a single biggest node :-\
https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/20/from-the-8200-to-silicon-v...
Once the ghost of ideological moderation is left out of the bottle it cannot be reigned in easily. Especially if applied arbitrary and without oversight. You will always have glitches that are convenient for someone.
Somehow it was not an accident when users were tweeting 'hammer' a few months back and getting suspended but this somehow falls under a 'glitch' (Yeah right).
Perhaps, another 'accidental glitch' once again by those who give no explanation of how it happened other than a vague description of the 'issue'.
Now, the rich and powerful gamed the system to continue the oppression.
https://twitter.com/jvplive https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
I know some of them and they are very brave people. They are constantly accused of being 'self-hating' and even Nazi sympathizers by more right-wing Jews. It's a pretty big deal if you are Jewish and get accused of being a 'Kapo' by other Jews. And they are often treated with suspicion or worse by other pro-Palestinian activists. Many people expect them to constantly condemn, apologize for or disassociate themselves from Israel's actions, simply because they are Jewish. They also have to contend with the fact that a proportion of their 'allies' are either actual antisemites using Palestine as a pretext, or well-meaning idiots who get caught up in conspiracy theories and racist tropes without understanding how they are connected to antisemitism.
I would say that being leftwing and opposed to the status quo in Israel is one of the major reasons that Jewish people become disillusioned with their community and end up completely rejecting the religious identity. And having to deal with accusations like yours is one of the main things stopping Jewish people who oppose the Israeli occupation from being more involved in activism.
_.-._ ..-.. _.-._
(_-.-_) /|'.'|\ (_'.'_)
.\-/. \)\-/(/ ,-.-.
__/ /-. \__ __/ ' ' \__ __/'-'-'\__
( (___/___) ) ( (_/-._\_) ) ( (_/ \_) )
'.Oo___oO.' '.Oo___oO.' '.Oo___oO.'
see no evil hear no evil talk no evil