Hacker News Reader

Comment by werber | Hacker News Reader

As an American Jew who grew up with a distorted and racist world view in regard to Palestine this just feels like history repeating itself. The troubles that face Israelis have always been amplified over those of Palestinians in my experience. That control of the narrative led me to be actively racist for most of my life while thinking I was not and also morally superior. This kind of censorship has a body count, and it lets war crimes happen in clear view while the on lookers think they are doing the right thing.

View on HN

As an American who moved here from a Muslim country let me assure you Muslims are socialized to feel the same way about Jews.

Took me a long time to see it. In high school I obviously supported Palestine and thought Israel was a settler colony (all of it, not just Gaza). Then I realized: wait why do I even care? I’m from 3,000 miles away in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, people don’t even care about Bangladeshis being held in near-slavery conditions in Qatar. (More Bangladeshi workers have died in the Middle East since 2010 than Palestinians killed in the conflict with Israel since 1947.) They don’t care about the Rohingya. They don’t care what Saudi is doing in Yemen. They’re very friendly with China and don’t care about Uighurs. But everyone has an opinion on how Israel is oppressing Palestine.

This is what war has done in almost every conflict. The enemy is a monster so attacking the monster justifies far too much.

(Non-native English speaker)

It can be in two kinds:

a) they are DOING something bad: attacking, occupying, oppressing, blocking, so we need to stop them, kick them out, liberate from their oppression, break their block, etc.

b) they ARE (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., or a nation, or a group), and they are bad because (list of historical or invented reasons), so we need to kill or enslave them or force assimilation of them.

For example, recent Russian-Ukrainian war, from Russian side:

* Ukrainians are bad, because they are Nazi. Reasons: Ukraine is Nazi country because it is independent Nation, which is bad for Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: kill Ukrainians, close Ukrainian schools, magazines, sites, TV and radio stations, force Ukrainians to abandon Ukrainian culture.

* Ukrainian are oppressing Ukrainians, speaking in Russish. Reasons: nobody will speak in dumb Ukrainian language at their own will, when they can use Great and Mighty Russish Tongue (Великий и Могучий Русский Язык), so, obviously, Ukrainians are forcing Ukrainians to speak in Ukrainian language, AKA «forceful ukrainization»/«насильственная украинизация» (and Ukrainian language is dumb, obviously, because it causes laugh, when a Russish hear it). Thus: invade Eastern Ukraine to protect Russissh-speaking Ukrainians from forceful ukrainization (direct speech: «защитить русско-язычных жителей Юго-Востока Украины от насильственной украинизации»).

From Ukrainian side:

* Russians are invading Ukraine. Reasons: they want to destroy Ukrainian nation and make it part of Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: Ukraine must stop invasion.

They don't seem to care much about the stranded Biharis on their doorstep either AFAIK.

I’d urge people not to give up caring. There’s a lot of crappy things happening in the world and it can be a lot to deal with, but just tossing your hands up isn’t the answer.

I’d also argue that tax paying Americans are obligated to care. Our money is funding Israel’s crimes and we are morally culpable if we don’t resist or try to change policy.

Yes, I am aware of that and do care for justice but am afraid to talk abour it IRL to be honest. To be publically acused of antisemitism for being critical to Israel could be a real nightmare Im not ready to go through. I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish. Am I a coward? I think so but I have a family and want to hold onto my job. Here on HN I am not afraid to comment because this account is not tied to my real identity.

Ps There is one think I do which I know is directly connected to this. I boycot Israeli food products, mostly grown on occupied lands. The inpact is close to nil but it’s the most I can do at the moment.

I agree this is a real issue. Even if it’s just voicing support under a pseudonym (such as I’ve done here), it’s better than nothing. The younger generations are definitely more aware of the issues Palestinians are facing and more vocal about putting an end to it. That offers me some hope.

You should know that saying some of my favorite people are jewish is something that sounds pretty bad. The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.

A lot of people are critical of Israel's policies, including many Israelis. There is absolutely no problem with that.

Why is it bad if I admire jews? I think this is going too far, I am not ill intended towards anyone but you just gave me an example why as a non jew I should stay quiet if I don’t want to be labeled as anything or god knows what else

Do you hold the same views about all races?

E.g. "It's not bad if i admire [ blacks / whites / asians / aryans / han chinese]?

> The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.

Sounds very plausible instead. The original cancel culture is exactly that used to silence critics of Israel- the accusation of antisemitism has been used for decades to terminate careers. People have learned very well to keep their mouths shut.

There's lots of critics of Israel. Can you give me 3 (or 10) examples or people who lost their jobs as a result of some reasonable criticism of Israel's policies? Weren't there recent petitions in Google and Amazon to boycott Israel? Did anyone lose their jobs? And this is political activism at your workplace, which isn't exactly the same thing as stating your opinion outside work. If you choose to bring politics into your workplace anything can happen.

Let me tell you how this sounds to me as a Jewish person, it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory that is alluding that "we" are somehow pulling some invisible strings to get people fired for being justly critical of Israel. I could be paranoid but honestly I've earned the right to be paranoid.

I would fight for anyone's right to criticize Israel. I would also fight for the discussion to be based on facts and for Israel not to be singled out for "preferential" treatment. There is no problem being critical of Israel. Antisemitism is a big problem. If you don't feel like you can draw this line just study the question before commenting. It's really not that hard.

Let me give you a specific example. If you say Israel is intentionally trying to inflict damage on Gaza in order to deter Hamas and the population from re-engaging Israel in the future and that's a questionable tactic. I would say this is reasonable criticism (at least should be discussed). If you say Israel should not be evicting Arabs from their homes at the moment from disputed territories even if they are legally entitled to, or you want to debate said legality. Fair game IMO. However if you say look how many Palestinians died vs. Israelis in the latest round of violence and use it as a measure of morality that is problematic. In war each side tries to minimize damage to their side and inflict as much damage on the other side. People saying this are either incredibly naive or are twisting the (sad) reality to fit some agenda IMO. I don't think what I am saying here is that you can only have a voice if you agree with me. You can even choose to disagree with me on the question of war and proportionality. But you better come to this discussion with some good supporting arguments. There is certainly a lot of history and a lot of room for debate about this.

You can hold any position on Israel up to and including that it does not have the right to exist and still not be anti-Semitic. I do not agree with the formation or expansion of Israel, including the Balfour Declaration. I am not anti-Semitic.

In fact I think anti-Semitism is a very real problem. Historically and now. It also hurts the legitimate arguments against Zionism because invariably real anti-Semites show up and become the focal point.

Sure you can hold any position or opinion.

John Lennon sang:

"Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace"

Nobody has banned John Lennon from the radio last time I checked.

Until a position is backed up with some rational arguments it's sort of just your opinion. Why should we care? If you are going public with a certain position and advocating for action the burden of proof is on you. Especially if there are consequences. There's plenty of nonsense going around that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. But you can "hold" any of those positions wrt/ Israel or any other topic.

This is a non sequitur and a straw man. I don’t agree with the Balfour Declaration because it was strongly opposed by the Palestinians, 90% of the population at the time.

I have no idea why you are quoting John Lennon. It has nothing to do with the topic.

It's good that you are backing your opinion with facts. That's a great start to a rational debate. I don't think the muslims in the region were referred to as Palestinians at the time but it is a fact that they were the majority (I could nitpick specific regions and numbers but sure, as a rule I'd agree). Do you have any reference to their strong opposition? (it sounds reasonable though, so quite likely, but let's differentiate facts from opinions). My counter is that the reason the Jewish population was a minority at the time was that Jews were expelled from the area and prevented from returning. I do support the Balfour Declaration. There are other reasons for my support, such as the persecution of Jews in other countries.

Let's say we have this debate and you convince me, and I agree with you, that the Balfour Declaration was "wrong"(?) because it's not "right" to say people X should take location Y as their country while the locals are not consulted with. Not sure that really gets us anywhere. Lots of countries "exist" without Britain bothering to have declared that they should be countries and lots of countries exist because Britain and France arbitrarily made them so. Saudi Arabia pretty much owns its existence to similar circumstances, the British war on the Ottoman empire. But sure it is part of the long and relevant history of the region.

You can also say the UN should not have passed resolution 181. Again, not sure where that's gonna lead us.

If anyone is still reading this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration for reference.

If you have issues with the Balfour Declaration presumably those should be taken up with Britain?

Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think you're saying that despite the long and documented history of the Jewish people to the land of Israel the fact that the Jewish people were a minority in the area for a lengthy amount of time means that they have no right to that area at all. My counter would be that pretty much any country anywhere in the world doesn't actually satisfy your requirements and that if anything the Jewish people have a stronger "right" to that land than most other people living in other countries. And then you'll disagree. And we'll agree to disagree. And the question of how to resolve the situation today remains.

My source on that number is from the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...

That other countries have also engaged in colonialism, doesn’t mean we have to support it, especially modern day colonialism.

We won’t agree on a solution or even the problem, but my point in this particular case is you can be against Israel as a geopolitical entity and not be anti-Semitic.

I agree. You stated your case, you supported it, you're making good arguments. There's no problem.

> I am aware of that and do care for justice but am afraid to talk abour it IRL to be honest. To be publically acused of antisemitism for being critical to Israel could be a real nightmare Im not ready to go through. ... Am I a coward? I think so but I have a family and want to hold onto my job. Here on HN I am not afraid to comment because this account is not tied to my real identity.

You're not a coward; you're human. Here's what I tell myself: There are people who sacrificed far more for freedom than whatever I risk - anger, rejection by some, even my job and reputation. However, I only have one job and one reputation, and I'm not sacrificing them for nothing.

And regardless, taking a dramatic stand rarely accomplishes anything. Listening to others, being curious and open about their positions, and then responding thoughtfully accomplishes much more with much less risk.

> I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish.

FWIW, this is a classic line of prejudiced people: 'I'm not anti-X; some of my best friends are X.' There was even a public service commercial in the 1980s that used almost that exact line. Whatever your thoughts, I wouldn't say it. It sounds defensive, for one thing. Say something affirmative - e.g., 'Israelis have a right to peace and justice, as do Palestinians.'

If you are prejudiced (I have no idea; I'm not drawing a conclusion based on one sentence in an online post; and I am certainly nobody's judge), it's ok. We all are to various degrees - the point for me is to be aware that I am human too, that I have this human potential and to be aware of it and notice it, and also to be aware that I also have the human potential for much greater things, and I have a responsibility to embrace that and change my perspective.

> FWIW, this is a classic line of prejudiced people: 'I'm not anti-X; some of my best friends are X.'

On the other hand, this is just a trope that needs to die. It's a non sequitur and is in fact an example of kafkatrap:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap

I'm not anti-Javascript, some of my favorite websites are written in Javascript.

It's almost like maybe you should care and speak out about Palestine and Bengladeshis in Qatar and Rohingya and Yemenis and Uighurs.

There are only so many hours in a day. This should be true at the community level, but an individual passionately caring about all of those injustices at once will end up spamming social media with advocacy because there is not enough time to pick any one to do something with greater impact.

He does not have to care about every injustice every time. But he should not be proud about not caring.

Why not? Who cares?

Like he said, this is far from the worst conflict going on right now and it receives a disproportionate amount of interest.

I don't care about the conflict in china or in Yemen or in syria. Because I'm a coherent person, I also don't care about what's happening in israel.

Because being proud of lack of empathy and just ... humanity is pretty fucked up?

You literally do not have enough time to care about all the travesties in the world, you will just 'care' about them taking up all of your time while doing nothing to actually improve the world. You are 1 human of billions, you try to make the world better as much as one average human can. Which is for most people, raising their children well, being a good person and doing good work. You only have energy for one cause I like to say, it's up to you to choose it.

So beyond a general sense of "these things suck and I emphasize, but I don't have time to think about it", there is really not much else you should do beyond that if your not actually going to do anything about it other than read some media, feel some emotions and have opinions about something you have remote to zero experience in and zero power or desire to actually do anything about it.

And after that one, you have the other 100'000 small and large travesties to process.

Everything you hear and see about the wider world is because somebody else with much more power than you decided you should.

By letting them decide what you care about, you've delegated your decision-making.

I think that's fucked up.

Also everything the other commenter said is right.

> n individual passionately caring about all of those injustices at once will end up spamming social media with advocacy because there is not enough time to pick any one to do something with greater impact

One solution, a well-established one, is to focus on universal human rights. The rising tide will lift all boats.

Also, caring does not necessarily mean action. I do have limited time, but I've heard the above used as an excuse for most of my life, and used to subscribe to it. I've learned that while people are talking about whether and how and should you care, you can just do something. It's that easy.

When you can't even get major powers on board with universal human rights, what hope have you of going after others? They seem about as effective as the UN itself.

Major powers have been on board with universal human rights since WWII. They aren't always perfect, but the effort and progress since then is astounding. Look at the world now vs 1945, or 1845!

Intersectionality is just viewing all struggles commonality. You can focus on whatever you want and center it with regard to everything else that’s wrong. For me, that’s been a very hopeful concept because you obviously can’t do a million things at once.

Or maybe you start to question why you are being fed agitprop about X while your government is doing Y?

Not mutually exclusive.

And Jews.

Absolutely!

As a general principle, yes, all of humanity matters, and all grave matters deserve grave attention. At the same time, how a given issue impacts you and those around you, how much influence you can possibly have over the matter, and how much responsibility you and those like you truly bare in its existence are all of upmost importance when deciding where you should be putting your emphasis, morally speaking.

For example, for your typical US citizen, decrying the plight of the Uyghurs is fine in principle. But if one goes and weights things relative to the above criteria -- though admittedly there's no clean way to do so -- I'd argue that China's Uyghur genocide would not even make the top 100 of things that deserve to be morally prioritized (again, by your typical US citizen).

And forgive me if I read to far into what you wrote past what you intended; it just struck me as possibly flattening a bit too much.

That’s not what I’m driving at. My point is that there is a reason Bangladeshis all learn about Israel oppressing Palestine but don’t care about other Bangladeshis being worked to death in the Middle East. There’s a reason that’s the thing that gets people’s attention compared to all the other human rights issues out there.

There is a reason. Maybe this reason is that the "conflict" has been going on for 70 years? Maybe the reason is that the situation is particularly humiliating for Muslims, who saw the West unilaterally decide to install some Europeans in one of Islam's most historic places? Or maybe the reason is that, different from other injustices, this one is brazenly denied both by the perpetrators and by those who should be witnesses? Because an injustice will upset, but there is nothing more enraging than seeing those in power deny the obvious and pretend that the perpetrators are victims.

So there can be many reasons. Why do you choose the one that, once somehow transferred 5500 km from Bangladesh to Palestine (not sure how much they have in common), puts the Palestinians' struggle in the worst possible light?

Most Israelis come from Arab countries(because they were expelled), this is a common myth that Israeli's are "european", there is many from Eastern Europe, and there are many ashkenazi jewish immigrants from the USA, but this is a fraction. And Jerusalem is the holiest place for Jews, and it has been since before Islam existed

What you say is not true:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

yes it is, look at the numbers. 26 percent from europe, 27 percent from "non white" Middle east mainly, would be 28-29 percent but I am not including potential mizrahim from USA/Canada, even though many are probably persian/iraqi origin.

From the article, 2015 numbers:

26.26% Europe

4.64% Americas

10.75% Asia

14.3% Africa

So no, “most Israelis“ don’t come from Arab countries.

Look at it carefully, there is no Middle East Continent, look at the countries in the list... Are you saying Iraq is not an Arab country, Because it is in Asia? No arabs in Morocco because it is in Africa? My point is that Israel is not "European Colonials". Argentinian ladino speaking sephardic jews white? An Iranian-American Jewish family moving to Israel is European? You are nitpicking, and more than half of the population is not 'european', also count in the the druze, bedouin, and christian and muslim arabs that live here, with full rights, political representation, and benefits

edit: Looking at your history "Peace is not possible on occupied land or in an apartheid state." seems like anything I can tell you wont matter because you have already drank the koolaid

Iraq is included in Asia. Asia + Africa = 25.05% which is less than the 30.9% Europe + America. So you were incorrect when you said the majority of Jewish Israeli’s are from Arab nations.

As for your edit, that’s an ad hominem.

You are still wrong.. when most of the jews were kicked out of Arab countries they went to countries all over the world United States, Europe, Argentina/Brasil.. You are not considering any of this and just pulling census 6 year old census data that doesnt describe ethnicity..

from the article: "About 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population identify as either Mizrahi or Sephardi, 44.2% identify as Ashkenazi, about 3% as Beta Israel and 7.9% as mixed or other"

This is from 2013, and there has been a lot more mixing since then.

You said the majority of Israeli Jews came from Arab countries. That is factually incorrect.

Your exact comment:

> ” Most Israelis come from Arab countries(because they were expelled)”

What do you think that reason is?

Maybe whataboutism. Why Bangladeshi whataboutism is supposed to be of interest to us I'm not sure.

Arab countries also use Israel to highlight the disingenuousness of America's supposed concern for human rights. Ironically not having it as an ally might make military interventions in the Arab world easier.

It’s not “whataboutism” to ask what might be motivating people to care about a particular issue thousands of miles away when they don’t pay any attention to human rights issues on their own border.

The opinions of Americans in particular on this issue are very relevant. The U.S provides Israel with a diplomatic, military and financial blank check. Many of the most aggressive elements of the settler movement that makes life so difficult for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are funded by American non-profit groups like the Central Fund of Israel. In addition some 60,000 ideologically driven American citizens are living as settlers in the West Bank.

As I posted eleswhere, note that American Christian Evangelicals support Israel's right-wing policies much more strongly than American Jews, who are mostly liberal and Democrats.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...

You should link directly to the sources you curate, rather than just linking a duckduckgo search.

He seems to be right according to Pew in 2014: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-supp...

> Pew Research surveys find that similar shares of Christians (29%) and Jews (31%) say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel. Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel.

Says who? Why?

Context matters, but often I like a search result over article. When someone knows vast majority of results go the stated direction vs here is an article that supports a view as often that is bias writing. A search result link to a degree shows greater neutrality vs particular press in the right context.

This is clear to me that the thing that matters most is Israelis doing it more than muslims being victims.

After all these Palestinians are humans like you and me, and despite the flaw of being muslim, could be triggering empathy in most of us.

But interestingly I really care more about Israeli reproducing Nazis patterns than Palestinians being at the other end.

And we talk a lot about China, but they're not jews, just atheists, so they're much better for muslim leaderships than Israel.

You somehow managed to slur both sides with this comment. That's seriously not ok. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Idk this doesn't sound true about any of the Bengalis I have met. They all seem to care a lot about Rohingya (since it is especially close to them and they see the suffering), the Uighurs, Yemen, etc.

Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is decades older than all the conflicts you mention, which is why they probably don't get as much airtime comparatively.

> Then I realized: wait why do I even care? I’m from 3,000 miles away in Bangladesh.

I'm assuming you're a Muslim, in which case you should care because of [1][2]

[1] https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:224

[2] https://sunnah.com/muslim:2586a

The sad part is that you can get called an anti-Semite (or self-hating Jew) for expressing any sort of solidarity with Palestinians. The sadder part is that actual anti-Semites then jump in and use that situation to further their agenda.

Yes, labels are prepared for any type of criticism. The sad part is that there is some genuine anti-semitism out there (same is true for racism) and lumping this acusation with any criticism will weaken a real cause (again, same is true for racism).

I’ve been ostracized by my family, which I think is much worse.

I'm very sorry to hear it; that is hard. It might be that if you stand for your principles with dignity, they will respect it.

I’ve not run into this very much. I’ve had very good luck advocating against antisemitism while also advocating against Israeli settlement policies. I think by advocating against antisemitism I demonstrate that I’m actually committed to justice. It seems when people are accused of antisemitism they are often not only criticizing settlement policies but also advocating for the destruction of Israel and are generally silent on Jewish persecution.

There's another contingent that's quick to label any criticism leveled against the Israeli government as anti-semitism, which in itself is an antisemitic trope (which insinuates that all Jewish people, including the Jewish diaspora, and the country/government of Israel are inseparable)

How do we measure this sort of amplification objectively? How do we account for context? I would say that it's exactly the opposite, that through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli. Israel has faced many boycotts, many attempts to destroy it, and generally as less than favorable in world public opinion.

It is maybe true that there's been a little shift with the collapse of the soviet union and the split in the Arab world. I would still say that Israel gets more negative coverage in comparison to other world events and even within the specific conflict.

Just a recent example, at some point during the Covid crisis Israel was extensively criticized for not treating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza equitably with regard to vaccine distribution. Nobody even mentions that Israeli Palestinians are treated equitably in this regard. Nuances are lost. Recently when Israel did agree to provide Palestinians with vaccines the Palestinians rejected them: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-covid-... EDIT: And forgot to add my point, that this did not receive as wide of a coverage.

Lack of "censorship" also has a body count. What about all the Covid conspiracy theories? Should we give those guys a free stage on social media? Incitement to commit real violence is also common in social platforms. To give an example from the "other" side some mobs that gathered to attack Israeli Arabs during the last conflicts organized on social media. Would you be critical if those voices were suppressed?

I can be really critical of Israel for many things. But I'm really not buying that the balance is set the wrong way. Keep in mind a lot of us are consuming the kind of news that amplifies our world views anyways. Which brings me back to how do we measure this in a controlled way?

> through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli

There is absolutely no question that Israel has more support in the West. The US doesn't give billions a year in military support to the Palestinians or Arabs - except Egypt, when signed a treaty not to attack Israel. The head of the Palestinians doesn't give speeches to join sessions of Congress. Yes, Israel gets criticized (as does everyone), and they do a lot of shit; it's laughable to portray Israel as a victim - and an old rhetorical tactic to claim victimhood when you do something wrong and take heat for it.

How did we get to the question of monetary aid here? What about the UN? Security council? Also of note is that until 1985 financial aid was much lower, a lot of this aid is in the form of loans or requires Israel to only use it for purchases from the US. The US generally supported Israel to further their own interests, oil and the cold war. Jordan also gets >$1B from the US a year. Let's not forget that the US actually went to war for some of its other pals in the region.

At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion. When the media does report it totally lacks any context (honestly that applies to the all coverage, whether you may view it as positive to Israel or negative). You can't simply show a rocket hitting a building or a bomb hitting a building or people getting hurt (which they are) without context. Sure, the military aid is context, the history of the region is context, the suicide bombings of the early 2000's are context, the deportation of people from their homes are context, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is context, the Hamas taking over Gaza by force is context, how they use their $ aid is context, the connection of the Jewish people to Israel is context. With no context (or rather with no study of the details) this is just emotional mumbo jumbo. And sure, some things are clearly wrong even out of context, and some things are clearly right, but for the most part that determination can't be made from some 140 character tweet. No context results in shallow discussions.

I stand by my opinion that Israel is portrayed more negatively and generally not enough context is given, relative to other world events, and within the specifics of the conflict. You haven't really answered my question of how you measure this, and so without measurement you are entitled to your opinion (and your use of rhetoric) and I'm entitled to mine?

Israel is not (yet) a victim here. Are the Palestinians a victim? Perhaps. Israel isn't solely to blame for that. Is Israel doing some things I don't like? Absolutely. Are Palestinians doings things I don't like? Absolutely. Is the way out of this mess to shift the blame around? I don't know about that one. This shifting of the blame is just another angle of the conflict and something the sides (sure, both sides) are doing because they don't actually want a resolution.

This story we're discussing, which isn't really any sort of objective reporting (to say the least) really supports my point IMO. I definitely support the right of all sides to be heard though, and here we have one side being heard.

> At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion.

I don't know why you think that was the topic, but U.S. monetary aid (and voluminous other support) is hard factual evidence of opinion in the U.S.

> When the media does report it totally lacks any context ...

That's not my experience. The media I read, such as the NY Times, generally (I perceive - subjectively, sans data) provides context when it supports Israel, and omits it when it's critical of Israel. In fact, I think it's the NY Times' biggest flaw by far.

> here we have one side being heard

Israel's side isn't heard in American news media? Seriously? That's laughable. Look at the NY Times op-ed page, any day (or any day there is something in the news about Israel). And Murdoch publications Fox and the WSJ also support Israel. What major opinion source does not?

I'm not really talking about American news media specifically. I don't read the NYT or the WSJ or watch Fox News. These are all anecdotes. I respect your perception but the news I consume don't seem to behave the same way. Naturally I have my own biases here.

This seems to be a fairly decent article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%...

No conclusion.

This is interesting: https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2012/02/03/ame...

"A random check carried out this week showed that there is one citation on Google News for every 50,000 Chinese or Indians, 20,000 Bangladeshis, 8,000 Pakistanis, 5,000 Russians, 3,400 Egyptians (in the midst of horrific soccer riots) or 1200 Syrians (although the regime in Damascus is doing its best to improve its rankings by steadily decreasing the number of living Syrians). But it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."

EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...

> I'm not really talking about American news media specifically. I don't read the NYT or the WSJ or watch Fox News.

Well, you keep moving the goalposts. I'm sticking with those goalposts, which are the leading news sources in the most important country by far in regard to Israel.

> This seems to be a fairly decent article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/ ...

Seriously? Wikipedia? What basis is there for saying it's decent? But the NYT and WSJ aren't worth your time?

> "... it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."

Singled out implies intent, which there's no evidence of. Are Americans highly interested in Israel and not interested in much of the world? That's not news, nor does it show any bias for or against Israel.

Americans are more prone to this kind of thing because they're already used to overriding settler-colonial propaganda influencing their mindset; Zionist propaganda is just another flavor.

Lots of countries have similar sorts of histories I think; while I'm sure what you say is part of the equation, I think it doesn't fully explain why Americans are much more likely to support Israel than people in other countries (for instance, Australia.) I think another piece of this puzzle is the popularity of Evangelical Christianity in America, particularly Christian Zionism and the belief that the state of Israel is a necessary precondition for the return of their Messiah. That's the sort of rhetoric I was raised with anyway.

It's rooted in British Israelism [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

That's an absolutely wild read. I've never heard of this before today, thanks.

It is hard to say Israel has less right to the land it took over than say New Zealand. The main difference is how long ago the settling happened.

Yes, that's correct.

Except Pakeha aren't carpet-bombing Maori in droves.

New Zealand is a bad example to use, given that it's one of the few cases where settlement was based on a non-coerced treaty intended to actively integrate the native people as equal citizens with the settlers. While the NZ government later spent about a hundred years ignoring the treaty and treating the Maori badly, the treaty itself, the process that led to it, and the actions of the settler leaders at the time of its signing had a legitimacy that most other cases of colonization and settlement (including that of Israel) have generally lacked.

Israel has a lack of legitimacy?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Pla...

In that case Israel should follow New Zealand's example and allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews, stop with the racism and start behaving like the progressive country they pretend to be.

Perhaps they ought to set up their constitution to have a military pledged to the maintenance of a purely secular state that will overthrow any overtly religious government, no matter the electoral margins they earned when getting installed.

Or they could do what Lebanon does and have some mandatory representation from all ethnic groups in all important public institutions. There are definitely ways to make this work, if there is a true willingness to live in peace.

Lebanon doesn't seem like such an appealing model ...

What are you talking about? Arabs ARE represented in the Knesset.

> a military pledged to the maintenance of a purely secular state that will overthrow any overtly religious government

That's an idea with a very bad history and no political legitimacy: What grounds does a general have to tell their neighbors what to do? Nobody voted for them. What stops the general from arbitrarily wielding that power?

Why vest that power in the military? A civilian institution could make the decision, such as a court interpreting a constitution.

I think you're being naive because the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend. What would make it legitmate is that the people agreed to it ahead of time.

> the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend

Maybe in your fantasies, but not in advanced democracies. Nobody would follow those orders; there's no evidence of it ever happening, in centuries. Technically, the people of Washington DC have the power to overthrow the government if they all rush the seats of power at the same time, but really they don't.

There have been hundreds of coup d'etat and attempts at such in "advanced democracies." And if you're trying to claim they aren't advanced if they haven't had a coup d'etat then there's just no true Scotsman, is there?

When? Where? I suppose it could depend on definitions of 'advanced' democracies, but it ain't happening in the modern US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, Canada, Australia, etc. etc.

> allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews

If that happened, then Palestinians would outnumber Jews and could dominate the country democratically. I can understand the potential for discrimination.

That's why the two state solution is often considered the only just solution: Both groups each have a country in which they are the majority.

The Israeli right rejects the two state solution, and clearly they reject being a minority, so that only leaves oppression of Palestinians (which is awful and unjust, to avoid any doubt).

> the progressive country they pretend to be

Israel hasn't pretended to be progressive in awhile. Netanyahu and some of his predecessors made no pretenses about it.

>If that happened, then Palestinians would outnumber Jews and could dominate the country democratically

This is only a problem because they want a religious ethnostate, not a secular democracy.

Apartheid south africa wanted the same thing.

> The Israeli right rejects the two state solution, and clearly they reject being a minority, so that only leaves oppression of Palestinians (which is awful and unjust, to avoid any doubt).

Actually I'm fairly sure it could have happened at some point if it hadn't been loudly rejected by Arabs.

> The Israeli right rejects the two state solution

It's the PA who always refused to discuss peace, you should check your facts.

Arabs can be full Israeli citizens, many are being one of the main political parties is an Arab party.

Or do you mean citizens in Palestine? Why would Israel make the Palestinians in Gaza full citizens when That’s separate territory from Israel?

> Why would Israel make the Palestinians in Gaza full citizens when That’s separate territory from Israel?

1) most of Palestine and Palestinians are not in Gaza, bug in the West Bank

2) if Palestine is separate territory from Israel, why Israel builds its roads and cities on it?

You never answer my question - why would Israel give full citizenship to people in Gaza and let’s add on top parts (Area C) of the West Bank entirely controlled by the Palestinian Authority?

And the funny part is, the reason Israel control parts of the West Bank is because they were attacked in 3 wars (1948, 1967, 1972) and won.

You are not going to get any answers and your questions/responses will be downvoted and hidden because you are questioning the propaganda

And it comes down to it: the logic of progressivism inherently demands the end of Israel because it can’t conscience the notion of an ethnostate.

I'm not sure this is the mic drop you think it is, since what you're pushing back on here is the idea that Palestinians living in Israel should be allowed to simultaneously remain in their homes and have full political rights and agency. Which of those two things do you disagree with?

You're excluding the middle a lot in these comments, suggesting that the only two valid perspectives on this conflict are "Israel must be an exclusionary ethnostate" and "Hamas is a legitimate actor". It's possible to disagree with both of those statements. People who stick up for Hamas are dumb. Ethnostates are immoral.

There’s nothing immoral about ethnostates. Not every country needs to be a multiethnic democracy like the US. I agree certain human rights must be respected, but there’s nothing wrong with Israel being structured as a homeland for Jews. To assert otherwise is to elevate notions of non-discrimination above the right to self-determination. My parents’ generation fought a war with Pakistan to have a home for Bangladeshis. (The ethnic group is in the name of the country!) If there was any risk of Bangladeshis losing political control of the country, they’d be entirely within their rights to prevent that.

>Ethnostates are immoral.

Following this logic you may also believe families are immoral.

In fact I do not.

End of Israel _as an entho-state_, which is not necessarily end of Israel as a state.

If Nazi Germany could turn into regular Germany, one of the most progressive nations on Earth, so can anyone else.

> If Nazi Germany could turn into regular Germany,

It didn’t, really; it was destroyed, and the destroyers erected states of their own design on its ruins.

Israel hasn’t picked fights with the right people for it to end up the way Nazi Germany did if it loses.

Israel is an ethnostate. Ending that would mean it’s not Israel.

> In that case Israel should follow New Zealand's example and allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews,

This would have been somewhat reasonable if it hadn't been for the fact that Jews have been driven out from neighboring countries in larger number than Arabs from Israel.

There's a little difference though... There wasn't an English state in New Zealand since about 10th century BCE.

If we say you can claim land your people held in the 10th century the globe is in trouble.

"in" and "since" is somewhat different. Do Chinese have a claim on China? Do Japanese have a claim on Japan? Are Spaniards OK to live in Spain? Are Jews ok to live in Judea?

Looks like for all of these questions the answer is "duh, yes for sure" - except for the last one. I wonder...

The Romans destroyed the Jewish state and renamed the area. I don't celebrate that but I'm sure that there has not been a Jewish state since the 10th century. That is the difference.

That’s a hilarious assertion. One of the things we found puzzling when we moved here was why Americans spent so much time in school studying all the bad things the country did. Totally bizarre to us, coming from Asia.

Why wouldn't we want to learn from our mistakes? Ignoring past mistakes is a recipe to repeat them.

German students are taught about the Holocaust for the same reason.

I’m making a different point. The idea that Americans whitewash their history is absurd compared how kids are educated in nearly the whole rest of the world.

Which bad things should we stop studying in school?

I don’t have any issues with teaching about American history and things that were done that were wrong (in hindsight or at the time).

But what you might be referring to is this bizarre self-flagellation that has grown in popularity which focuses exclusively on the errors and ignores any of the good things about America.

My personal opinion is it’s because the people doing it want to remake America - throw away the old and create a “more just” society (obviously following their politics).

If you can use this self-criticism to destroy the foundation of America (through association) you can get rid of those pesky ideals preventing you from transforming society. Things like individual freedom, personal responsibility, inalienable rights, judging the individuals by their own actions and not the sins of their ancestors, etc.

Do you not realize how dumb this makes you sound?

Hacker News is for a different sort of discussion than this, as the site guidelines make clear: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You can't break them like this, regardless of how dumb something sounds or you feel it sounds. We ban accounts that do that, and since you've already done this at least once elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642465) I've banned this account.

If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Jews and christians were there before Islam even existed and Arabs invade. Talking about propaganda, indeed the craziest of the world is Pallywood because it's so blunt, using takkia like this will give good points to go to heaven faster.

I'm from Algeria so I could go on all day long and even complain about the Arabs of FLN who stripped my grand parents from their lands.

But instead, I'd rather complain about how silly a lot of people are, eating pallywood propaganda without a single doubt, I mean, it's not like this article was showing the posts in question at all, the mere partial description they made of it are tailored to correspond the propaganda, really is there someone to believe that using the word "resist" online is enough to get an Israeli arrest?

> I will not succumb to the “peaceful solution,”

Yeah, maybe they were arrested for incitation because of the part that was before the "resist" line pointed by this article. So that's some nice takkia right there, all this to get some good points, and y'all fall for it like school kids, that's so cute!

as an israeli jew that gets shouted down and banned from every platform where a pro-palestinian opinion is present, i can tell you i can easily assemble similiar facts about the "erasure" of Israeli opinion while violent anti-semitic and ofter plain murderous opinions stay online (especially if you consider arabic language media)

> As an American Jew... The troubles that face Israelis have always been amplified over those of Palestinians in my experience.

As an American Jew, what experience do you have of the troubles that face Israelis or Palestinians?

As an Israeli who lives in the Southern part of Israel, and who lived here during the Second Intifada, I think you would change your mind if you walked a mile in my shoes.

I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been absorbed by social justice movements in the USA and people apply it to the BLM movement. It just does not fit the same narrative no badly how much Americans and Europeans want it to, but it is terribly convenient to pretend and act as though it is.

If you sincerely walked a mile in the Palestinian side of your shoes, you would say the complete opposite.

Note that the Israeli right-wing's biggest supporters in the US are Christian Evangelicals, not Jews. Most Jewish Americans vote Democrat and are liberal.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...

American democrats and liberals strongly support israel too.

Yes, but they don't support the Israeli right wing, as specified in the GP.

Can you share with us the most egregious example of a war crime committed by Israel that caused you to change your view?

Please be specific about the laws, actions, and outcomes that resulted in the crime.

Apartheid is sufficient.

[citation needed]

there's an Arab party in the Israeli government _as_we_speak_.

You got me!

Most recently, bombing the offices of multiple news outlets during a conflict comes to mind. But what made me change my mind was actively seeking out Palestinians to talk to one on one after a close friend told me I was racist. This isn’t particularly profound or anything, but a now very close friend of mine talked to me about how she could barely see her family in Palestine and that I could get a free trip and citizenship with no connection to the land because I was Jewish. That seemed so completely bonkers to me and still does.

> Most recently, bombing the offices of multiple news outlets during a conflict comes to mind.

to steelman the assertion, will you pick one of the targets you are referring to and tell us what Israel says about the reason for the target? also, can you discover if Israel warned the people in the building they targeted about the action and gave them time to evacuate?

i understand if you don't want to steelman the assertion, so i'll try to do that for you if you can pick just one action you are referring to.

> friend of mine talked to me about how she could barely see her family in Palestine and that I could get a free trip and citizenship with no connection to the land because I was Jewish.

are you referring to the "Law of Return" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return)?

if so, are you suggesting that this law amounts to "war crimes that happen in clear view"?

why can your friend "barely" see her family? is it that she can't afford a trip but Jews get to go for free paid by the Israeli government?

Good step, but keep in mind you will have to stay in repentance all your life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com