Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The intended spirit is curious, respectful conversation in which we learn from each other. Yes, that is hard when emotions run strong, but hard != impossible, and it's what the site rules ask: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Now that's new. Israel started Internet censorship in 2017.[1] Initially it was limited to "terror group websites, online illegal gambling, prostitution services, hard drug sales". At the time, "due to warnings from rights groups that the law poses a slippery slope toward additional censorship, the final version of the legislation dictates that rights groups may appeal the decisions."
Then, in 2021, there was the "Facebook bill", authorizing very broad censorship.[2] That does not seem to have passed. It was first proposed in 2016, almost passed in 2018 [3], tried in 2021, and tried again in 2022. It doesn't seem to have passed.
But something new happened recently. Wikipedia has a note at Censorship in Israel: "This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: New ban issued by the knesset on foreign media channels. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (April 2024)"[4] The Knesset gave the government the authority to ban foreign media on April 1, 2024.[5]
This isn't just about preventing outside media from reporting from Israel. It keeps Israelis from viewing media the government doesn't like. Haarez has good coverage.[6]
The US White House press secretary issued a weak statement condemning Israel's action, but it was on April 1st and the costumed Easter Bunny overshadowed that statement.[7]
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/to-tackle-online-crime-israel-...
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/proposed-censorship-bill-more-...
[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israel-nearly-destroyed-fr...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel
[5] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israels-knesset-approve...
[6] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-05/ty-article/is...
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
Wow you can't make this stuff up
One of the reasons he says he stopped making his first series, The Thick of It, was that UK politicians became parodies of themselves. There was nothing left to make fun of. Then the same thing happened to his American incarnation, Veep.
I do like that Hunt for Red October has the Russians all speak Russian until one of them says a crucial word that's the same in English, and from there it's all English. "Armageddon". This submarine is capable of ICBM launch, starting World War III, and in the resulting ashes English or Russian would not matter.
Source: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/amp/ann-force-one-v...
This generally ensures that they have absolutely no clue what they are doing, or qualifications for the job, and hence can be used as a scapegoat, while central government pretends it's not involved or to blame...
(And it also scuppered various plans to combine some police forces to improve efficiency, save costs etc)
A while ago I came to the conclusion this is true in general of almost all politicians. What triggered it was the conservative side of Australian politics have been fighting the good fight against climate change activism and renewables in particular for 15 years now. Currently they are pushing SMR's as the solution to climate change. As far any anyone can tell it's a delaying tactic because they know they won't work.
The conservatives have held the levers of power federally 8 of the last 24 years, so obviously Australia must be a basket case when it comes to shifting to renewables - right? As best they have slowed it down, slightly. Australia leads the world in roof top solar, and coal plants are being closed at record rates. Similar examples could be raised for the other side of politics, particularly in education.
Apparently leading the country isn't what politicians do if you look at outcomes, because evidently no one is actually doing what they command. Instead in Western Societies optimising our way around the laws they make. Which is probably just as well, because as far as I can tell the pollies don't anything notably well, and that includes playing politics. That's probably true for the very reason you give, they are elected in a way that doesn't select for qualifications, skill or competence.
That raises a question, as it appears countries who elect their politicians based on something other than competence nonetheless do well economically. Under the Westminster system decision making seems to be deferred to private enterprise and a government bureaucracy that overseas the rules private enterprise operates under. To me that says the politicians must doing something else that is useful. That would be to "take the blame", as you say. We elect them with high hopes, we blame and abuse them for everything that goes wrong for 10 years or so, then replace them with a new punching bag. Behind the scenes the people who actually capable of running the country get to keep their jobs for decades.
In the recent movie "Golda" (which I recommend), Golda Meir gives a piece of advice to an up and coming military commander Benjamin Netanyahu: "they will make you prime minister, but remember the career of every politician ends in failure".
Also, I think a few other Arab countries like Egypt have blocked/banned Al Jazeera.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/rts-purchase-of-cana...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rt-channels-unique-carriage-dea...
I wonder if other countries were the same.
Probably more than half the channels on a typical American cable system are paying to be there. Especially the stuff in the basic tiers.
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-sputnik-illegal-eu...
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-rt-b...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/01/youtube...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-google-blocks-r...
Because they think the EU audiances are stupid?
In Italy the current defence minister is personally earning considerable amount of money by sending weapons to Ukraine, because he's also an owner and manager of companies that make said weapons.
Do you think they'd want to favour open discussions?
No. In fact besides RT being banned, they want to be able to block any website, giving providers 30 minutes to implement the ban, no appeal and no oversight from a judge (https://stop-piracy-shield.it/)
FUD is the reason why Russian liars are banned from EU.
How are you not aware of this? It's been a few years already.
The EU ruled on this.
Here's my personal experience with this:
Germany does exactly what you describe, the bare minimum to say "we're blocking" --- DNS omitting certain sites.
Spain is doing deep packet inspection, blocking DNS requests that lookup RT, so DNS over HTTPS or through a VPN is a must. Additionally, they're also reading the SNI in TLS requests and blocking that way. If you try accessing RT in pure unencrypted HTTP you're get some fortigate blocking message back.
See discussion further down thread, but basically the block in Sweden seems to be on the ISP level and depends on which ISP you have. I can access rt.com via work wifi, but not not over mobile data via Telia. Another user who has Telia as their home ISP cannot access rt.com from home either.
Personally, I'm critical of the Israeli government but I think it's in their right to try to control information flow as they are in process of driving people from their homes and mass killing people in retaliation of a terrorist attack that claimed the lives of over thousand innocent people.
I really dislike glorification war and pretending that it has rules or honour or something like that. People are taking lives en masse and its more than normal to try to control the information flow when doing it.
If genocide is illegal than covering up would be the only logical move. Therefore it would be normal.
Genocide is outlined in the Genocide convention from 1948[1]. It is short so I’ll give you the whole definition here:
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> (a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Genocide is illegal under international humanitarian law, there is no justification admissible for the crime of genocide. It is not normal to cover it up. Israel is currently being investigated by the ICJ for the crime of genocide. Israel has argued that whatever it is doing in Gaza is not genocide.
1: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Prevention_...
The context of the convention needs to be understood in the general context and especially in the context of a war (though of course they don't "exist" only in that context). And wars are awful.
(not saying what Israel is doing is correct or even adequate - but generalizing terms helps nobody)
Sadly for the Israelis, they have a cabinet of the kind of people who just cannot help themselves from communicating intent.
Just because the US got away with genocide doesn't mean any other nation should. The American people should be jailing their own war criminals, and then go after those of Russia and Israel and the UK and Ukraine and so on. However, war crimes are good for (American) business. See also: the military support of the genocide of Yemen by a known fascist totalitarian-authoritarian dictatorship.
Madeleine Albright should have been frog-marched into The Hague for justifying the US-sanctioned deaths of over 500,000 children. [1], [2]
The extremely deceptive, duplicitous individuals in PNAC are the ones who lied and scammed the American public into funding the destruction of Iraq, and countless other sovereign states in the Middle East, in order to be able to refactor those states according to American interests.
This is why the USA illegally occupies 1/3rd of Syria's sovereign territory (its oil fields) in order to deny the Syrian people the resources they need to rebuild their country.
It is why Libya was destroyed, why Iraq was destroyed, why Afghanistan was left in utter ruin. Its why Yemen suffered a genocide widely ignored by the West.
This is why the USA funds and supports ISIS as a "fifth column" (See also: Operation Gladio[3]) in the region, in order to fight wars without the approval of Congress. Note that Gladio is still in effect as official US military doctrine - under different names now, but the modern manifestations go all the way back to the original Gladio doctrine.
It would be very important for you to understand who PNAC are and what their very clearly stated intentions are - these are the fascist oligarchs whose dogma allows the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get away with mass murder. Real, actual mass murder, not hyperbole, of cultures deemed culturally inferior by Americas oligarchic ruling class.
Note that, even if Americans are not aware of these things, the rest of the world is, and is - I believe - a motivating force behind the rise of BRICS and the general anti-American sentiment that exists outside the Anglosphere bubble.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...
If you're including indirect causes too, such as a rise in sectarian violence, deprivation, and increased criminality then, yes, but that's a different statement.
If you do think Israel is committing a genocide, I think one thing you have to do is demonstrate how what Israel is doing is different from any other war (e.g. war on ISIS, Afghanistan, Iraq as obvious examples).
The statute makes the difference pretty clear - it's the intent to kill some (definable) part of the members of the group. This is not the case with Israel given its current actions and lack of actions; it could kill far more people if it decided to, militarily speaking. (I say this not because Israel deserves any "credit" for not killing more people, obviously, only to make it clear that the reason more aren't killed isn't because of lack of capability, but because of lack of desire to kill more).
Of course, you might disagree with me. If you don't have some kind of way to distinguish between what Israel is doing and what e.g. the US did in Iraq, you can just bite the bullet and say that all wars are genocide. That would be a consistent POV, but that would also effectively render the concept of Genocide meaningless.
As to why they don't massacre every living Palestinian in Gaza if they really want to do so - Israel still depends significantly on external support, most notably from US, but also from European countries. Thus even if intending to commit genocide, they have to do so in a plausibly deniable way.
There were a few statements, mostly made very early in the war, most of them ambiguous. These are horrible, but fairly similar to most war-time propaganda in most countries.
They're also dwarfed by the many, many statements almost all of them made that quite explicitly clarified that that isn't what they want, and that the only goal is to remove Hamas while trying to minimize harm to civilians.
Btw, this is less true of ethnic cleansing - there is a minority, but influential, part of the government that is, at the very least, hinting strongly at ethnic cleansing. I find it despicable and am convinced the majority of Israelis would never go along with this, but those statements by those (despicable) "leaders" are recent.
> As to why they don't massacre every living Palestinian in Gaza if they really want to do so - Israel still depends significantly on external support, most notably from US, but also from European countries. Thus even if intending to commit genocide, they have to do so in a plausibly deniable way.
This is an unfalsifiable statement. People have been claiming for most of my life that Israel is either committing genocide, or wants to, and is only held back by foreign powers. A genocide hasn't occurred so far, and I believe very strongly that Israel will never do so. But you can always say "oh well, they just can't because other people are keeping them in check". OK - so what kind of evidence would convince you that that's not true?
Bezalel Smotrich, finance minister, for example: "We need to encourage immigration from there. If there were 100,000-200,000 Arabs in the Strip and not two million, the whole conversation about the day after [the war] would be completely different".
Remember, these are people whose entire nation is Palestine. He's certainly not suggesting that Palestinians be accepted as refuges in Israel, and he has also been actively taking land in the West Bank, so is not proposing they go there either. In the Knesset in September 2021 he told an Arab Knesset member: "You’re here by mistake, it’s a mistake that Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and didn’t throw you out in 1948".
The most charitable interpretation of this so far is that he only wants a "forcible transfer of population" (Article 7 of the Rome Statue of the ICC - a crime against humanity) instead of a genocide. However, those statements can be coupled with actions:
* While people in Gaza were suffering famine, he issued an order blocking flour into Gaza. * Half of Gaza's population is squeezed into a tiny corner, Rafah, by Israeli actions. Smotrich has called for: "No half jobs. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat, total and utter destruction". So he is calling just there for killing half of the Gaza population, which he has made clear, he doesn't want to continue to exist in Gaza.
I think all of this together is quite solid evidence that Smotrich is inciting genocide with intent to destroy at least part of the Palestinian nation. Others are even more extreme. For example, Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza to wipe out everyone there.
> The following acts shall be punishable:
>
> (a) Genocide;
> (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
> (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
> (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
> (e) Complicity in genocide.
Bezalel Smotrich is deffinetly guilty of (c) here, “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide”, but being a member of the Israeli government which is plausibly guilty of (a), a government who’s several members are also guilty of (c), including the Prime Minister himself. it is very likely—though we don’t know this yet—that he, other Israeli officials, and generals in the Israeli military, are also guilty of (b) “Conspiracy to commit genocide”.
Even in the most charitable interpretations of Smotrich’s words, he, and other members of the Israeli governments, are plausibly guilty of (e) “Complicity in genocide” as Israel has a duty to protect Palestinians from Genocide, but still allowing genocidal actions to unfold in Gaza, while not punishing offenders, nor even stepping down their rhetoric.
There was so many of them, over 500, that it was actually necessary to set a database to track them all. See https://law4palestine.org/law-for-palestine-releases-databas...
I've read this site multiple times. While some statements there are horrible (and I never said there weren't), many are really taken out of context and/or exaggerated. And most are very early in the war, as I said.
Also, to get to such large numbers, they are putting in statements from random infantry soldiers, random journalists, etc. If you want the list that's actually somewhat relevant, I think only the decision makers one is (22 statements there), maybe parts of the army personnel. Is it really relevant to include "public expressions" made by a football player, or the Australian Jewish association? Does that make sense to call it an "Israeli Incitement to Genocide"?
Genocide is serious crime, and when it is plausible that a genocide is being committed, any incitements to further it are criminal, and need to be punished, if these acts are not punished, or worse, dismissed as not relevant, you are at best complicit. But the fact that genocidal conduct continues on the ground, and officials are not backing down their rhetoric, and are not punishing genocidal actions, it is reasonable to assume that genocide is also the intent of the people in charge.
There isn't a single item on that definition that hasn't been reported and evidenced on numerous times by the limited press coverage. To bring the conversation back to the article.
The argument that it could kill more is ridiculous. Israel is clearly killing as many as it believes the international community will let it, without becoming a pariah state. Deliberately, and indiscriminate killing or maiming of 5% of a population is not trivial.
I find it difficult to classify what is happening as a war. The disparity in power, control and access to military and other means is to disparate. Like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc it's transparent one side is doing it because they can, and without regard for anything but their own satisfaction and revenge.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/tfrh17/the_internati...
Israel is actively doing most of the points above against an effectively unarmed and blockaded group of people. US was fighting against actual armies whichever their quality. Israel claims “hamas” and kills indiscriminately, there is no footage of “hamas” army with any heavy military equipment, israel actively causes famine, destroys all hospitals, creates mass graves that have victims with hands tied behind their backs. Israel official claim their desire to kill everyone.
They simply cannot do it immediately because they are doing it with western financial and military support which would evaporate because you can only do propaganda so much.
You are just factually wrong on many of your points.
It's true that Hamas isn't a traditional military with heavy equipment, but they are a 30k strong insurgent group that has had years to plan their defense. They've built tunnel complexes that are said to be larger than the NY Subway and hide in them, coming up to ambush soldiers.
If your view of what is happening is that the IDF is going around shooting at civilians, then you're just incorrect about what is actually happening on the ground for the last many months.
If you look at videos that Hamas themselves post, you can see them constantly attacking soldiers, collapsing buildings on soldiers, placing munitions on tanks to blow them up, etc.
> [Israel] destroys all hospitals,
Absolutely not true. Israel hasn't destroyed hospitals, definitely not all of them, despite this being commonly claimed.
There was one hospital that saw a week of fighting between Hamas and the IDF. After that week, much of it was destroyed. This btw goes against your point that Hamas is effectively unarmed. But while most other hospitals have seen attacks around them and many have been ordered evacuated, they aren't destroyed. (Some are damaged, to be fair - but hospitals are pretty big, and there's a world of difference between "some hospitals have been damaged" and "Israel has destroyed all hospitals".)
> israel actively causes famine
I think Israel has acted horribly around humanitarian aid, yes. This has largely changed recently, thankfully.
> creates mass graves that have victims with hands tied behind their backs.
This was recently reported and hasn't been investigated. Many things later turn out to not be what was claimed by the Gazan authorities (Hamas) who are playing a disinformation campaign. Israel says this mass grave was made by Palestinians. Neither you nor I know the truth of this. I highly doubt it was Israel, if those people are civilians. If it was Israel, that would most definitely be a war crime as far as I can tell.
> Israel official claim their desire to kill everyone.
Not true, and I've talked about this in another comment in this thread.
> They simply cannot do it immediately because they are doing it with western financial and military support which would evaporate because you can only do propaganda so much.
OK. But that's an unfalsifiable statement. You can always say that Israel is "just about" to do more. Do you think Israel has more support now or 6 months ago right after the October 7th attacks? I think it has far less support, which was entirely predictable. So why wait so long? What kind of evidence would convince you that Israel doesn't want to engage in genocide, if not doing it when it had more support isn't strong enough evidence?
So yeah "the bigger bully also kills people" might be an effective thought-blocking argument, but that is only the case because that bully has been effectively thought-blocking any inspection of its war crimes by the people, who ultimately pay for them.
Yes, the US should face justice for its war crimes, crimes against humanity, and so on. No, it won't face justice because, instead of frog-marching its war criminals to face justice in The Hague, it has plans to invade The Hague, instead.
Those who support Israels massacre of innocent Palestinians need to be very, very careful about the association with bigger bullies. Just because your allies got away with genocide, doesn't mean you will. (See also: Australia)
This logic is one-dimensional and flawed. Israel is capable of wanting many different things and intelligently balancing their actions to accomplish many different things. For example, if Israel wants to remove all Palestinians from Gaza while also retaining some international allies, they would balance their actions to achieve both, and that would probably look quite similar to what we are seeing.
It's like in chess. I want to capture my opponents pawn, that is a thing I want. That doesn't mean I will sacrifice my queen for the pawn. And if an observer says "he must not want to take that pawn, because he could have taken the pawn with his queen but didn't", that observer would be looking at things in a very one-dimensional way and would be wrong.
Just to remove doubt - I'm genuinely asking. One thing I don't feel I've ever gotten a real answer on is what should Israel have done after the October 7th attack instead of what it did. Not in general about the situation, but specifically on October 7th.
For one thing, they need to let in the thousands of trucks of aid that are held up by their onerous inspection processes. They need the people of Gaza to see Hamas as the source of their troubles and Israel as a source of aid.
It's hard thing to do. I remember listening to Jocko Willink (a US Navy Seal) describe this difficulty in Iraq. They had to work closely with poorly trained Iraqi soldiers to help them become better trained, and they had to go out of their way to obey the rules of engagement. He had to explain to soldiers that their mission was to stabilize Iraq, not just to kill insurgents and survive the next patrol. Some of his soldiers died because of this. Those soldiers wouldn't have died if the US just dropped 2000 pound bombs on everything, but that wouldn't have accomplished the mission of stabilizing Iraq. (I know there's plenty to criticize about the Iraq war, but focus on my point please.)
I don't get the sense that the IDF is doing this. They are all stick, no carrot. Their actions will not reduce the amount of terrorism coming out of Gaza.
Remember when the Israeli hostages tried to get help and surrender? They wave a white flag, they seek help, the IDF just shoots them, and later we all recognize it was a tragedy. Well, that scene has played out hundreds of other times, but hidden, Palestinians getting killed intentionally for no good reason. If my accusations here are true we would expect to see other instances as well, such as blowing up marked international aid vehicles that are actively coordinating with the IDF--the IDF just blows them up anyway, blows up one vehicle, survivors crawl away, minutes later they blow up a second vehicles, minutes later they blow up a third vehicle. Other times, we see things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhVV2_mub84
Maybe I have a blind spot in my news sources, but has the IDF done anything to show the Palestinians that they are friends, or could be friends? I know the IDF tried to give out flour once and ended up shooting several hundred Palestinians and killing about a hundred (the "flour massacre"). Maybe I've missed it, but have they ever tried that again with more success? Have they done anything to help the civilians of Gaza?
These are not actions that will reduce terrorism. These are not actions that will help the people of Gaza learn to live in peace.
I think there are plenty of actions and statements from Israeli political leaders to differentiate between a focused goal of eliminating Hamas and collective punishment and revenge, and it appears punishing all people in Gaza is one of the things they want.
Oh, I absolutely think Israel should've done this, both for strategic reasons and moral reasons. I think Israel should've been showing Gazans (and the world) some amazing innovations in getting aid into a warzone, proving to everyone that it cars more about Gaza's civilians than Hamas does. I think this would've been, not just the moral thing to do, but then smart thing to do.
I just don't think that not doing so means it's committing genocide. It's just undertaking a war like most countries do. War is always awful.
> It's hard thing to do. I remember listening to Jocko Willink [...] He had to explain to soldiers that their mission was to stabilize Iraq, not just to kill insurgents and survive the next patrol. Some of his soldiers died because of this. Those soldiers wouldn't have died if the US just dropped 2000 pound bombs on everything, but that wouldn't have accomplished the mission of stabilizing Iraq.
Yes, I heard this podcast (and I admire Jocko). Israel did something very similar - the first few weeks of fighting were mostly bombings, but the ~5 months after that have been a ground invasion that has gotten IDF soldiers killed (as opposed to more aerial bombardment).
That said, Israel is facing a tougher situation - Hamas is far more entrenched and very innovative in terms of their insurgent operations. You can watch videos by Preston Stewart to get a sense of the kinds of attacks Hamas is doing (a recent one is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFeWC1svUQI). Hamas is moving around dressed as civilians and can plausibly claim to be civilians, right up until the moment they open fire. That's a very hard situation to deal with, leading to many tragic situations.
> Remember when the Israeli hostages tried to get help and surrender, they wave a white flag, they seek help, the IDF just shoots them, and later we all recognize it was a tragedy. Well, that scene has played out hundreds of other times, but hidden, Palestinians getting killed on purpose for no good reason.
Yes, there have been countless tragedies in this war. It's partially the fault of the IDF lowering the bar for shooting, it's partially the fault of Hamas operating in the way that they do (there are cases of them deliberately pretending to be civilians then ambushing soldiers).
> Other times, we see things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhVV2_mub84
That video is utterly without context. I don't remember the exact case (I think Preston Stewart talked about it), but those could literally be armed militants walking to/away from battle. I don't know if Al Jazeera followed this up with any other information.
> These are not action that will reduce terrorism. These are not actions that will help the people of Gaza learn to live in peace.
I don't think Israel is trying to help Gaza learn to live in peace. It's trying to win a war against the Gazan government and military so it doesn't attack again.
The rest of your comment is conjecture and it sounds a bit conspiratorial.
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/09/israel-genocide-gaza-us-aus...
And this was widely reported by the MSM.
Google for the clarification or read the actual text https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203847
> In conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation, Israel shall:
> (a) take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary; and
> (b) ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.
The original ruling is from January 26th 2024 was also orders of provisional measures, but crucially ruled that the court had jurisdiction over the case (Article II, Paragraphs 31-32) and that accusations of genocide were plausible (Article IV, Paragraph 54):
> In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.
The court has not concluded on this case, which means that it is fact still investigating the allegations. I honestly can’t see where my supposed misunderstanding lies.
1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
>In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.. (my emphasis)
Has been widely reported as saying that the allegations of genocide are plausible.
The court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case, and that some of the allegations are plausible. How are they not investigating Israel for the crime of Genocide?
Here is one example: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/comments-at-pro-palest... The police does not know as of yet whether this protestor was guilty of hate crime, but they find it plausible, and are investigating.
Now this example is of a local law enforcement, which has pretty liberal laws on what it investigates. The World Court however needs strong conviction to even accept a case. The court did rule that the accusations are plausible and that they have jurisdiction over it. In other words, they are investigating whether Israel’s conduct falls under the crime of genocide.
I'd like to announce that I'm now investigating @runarberg for <despicable crime>.
it's been a common observation since aischylos that the truth is the first casualty of war
it's quite different to assert that the truth should be the first casualty of war, which seems to be your position
Luckily, all of this complexity can be wallpapered over by cultural conditioning, making the problem essentially vanish (depending on the frame of reference one is observing from, or if one even knows what that means).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Ukrain...
You just prefer your own propaganda.
Not all propaganda is born equal. Antisemitic propaganda pumped out by the Nazis in WW2 was absolutely worse than "keep calm and carry on" propaganda pumped out by the Brits during WW2. Hope that helps.
I mean sure... you, as an outside observer want more "other" people to die for a cause you believe in, but for an individual it's better to know the truth and decide according to that, than to be mislead by lies and propaganda.
> fight a war you believe you'll win... and then die
I can't imagine any sane person is going to blame the Ukrainian media for Russia invading Ukraine, killing Ukrainian soldiers and committing genocide in Ukraine. I imagine they would, you know, blame Russia itself. Lol.
Thanks for the hot takes though, amusing, if not also a little bit sad.
Yeah, i saw the videos of men being kidnapped from the streets, and the articles about european countries trying to forcibly sending men (who managed to escape) back to ukraine, to die for zelensky. Once you're out of volounteers ready to fight, you're not "intent on" anything anymore, but are forcing young (and a bit less young) men to die for politics. And ukraine hasn't had any volounteers for quite a lot of time now.
> I can't imagine any sane person is going to blame the Ukrainian media for Russia invading Ukraine, killing Ukrainian soldiers and committing genocide in Ukraine. I imagine they would, you know, blame Russia itself. Lol.
Ukranian media can be a cause for uninformed men to die in a way, that they would never fight in, if they knew the truth.
So Russia should withdraw.
Anyway seethe more. And keep acting all shocked and outraged that countries produce propaganda during war time when they are attacked. Lol.
If you prefer lines on the map, why not help with the fighting, instead of being a keyboard warrior?
If you are so desperate for Russia to win, why don't you go and join the Russian army and join a meat wave?
> shouldn't ukranian individuals have a choice
Conscription in its various forms is as old as warfare itself. I cannot believe you think Ukraine invented conscription lmao.
If you want to fight russia, you're free to do so, but you shouldn't be able to force others to do so.
> Conscription in its various forms is as old as warfare itself. I cannot believe you think Ukraine invented conscription lmao.
Sure, and it's wrong and should be abolished. Aren't we the ones supporting democracy here? At least you're acting as if you are, as long as ukranian men have no choice but to die in a war you support more than them.
You need to focus your outrage on Russia for invading Ukraine
instead of Ukraine for defending itself.
They explicitly state that Ukraine should stop fighting, i.e., let Russia win.
They state The Independent and Russia Today are two equally trustworthy news sources. That is not serious.
Anyone who says we should support Ukraine is told that we should go and join the Ukrainian army, also ridiculous.
I do not respect such people, so I am being disrespectful, indeed. I do not care, either.
If you think I am being an arsehole, that's fine, you're probably right, but if you cannot see that the other guy is also at least as much of an arsehole as I am, then you presumably have very interesting opinions on the Russian attack on Ukraine, just like he does.
If the democratic majority wants to fight, you have more than enough volunteer soldiers to either win (or lose ~1/2 of your population...). If you can't get any volunteers any more, their opinion on if they want to fight or not is already known, even without a democratic referendum.
...at least if you only count the votes of people whose opinion actually matters here.
instead of Ukraine for defending itself.
Now is the time to prevent forciful conscription in other countries, because our politicians are steering us towards war, and I don't want to die for them. If someone volunteers, sure, if not, then sit down and negotiate.
I don't live in neither russia not ukraine... my outrage went to my (small, eu) country occupying afghanistan and still having soldiers in syria. Sadly noone gave so much weapons and money to afghanistan/syria/libya/... to help them win the war.
My point is if you're going to rage about the war in Ukraine, you should probably rage and seethe about the invader, not criticise Ukraine for defending itself lmao.
If your only problem is that Ukraine has conscription, well so too does Russia, but you only criticise Ukraine, and repeat Russian imperialist/fascist talking points about defending Russians in Ukraine.. so it is very transparent where your sympathies really lie.
>why not help with the fighting
This is a really common refrain from paid Russian trolls. It means that someone cannot argue against an injust invasion unless they fight themselves - which is ridiculous. So you are either a troll, or just stupid. Based on the rest of your comments I'm certain you are a troll. What is really sick is that you claim to be concerned about Ukrainian lives when you are actively supporting their daily massacre.
Instead of arguing, you come with the "paid troll" accusations and personal attacks.. come on.
It's one thing to argue about injustness (especially if you're from one of the coutries that is currently invading some other country, or recently has been, like syria or afghanistan.. like my country did), but you canot argue about ukranians having to die for whatever you consider to be right. If you support any kind of democracy, and if there is noone left who wants to volounteer and fight, the democractic opinion is already known (at least the opinion of those whose opinion should matter). If you believe that dying in this war is worth it, for whatever reason, you can replace a ukranian guy who doesn't believe that.
Your line of argument (idiotic though it is ) is used frequently by trolls because it is very effective at shutting down conversation. You can't threaten violence directly but you would if you could. You are supporting a regime that kills, rapes and kidnaps children (you will deny this because you are a paid troll but it's absolutely clear from your arguments that you do)
Anyway, you are clearly delighted to get more opportunities to repeat it so I will shut up now.
I'm in awe. I'm pro-censorship myself as a general principle (though not in this obviously unjustifiable instance of it), but please be coherent. How come the current semi-popular opinion on HN happens to be pro-censorship, when HN community is against censorship in every other situation?
I just think media is part of the warfare and it’s normal to try to control it during a war. I am anti war in first place, if you don’t want censorship don’t start a war.
The answer to most questions like this is: there are many different users on HN. You might think the "general consensus" of HN is one thing, but you're talking to a specific person commenting on a specific article, who has their own views, not to a generic "HN user".
And note that different threads will have a different makeup of users clicking on it. E.g. I wouldn't necessarily be interested in a random "censorship" thread, but this one is about Israel, so (as an Israeli) I am interested. Since this logic probably extends to other users as well, that will give the thread a specific bias, depending on its subject matter and framing.
It’s not a noble thing, it’s a war weapon.
"WW3" is a conceptualization of existential fear, rather than a singular event. The world rallying to one of two sides to make war (or neutrality), is highly unlikely.
Whatever problems a website or an app is causing can be solved through civil means, but at a war time irreversible damage using deadly weapons can be done before even realizing it.
Italy is passing laws to be able to block websites within 30 minutes, without any oversight from any judge. (more details here, link in italian https://stop-piracy-shield.it/)
Not relevant to the ideals set forth, which our moderns free democracies are based on. This is fundamental, so it's actually worse than when it happens in China.
It’s actually not a sign of intelligence or honesty to be able to squint so hard that you see no meaningful differences between e.g. the US and Russia/Iran/China. It’s just called closing your eyes.
The game is rigged: any political system that allows any voting at all can be "accurately" described as "being democratic", and this (especially when combined with non-stop supplemental propaganda) is more than adequate to satisfy the heuristic based thinking of most people (and to pull the wool over their eyes).
Noteworthy: who sets educational curriculum (which is what enables people to think skilfully about such things) in schools in "democracies"? How likely does it seem that among thousands of people over decades, no one connected to the department of education noticed that the basic skills for practicing critical thinking are not contained within K-12 curriculum?
Again, squinting too hard. American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same.
Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy. Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards. The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay.
a) That depends on which subjective definition you are using, and also whether you realize your definitions are subjective.
b) It isn't possible for you to know what is "necessary" or "ideal", thus you are speculating.
> Again, squinting too hard.
Speaking (and perhaps even thinking) in popular but misinformative catchphrases may not be ideal.
> American democracy is extremely flawed, yes, but no that doesn't make every other self-proclaimed democracy actually the same.
This is true if considered independently (not in the context of this conversation), but what is the "but no" part referring to?
> Your noteworthy note is not that noteworthy.
Your subjective opinion appearing to you as an objective fact is noteworthy.
> Curricula are almost entirely controlled by state and local school boards.
There is how things are supposed to work, there is how things are claimed to work, and then there is how things actually work (and even this is a substantial simplification). Talking about that last one is...culturally frowned upon.
> The federal DOE has extremely limited requirements by design to prevent the exact thing you're accusing them of doing.
Maybe this is part of the problem!
Regardless: I think it is time the public stopped taking all this nonsense lying down, and behaving as if we are helpless observers trapped in a stream of reality in which we have and can have no control over.
From below:
>> Thank you for sharing your opinion!
Very interesting. Is this interesting to you?
> I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay.
When you say "that's okay", what is it you are referring to? Reality?
It's you who is degrading the meaning of these things. You can go experience the difference for yourself.
What is the point of this with respect to the comment it is replying to? Is it intended to be a disproof of some kind?
And while we're at that (comparing Qatar to the US), should we also consider other metrics? Like, oh, I don't know...say Total Body Count on the International Stage? I'm fairly certain being alive is at least as important to most people as Freedom of Speech.
> It's you who is degrading the meaning of these things.
Appeals to the perfection of one's own cognition are getting a bit old. It's 2024 ffs.
> You can go experience the difference for yourself.
Realistically, most people are mostly stuck where they are, and I would rather not engage in illusory thinking about the quality of my country to make myself feel better. But of course, each to his own.
Absolutely wild to be saying "go travel and try to exercise a freedom there" is seen as an appeal to cognition while "I would rather not engage in illusory thinking" is... what exactly?
A non-"pedantic" person might read this and accidentally form the belief that they are not often just rhetorical gotchas, or that they are not artifacts of one's own cognition (which they are....but they are not only that....and, it is fairly well known even by science how unreliable our Narrator of Reality is).
The relative perfection of the US and other "democracies" is what it is, and that perfection is plausibly substantially influenced by the degree to which citizens collectively buy into the stories of how good they are ("if it ain't broke...").
Do you disagree that most people's models of the quality of various governments rest upon a bed of stories? Or another way of asking the question: do you believe that there is an accurate methodology in existence to objectively determine with high accuracy the quality of each nation in this regard (and also that most people utilize such a methodology, as opposed to believing the stories that please them)?
> They do not "barely have meaning" and one can travel to various places on the earth and try simple experiments to prove it.
It's a fair point, but the claim was: "They barely have meaning in political discourse nowadays". There is a difference, and the importance of the difference is very tricky.
> Absolutely wild to be saying "go travel and try to exercise a freedom there" is seen as an appeal to cognition while "I would rather not engage in illusory thinking" is... what exactly?
Also wild: you sidestepping the other metric I mentioned, and leading out with supreme self-confidence. But then, truthfulness and accuracy is perhaps not the game being playing here, considering the topic.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-i...
What you describe is mostly western/NATO rhetoric, after which they can influence the election (which drives them to tears when it supposedly happens back home).
What the fuck even is this? That's like saying Pizza Hut isn't a hamburger shop because they don't sell french fries.
They're not, but that's not the reason!
Right, and it's far from the only one the PRC is lacking. If a tyrannical dictatorship hypothetically permitted free speech, it wouldn't be a democracy. The most conspicuous lacking feature of a democracy in the PRC is the lack of legal competing parties and elections, so it's strange to hear that China isn't a democracy because they don't have free speech.
Incidental to that, free speech as a qualification of democracy is less than cut and dry; every democratic country recognizes some limits to free speech, be that as simple as libel and slander laws, wartime censorship (as America had during WW2), or even hate speech laws like most of the democracies other than America have. If absolute free speech is a prerequisite for having a democracy, then no democracy exists. If you concede some limits, then we're just quibbling the details. Probably, America "" banning"" tiktok still qualifies as having free speech since it's still legal for Americans and American media companies to say nearly anything they like, limited mostly just by slander and libel laws (e.g. infowars getting sued for saying Sandy Hook didn't happen.) Certainly on the spectrum of speech freeness, America is far further on the free side than the PRC where you can get your organs harvested for saying that the government should be replaced. The supposed irony guappa was talking about up-thread is farcical, you have to be out of your mind to think America and China are even remotely close to each other on the speech freeness spectrum.
Competing parties is an indication of a working democracy. Theoretically everyone could agree with a single party to rule. Edge case and very unlikely of course. But there is a reason freedom of opinion is a human right instead of the freedom to have multiple political factions. It isn't comparable.
In contrast to that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental requirement. For parties forming in the first place for that matter. It is a right that can be abused and different countries deal differently with that problem, although the technicalities should be very carefully considered here.
I don't believe TikTok is an essential part to freedom of speech, but it could very well suppress voices otherwise unheard. Even if I disagree with most of them, there is a restriction.
I do believe the decision against it is populist drivel though and I agree that there is a stark difference between China and the US in offering freedoms. China banning foreign platforms is a sign of weakness in their convictions and they are afraid that different ideas would challenge their order.
False information leading to spreading misguided ideas is deadly at wartime because there is no time to address it.
I definitely don’t support Italy blocking websites or the US blocking apps.
If you allow this then the government will just forever find excuses to be at war.
That's just a random recent example. Another older one is the the media going nuts over "WMDs", leading to an unnecessary US invasion and millions of deaths. My point being is that even free press can spread bad ideas and narratives - in fact, it frequently does. And those ideas should be able to be challenged, at any time, by any source.
They attempted at taking back their own lands and they failed. The same people claiming to know the future also used to claim that Russia would not attack and later that Ukraine will fall in matter of days.
Maybe just stop listening to fortune tellers.
Fascinating mental model on how the world works.
Your explanation is not even internally coherent. A successful counteroffensive is a PR win. An unsuccessful one is a PR loss, obviously.
Your argument is dismissible on its own merits and Chomsky believing it as well won't change that, but I am curious if he does.
When we talk about the press and politics these kind of cynical tones are not helpfull. The WMD issue was heavily discussed and debated. The same as Gaza is now, it is interesting what issues manage to be changed by public opinion and what that really is, this is not only an issue with the press. People and groups tend to think that their own opinions should matter, that is only true if you managed to get enough people to care about your opinions and even then you might need a referendum.
You're not responding to the right question at all. You're being asked about the Westerns media not covering the difficulties, losses, and bleak future of the war - justified it seems by the need to support Ukraine.
Censorship for security reasons isn't a new concept.
I think I made it pretty clear that the exception for censorship is only when people are actively killing each other and this is because killing happens fast and its irreversible, therefore tolerances to tackle spread of false information is too small to be allowed.
Also, especially in times of war, there is a heightened interest of people getting news and independent reporting. Any other news isn't worth the read.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/10/26/complete-censo...
Germany has pretty strict laws against "incitement of hatred". Additionally it's illegal to deface, damage or destroy a foreign flag. Also demonstrations and protests need to be registered in advance with proof of proper security and safety measures. Germany is also very biased in favor of Israel and has (like the US) adopted the stance that an attack on Israel is an attack on Judaism. This has led to Jewish anti-Israel protestors being arrested.
In theory it is possible to have a "spontaneous" protest without leaders but in practice this means the police will designate the loudest persons in the crowd as leaders and claim that they organized a protest without a permit and arrest them for that. Also the political bias favoring Israel means pro-Israel counter-protestors are likely to be tolerated more than anti-Israel protests.
And of course anti-genocide is conflated with anti-Israel and pro-Hamas, again like in the US. But yes, most political protests are illegal because they are not formally organized with the authorities (and even with organized protests you often have break-out protests deviating from the permitted route/location or overstaying). From personal experience I can tell you though that unless the police can pin anything on you (e.g. trespassing, resisting arrest, "attacking a police officer"[0]) this usually only ends up with the police roughing you up a bit maybe and then recording your identity before dropping you off somewhere else with a temporary restraining order.
[0]: This is worth mentioning because it explains the low police numbers for injured protestors in Lüzerath compared with the video evidence of police charging unarmed protestors: being injured by a police officer is considered evidence for attacking a police officer as unless there is evidence for the police officer doing anything wrong the assumption is that they followed the guidelines for escalating force, i.e. they must have had a good reason. It's also worth mentioning that in many places riot cops do not have any visible unique identification so reporting any claim of police brutality at a protest is usually fruitless as the alleged perp can not uniquely be identified and you need an individual person to accuse. Protest medics thus have stopped giving detailed statistics as merely keeping a tally would help the police in tracking down "suspects" by visiting the nearby hospitals (which they did e.g. after Lüzerath).
So tl;dr: depending on your demographic, your cause and which police you end up being surrounded by, it's relatively safe to take part in an illegal protest in Germany as long as they can't prove you did anything illegal and don't get hurt.
I would say in practice it's very difficult to have any protest opposing Israel's actions in Gaza without a high risk of ending up in a place where the police decides to dissolve it. But I think in practice the two biggest reasons for that are a) the topic is likely to attract protestors who decide to express opinions that are illegal (or are deliberately interpreted that way) and b) most protests tend to be dissolved by the police eventually because even ones that follow all the rules usually spin off or feed into spontaneous protests that don't.
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/israel-gaza-demonstrations-what-is-all...
Really, objectively, I am wondering what on Earth any country X would do faced with a statement from an enemy Y as in :-
The complete and utter destruction of X as an essential condition for the liberation of Y and the establishment of a religious state based on [ Y's religious theocratic laws ]
Any form of coexistence is clearly not on the table. For the context please read the link in the Atlantic article.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
Giving concessions to the population and offering them an equitable stake in society would go a long way to dissipating support for armed resistance.
It's not a conflict on the same scale but you can look to the resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland for parallels. Denying people their basic chances in life and doing so with the threat of violence it's never going to win people to your side.
At some point you either have to talk to them or kill them all. The situation now is only creating martyrs and enough trauma to fuel the next generation of the cycle.
They elected Hamas
Hamas won a narrow plurality in the 2006 legislative elections. That government dissolved entirely in 2007 after a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah.
So since 2007, Hamas has not been "elected". In any case it's main function since then has been as an instrument of Israeli policy. In Bibi's own words, just a few years ago: "Anyone who wants to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support strengthening Hamas."
So if you are unhappy with Hamas still being around, you know who to direct your concerns at.
Hamas is a creation of Israel
So I think we can wrap up here.
As I'm sure you're aware, this notion that Hamas is (or was, before the IDF demolished it) a puppet for Netanyahu has a lot of currency in online spaces. I don't see you making that argument! But it's worth calling it out. It is fine --- maybe even... dare I say it... good? --- if we say things that we agree on aloud.
‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas
As far back as December 2012, Mr. Netanyahu told the prominent Israeli journalist Dan Margalit that it was important to keep Hamas strong, as a counterweight to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Mr. Margalit, in an interview, said that Mr. Netanyahu told him that having two strong rivals, including Hamas, would lessen pressure on him to negotiate toward a Palestinian state.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
What a guy, that Bibi. He's so cute and smart, you just want to pinch his cheek and ruffle his hair. He funded Hamas to encourage them to fight the PA so they would not work together to create a Palestinian state. What an amazingly bright plan! Sending millions to Hamas? I mean what could ever possibly go wrong?
According to international observers the elections in Gaza that Hamas won in 2007 were democratic and fair:
The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33] The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34] A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections. ... The conduct of the election was widely considered to be free and fair."[45]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
Indeed, the entity that did its best to obstruct the democratic protest was Israel:
In the lead-up to the elections, on 26 September 2005 Israel launched a campaign of arrests against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly those involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods.[23] In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as prisoners.[24]
During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. The Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were also revoked.[25] The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election".[26]
Israeli obstruction during the election resulted in estimated 123,000 voters in East Jerusalem being prevented from registering until ten days before the elections, creating a number of logistical problems shortly before the election day. The checkpoints of Israel also continued to pose serious obstacles to all Palestiniain parties during the electoral campaign as well as on voting day itself. It was also noted that Palestinian refugees in exile and 9,000 prisoners remained ineligible to vote.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
The only problem with the elections was that the Palestinians elected the wrong party. The US, that great champion of liberal democracy around the world, did its utmost best to correct the result: they sponsored, armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup; which backfired and left Hamas in control of Gaza.
The report said that instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. Wurmser said that the Bush administration engaged in a "dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] with victory." Wurmser said he was especially galled by the Bush administration's hypocrisy. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president's call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he said. "It directly contradicts it.".[69]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
Wikipedia has an extensive timeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict#2...
And there is no reason to "go digging" and look for "stories". You can read the wikipedia article I quote above, about the US-backed Fatah coup and follow the sources, which are entirely public and mainstream. One of them is actual Vanity Fair.
US post-election impediments
Just before the January 2006 elections, and after witnessing Hamas' gains in municipal polls, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 575 (December 16, 2005), asserting that terrorist groups, like Hamas, should not be permitted to participate in Palestinian elections until such organizations "recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, cease incitement, condemn terrorism, and permanently disarm and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure."[63] The Palestinian Authority chose to ignore this external decision: "the Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas has favored an unconditional acceptance of Hamas's electoral participation, believing that it could co-opt Hamas within the Palestinian political fold".[64]
The New York Times reported in February 2006 that "The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again. The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election."[65]
Just how much further matters would be taken was revealed in April 2008. Tom Segev (in Ha'aretz) reported:
a "confidential document, a 'talking points' memo,[66] was left by the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Jake Walles, on the desk of Mahmoud Abbas . … According to the paper left behind … he wanted to pressure Abu Mazen to take action that would annul the outcome of the elections that had catapulted Hamas to power. … When nothing happened, Walles … warned the Palestinian president that the time had come to act. Instead, Abu Mazen launched negotiations with Hamas on the establishment of a unity government. … At this point the Americans moved to "Plan B." That was a plan to eliminate Hamas by force. In fact, it was to be a deliberately fomented civil war Fatah was supposed to win, with U.S. help."[67]
There is no one more hated among Hamas members than Muhammad Dahlan, long Fatah's resident strongman in Gaza. Dahlan, who most recently served as Abbas's national-security adviser, has spent more than a decade battling Hamas. ... Bush has met Dahlan on at least three occasions. After talks at the White House in July 2003, Bush publicly praised Dahlan as "a good, solid leader." In private, say multiple Israeli and American officials, the U.S. president described him as "our guy."
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
Some sources call the scheme "Iran-contra 2.0," recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.'s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.[68]
The report said that instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. Wurmser said that the Bush administration engaged in a "dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] with victory." Wurmser said he was especially galled by the Bush administration's hypocrisy. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president's call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he said. "It directly contradicts it.".[69]
The 2008 exposé by Vanity Fair (of plans to reverse the democratic 2006 PA parliamentary elections) confirmed a CF Report of January 2007, over a year earlier, by Alistair Crooke:
Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams ... has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a "hard coup" against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.
Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and "graduated" from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen's security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media.
Of course, in public, Secretary Rice appears contrite and concerned with "the growing lawlessness" among Palestinians, while failing to mention that such lawlessness is exactly what the Abrams plan was designed to create."[70]
In 2016 a 2006 audio tape emerged that contains an interview by Eli Chomsky of the Jewish Press with Hillary Clinton. Clinton opined that pushing for elections "in the Palestinian territories ... was a big mistake", adding "(a)nd if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."[72]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_e...
Also: we all have access to Wikipedia. You don't have to copy and paste whole articles here.
>> There was a 7-day civil war in Gaza, which Hamas technically started (if that matters to you), back in 2007;
No. Fatah started it. The US funded, armed and trained a Fatah faction to stage a coup against Hamas. The coup backfired and Hamas kicked Fatah out of Gaza.
To be perfectly clear: Fatah and Hamas are different, rival organisations. The 2007 Gaza War was started by Fatah, not Hamas.
Again: it's on wikipedia.
>> (one of the reasons Fatah and Hamas got into it was that Hamas replaced all of the PA's governing institutions --- the courts, the school systems, etc --- with Hamas-designed alternatives),
Yes, because they won the election. So they replaced the public officials with their own. Are you suggesting there is something sinister in that?
Also:
1. Most of the current population wasn't born then.
2. Voting for the political wing of a violent group isn't the same as supporting violence. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, are the biggest party in Northern Ireland almost 30 years since the cease fire.
Palestinian poll shows a rise in Hamas support and close to 90% wanting US-backed Abbas to resign
Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated.
(...)
Overall, 88% want Abbas to resign, up by 10 percentage points from three months ago. In the West Bank, 92% called for the resignation of the octogenarian who has presided over an administration widely seen as corrupt, autocratic and ineffective.
At the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion...
But, just to be perfectly clear lest there be some misunderstanding: Palestinians may support whomever they want and whatever they want, that does not justify their endless slaughter and apparent ethnic cleansing by Israel. That is in the same way that the almost universal support of the far right by the Israeli public does not justify terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
This kind of conversation is always about morality, as well as other considerations. The killing of women and children and unarmed men will always elicit moral outrage, as well it should. In a context as inhumane and cruel as the brutal occupation of the Palestinian lands by Israel there is very little safe moral ground that any side can occupy. Hamas are the democratically elected government of Gaza, they are the legitimate resistance against the occupation and at the same time they are the perpetrators of shocking atrocities against Israeli civilians. The Israeli government is democratically elected and enjoys the support of a majority of the Israeli population and the current "war" has the full support of the majority of the Israeli public. The only unassailable moral stance remains to respect the facts on the ground, discuss them as one understands them, and not try to twist them for political reasons. My thoughts anyway.
To make it plain: so what if Palestinians support Hamas? Massacring a defenseless civilian population is never justified.
But hopefully more bombing will fix this soon! Insallah!?
Um, not really. Hamas did. And their radical brethren who assassinated Yitzhak.
It did end up extremely bad for everyone involved.
(I don't want to downplay the anti-Oslo sentiment [0], especially that Oslo I-II got signed despite the attacks previously.
Also it's hard to say how well the PLO represented the people, but it's sure that they were more accepted than Hamas. After all Arafat got elected in 1996 despite participating in the peace process.
It seems fairly clear that the peace process was a very unfortunate Schelling point for extremists on both sides, and their tireless cooperation successfully pushed the region away from peace and prosperity.
And, it's also important to note that it's perfectly possible that Arafat was simply deceitful, and the PLO wanted to get some breathing space to gather an army, blablabla. Sure. And that would/could have lead to ... exactly here anyway. Or maybe it would be even worse! Those are all legitimate concerns that have to be addressed, but very few things can simply make the basic issues irrelevant, and as long as people are there they will inevitably bear the burden of living with those unaddressed issues.)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_views_on_the_pea...
This feels a lot like the American reaction after 9/11 where a great crime was committed but less violent options were rejected by hardliners who wanted to overcompensate for having missed the threat after having made “we will protect you” a major campaign point, and likely also seeing an opportunity for something they could not do following the normal political process. In this case it seems all the more tragic because there’s no natural separation due to distance, and it’s hard to see this not resulting in more tragedies for decades with so much fresh blood to avenge.
Israel should make peace with the Palestinians. It is only Israel that can decide to have peace, because it is the overwhelmingly more powerful side, militarily and in every other way, and even if Hamas put down its weapons and surrendered, there would be no peace if Israel did not agree to it.
And just to be sure this is well understood: Israel does not want peace. Israel has maintained its brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories for years well before Hamas, it has broken ceasefires left and right for years, it has continued to massacre the Palestinians every chance it gets, it has continued to settle more and more of the lands where the Palestinians live, and even when the top leadership of Hamas proposed a long-lasting truce, Israel responded by assassinating them, just in case anyone took them to their word:
According to Tristan Dunning, Israel has never responded to repeated offers by Hamas over subsequent years for a quid pro quo moratorium on attacks against civilians.[176] It has engaged in several tadi'a (periods of calm), and proposed a number of ceasefires.[176] In January 2004, Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin, prior to his assassination, said that the group would end armed resistance against Israel for a 10-year hudna[k] in exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, and that restoring Palestinians' "historical rights" (relating to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight) "would be left for future generations". His views were quickly echoed by senior Hamas official Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, who added that Hamas envisaged a "phased liberation".[178] Israel's response was to assassinate Yassin in March in a targeted Israeli air strike, and then al-Rantisi in a similar air strike in April.[179]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Second_Intifada
And let's not forget that the current leadership of Israel has made it exceedingly clear that it is hell-bent against any ideas of a "two state" solution, that it has complete disrespect for any UN resolutions trying to establish any kind of solution that involves Palestinian independence, and has of course worked hard to reduce the Oslo accords to a farce.
Meanwhile: if we're talking about peace in the context of what happened after October 7, there's no country in the world that would have failed to respond militarily to an attack like that, which was the point of the attack in the first place. Sinwar expected Iran to go all-in on a final war that would wipe Israel off the map; instead, Hezbollah stayed home, and the whole plan fizzled.
The Israel/Palestine situation is widely considered one of the more complicated geopolitical crises, and for good reason. If you think you have a simple summary of it, like "Israel does not want peace", you're probably glossing over a lot of stuff.
For example, I cannot find any information about Ismail Haniyeh having left for Qater with his merry band of revelers because of Sinwar. The scant information we have about the support of Hamas among Palestinians suggests that Hamas is popular enough among Palestinians in Gaza, and certainly in the West Bank, that if there was another election they would easily win it [1].
The same goes for the Israeli government. Certainly everyone agrees that Bibi is doing everything he can to prolong the war to save his ass, but at the same time his government coalition enjoys the support of a majority of the Israeli voters, whom, after all, it represents [2] [3]. And a majority of Israeli civilians support the "war" [4]. Scare quotes because that's not a war but an unhindered massacre of a defenseless civilian population.
>> Sinwar expected Iran to go all-in on a final war that would wipe Israel off the map; instead, Hezbollah stayed home, and the whole plan fizzled.
There is absolutely no reason to assume any of that is true. We do not know what were the strategic goals that Hamas had in invading Israel. They have given some reasons but they're not exactly a trustworthy source so the best thing to do is to avoid launching into wild speculation.
_______________
[1] Palestinian poll shows a rise in Hamas support and close to 90% wanting US-backed Abbas to resign
Overall, 88% want Abbas to resign, up by 10 percentage points from three months ago. In the West Bank, 92% called for the resignation of the octogenarian who has presided over an administration widely seen as corrupt, autocratic and ineffective.
At the same time, 44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion...
[2] The Israeli public has embraced the Smotrich doctrine
The terrifying Smotrichization of the Israeli public is embodied in the total willingness to sacrifice the lives of every last Palestinian in Gaza for the ultimate victory that the far-right minister promised in his plan. It is the terrifying indifference to the astronomical number of dead children, and the complete internalization of the idea that any thought of struggle and freedom on the other side of the fence must be extinguished, no matter the human cost.
https://www.972mag.com/smotrich-decisive-plan-israeli-public...
[3] How Israeli youth helped usher in the farthest right-wing government ever
Recent polling backs that surprising observation: A joint poll published by the Israel Democracy Institute last month found that 73 percent of Jewish Israelis between ages 18 and 24 identify as right-wing, compared with only 46 percent of Jewish Israelis over 65. Young Jewish Israelis are showing up to rallies and polling stations for the extremist politicians whose November electoral victory ushered in Israel’s farthest right-wing government ever.
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/2/23/23609584/israel...
[4] As trauma of October 7 massacres endures, Israeli support for Gaza war remains high
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-trauma-of-october-7-massacr...
Israel’s military is now launching targeted strikes in eastern Rafah, Reuters and AP reported citing a statement. Israel says it is striking Hamas targets in the region. But more than 1 million displaced Palestinian people have sought refuge in Rafah amid Israel’s attacks in Gaza, the Washington Post reported.
Hamas says it has accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal to halt the seven-month war with Israel. It issued a statement on Monday saying its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had delivered the news in a phone call with Qatar’s prime minister and Egypt’s intelligence minister.
An IDF spokesperson said Israel will continue to act in a “operational manner” in Gaza despite Hamas announcing that it accepted a Gaza ceasefire deal on Monday. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said Israel is going to continue to act in an operational manner, saying earlier that Israel has a right to defend itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/may/06/israel-ga...
Israel does not want peace and there is nothing simplistic in that observation.
I don't think you're going to find many people to take the other side of your "Netanyahu is a monster" argument. The IDF has crushed Hamas militarily. There was no reason for Netanyahu not to accept a ceasefire on any terms that gave hostages back. This is why the streets in Israel are full of gigantic demonstrations about the return of the hostages.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefir...
I don’t think Netanyahu on his own is able to reject this deal and invade Rafah. Especially with protests in both Israel as well as the USA, and with USA having set a red line here.
No, I think it is wildly simplistic to blame this on him, and there is a deep understanding inside the entire Israeli leadership that the genocide continues, no matter the cost. The Israeli public may not agree with it, however from what I see in the protests, there is very little talk—if any—of the lives of Palestinians. So it doesn’t really seem that Palestinian lives matter as much as the hostages for the Israeli public at large.
If e.g. Benny Gantz were to become the Prime Minister, there is little evidence he would behave any differently, this is for example how he is reacting to Hamas’ accepting of the ceasefire deal:
> “Every decision will be brought before the war cabinet—there will be no political considerations”
> “The military action in Rafah is also an inseparable part of our continued efforts and commitment to return our hostages and change the security reality in the south.”
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/389518
There are not many—if any—political regimes plausible in Israel at the moment who do not take a very hawkish and a criminal approach in denying Palestinians their states. The political reality is that without an intifada, there will be no political avenue for Palestine to gain their freedom from oppression.
There are allegedly 4 remaining combat-ready Hamas battalions (Google the ISW's al-Qassam Brigades Order of Battle for more information than you've ever wanted on this topic), all in or around Rafah. The other 15 battalions have all been disabled. Israel is believed to have killed or captured a full 1/4 of all Hamas fighters, but that figure understates the damage they did to Hamas; for instance, it really seems like they've more or less killed Hamas's entire officer cadre. Hezbollah fought the IDF to a standstill a few years back. Hamas did not repeat the performance. The IDF won, decisively.
Netanyahu's ghoulish neo-Kahanist coalition says things about completely eradicating Hamas, and, yes, about collectively punishing Gazans (this whole thing about Hamas being the duly elected representatives of Gaza is one of their talking points). But they're incompetent and these aren't military goals. If you killed literally every Hamas fighter, they'd be in approximately the same place: within 10 years of rehabilitation as a combat force given the same 9-figure p.a. disbursals they get from the IRGC and Syria.
There's a persuasive argument that Netanyahu needs this conflict to stay hot in order to stay in office; his incentives are very like those of the US's ex-President: being in office prevents his prosecution and eventual imprisonment (not unprecedented in Israel). I don't put it past him. Nixon probably prolonged the Vietnam War for electoral reasons. People do awful things.
I'm just saying: there's no coherent security reason for them to continue active combat operations. I think the Al-Aqsa Flood Attack is somewhat like the 9/11 hijackers storming the cockpits; it worked once, but it's never going to work again.
But, of course, Sinwar is no better. I assume Haniya is telling him about the alfalfa they're going to plant for the rabbits, and how Sinwar will get to tend the rabbits. My advice to Hamas people, once this all settles out, would be not to get in a motor vehicle with either of the Sinwar brothers ever again. It's an achievement to piss off Hamas and Fatah, the IRGC, and the IDF simultaneously.
It doesn't matter whose talking point it is. Hamas was elected fair and square in proper democratic elections. They are the only legitimate authority in Gaza. Those are the facts on the ground and there is no world where it makes sense to ignore this.
I suspect you assume this somehow justifies the atrocities committed by Israel, along the lines of Isaac Herzog's comment about innocent civilians in Gaza [1] but that's just nuts. We're not going to ignore reality because a bunch of blood-crazed fascists are trying to twist it to their needs.
_____________
[1] https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-13/israeli-president-says-g...
No, and don't write things like this here.
In my country the political landscape was very different 20 years ago.
Yes, what may not be clear is that those people are demonstrating for the return of the hostages, not the end of the massacre of the Palestinians. They couldn't care less about the Palestinians. As I point out in another comment there is widespread support among the Israeli public for the war and near zero concern about what it will do to Palestinian civilians, including children.
The Israeli public has embraced the Smotrich doctrine
https://www.972mag.com/smotrich-decisive-plan-israeli-public...
As trauma of October 7 massacres endures, Israeli support for Gaza war remains high
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-13/israeli-president-says-g...
How Israeli youth helped usher in the farthest right-wing government ever
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2023/2/23/23609584/israel...
First page of results on google and ddg:
Polls Show Broad Support in Israel for Gaza’s Destruction and Starvation
https://truthout.org/articles/polls-show-broad-support-in-is...
Netanyahu might be losing ground, but his politics still resonate with most Israelis
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/israel-gaza...
Enduring pain keeps public support for Gaza war strong in Israel
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/enduring-pain-keep...
What Israelis Think of the War With Hamas
https://time.com/6333781/israel-hamas-poll-palestine/
War on Gaza: Majority of Israelis support withholding aid to Gaza until captives returned
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-majority-israeli...
Now, I want to be clear, I’m not blaming the protestors (I know many here on HN are going to these protests, and all the power to you for that). And I’m certainly not going to accuse any individual protestor of not caring about Palestinians. But from my eyes, through the English language news, it certainly does not seem to be a priority, nor even a consideration, for the public at large in Israel, that Palestinians get justice and liberation from these years and years of political neglect and human rights violations.
If you compare this to the Iraq war protests in the USA, which I will not deny were more about bringing the troops home then about the lives of Iraqis, but the lives and conditions of Iraqis was always at least a part of the conversations. I’m not seeing this int the “Bring Them Home Now” protests in Israel. The hostages are not the main focus, but the only focus. Consideration for Palestinian lives is completely absent.
When I see protests which actually consider Palestinian lives, it is not these mass demonstrations like we see with the “Bring Them Home Now” protests, but rather, very few individual anti-Zionist activists, who seem to get pretty disproportionate treatment from the Israeli police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_prote...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/14/israels-wa...
https://youtu.be/Ie3InYIVXF8?si=E0bdNNTQ2vr3Ysfs
Apologies but I don't have time now to search it to find the place where he talks about Israelis' opinions, or to check that's the right one. I'll try to do it later today, if you're interested.
Bartov is one of the calmest and most sensible voices around these days. He seems completely incapable of accepting that his country is committing a genocide and has argued eruditely and logically against it, but I guess that's understandable. I listen to that guy every chance I get.
Daniel Levy’s interview at Democracy Now! this morning was also insightful[2]. Particularly the answer to Juan González’ question:
> JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you also about the protests, the continuing massive protests within Israel, even while the war continues. Your sense of the impact of these protests on the Israeli government?
> DANIEL LEVY: It’s a very important point, Juan. What I think we have seen is the intensity of those protests — and those protests tend to center around the prioritizing of getting the hostages out, saying, “Do the deal. Get the hostages out.” The intensity, especially those led by members of family of those being held, by family, friends, those have increased. The volume, the extent to which this is disruptive and is impossible for Netanyahu to stare down, I do not think we are anywhere near that moment.
> The internal pressure is such that the soft opposition, who will run against Netanyahu in the next election, led by this guy Gantz, former chief of staff, former defense minister, and Eisenkot, they are still in the government. They have still not unequivocally said that if Netanyahu turns down the deal, they will quit. Even if they quit, Netanyahu has a majority.
> But the pressure does not feel sufficient that Netanyahu’s politics needs him to accept a ceasefire. He still thinks he can wiggle out of this, which is where the question of the external pressure becomes a key factor, because it’s going to be that combination of internal and external. So I think the next question one would have to address is: Where does the external pressure stand?
So, in short, Daniel Levy does not believe these protests will do anything to change Israel’s policy, nor will any pressure from within Israel. He believes the only thing which will change this policy is external pressure, especially from the US. Meaning the student protests in the US are more relevant to the future of Palestine. The ball is not in Hamas’ courtyard, nor in Israel’s, it is—and has been this whole time—in the US’.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-NKhRVV2gU
2: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/5/7/daniel_levy_israel_raf...
It is simply false that "Israelis" don't care about the lives of Gazan civilians. There are Israelis that don't (they are disproportionately likely to be Israelis of Middle Eastern descent, for demographic reasons similar to the urban/rural political divisions in the US), just as there are Americans that don't care about Mexican lives and Palestinians who don't care about Jewish lives and Zaydi Yemenis who don't care about Sunni Yemeni lives. People are awful and wonderful and complicated all at the same time.
I just saw it now. All the power to these people, they are absolute heroes. Also power to the protestors in the Al-Jazeera clip I cited earlier in the Bring Them Home Now protest for talking about Palestine.
I think, however—and it seems I’m not the only one—that far more is needed. This is not a large demonstration, especially given the stakes and the seriousness of Israel’s crimes.
The anti-zionist movement in Israel certainly exists, and is doing an amazing job. When I was in university I followed the works of Anarchists against the wall very closely (I don’t know if they are active any more though). I was also a member of the Icelandic Red Cross which worked closely with Israeli organizations (don’t remember which ones) in aiding victims of settler violence on the West Bank. If I remember correctly these organizations were mostly giving legal aid and monitoring checkpoints in the hopes it would prevent violence. Some of my colleges actually went to the West Bank to work with them.
But this was 15 years ago, and thinks have only gotten worse since then. I’m not optimistic that the current movements will have any more effects on policy than those of the last decade and a half (but they absolutely should still try). Like Daniel Levy says above, the pressure needs to come from the outside.
These are also described as "rare", and tend to get broken up by authorities for "harming the feelings of the public" and whatnot. The vast majority are led by the Bring Them Home Now movement or are otherwise unequivocally focused on the return of the hostages.
It may be "widely believed" but that doesn't make it true. It's highly unlikely that Netanyahu would end up in prison. The only case with a real threat of prison (case 4000) has been collapsing steadily since the start, with dismal prosecution witnesses, and judges were pushing the prosecution team for a plea bargain [1] due to the low chances of successful conviction.
It's also clear that the court proceedings would last until the end of the decade, so extending the war by months wouldn't buy him much time. Not to mention that the war cabinet is a unity wartime cabinet that is made up of the main centrist leaders too.
The idea that Netanyahu's war strategy is based on him clinging to power is lazy thinking that keeps on getting trotted out in order to bolster the argument that the war is unjust. In fact, the Israeli public are clearly behind the war aim of dismantling Hamas, the only significant split in public opinion is whether to risk a hostage deal that may not result in many living hostages released in practice and will only encourage further hostage taking by terrorists in the future.
Only ben-Gvir can be accused of having neo-Kahanist tendencies, the rest are "merely" right wing. And forming a coalition with a large parliamentary majority after an election is hardly a "parliamentary manoeuvre", it's democracy and all too predictable after multiple elections and failure for 5 years for centrist coalition to stick together.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/prosecution-rejects-retreat-fr...
The rest of your comment is predicated on the fact that Hamas is a spent force which is nonsense. If there was a ceasefire today it's clear Hamas will regroup and reestablish. Most media sources claim 4 of their battalions are almost fully intact in Rafah.
The war aim, supported by vast majority of Israelis, is that Hamas is no longer a fighting force and will never threaten Israel again. Yes, there may be new terrorist groups that pop up, but the essential deterrent - that Israel is capable and will fully dismantle any good group that wars against it - will be reestablished. (Plus Israel has learnt a lot of lessons about how to ensure Hamas 2.0 is less of threat, including a renewed focus on insisting to the world for a Marshall-plan-style deradicalization, and the realisation that there are no bounds to what terrorists will do even if you ply them with cash and improve work opportunities for Gazans as Netanyahu and many previous governments did prior to Oct 7).
This war involves the most difficult urban warfare the world has ever seen - it's Mosul or Raqah combined with Vietnam, with extensive extensive secret tunnels and the use of civilian infrastructure to wage war. The civilian casualties and destruction where inevitable and the "collective punishment" argument simply does not stack up in this war.
Of course, what's really happening here is that our premises are too far apart for us to productively discuss things. To continue talking, we'd just be playing to the crowd, hoping to attract some other commenter on this benighted threat to chime in our side. Maybe there's some value in us just calling out the places where we disagree and leaving it at that?
Though that certain other major cabinet figure you're not mentioning (Smotrich) avoids the explicit affiliation and more obvious rhetoric -- his actions clearly resonate with the Kahanist agenda.
Other coalition members seem to be "out there" on the Kahanist spectrum. Meet Orik Strook (aka Minister of Settlements and National Missions), for example:
In 2007, Strook's son Zvi was convicted of abusing a Palestinian boy and killing a young goat, and spent thirty months in an Israeli prison as a result. In response to the ruling, Strook stated that, "Unlike the Court, who preferred to believe the Arab witnesses, we are sure of Zvi's innocence, and are hurting from the success of his haters and would assist him to deal with the difficult sentence imposed on him".
You've also got Zvi Sukkot:
In 2012, [Sukkot] was expelled from the West Bank under suspicion that he was part of a group of 12 that had planned and carried out violent attacks against Palestinians and their property. ... On 6 July 2017, he was arrested on suspicion of engaging in "price tagging". ... At the onset of the Huwara rampage, Sukkot tweeted that "Huwara's killers' nest needs to be taken care of", and posted a picture of himself among a group of settlers gathering at Tapuach Junction, to the immediate south of Huwara.
Finally, it's important to note that the vast majority of the folks who helped the Nazis do their dirty work throughout Europe were not members of their local Nazi parties (or if so, only on paper and sometimes under duress). By and large, they were "merely" right-wing or apolitical.
Looks like a duck, talks like a duck ...
The Israeli government is currently at ~30 killed Palestinians for each 1 killed Israeli.
Presumably, whatever anyone's opinion, there's some ratio that is unjust. Or is killing every Palestinian in Gaza just?
Last I checked, Exodus' Covenant Code [0] was also pretty clear on this, and it didn't include any multiple.
>> Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
I'm not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. I've recently heard an Israeli government spokesperson say that the IDF has killed 13,000 Hamas including "civilian combatants". My guess would be that the IDF uses a very loose definition of whom they define as a combatant (note that the US for example has never used the term "civilian combatant" as that mixes the two groups: if they're a combatant they're not civilian and vice versa). Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it's worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any "Western" military even the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given the rhetoric of Israeli government spokespersons, officials, politicians and other talking heads, I think it's more likely that the IDF effectively has no limits on how many Palestinian civilian casualties are acceptable per target. Former IDF soldiers have mentioned eliminationist rhetoric like "the terrorists who did Oct 7 are the kids we spared" or "anyone who hasn't left after the evacuation order should be assumed to be Hamas". This doesn't inspire confidence.
The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach. Here is an article that talks about an aspect of this:
http://law-disrupted.fm/idf-lawyer-advises-war-gaza-military...
>> They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack.
> Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it’s worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any “Western” military
The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul. The US had a 2.5:1 civilian combatant casualty ratio. Source: https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769#
My point wasn't that the US is better. My point was that there were widespread protests opposing the US's "collateral damage" in their wars after 9/11 and Israel is doing worse.
The number you're citing is also the effective ratio based on the reported deaths, not an official or leaked guideline and this wasn't "the US" but "the US-led Iraqi Security Forces" (not a Western military, even if it is in practice US-led). The tweet you cite also references a Pacific battle between the US and Japan in WW2 (when the US infamously dehumanized the Japanese to an uncomfortable degree - surely the nuclear bombs trump that battle in terms of civilian casualties) and a battle that was part of the "Korean War" which in retrospect has become infamous for its war crimes, mostly committed by the US.
These are battles of infamy. You don't get a medal for being better than that, those are the table stakes if you want to shout about being the "most humane military".
Also, the reason I called 30,000+ the "lower bound" is because the process used by the "Hamas-run health ministry" is extremely conservative (it's not just a tally - the "fake deaths at hospital parking lot" story everyone ran with was a translation error into English that conflated "injured" and "deceased") and seems to have broken down earlier this year along with the remaining infrastructure in Gaza.
> The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach.
That's a no then unless you think other militaries don't have decision making processes.
I'm not going to engage with you further as we seem to have either fundamentally opposed value systems or fundamentally opposed perceptions of reality.
Getting the last say in an argument by fiat isn't healthy.
Don't want others opinions? Don't offer your own.
The soldiers were told they were fighting "human animals", and acted accordingly.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-ministe...
Most of them are illegal combatants and none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them.
Also, there is documented evidence that even their "civilian civilians" participated in atrocities, not to mention that a significant portion of them elected and supported terrorist "government".
I'm guessing that the so-called "civilian combatants" in these reports are people who are on the payroll of a terrorist organization, such as police officers, security guards, tunnel builders, etc. - anyone who helps/supports the terrorist "government", but may not be 100% militants by themselves. I.e. like the difference between a regular support soldier and a special forces.
Indeed the Geneva Convention doesn't apply which means lots of things are on the table that otherwise wouldn't be. This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
I'm guessing these Catholics from Northern Ireland were British citizens, right?
This is something between separatism and civil war (although much closer to the former than the latter).
A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons, similarly to what Egypt did when they controlled Gaza.
A significant portion of Gaza's population today is descended from Egypt, they even speak with the Egyptian accent.
And majority of the advanced weapons were smuggled via Egypt.
But I would say two things: First, not only Catholics were targeted during the Troubles. If tear gas is used to dispel a riot then it not only those involved on both sides but also anyone down wind from it. My mother lost her eyesight from tear gas related injuries because she had to walk past a flash point daily on her return from work.
Secondly, while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
no need to point obvious things
> not only Catholics were targeted
In case everyone were targets, and not just separatists - then it's closer to civil war. It only shows how cruel Brittish were (or still are), and all the double standards with regards to Israel.
> while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
Granting citizenship to people in breakaway separatists regions is the strategy employed by Putin. Russia first grant them citizenship, and then uses this as a pretext for military invasion in order to protect their newly acquired "citizens".
Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic, but granting citizenship to foreign people in confict areas is still problematic.
> A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons,
This did actually happen, but the other way around. The British settled citizens en masse in Ireland and provided them with weapons. This was called the Ulster Plantation. Even today many people in the North of Ireland speak with a dialect derived from the Scots language.
Interestingly, Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor in Jerusalem, was recorded to have said that the Balfour Declaration’s purpose was to form a “little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” [0]
> Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic
No, and I think the comparison is a little unfair. It's true that these things can be abused tactically but it's not always the case.
0: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/winston-churchill-s...
And to further this, historical and current Israeli restrictions on West Bank Palestinians and authorization and promotion of Israeli settlers seem like exactly the playbook one would run for crypto-annexation.
Interestingly, while in some western/highland parts of Britain, Celts kept their language, but adopted Anglicanism as a religion, in most of the Ireland they kept their Catholic religion, but adopted English language, and only in some western parts of Ireland kept both.
Anyway, if we go back to medieval times, then we can also talk about Arab and Ottoman colonization of Israel.
---
[1]. Israel condemns London's Ulster plantation project after private colonisation contract was awarded by the Queen
I think if we want to make comparisons, an important difference is that Gaza has been existing in a limbo where Israel insists it's a sovereign territory because Israel withdrew from it but also insists it's part of Israel because they want to control its borders and what goes in and comes out of it.
Also, in addition to everything that happens in Gaza, Palestinian Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank have also been targeted by Israel despite Hamas being largely confined to Gaza.
The Geneva Convention is (currently) humanity's best attempt at codifying ethical aspects of war. Unfortunately, it is not some lofty goal to aspire to. Oh no. It is the result of discussion and compromise. In other words, it literally is the lowest possible ethical standard we agreed to hold each other to. We should strive to do better, not worse.
Therefore: all of the Geneva Convention applies, always, to everyone.
Except it only applies in certain circumstances, and doesn't apply in the current conflict.
Taking your line of thought to the ad absurdum will result in: "No one should ever be punished nevermind atrocities they have committed."
The Convention clearly states to whom it applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions#Application
So-called "international law" is not really a law, but only a set of political treaties. In addition, the jihadists and other bad actors do not recognize it.
Japan killed 2403 Americans at Pearl Harbor, to which the US retaliated by killing over 2 million Japanese, with more than 100 thousands in a single day.
So don't tell me about "conventions" that apply to some and don't apply to others. It's not some Law of Physics. It's a man-made stuff, invented by corrupt politicians.
If the international treaties do not work - they shouldn't be treated as written in stone - instead they should be changed and adapted to the realities of the modern assymetric wars. And also everyone should be treated the same - no double standards, otherwise nobody should recognize them.
We program the world through incentives, positive and negative. Malicious agents must be disintensivized/punished, and if that doesn't work - destroyed.
15:1 for low-ranking Hamas militants
Elsewhere reported to be 100:1 for high-ranking Hamas targets
>> Several of the sources described how, for certain categories of targets, the IDF applied pre-authorised allowances for the estimated number of civilians who could be killed before a strike was authorised.
>> Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.
If Israel could neutralise Hamas and retrieve the hostages with zero casualties, they would do it. That's obviously impossible.
Presumably we all agree that's unacceptable.
So somewhere between "zero collateral civilian casualties" and "all collateral civilizian casualties" is warranted.
Which leads to a debate about where the line should be.
And to the IDF's credit, as much as I have issue with their absent strategic goals and tactical choices, they are fighting a guerrilla insurgence in one of the most density populated areas in the world.
So, it could have been worse? But it still isn't great.
Israel has been caught multiple times willfully killing civilians in this conflict, and there are hundreds of statements by politicians, officers and soldiers calling for atrocities or even genocide. Israel is not a moral actor, and far more comparable to Hamas than any real democracy.
To make this claim essentially gives the government of Israel the go ahead to do absolutely anything without any possibility of criticism, because that criticism is never engaged with on the basis of its content but dismissed as anti-semitism.
Unfortunately, it seems the protesters themselves often don't make the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.
I'm sure there often are people espousing vile views, that's a statistical inevitability almost, but it's clearly far from the norm.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/student-protesters-denounce-antise...
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/israel-hamas-war-protest...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/coll...
Comments like the above merely reinforce what I'm saying: the basis of criticism is never engaged with in terms of its own merits or content but is dismissed using ad hominem.
I have noticed that US media in particular presents a very one-sided accounting of protests. Axios, for examples, implies that Pro-Palestinian protests at colleges are a form of anti-semitism.
Again, I apologise. That was in error, not malice.
The same thing is happening to this protest as what happened in many other protests in the US. The news is finding outliers and representing it as the norm. January 6th, the majority of those people weren't trying to overthrow the government, but all the protesters were branded as doing just that, and many got pretty harsh sentences for it. BLM protests were similar with the fires and the riots. The vast majority of BLM protesters were non-violent but they were all branded as rioters and fire starters. The media is now running that play against the pro-Gaza protests and trying to paint them all as antisemitic by pointing out some antisemitic things some people in the protests said.
It's the standard playbook that happens again and again and again. It's almost as if the large media companies work for the status quo and feel any protests is a threat to that; which it is.
I realize though that what you actually means is anti-Israel, or if we are being more specific, I assume anti-Israeli-far-right or anti-Israeli-right. E.g. if you are for a two-state solution you are in agreement with the Israeli center and left (mostly, but that's just going into too many details).
This is the definition that makes Zionism troubling.
Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-Jewish person within the borders of the Jewish people's native land?
This is false, there's a reason for modern Palestinians and modern Jews sharing around the same genetic material with ancient Israelites, and that is conversion. The conflation of the ethnic group and the religious group is where your entire argument falls apart. What you are arguing for is not just an ethni-nationalist state, it is one steeped in religion, which is as good as any definition for fascism.
Historically?
Because post-revolutionary France has been a militantly-secular state.
And a decent counter-example on why conflating a state with a specific ethno-religious identity is a terrible idea.
Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.
To which I pointed out that unlimited rights to self-determination include justifying genocide.
To which you rebutted that other countries have self-determination and avoid genocide.
To which I rebutted that those other states aren't founded on ethno-religious identities.
You are saying that denying the rights of Jews to self determination in their native land is not antisemitic, because Jewish identity is tied into both an ethnicity and a religion, making Jews inherent murderers and thus undeserving of a state. This is as opposed to say the French or German people, whose identity is mostly ethnic, who have a long history of peace, devoid of genocide, murder and disenfranchisement.
What limits do you place on "self determination", as you define it?
And I'd point out that modern France and Germany are much less religious and more religiously diverse than Israel. (Even including Israeli Muslims)
But yes, historically states with high religiosity and state-entwined religions tend to be murderous: it's always a good reason for a just war.
My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination and/or oppossed to Israel existing as an ethnostate (since most people on the left are opposed to the concept of ethnostates).
Sure, in fact Israel's declaration of independence (which doesn't have an official legal status, but is considered to be the base of a future constitution for Israel) calls for peaceful co-existence with its neighbouring Arab states. It would be an interesting alternate history to observe where Israel was not attacked by all of its neighbouring Arab states, could we really have peaceful co-existence? (I'd like to think the answer is "yes").
Now if you define "Palestinian native land" as the Jewish native land that was colonized by Arabs around 1,400 years ago, then you'll have a problem since that will legitimize Jews to themselves recolonize (and regular colonize) whatever areas they please thus making it their own native land. Of course, reverting the borders to 3,000 years ago is also not practical (especially as that would revert the peace agreement with Jordan which would have to give up a substantial piece of land). That's why IMO something like a two state solution makes the most sense, maybe along the lines of the agreement that was almost signed in 2008?
> My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination.
No need to keep to the Roman convention of renaming Israel to Palestine.
> My understanding is that anti-Zionism is not opposed to Jews living in Palestine having self determination. It is opposed to preventing Arabs living in Palestine from having self determination
That just sounds like you are redefining "Anti-Zionism" to mean "Pro-Palestine". Sure, under a different definition it means something else, but how is that useful? If I define "Jews" to mean "Bananas" can I say that I think Jews are disgusting because I actually mean bananas are disgusting?
Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land.
> Israel existing as an ethnostate
I think this term is a bit excessively vague. Naturally the Jewish people want to live in their land of the Jewish people in much the same way that the French or Palestinian people want to live in their land of the French or Palestinian people.
A right of return for the Jewish people to the land of self-determination for Jews is only natural, just as much as an emerging state of Palestine should want a right of return for Palestinians into it (it sounds like madness for Palestine to refuse Israeli Arabs from moving to it).
It would also be madness to deny Israel a right to control immigration to it, especially as it is already very densely populated.
That said, I agree that current policies are too extreme, and I'm generally for a much greater separation between state and religion in Israel.
Normally, right of return is for people who were living somewhere, or have parents or grandparents who live somewhere. So it's obviously very strange when that applies to jewish people, who potentially have some ancestors in biblical times that were living in Jordan, but doesn't apply to Palestinians, who had grandparents living there.
To be honest, I have more sympathy for the argument that, yes, Israel is a typical colonial enterprise, but it's also been a while (70+ years), and people have made their lives there, so 2SS makes sense. It seems more consistent with how words like 'native', 'colony', and 'original inhabitants' work everywhere else.
Any threshold you set is arbitrary and then tends to be motivated by personal politics. I have some difficulty with setting any specific threshold since if you say the threshold is 1,000 years for example, then it follows that you have set a rule on how it is morally achievable to set or expand your territory; You take some place by force and then hold it for 1,000 years and then no one is allowed to contest it, which means that Israel should be allowed to take whatever land it wants as it is merely following the proper procedure you have set (and of course, Palestine and Iran are equally allowed to follow this procedure ;)).
> Normally, right of return is for people who were living somewhere, or have parents or grandparents who live somewhere. So it's obviously very strange when that applies to jewish people, who potentially have some ancestors in biblical times that were living in Jordan,
Much of the original push for the creation of Israel originates in world wide persecution of Jews, so it makes sense to me to allow all of them into Israel where they can band together. I also think that limitations on "parents or grandparents" are meant to imply some sort of test of "are they really still French if they left France two generations ago and haven't tried to come back since then?", whereas for Judaism many communities have been rather insular and managed to maintain their Jewish identity going back all the way to their original exile, so it is easier to see that they are still part of the same people. I do somewhat agree though in thinking that there eventually has to be some limit and the right to return should be drastically altered/reduce/abolished and replaced with more "normal" immigration controls. Maybe something like "You have a right to return by default if you are the grandson of a Jew who lived during the Holocaust. If you are the son or grandson of such a Jew (i.e. grandson of grandson) then follow this procedure, beyond that you are considered to have waived your right to return". Though this is off-the-cuff random internet talk and not a sound opinion :)
If talking specifically about Jordan, where Jews do not have a right to return, I'll add the other countries of the Middle East and North Africa where Jews who left (often but not only to go to Israel) are definitely not welcome back. It seems like morally you'd expect such a thing, though in practice I'd be surprised if there were any Jews willing to use such a right.
> but doesn't apply to Palestinians, who had grandparents living there.
Since you mentioned Jordan specifically, I'd just say that it is up to the Jordanians to provide that right to return (which I don't think they do).
For a Palestinian state (in a hypothetical 2ss) it will certainly make sense to have a right of return for Palestinian people, but I don't think it makes sense to have a right of return for Palestinians into Israel or Jews into Palestine, since the whole point of such an agreement would be to draw lines on what is Israel and what is Palestine, and drastically mixing the populations would just blur those lines and reignite conflict.
> To be honest, I have more sympathy for the argument that, yes, Israel is a typical colonial enterprise, but it's also been a while (70+ years), and people have made their lives there, so 2SS makes sense. It seems more consistent with how words like 'native', 'colony', and 'original inhabitants' work everywhere else.
Indeed I feel that is what follows from your initial statement, and I'll agree that your views are self-consistent and sound. Ideologically I don't fully agree with your thoughts, since I feel it incentivizes war-making as I mentioned.
Of course, as I said in my previous comment, in the real world I don't think it is practical or entirely fair to pursue something like a 3,000 year reversion, so a two state solution is a reasonable compromise, and it will require some strong guarantees to make sure such an agreement is kept and war-making is deterred.
It's to the eternal shame of Poland, Germany, and many other countries in Europe, that this is not what they did after the war. It's frankly shameful that this is rarely enforced anywhere.
If you do 'right of return' without the implicit return of property thing, it's pretty hollow if you've actually had your house/farm stolen, but it also becomes just a way of having an immigration policy that discriminates on an ethnic or religious basis.
I feel like people are generally pretty fine with accepting colonial borders: basically the whole world outside europe is divided by them. As long as they have a chance to live in peace, build businesses, live normal lives, I don't think people get that exercised about these things, on the whole. If you look at the lives of Palestinians, they look pretty humiliating. If I lived that life, had no chance to build anything or hold onto anything, I expect I would be pretty angry about it.
It's the historically accepted term for the region. The Zionists themselves used it in their literature. Quibbles about it are disingenuous and absolutely irrelevant to the current situation on the ground.
Anti-Zionism means exactly that, against the right for Jews for self determination in their native land.
No, it means being against an ideology which fundamentally rejects the right of self-determination to the non-Jewish population living on their land.
Israel as an ethnostate is vague
It's now written into the Basic Laws of Israel, thanks to 2018 Nation-State bill.
If you define "Palestinian native land" as ...
We all know what it what is meant by "Palestine" and "Palestinians". And even Jabotinsky recognized the Palestinians as indigenous.
The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief. They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims. Certainly if they want me to be happy taking financial and material support from a government that I'm supporting with my tax then they need to follow these basic ideals of respect for the other.
Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.
Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief? If you think it is equally fictional then at least I can't fault your views for their internal consistency.
> They're very welcome to hold their beliefs and take democratic means to achieve their aims, but in a free and peace centred society they should not be allowed to take violent means to pursue their aims.
Are Jews prohibited from taking violent means to pursue their aims while Arabs are permitted? If not, then how do you accept Arab use of violent means to conquer and settle Israel 1,400 years ago?
> Long story short, we can accept their belief in their promised land without accepting it as their right to take it by whatever means necessary.
First, we aren't talking about a promised land being taken, we are talking about at land that was taken away from them and is at best being taken back.
Second, you aren't required to support anyone in any endeavor. You can even be pro-Israel and pro-Zionism and still not think they deserve your financial support. But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state and not allowed to live in their native land of thousands of years (especially for the reason "but the Arabs took it away from them, so it isn't theirs anymore"), then you are indeed being antisemitic.
I'm not American so I would of course agree. But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law. The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism.
> But if you single out Jews as being the only people in the world that are not allowed to have a state...
Wow there, that's quite a leap. I'm not saying anyone should be made stateless, only that if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods.
> then you are indeed being antisemitic
I would appreciate if you asked me to clarify when I was saying instead of delivering uncharitable readings, presumed arguments, and conclusions like these.
Apologies if I have offended, but that's why that sentence begins with an "if", implying that statement is only correct conditional on some theoretical claim that might or might not be implicit from your statements. Since the discussion originates from the topic of antizionism and antisemitism, it is meant to refer back to the conclusion of my own parent comment clarifying where such a statement falls (as opposed to just being an ad-hominem). Maybe I'm not being entirely clear as English is not my native language and much of communication tends to be cultural rather than linguistic (for example, in the United States "That's a good start" is usually a scathing critique whereas in Israel it is usually a genuine compliment :))
> I'm not American so I would of course agree
I assumed by your reference to having your taxes go to Israel, a common American talking point. What taxes then are you referring to that are going towards Israel?
> But I believe I have a right to live in my current state because those rights are granted to me by the law.
Sure, and Israel also a rule of law country and acts within the boundaries of its laws, so you are going to have to go into more details into what you feel separates your rights from Jewish rights.
> The distinction with Zionism is that the right for "the Jews" (i use quotes because of course this is not an homogeneous group, just as ideal) to claim, inhabit and govern Israel as their own is ordained by God. I find this as contrary to the ideals of equality and akin to totalitarianism.
That is incorrect. In fact, the Zionism movement originated with secular Jews, seeing how they are persecuted around the world and desiring a return to their native land where they can band together and protect themselves under the mechanisms of state. Your conclusion about inequality and totalitarianism are therefore misguided. As a side-note I'll add that the more fundamental ultra-orthodox Jews that desire an Israel ruled by biblical law tend to be antizionist as well.
> if they're claiming to do the whole democracy thing then they need to recognise the right of their neighbours not to live by the rules of their Gods.
First, no such thing happens, Palestinians are not bound to the rules of a Judaism, neither those that are Israeli citizens, nor those that are not. Specifically for Muslims in Israel they have their own religious authorities with the ability to govern in matters of their religion. For example, Muslims can marry each other under Muslim law, in Muslim ceremonies etc. It is true though that Jewish courts currently have too much authority in governing Jewish customs like marriage, and that to my mind religion is too intertwined with state mechanisms, but not nearly so far as I'd say that it is ruled by religious law.
Second, I'm not actually sure what this has to do with the topic of the discussion, which is Zionism, which is not a religious movement (remembering that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity).
That doesn't make sense. I am Greek and we lost our ancestral lands in Asia Minor when we were slaughtered and expelled from them by the modern Turkish nation [1]. The same thing happened to the Armenians, Cappadocian Christians and Assyrian Christians, also.
And yet it is not anti-hellenic, or anti-christian, or anti-anything to deny that all those people and the Greeks have a right to return to their ancestral lands, where Turkish people now live. Resisting irredentist nationalism is not racist.
__________________________
[1] The Jewish are not the only people who were kicked out of the land they lived in for thousands of years, lost their greatest city and had their greatest temple turned into a mosque: this also happened to the Greeks: Asia Minor, Constantinoupolis and Agia Sophia, were Greek for thousands of years and now they belong to the Turkish nation. If the Greeks and every other ethnic and religious group claimed their "right to self-determination in their native land of thousand years", there would be bloodshed and war without end.
Greek genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide
Armenian genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
Assyrian genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo
Pontic Greek genocide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek_genocide
About the Cappadocian Greeks:
Anti-Zionism is not antisemitic and antisemitism is not anti-Zionist. Historically the German far-right was actually indifferent to Zionism because it provided a way to get rid of Jewish people domestically. They placed restrictions on emigration to prevent wealth drain (i.e. rich Jewish people taking their money/property with them when leaving Germany) but the only reason they shut down the Zionist emigration project was that they invaded Poland and suspended all legal migration because of the war.
There is a line between being pro-Palestine/anti-Israel and being antisemitic. That line is when you insist on people being evicted from Palestine/Israel simply for being Jewish. Yes, some protests have seen people cross that line and some groups who have organized protests were firmly on the wrong end of that line. But the narrative that you can't be anti-Zionist without being antisemtic or that you can't be opposed to Israel's government's action without being opposed to the existence of Jewish people in Palestine/Israel is in itself antisemitic by deliberately conflating a state with individuals, many of whom don't even live in that state nor agree with it.
There have been many Jewish opponents to Zionism and Zionism in Palestine especially since the inception of the modern Zionist movements. Until the state of Israel was created there was a strong divide between Jewish Zionists and Bundists, the latter arguing for a stateless nationhood. Bundists and other Jewish anti-Zionists still exist, they're just relegated to obscurity because Israel dominates the international conversation and most Jewish interest groups have aligned themselves with Israel for pragmatic reasons.
Also, finally, Israel's current government as well as the illegal settlers in the West Bank (and prominent figures who fantasize about a "Greater Israel" including at least all of Palestine but potentially also parts of the surrounding countries) are in fact most accurately described as "far-right conservatives" as well.
Fear does terrible things to many people. When the guns come out, leaders that previously were the most staunch supporters of freedom will file them away and promise to reinstate them when the war is "won".
They don't even have sham elections on the national level.
You got that wrong. The reason China is not a democracy, is instead that it is a dictatorship, that's why it's not a democracy.
Democracies can have censorship, there's no contradiction. (Although less common.)
For example, IMO it's good to censor some of Putin's manipulation, because most people are dangerously easy to fool. It's a mistake to let an enemy state broadcast their psychological warfare unhindered.
If they had nothing to fear from it they wouldn’t do it.
Israel fearing anything from Hamas is laughable, so what they really fear is their own citizens.
Some time in the future, when someone mentions the Jewish genocide, people will ask if they mean the one happened to them or the one they did.
Obviously the current Israeli government will want to control the information flow so they can proceed with their final solution to the Gaza issue. They will also try to control what comes out of Gaza to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Not really. Top Russian officials, say Dmitri Medvedev, are still shitposting on twitter:
> Macron preparing to go to kyiv? But he's a zoological coward!
Most Russian news websites are still up, say vesti.ru
And Russia is active participant in a war, while Quatar is not bombing anyone.
Yes. Which I find abhorrent as an European, and has made me realize even more than our countries are much less democratic than we officially paint them as.
When the italian government wants to be able to block any website immediately and with no appeal, calling it an anti-piracy measure, it's completely fine and democratic.
Adding plausible noise to information causes people to have to do much more work to discern between what is true and what is not, time that many people do not have.
A reluctance to ban a bad-faith organisation is good: a moral society should thoroughly debate why it might undertake a repressive thing. But you cannot wish away the effects of corrosive and coercive behaviour because the act of banning a such an organisation is repressive.
A poor but useful analogy is use of violence in society. Violence is a bad thing, but to absolutely forswear it in all situations is something that very few governments will do, for reasons that seem quite justified to me.
Holding up the classic Western ideals of Democracy and Freedom is hard because it is much deeper than simply giving people the freedom to access all information so they can form their own opinions. It also requires that these people are educated and trained to be competent critical thinkers and be able to intelligently form their own opinions. It holds its citizens and the government to high standards and will collapse if these standards aren't met. Accordingly, better education and trust in citizens is the better solution, not banning.
As for the obvious opening for abuse, it doesn't have to be said that every system will eventually be maximally exploited, and creating this opening for exploitation will eventually be exploited as well. It is just a matter of time...
Another poor but useful analogy is fast food. Banning bad media is like consuming fast food. It is quick and easy, and "satisfies" the goal within some basic parameters, but it really does more harm than good in the long term.
Maybe explain why my analogy is not useful - I’ll do the same for you. What I initially said did not in any way imply banning should be quick or easy, while “fast food” is not, in itself, bad for you, but a restricted and monotonous diet of anything can well be.
Countries are seeing how much banning content helps governments in places like China, and want that easy "solution" to their problems instead of doing the difficult thing of properly educating citizens and cultivating free and open discourse.
I guess my analogy is bad because it is debatable if fast food, in itself, is bad for you. My issue with your analogy is that the use of violence is abused by governments so much more than it is every used correctly (if that is even possible) and that all citizens would benefit from governments condemning violence. The reason governments don't condemn violence isn't because their use of violence helps citizens, it is because their use of violence helps themselves. And the same thing goes for banning content. So I guess your analogy is actually pretty good, just counterproductive to your point.
I have not seen an operating system of civil governance that has not reserved to itself the right coerce behaviour as a "last resort" (this would be different things to different people), so it is hard to say much about your last paragraph.
I would say: if you don't think that people are going to debate and argue a case for banning, for punishing, for going to war or other forms of controversial and "extraordinary" behaviour, you probably can't think that people are going to agree to be educated properly, whatever that means. Debate, argument and loser's consent are fundamentals behind the model of democracy we have today. including, in my view, the part where the demos is educated.
Except it's not what you believe that matters, but what the Ministry of Truth says.
https://truthout.org/articles/media-and-the-end-of-apartheid...
EDIT: Haaretz is a good and honest news source that has been extremely critical of the current leadership. Also recommended documentary film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gatekeepers_(film)
Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, the majority of Israelis want the IDF to go into Raffah[3] and are not opposed to the attemts to eliminate Hamas.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
[2]: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-rt-sputnik-eu-access-bans-pro...
[3]: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/poll-75-of-jewi...
Before the October 7, only 35% of Israelis (41% Arab and 32% Jewish) thought a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully with each other [1]. We have to engage with reality here, not with TV tropes.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-...
Although the protests in Capital against the regime and ministers are pretty revealing . This is a month old link and things might have changed, for the better or worse.
About peace though, it can only prevail with disarmament and talks. And reconciliation. I think we have too many actors, powerful actors, who doesn't want it. Yitzhak Rabin didn't die in his sleep, for one.
Alluding to a TV series is in no way indicative of the accuracy of opinion polls. Yes, Prime Minister is fictional. Israel is not fictional, the war is not fictional, the 1000s of people dead are not fictional, the 1000s of destroyed lives and trillions in destroyed capital is not fictional. Nothing about a fictional TV series is relevant here.
In reality, the Israelis are way more fed up with Gaza than it was 10 years ago and the support for a Palestinian state and peace with Hamas is not going to win anyone elections in Israel. You don't have to like it, but if you think getting rid of Netanyahu is going to change that, you are wrong. What might change is the government policy regarding settlements in the west bank, but it won't stop the war. The most likely person to replace Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, is more eager to enter Rafah than Netanyahu.
[1]: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/israel-gaza...
I'm not condoning all past actions of the US or EU, but censoring fake news and propaganda that is controlled by groups or nations that want to destroy you seems like something that is reasonable to do.
Side note: I though being able to read the news of the enemy was testimony to the moral high ground of a "modern free and democratic society". No more moral high ground if you are trying to shape the perception of the public with censorship.
Regardless, in a democracy, internet censorship is a slippery slope, and for that reason, I am against it in most cases.
Of course it does? Most people are not going to go out of their way for it unless they have specific reasons to do so. What's on/available by default matters. (Ask any UX specialist.)
Making it slightly more difficult to consume outright propaganda by not having it front and center; that seems to me to be a very much acceptable move for democratic and free states to make in the context of information warfare.
Al Jazeera has more journalists on the ground in Gaza than anyone else. They're some of the only independent media there (because Israel has blocked international media from entering, but Al Jazeera already has people there). If you want to know what's going on in Gaza, you watch Al Jazeera.
See e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-fu...
However, this does not change the fact that now there is an active war between Hamas and Israel most Israelis dislike Al Jazeera because they perceive to be part of the propaganda wing of Hamas with Qatar's support.
And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago. But I agree with those that say we should not have banned them. When we try to defend our liberal world order with censorship, we are certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.
> And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago.
What is RT doing that is not found in FOX, NBC, CNews.fr, Hayom?
> liberal world order based on law, not might.
This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit. You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
I can't take someone (like Mearsheimer) who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe even a little bit serious. He clearly knows nothing about contemporary German politics, culture, or how well they are doing manufacturing and trading.
Where did you get the "are equally bad" part from?
> He clearly...
"Clearly", eh? Well, let's wait to see how you do with the question.
> This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit.
Which expresses that exact sentiment
Calling something a "Russian talking point" does not make it less true. Russia would not have invaded if (combination of factors): Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre), Ukraine did not want to go NATO, Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists (see the enormous statue for Bandera in Lvov -- bizarre how that's allowed in an "EU ally"). Minks agreements were "just to give Ukraine time to build military" said Merkel (a guarantor of the agreement). Russia was cheated by the west, and behaves accordingly, if you ask me.
> who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe
Lol. Where did he say that?
> Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre)
This has ceased being a valid casus belli in the developed world since 1945.
Annexation of a neighboring state's territory isn't justified by purported ethnic persecution.
Not least, because it's historically been the most common manufactured lie to justify war.
> Ukraine did not want to go NATO
Since when does Russia get a say in other sovereign countries' decisions?
Last I checked at the UN, Russia (and China) were big supporters of countries' ability to do whatever they wanted within their own borders (external complaints be damned).
> Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists
> anti-Russia
Hard to forget the 4 million Ukrainians the USSR purposefully killed during the Holodomor. [0]
When a country does something to an ethnic group that ranks with the Holocaust, it shouldn't be surprised when people are anti-it.
>> fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [1]
> exalts nation and often race above the individual
How's the glorification of Russkiy Mir going? Or the vilification of non-Russian ethnic minorities?
> stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader
How long has Putin been president or prime minister?
> severe economic and social regimentation
How many state-owned enterprises are there in Russia?
And what inalienable freedom of speech and association rights do Russian citizen have?
> forcible suppression of opposition
How many opposition candidates ran in the last election?
If Russia is looking for fascism, it might want to start with a mirror.
Monopolizing discourse.
How many independent news channels are there inside Russia today?
I agree with that - freedom of speech is one of the few things I think worth fighting for. We cannot fight for it while rejecting it.
How long has it been since all had equal access to speech? The mostly-literate + printing press era?
Do we still have free speech if I can turn an algorithmic knob that causes 10% fewer people to see your opinion than those arguing against you?
Today, anyone can make a website. If they say enough interesting things, they'll get eyeballs. Even if those things are false, and even if the algorithms of the walled gardens want to suppress them, they'll still get out.
The internet / web has never been a platform where all had equal access to share their views. The ability to speak doesn't matter if few can hear you.
When it was more democratic in the early days, the masses weren't part of it.
When the masses came online, promotion and discoverability had already been centralized by large platforms.
F.ex. if I shower a town with 250 physical leaflets + I post on all the major platforms, and immediately people of power attempt to suppress them, which do you think results in more people seeing them?
You're missing the third option however. Start your own blog, then just post links on all of the major social medias, and especially on some of the minor ones. Once your link hits the right Signal groups or Truth Social followers or whatever, it will fly around way faster than any samizdat ever could.
NATO wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for Russia. The only reason Russia’s neighbours strive to join NATO is because Russia’s habit of invading them when they don’t behave exactly as Russia wants them too.
I wouldn't call that a moral high ground.
Sure, if you believe your own (or more accurately: most liberal democracies') propaganda. But it really depends on how invested that enemy is in convincing your citizens to side with it. It turns out that "freedom of speech" ultimately is a losing strategy against an enemy that's excellent at abusing speech (which is another way of saying they have a good understanding of psychology, rhetorics and deception).
The successful way to engage with propaganda is not to let it sit alongside reality[0] but to contextualize it with reality. A widely known example in US news coverage for the former is showing "both sides of the debate" on issues like global warming or evolution: merely giving it an equal weight gives it equal presence in public perception and legitimizes it. Contextualizing means being explicit about which side you agree with and explaining why the given argument by the other side is wrong.
Of course the problem with effective propaganda is that it's not simply misinformation which can be contrasted and dissected easily but disinformation that not only shields itself against analysis but actively disrupts any attempt at analysis. Russian propaganda legitimizing the invasion of Ukraine for example (and this isn't new, this is literally a continuation of Soviet Union psychological warfare) used multiple mutually contradictory conflicting narratives which effectively drown out any other narrative by not only giving a manufactured alternative equal weight but giving equal weight to multiple alternatives, like a DDoS attack on information.
[0]: Of course we can debate what "reality" means but no matter the overarching narrative or the individual justifications, it's nearly impossible to avoid agreeing on things like "Russia sent ground troops in the direction of Kyiv within Ukranian borders" even if you might have different explanations of why that happened or what the intention behind that was or whether it constitutes a military attack.
Of course the irony is that in this case the side most heavily relying on disinformation seems to be Israel given its various contradictory official claims on social media. But arguably their application of it is nowhere near as effective. It's also worth mentioning that not only did the EU kick out Russian state-owned media but Russian television is also heavily censored and legal access to foreign news sources very limited. So the answer to "Who's engaging in censorship?" in this case seems to be "Everyone, to varying degrees". That implies this has never been a meaningful moral distinction, no matter what bleeding heart liberals and free speech libertarians may claim.
https://rsf.org/en/country/israel
---
edit: they appear to keep a list of mirrored news sites to circumvent censorship
https://github.com/RSF-RWB/collateralfreedom
(was hoping they had data available for their index, but have not found it yet)
---
edit: the index has a download button in the bar at the top of the map
It does not provide source data, just the calculated results presented. There is also a methodology link, which points to different pages, depending on the year selected
Anyone know where to find what the current accurate count of number of journalists killed in the Gaza bombardment to date?
Last I heard it was 170.
There are also journalists who lived but their whole family died in the strikes.
At least until the war has subsided and independent orgs can gain access.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-healt...
This is the best meta-analysis I've seen: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat...
Here is another that questions the statistics of the underlying reported data: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-securit...
>Gaza’s most widely quoted source on casualties is Health Ministry spokesperson Ashraf al-Qidra. From an office at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, al-Qidra receives a constant flow of data from every hospital in the strip.
>Hospital administrators say they keep records of every wounded person occupying a bed and every dead body arriving at a morgue. They enter this data into a computerized system shared with al-Qidra and colleagues. According to screenshots hospital directors sent to AP, the system looks like a color-coded spreadsheet divided into categories: name, ID number, date of hospital entry, type of injury, condition.
Given this, it is entirely possible that there are additional dead that otherwise do not make it to the hospital morgue, those lost in rubble, those left behind, or cases were the violence was so great there is no body to note. To your question Hamas has made a point to be conservative and validate the death tolls, meaning that there are likely a great number of dead that don't reach these standards and are not counted.
[0] https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-mini...
I feel like its very hard to draw any conclusions from these numbers without distinguishing between those cases (other than of course that war is a tragedy and innocents generally pay the price of war).
And no, it's unlikely these are journalists who picked up a gun - the IDF is dropping up to 2,000 Lbs bombs, and that's possibly how many are killed; however there have been many reports of journalists homes being targeted in direct strikes, at least one journalist I heard who's wife and children/whole family were killed but he wasn't.
It's not surprising in reality if it's 170+ journalists amongst 30,000+ killed.
There are videos of IDF soldiers harassing and brutally assaulting journalists, if that's any indication of the rules of engagement they subscribe to; I'm obviously not linking to any here on HN - this topic is already a minefield.
What HN is missing is going one layer up, where all of the various points brought up are catalogued-organized - and then allow a second round of discussion, perhaps with a more sophisticated UI/UX for people (from "both"/all sides) to contribute things like citations to evidence/data support the claim/statements, etc; and then those cited sources and data could also then be another layer deeper to constrain or contain further contextualized-narrowed conversation to the analysis of those sources.
Yes. One is a clear cut war crime, the other is not. (Or at least not in and of itself. There are of course factors that could make those civilian deaths be a war crime, but it depends on the circumstances.)
(To be clear, what i am saying is that intentionally targeting journalists (who have not picked up a gun and joined the fight) is an unambigious war crime. Killing journalists incidentally while targeting something else may or may not be a war crime depending on all sorts of factors)
I consider things that are war crimes to be much worse than things that are not. So i do think there is a big difference between the two scenarios.
I think its also important to recognize that this sort of thing has huge propaganda value for the Palestinian side, so its important to be careful when evaluating circumstantial evidence (and to be clear i would say that about any side in any war when it comes to information that makes their oponent look bad). As the saying goes, truth is the first casualty of war. It can be very difficult to know what is going on in the middle of a conflict.
It's also the case that more generally, Israel's practice of dropping 2000-pound bombs on civilian areas is a war crime. Any targeting of civilian areas has to weigh the military gain against the damage to civilians, and Israel is not doing that. It has emerged that Israel is knowingly targeting buildings where it knows hundreds of civilians will die, just to kill one individual who is suspected of being associated in some way with Hamas. Israel specifically targets suspected Hamas associates when they're at home. These people are identified based on a pattern of behavior and things like cell-phone data, without Israel even knowing whether they really are combatants.[0] In this conflict, Israel has completely taken the gloves off and quite obviously does not care about civilian casualties.
0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...
This list has 96 total in Gaza since the beginning of the war. So not 170.
Many of the names use this reference: "97 journalists and media workers were confirmed dead: 92 Palestinian, 2 Israeli, and 3 Lebanese."
https://cpj.org/2024/05/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-...
Is media worker always a journalist? The list seems in disagreement with the other list. Also if you work for Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are you a journalist? Where does that line pass? Are IDF media people journalists or are they soldiers? Either way, even by the most generous interpretation not everyone on that list is a journalist. e.g. a "a sound engineer working for the Gaza’s Hamas government owned Al-Rai radio and freelancing for other local radio stations" is not a journalist.
I would trust the list a lot more if there was a reference to their work. Are they published journalists? The list says nothing about what media they worked for. Random e.g. on the list uses Al Jazeera as a reference: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/1/8/israel-war-...
"Gaza’s Government Media Office has confirmed the deaths of two more Palestinian journalists – Abdullah Baris and Muhammad Abu Dayer"
A journalist should mean "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast.", is there a list that includes what newpapers, magazines, or news websites those people worked for?
I drilled down the wikidata reference link from the article. Some of the people have some references to them being journalists. Others don't.
EDIT: Btw the list of clarifications in the bottom of the CPJ source is also interesting.
"CPJ has removed two Israeli journalists, Shai Regev and Ayelet Arnin, from this list after their outlets confirmed that the journalists were not on assignment to cover the music festival, nor did they have any opportunity to begin reporting on the attack by Hamas militants that killed them on October 7. CPJ’s global database of killed journalists includes only those who have been killed in connection with their work or where there is still some doubt that their death was work-related."
I don't see any evidence that the Gazans reported killed were killed in connection with their work.
"After receiving reports that Palestinian journalist and presenter Alaa Taher Al-Hassanat may have survived the attack thought to have killed her, CPJ has removed her name from its casualties list pending further investigation." - so people are sometimes reported killed but aren't.
"CPJ has removed a Palestinan man, Mohamed Khaireddine, from this list. Khaireddine was previously identified as a journalist, but his family later clarified that he was neither a journalist nor a media support worker." - so we have people reported as journalists by someone ... but aren't.
also: "The list below is CPJ’s most recent and preliminary account of journalist deaths in the war. Our database will not include all of these casualties until we have completed further investigations into the circumstances surrounding them."
EDIT2: This is a more in-depth analysis of the specific journalists and their affiliations from the Israeli side: https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/app/uploads/2024/02/E_013_...
Here's an example of how the IDF treats people who are clearly journalists:
Arguably behaviour of a Gestapo, no? The "wolves in clothing" aspect of this is quite the mind fuck once enough puzzle pieces come together and you realize what's realy going on; and where it makes sense that such deceit as a strategy, long-time, long-running, and long-form propaganda as a psychological manipulation strategy is the only way you can get to this stage of fascism that we're seeing with this current Israeli government.
Re: Interview with a journalist - https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6MFu5MNUoX/
Repeat behaviour, a pattern by Israel/IDF reminds me of this quotes that general go something like this: it's never the well-intentioned who want-demand censorship.
Conclusions,
We actually have the opportunity this time to stop this fascist regime in its tracks before 10s to 100s of millions of people die.
Unlike during NaZi Germany anyone who spoke up could quickly be visited by Gestapo, first reported on by 60%+ of their neighbours, and so were easily found.
Today with the internet that is still free enough - where information and evidence can rapidly be studied and curated before distribution - where there are simply too many people already who starting from the comfort of their own homes are able to see and share the truth, or at least present a different perspective - and ideally engage in long-form conversations and see if the person they're engaged with is intellectually honest or not, able to learn and incorporate new information when cognitive dissonance is triggered; there is still suppression going on as part of the "war"-control effort - an attempt to keep specific channels of indoctrinated ideologues kept in bubbles and "ideally" unexposed to questions and thought exercises that would start them down a line of thinking to shatter the veil of the propagandists.
BONUS: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C48GSaOuT5u/
- A short interview clip where it's mentioned that the Gaza bureau Chief of Al Jazeera - his wife, son, and daughter were killed in a strike; was it targeting the journalists' home and that's why it happened, or it was from their indiscriminante bombing of Gaza; which by the way, they're likely killing all of the hostages, too, right?
- So people who support these bombardments are also supporting killing their own citizens - "kill Hamas at all costs" seems to include murdering people that could have been you.
I commented here because the truth is not being told about the number of journalists killed in Gaza. That number is artificially inflated and used as propaganda. You're misdirecting to the family of Al Jazeera bureau chief. He was not killed by the way (you seem to imply he was). I don't know the circumstances related to that attack so I can't comment on it. Lots of innocent people were killed in this war and the blame lies squarely on Hamas.
Your comment about the hostages is intellectually unfair. Given Hamas' attack on Oct 7th it is Israel's right to eliminate that threat. Given the situation on the ground and the goal of minimizing casualties to your own side you're inevitably going to see something that looks very similar to what you've seen. There's no way to use massive military force against an enemy like Hamas under the conditions as they exist in Gaza without that.
But even ignoring that, do see you Hamas returning those hostages? There's precedence here, they've held Gilad Shalit for 5 years and they've been holding Avre Mengisto ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avera_Mengistu ) since 2014. Given the combination of the imperative to eliminate Hamas for Israel's security and the fact Hamas would not release hostages unless it is forced to then there's no a lot of wiggle room here. I'm pretty sure Israel is trying to avoid killing hostages which is probably why the Hamas leadership is still alive.
Your comparison to the Gestapo and the Nazis just shows me you know nothing about either. But hey, what else can we talk about on Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day. If you do want to compare someone to the Nazis try Hamas, a much better fit.
Unfortunately you can't "see the truth" from the comfort of your home on TikTok. You're seeing what some people want you to focus on. You need to step back, look at the whole picture, not just specific events, and use some critical thinking skills to fit everything, not just one event, to a reasonable theory of what is going on.
If you're interesting in how Hamas treats journalists here's some resources:
https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-hamas-must-end...
https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-journalist-fac...
You're likely not going to get any "truth" from any Palestinian in Gaza because they risk retribution for not toeing the Hamas line.
Something is definitely amiss, see my peer comment
Probably different measuring / classifications at play too. For example, they may be including independent journalists in one set vs only recognized outlets in another.
---
edit, they have the following note in the barometer
> Journalists are listed only if RSF has established that their death or imprisonment was linked to their journalistic activity. The list does not include journalists who were killed or imprisoned for reasons unrelated to their work or when the link to their work has not yet been confirmed.
https://rsf.org/en/barometer?type%5Btue%5D=tue&annee_start=2....
https://web.archive.org/web/20230817030548/https://rsf.org/e...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240505202537/https://rsf.org/e...
As far as I can tell, the only negative differences between these two reports are that a reporter was killed while investigating a murder by the murder suspect (who is now in jail and on trial), and that Biden “has come under criticism for failing to press US partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia on press freedom.” Falling ten places is a significant change (and is called out in the preface to the whole report)—are these two things really enough to justify such a change, or is the ranking sourced from more data not present in the report?
Here’s another story about Reporters Without Borders, about the first time I dug into one of their publications. In 2018, I read a report they published listing the six most dangerous countries for journalists: India, Yemen, Mexico, Syria, Afghanistan, and the United States. It described how in Mexico journalists are executed by cartels and organized crime, how journalists in Yemen die in prison due to mistreatment, how in Syria journalists were killed in airstrikes and taken hostage by Islamic militants, how in India Hindu nationalist mobs would run down journalists with trucks… and how in the US, four journalists were murdered by a stalker angry at a 2011 story the newspaper had published (subsequently jailed, tried, and found guilty of mass murder); and two more were killed by a falling tree. Somehow these two cases were enough to warrant the United States being called out with the other five countries. And it made the headlines everywhere, of course, because it was the midst of Donald Trump’s presidency.
The 2018 report you're talking about is here: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf. The list is not the most dangerous countries for journalists, but the most deadly - a straightforward measure of how many journalists were killed in each country. They publish this every year and the US is usually not on it, but this year someone murdered 4 journalists because of their reporting. I'm not sure how they could make this more objective, and I can't think of any metric that would include murders committed by angry men in cartels or angry men with SUVs in India but not angry men with shotguns in America.
Obviously the falling tree is not reflective of the journalistic climate in the country, but if they had been the only two the US would not have been listed. The mass shooting is what put it within the same neighborhood as Mexico and India.
Here's the latest one of these, which as usual does not feature America: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/medias/file/2023/12/Bila....
Is that the case? Do the other countries’ entries in the report reflect that?
> I can't think of any metric that would include murders committed by angry men in cartels or angry men with SUVs in India but not angry men with shotguns in America.
One such metric would be whether a country’s justice system arrests and puts the perpetrator on trial, as happened with the American murder and presumably didn’t happen in the case of Mexican cartels or the Indian mob.
I agree that whether or not perpetrators are tried is relevant to the country, but I don't agree that it's relevant to this metric or to the dead journalists. They don't come back to life if their murderer is imprisoned, and the arrest rate doesn't have any impact on how dangerous it was to be a journalist that year. If they were to do a forward-looking report on the outlook for journalists in each country in the next 10 years or so, then I do think the effectiveness of the justice system might be relevant.
In the Indian cases named in the 2018 report, arrests were made: https://apnews.com/general-news-eb9e0dbcdbab4d93a2d90767c270..., https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/madhya-pradesh-journal....
The situation in Mexico was a bit more grim, but in at least one of the cases the police did make several arrests: https://cpj.org/data/people/mario-leonel-gomez-sanchez/.
Sorry I might have missed this.
I live in India, and I've never heard of nationalist mobs running down journalists (plural?!) with trucks.
Do you have any links to share? Google doesn't give me anything.
Nobody is immune not even the bureau chief of Al Jezeera.
2023-10-28: Wife, 15-year-old son, 7-year-old daughter, a grandson and seven other relatives killed in strike on refugee camp.
2023-12-15: Wounded by missile during filming, cameraman fatally wounded and bled to death with ambulances cut off.
2024-01-07: Eldest son, a journalist, killed in air strike.
2024-01-08: Two nephews killed.
2024-01-16: Evacuted to Egypt/Qatar with family. Probably would have been dead by now or with more dead family members if he remained.
Terror is an extremely good tool to dispose of foreign power that takes economic interest in an area, as it makes the endeavor unprofitable. But backfires horribly when it is a local hegemon.
There are four sides here: the Israeli government, Hamas, Israeli citizens, and Palestinian citizens. The first two are the active combatants. The third group were victims in October. The fourth group are still victims today. Killing unarmed and non-hostile citizens is absolutely immoral. Acting in such a reckless way that the majority of casualties are citizens is still immoral.
History will look harshly on Hamas for slaughtering thousands of Israeli citizens, and Israel for slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian citizens. No rational person should think those citizens were at fault.
But what I think a lot about is the precursor years to these kinds of events. I have a deep well of sympathy for the people of Gaza who have long despised being governed by Hamas, but haven't been able to figure out how to throw them off. They knew Hamas was a disaster waiting to happen, they could see it coming, but still couldn't stop it. And just the same for the opposition in Israel, who have come so close to getting rid of Netanyahu and his ilk on so many occasions. They knew he was a disaster waiting to happen too.
I just recently had a friend tell me that many of their Israeli friends and family are leaving the country in disgust. But of course that means that they won't be there to vote against Netanyahu. By losing, he wins.
And some of the leaders of Hamas, watching from other countries as the people of Gaza are slaughtered, also get to enjoy the spectacle of young people in the west hoisting their flags and chanting their slogans. By losing, they win too.
But what's maddening is that seeing disasters waiting to happen doesn't make it easy to keep them from happening. It can be obvious that it's a disaster waiting to happen to have a presidential candidate in the US refuse to accept the results of elections, and openly plan for an authoritarian consolidation of power, and that might make it less likely to happen, it might make it easier to stop it, but still not easy.
Obvious encroaching disasters can still happen, and frequently do. I hate that!
Did you read some sort of an impressive proof for this fact prior to epistemically & cognitively (consciously &/or subconsciously) upgrading it to Objectively True? Because for something to be labeled as True in a strict system of logic, it requires a proof.
Note also that Consensus Belief of Truth is not identical to Proven Truth, even though it typically appears that way due to our cultural conditioning.
As articulated by Likud MK / Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel back in January:
On Tuesday, Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel told Zman that “voluntary migration is the best and most realistic program for the day after the fighting ends.”
On Tuesday, during a conference held in the Knesset to examine possibilities for postwar Gaza, Gamliel said: “At the end of the war, Hamas rule will collapse. There are no municipal authorities; the civilian population will be entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. There will be no work, and 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land will become security buffer zones.”
Gamliel said that Gaza must not be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, and Gazans must not be left in the Strip to be educated to hate, as that would mean that further attacks on Israel are only a matter of time. While rejecting the PA’s return, the government has offered few details on what political entity it wants to rule Gaza.
“The Gaza problem is not just our problem,” Gamliel said. “The world should support humanitarian emigration, because that’s the only solution I know.”This also explains why there are so many historical examples of people in the past seemingly be so obviously on the "wrong side of history". It's not that they didn't have largely the same morals than most people today, it's more a cognitive dissonance.
Imagine some foreign worker in europe/us, losing all his family this way until s/he literally has nothing left to lose, while the politicians in your new country brag about helping the killers of your family with more weapons and money.
Then when someone like that decides to bring the "war" to europe/us, and shoots/bombs/... some people, we all act as if "how is this possible?", "who could have radicalized him like that?" etc. Well, we did.
It paints a troubling picture of a leader whose decision-making is distorted by clinging to power at all costs. Undermining democratic norms to appease extremist coalition partners is a dangerous road that could lead Israel to more illiberal and authoritarian policies, especially toward Palestinians, the Arab media, and domestic dissent.
Saturday AM EST, it was reported that Hamas confirmed they were going to accept the deal. By noon Saturday EST, the "Israel-Hamas War"...idk what to call it, live blog? collection-of-news headline?...was gone for the first time in months.
Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Piecing it together from Twitter natsec people, standard blob, certainly not polarized against israel, Israel didn't even send a delegation to the talks, and the far right Israeli leader said Bibi promised him they wouldn't accept "a rushed deal" (i.e. the cease fire), and people were irate. An irate Israeli TV reporter revealed the anonymous "diplomatic source" promising no deal Friday night was Bibi himself.
The blogs are back up now, with a sort of hurried framing that the talks fell apart because Hamas wanted a permanent cease fire (no mention of any of the above -- I assume that'd complicate it too much for, it needs to be a nice little set piece of Israel vs. Hamas.
It's really, really strange watching the coverage the last week, in America, without any attachment to either "side". I guess its easier to push the A vs. B framing on a new subject, our college kids, rather than trying to explain how any of this makes any sense at all.
A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire.
I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way.
No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful.
In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
> No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one.
All the things you wrote before that are things that Israel explicitly says, that it won't agree to a permanent ceasefire. But this statement is your personal opinion, and I don't think it's necessarily justified.
> In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
I think your phrasing on this is misleading, since it implies that Netanyahu's words are that he wants to "continue a genocide" and "ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians". That is incorrect. Are words are that he will invade Rafah, the "continue the genocide/ethnic cleansing" thing are your words, not his. (I highly disagree with using those words, but either way, my point stands.)
Rereading it I can see how this is misleading, that was not my intention.
Israeli government already very clearly and explicitly said that this window doesn't exist; that was my entire point. If he had said "we MAY still invade" or anything even slightly more qualified, then sure. But he didn't. Unless something went spectacularly wrong in translation, what I read is that he said in very clear terms that Israel will absolutely invade.
Whether that's just empty threads or not is a judgement call, but it's certainly not the language of good faith.
A temporary ceasefire also creates room for the opposition to create pressure to call for elections. That’s difficult to do while a war is ongoing.
To your point, in my varied Israeli media diet, it's well-understood in the entire Israeli press that Bibi went out of his way to torpedo it by saying this simple idea over and over. The only question is whether this show he has a spine (willing to lose an eventual vote just to defeat the terrorists), or that he's weak (willing to lose the hostages to retain his political position) A majority is weary of it because the implementation of the specifics is "we will work our way through the refugee camp and then ???" and they feel they've seen that plan before.
We can confirm this is from an unbiased perspective by noting that the protests kicked up a notch, and the TV presenter outed the anonymous diplomatic source as him, and then perusing original sourcing as to why. (to share something I learned re: sourcing, Haaretz will be seen as some interlocutors as a left-wing rag doing performances for overseas audiences, Times of Israel is better)
Agree that the logic kind of pushes Hamas into keeping the hostages so not sure what Israel is expecting and most likely Israel has just marked the hostages as dead and will do anything to permanently destroy Hamas and show other potential beligerents that the deterrent strategy is concrete - even though that means a death sentence for most of those hostages still alive.
Unless by negotiation table you mean "whatever Israel wants and nothing else".
By this point these aims appear to have evolved, and it now seems primarily concerned with encouraging what it refers to as "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip. And as a secondary aim, to incrementally expand the settlements in the West Bank (in the hopes of securing their eventual annexation).
Correcting you on this - the protests were not because Israel "rejected a cease fire".
For one thing, these are the same protests that happen every Saturday for the last few weeks of the war, continuing the "tradition" of protests that happened every Saturday for the ~10 months before the war.
For another, Israel didn't "reject" the ceasefire deal, Hamas did, or at least that's the way it is being talked about by Israel itself. There are many reasons to think Israel (and specifically Netanyahu) may have tried to tank the deal, but Hamas are the ones that eventually walked away.
Frankly, it feels like the only hope for an end to this conflict is in the hands of the internal Israeli political opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not stopped, we're gonna see the same... "approach" used with Palestinian people applied to whatever internal resistance is left.
Also, given the vilification we've seen of those expressing sympathy for a two-state solution or the general Palestinian population in the last 30 years, I'd be wary to take at face value any poll without being sure they were done with some sort of guarantee of anonymity.
I'm pretty sure you'd get even more one-sided approval results asking the British about the handling of the Ireland border during the troubles, or the Spanish on the repression of the Basque population after Zaragoza.
And yes, in Israel right now it's probably somewhat affected by social (and sometimes legal) consequences of dissent... but those very social consequences are in and of themselves indicative of supermajority support. Point being, even if it is, say, 65% rather than 80%, that still means that opposition has no power, and so nothing is really in its hands at the moment.
I suspect that most don't know. I've sometimes seen articles in Times of Israel, and although they mention that lots of civilians are getting killed, they also write that this is Hamas health ministry counting, suggesting that the numbers would be made up.
Look here:
> At least 34,596 Palestinians have been killed [...] the Hamas-run health ministry in the Strip says.
> The figures cannot be independently verified and include at least 13,000 Hamas gunmen Israel says it has killed in battle
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-run-healt...
So, Times of Israel writes as if information provided by IDF would be trustworthy (13 000 gunmen). But from what I've seen, when reading e.g. about the Lavender AI system and IDF's replies, then, the IDF generals and spokespeople lie a lot, and it's better to disregard anything they say.
Someone living in Israel, might be inclined to trust the IDF. However, looking at how many women have been killed, and realizing that a similar number of civilian men have been killed too -- then, more likely, 80%? 90%? of those "gunmen" were in fact civilians, but IDF happily counts each dead man as a terrorist.
And Times of Israel is not even a right wing newspaper. (Seems it's "centrist", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_of_Israel.)
(With that said, most Palestinians and AlJazeera readers don't know what Hamas did on October 7. Not all but most Israelis and Palestinians are blind to the bad things that happen to those in the other tribe, know only about the bad things that happened to themselves.)
The reason for asking is because a poll[0] of Palestinians says “90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive. Only one in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas.”
So is it Al Jazeera’s fault that Palestinians have not seen the evidence and seem not to think 10/7 was all that problematic? One assumes that if such deliberate distortion/omission was normal practice at Al Jazeera, Israel would be able to clearly point to it. But the justification for the ban is a pretty vague concern about national security.
Does Gaza have sufficient connectivity for its population to have a real news source?
I’ve also read in the past that Al Jazeera is a rather popular media outlet among Palestinians in Gaza.
> Pan-Arab satellite TVs, especially Qatar's Al-Jazeera, are popular. [1]
I know that Shireen Abu Akleh—an Al Jazeera journalist murdered by IDF in 2022—was a superstar among Palestinians, including Palestinans in Gaza.
I think they have more pressing matters on their mind than getting informed at the moment, such as trying not to starve, finding dead relatives in the rubble of destroyed apartments, and similar things.
Moreover, I think the people of Palestine might be a bit biased against Israel. And I don't think that's an information issue, I think it's a completely natural response to Israel killing tens of thousands of civilian, 70% of whom women and children.
I think if you ask Ukrainian civilians what they think of Russians you'll hear some falsehoods and unreasonable stuff too. That's a completely natural response, and the Ukrainian media is not to be blamed for that.
If that's true, it makes sense to ask whether Al Jazeera has been purposely feeding misinformation to the Palestinian population during the war. And it makes sense to ask if that is in any way related by Al Jazeera's funding by Qatar, where the leaders of Hamas live: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/qatar-hamas-israel-1.699941...
Thank you for sharing this here.
I know some Palestinians, and yes, they seem extremely misinformed, clueless about what Hamas did.
I was surprised after October 7 when they seemed to have had no idea about what had happened. They apparently only knew that IDF had started bombing. I might even guessed 95% instead of 90% "believe that Hams did not ...".
Al Jazeera lies by omission -- by not mentioning what Hamas did, and, if it does, then downplaying the numbers.
The Israeli newspapers lie by omission, too: they don't let their readers know how many civilians Netanyahu and IDF has killed in Gaza. Al Jazeera and right wing Israeli newspapers manipulate the Palestinians and Israelis, respectively.
> ask whether Al Jazeera has been purposely feeding misinformation to the Palestinian population during the war
Of course they do
"Like all foreign news organizations operating in Israel, CNN’s Jerusalem bureau is subject to the rules of the Israel Defense Forces’s censor, which dictates subjects that are off-limits for news organizations to cover, and censors articles it deems unfit or unsafe to print. ... the military censor recently restricted eight subjects, including security cabinet meetings, information about hostages, and reporting on weapons captured by fighters in Gaza. In order to obtain a press pass in Israel, foreign reporters must sign a document agreeing to abide by the dictates of the censor."
https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-repo...
https://theintercept.com/2023/12/23/israel-military-idf-medi...
(Please don’t flame thinking I’m hardcore in support of a particular side in this war due to this post—you’ve very likely gotten the wrong impression. I’m commenting only on the narrow point that the US in fact can censor, including with prior restraint in certain circumstances, during war.)
The United States's last declaration of war was 83 years ago. Since then it's been all "police actions" or some such. What meaning does "during war" carry in the world of today?
The stated reason is "to keep journalists safe". But journalists have risked their lives in many conflicts to bring the news to people, its their choice to risk their life or not. Unless one were to believe that all journalists biased against israel, there is no reason to restrict all journalists. Why not let in Christiane Amanpour, or many other western trained and western paid journalists?
I think that's a fair statement, but also a far cry from "killing journalists for sport". These kind of exaggerated claims aren't helpful.
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/....
There’s not really any doubt that the press feel they’re targeted, I think some have gone on the record about it. I don’t know how well we can really test such a claim absent the cooperation of the IDF, which will never happen.
My comment is meant to be a joke about how some of this stuff is grimly academic. If your army has enough xenophobic misanthropes and incompetent reservists who are willing to shoot at anything not wearing their uniform, the notion of a class of people being “targeted” is rendered redundant.
The Hebrew-speaking hostages who were killed while trying to surrender were just one aspect of this conflict that someone writing a really dark antiwar comedy might have come up with.
Well it's not "academic" if it occupies quite a bit of the public debate, and it's also not helpful if it's actually fairly easy to debunk, and is just fuel for the "they will make up anything to make us look bad" line. All of that energy can and should be spent elsewhere.
"The US State Department subsequently announced on July 4 that tests by independent ballistics experts under U.S. oversight were not conclusive about the gun it was fired from but that US officials have concluded that gunfire from Israeli positions most likely killed Akleh and that there was "no reason to believe" her shooting was intentional. US investigators had "full access"[138] to both IDF and PA investigations.[139][140][141] The Palestinian Public Prosecutor's Office disputes the US conclusion that the bullet cannot be matched to a gun and maintains its position that the killing was premeditated.[142] On July 5, the US stressed that it did not conduct its own probe, but the conclusion was a "summation" of investigations by the Palestinian Authority and Israel.[143]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh#Subsequent_i...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-says-israel-can-kee...
Qatar did both of those things at the request of the US and Israel. Qatar serves as an intermediary between the US/Israel and Hamas, just as it served as an intermediary for talks between the US and the Taliban.
> Like many of these seemingly weird decisions, there's more to it than "Israel bad".
The motivation here is clearly to stop information about what is happening in Gaza from reaching the outside world. Al Jazeera is the only major international news agency with a significant presence on the ground there.
If your government cannot protect the country from journalists, then you should force them to resign, and call for new elections.
Once you’ve established that the government can unilaterally ban a voice for reasons of “national security” you’ve essentially given them a free pass. As Americans living post-9/11 will know, “national security” is a deliberately elastic term that can cover anything required in the moment.
Do you believe Al Jazeera is spreading misinformation? Even if Israel says so? Even if the USA starts saying so as well?
I don't know where we can draw a line here.
But it's notable that the Israeli government refuses to submit itself to an election, especially in the face of widespread popular demands.
We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.
We can draw the line when their reporters were (since then eliminated) active member of Hamas rocket teams.
2. You can just google Al Jazeera Arabic anti Israel propaganda and you will find more content to read and watch than you can do in your life time
3. https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in... https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-accuses-al-jazeera-jo...
1. False report about IDF rape https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf...
2. Arabic vs English Al Jazeera, conflicting messages
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeer...
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeer...
3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members
https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-...
https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921
The vast majority of media companies that own media in different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line then, including most companies that have social media channels in different languages.
but you had no say in the matter; so if a future ban is not in your interest, what will you do?
no, the government should not stifle the market of ideas. that is not in our interest in the long run.
America is uniquely individualistic, our First Amendment uniquely strong. I believe in it. But it's not clear it's the only optimum.
It is not in my interest, to become more like authorian russia for the sake of fighting them.
So I'm not sure what is the good solution now. I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work. But this is long term. Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France.
You do. On the internet. An increasing amount of people are getting their (fake) news now exclusivly online via "alternative" news sources like RT. Banning one of those sources on television will just mean further entrenching of those people. ("see, they don't want the truth to spread" ...)
" I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work."
And aside to lots and lots of crap in the curriculum, there would be enough school time avaiable to teach more of criticial information analysis and media skills. But partial banning of one source seems like the more comfortable solution. Except that this might really hurt us in the long run, if the next source that will be banned, won't be enemy propaganda source, but just a legitimate critical newspaper for example. But secret service will say the enemy funded and influenced them, so off they go.
Of course there is always a risk of censorship of real information. As citizens we must be vigilant to what is banned. And our reaction as citizens should absolutely be different depending of wether the ban targets RT or Le Monde (for example).
Something about thermodynamics. Random noise is free. Exposing lies and ascertaining the truth requires structure, observation, flexibility, organization, introspection, correlation, adaptation— a lot of things that take a lot of effort in multiple different ways, that is physically and socially both difficult/expensive and fragile/vulnerable.
Propaganda and fake news are not really different from a sleazy salesman, or an abusive relationship. In the time it takes you to fly a journalist to the scene, speak with and hear the experiences of people on the ground, find patterns and write accurate, digestable descriptions and cite precedents, consult with experts, then with dissenters— So on— In the time it takes you to move just one single step closer to the truth, for an answer that still leaves complex questions and won't satisfy anybody, the liar will already have invented a thousand completely new ways to lie (as well as a couple hundred reasons why you must be the lying one, for disputing them, of course). …Or hired some guy to drive a meat cleaver in your back…
Plus, lies are often directly predatory towards some of the best parts of ourselves too… The desire to trust, and assume good faith, about what other people tell you…
> or the lake of preparation to the quick rise of social networks.
Our mental and social faculties for ascertaining and communicating realities are ultimately encoded in physical structures which tend towards chaos and collapse.
…I suppose it is to be expected that vastly increasing the rate at which information can be "generated" and transmitted would cause the equilibrium to be dominated by r-strategists. ..Ah, fuck.
It wasn't in the interest of freedom. Everyone reading it would know it was the russian spin. But now we are not allowed to know what the russians think. After all thinking of them as humans like us is not something we want right?
The USA seems to not have followed through (as far as I know - as Russian news sites seem to be available).
AFAIK, there has been no ban. It would probably face some backlash given the First Amendment right to freedom of press. (Though I'm not sure that truly extends to the press of a foreign country?)
I don't think you can compare Al Jazeera and RT, because one has been a firehose of bullshit that has literally advocates invasion of Ukraine, and the other does not. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is banned purely because they've been critical of current Israeli policy. There are some reasonable criticisms of Al Jazeera and things they could have done better, but that applies to every media outlet on the planet.
Both have the same aim, just as Qatar Airways sponsor your flights with oil money so you might fly through Qatar, Al Jazeera pays journalists so they can push Qatar's narratives to Western or Arabic audience. This is highly similar to RT in intent.
Looking from Israel standpoint, it's a news outlet that pushes your enemies propaganda arm videos unfiltered and also uses it to radicalize part of your population
Also note that the Israeli government spends tons of money to push Israeli narratives and viewpoints. That's fine, they're allowed to do that, but we can leverage the same "highly similar to RT in intent" accusations against them. In the end we should judge actions, not intent.
The discussion here is about the actions of Israel versus Al Jazeera, not a possibility of banning Al Jazeera in the United States or maybe Israeli viewpoints.
Also, I am pretty sure Israeli spendings to push Israeli narratives in the US are minuscule, especially compared to Qatar's.
This is quite popular in europe and is a result of lesson learned from the nazis
Well, you can. You're allowed. But at that point I decide to stop engaging. So good day to you.
Quite the contrary, just look at ADL or AIPAC.
It seems you think Israel has direct finance or control interest in AIPAC, do you have something to support that?
AIPAC is nominally funded by "individual donations", but the problem with that it is fairly trivial for a nation-state to fund things in this manner, so it doesn't really tell us anything. And then, of course, there's the question of personal connections: if you have a private person donating huge amounts of money to AIPAC, and they just happen to be heavily involved with the governing political party in Israel, I would consider them an agent of the state of Israel ipso facto even if they don't have such official position (just as I would consider, say, one of Putin's pet oligarchs a Russian agent if they donate money to an American political campaign in their private capacity).
I've spent a while translating various articles on the Al Jazeera Arabic site from Arabic to English with mistral-7b. Everything seemed to be very fact based, and was emphasising things like civilian deaths, which aligns to what I'd consider public interest.
The Arabic text does consistently use the term شهيد (martyr) to describe Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza, which is the closest thing to biased language I found across multiple articles about Israel and Palestine - but I think that is normal in Arabic for describing even non-combatant casualties and not necessarily reflective of bias given Arabic conventions.
This is obviously a source with a considerable bias, but they link to many concerning examples of Al Jazeera reporting. I personally don’t speak Arabic but anecdotally I’ve heard that the translations are accurate, the bias is manifest in choosing what to translate. This example was especially concerning, exacerbating civilian deaths:
> Al-Jazeera Fabricates Information Designed To Thwart Israel's Instructions To The Gaza Population
>Al-Jazeera broadcast footage of bodies of civilians strewn over a road, presenting them as victims of an Israeli attack against people who had abided by the IDF instructions to evacuate to southern Gaza.[91] Israel in fact had secured safe passage to the south for those civilians who wished to go there, while Hamas exerted pressure on them to remain put in order to use civilians as human shields.[92]
“because one has been a firehose of bullshit that has literally advocates invasion of Ukraine”
How is that different from CNN/BBC/whatever advocating NATO/US invasions in the last half century? (Serbia, Iraq2, Libya, etc). And more recently Gaza.
Israeli news reports and analysts say Qatar has sent more than $1 billion to Gaza over the past decade.
Qatar sent that aid through fuel to the Gaza Strip's Hamas government, which in turn sold it and paid partial salaries. In the past, the money was sent via suitcases stuffed with cash.
Israel allowed these transfers to Hamas. Supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say the payments his government approved helped keep the status quo in the Gaza Strip and Hamas from escalating attacks on Israel.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210110109/qatar-israel-gaza-...
Iran is Hamas' main backer. Qatar funded Hamas with Israel's consent, so it's not really fair to hold this against Doha. (Their continuing to host Hamas' leadership is fair to criticise.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terr...
Sure. Hence why I qualified my statement with "continuing." Doha hosting Hamas in '17 was fine. Doha hosting them after October 7 is fair to criticise.
Yes. Hamas was seen by even Israel as better than anarchy. That's why they let Doha fund them.
We're now seeing American lawmakers criticising Qatar [1]. That's prompting Dohas to "re-evaluat[e] its role as mediator in ceasefire talks" and weigh "whether to allow Hamas to continue operating [its] political office" [2][3].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-gaza-ce...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-gaza-ce...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-considers-fu...
Better then anarchy or better than peace? There is some people on both sides of this conflict which are happy to see it radicalized and I think those people all benefits from the other being strong on the other side.
All that said, the actions taken by the Israeli right are certainly not helping the possibility of a future peace agreement, but it's not clear whether this specific action belongs in that group. One might argue that a stronger central authority in Gaza means there is a partner for a future agreement and that if Gaza can transition to be a more peaceful place (and it seemed to be heading in that direction) that would also support a future agreement.
Qatar is not a western country, there is no reason to expect it to buy into western exceptionalism. This is not to defend Hamas but simply to point out that the western double standard doesn’t reach much beyond Europe.
America is (a) a country and (b) major trading and security partner.
> Qatar is not a western country, there is no reason to expect it to buy into western exceptionalism
We are their security guarantor. It’s why Doha is publicly debating shutting down Hamas’ political office.
Are missiles coming out of Qatar? Are they even supplying arms to Hamas, or do they simply fund the civilian portions of the government?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
The furthest the freely accessible part goes is to say Israel "encouraged" Qatari payments to Hamas.
from what I can see it never mentioned Israel directly giving money to Hamas. But encouraging payments seems close enough.
I think pretty much any money going into Gaza should be considered funding Hamas. It either went directly to Hamas or it was taxed or it allowed Hamas not to spent that money. This means Europe and the US also funded Hamas.
The reason for funding was to create chaos, not to remove it. Why else do you fund a group that destabilises the area. Basically Israel wanted Gaza to be more chaotic as they felt it gave them more control.
The decision to pursue power and chaos as opposed to seeking resolution and a path to peace has had obvious consequences.
This whole thread is so strange, people keep claiming Palestinians cannot be trusted to rule themselves, while at the same time accusing Israel of genocide for not giving them the ability to rule themselves.
> But encouraging payments seems close enough.
Hmmm. I don't think I agree with that. It's such a polarized and emotional debate. It could really benefit from being precise with words.
Making everything sound just slightly worse than it is will help rile up the side that feels slighted and it will let the other side just pass the speaker off as a liar. The result is fewer shared facts, more polarization and a more emotional debate.
The truth of war is bad enough. It doesn't need to be stretched.
AlJazeera is known to be untrustworthy on matters of the middle east. Just as BBC is untrustworthy on matters of UK international politics and the NYT [1] can't be trusted on US foreign policy matters.
AlJazeera, NYT and BBC are weapons of mass propaganda just like Globaltimes or RT. The main (and admittedly stark) difference is how often these weapons are deployed.
[]1 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis...
Yes it did. And that was a dark day for Europe.
rt.com, enter… loads instantaneously.
sputnikglobe.com, enter… loads instantaneously.
Please don’t lie.
Edit: it was not a lie, my apologies.
One of the most ineffectual bans I have ever seen.
To me this is more a discouragement of promotion than any real ban, but I will edit my previous comment.
Try one of these (none accessible to me in Sweden):
My wife is Belarussian and was upset she couldn't read her news, that's how I know they banned many websites. They didn't ban the "opposition" websites run from outside Russia/Belarus though :).
Whatever the interpretation, I think it's clear that things are degrading fast in the last few decades. I don't think an EU-wide block on Russian media such as RT wouldn't have passed with such indifference 20 years ago.
That's the most worrying to me: not the measure itself, but the indifference from the general population. In fact, I have another comment in this thread saying that block was abhorrent and it's gathering downvotes... In HN, a community where most are well-educated people from the US, a country that has arguably been the staunchest defender of freedom of expression and of the press. I find that worrying. And then there is cancel culture, and other factors, that have eroded effective freedom of speech.
At this rate, in a few more decades Western democracies will be hard to tell in practice from Chinese authoritarianism, which is worrying, because they have better economic projection, more safety, booming infrastructure, a less aggressive foreign policy... Democracy and freedom is basically what makes the West worth it, if we lose it, what's even the point?
Illiberal maybe, but not undemocratic.
If a supermajority opposes free press, it would be undemocratic to force it upon them.
Too many people - usually Americans - confuse liberal democracy with democracy.
Liberal democracy is a phrase for a reason - and the liberal comes first for a reason!
Just because people vote for something doesn't make the thing they voted for democratic. Historically people have voted to install a non-democratic government before.
If not, it's not democracy! You're deciding to overrule the demos and enforce your minority opinion!
I know it seems like pedantry but we shouldn't confuse liberalism with democracy.
I read Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>) right after hearing about YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels. I was surprised to learn in the book of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish.
It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between US/Europe outside Ukraine and Russia.
Clearly they're not doing that, just criticizing the government.
The obvious next step is outlawing any speech criticizing the government (or rather 'speech that is a threat to national security'), then you've got the same laws as in Russia.
They were not closed because they're "criticizing the government". They were closed because they're acting on behalf of a foreign agent and spreading propaganda (I think the actual language "is harmed national security"). Qatar is not a free country, it funds Al-Jazeera, it hosts the Hamas leadership.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/
"Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-de...
Notice a pattern with the British Govt? They get their "independent" depts and businesses to do their dirty work for deniability!
To resort to official declarations of war or lack thereof, to hamstring the US response to widespread dissemination of Russian propaganda is plausible on the face of it.
But consider: the US is under no obligation to facilitate Russian propagandists. To deny them access is a matter for the State Department, as it's dealing with foreign nationals. It's quite routine to deny rights to non-American citizens.
Finally, a declaration of war with Russia could destabilize politics everywhere. Or even, destroy the world. It's disingenuous to ignore that and quibble over the rules, especially since those rules clearly don't apply to foreign governments trying to operate in the US.
Not yet, they're not.
In my own industry I commonly hear people talk about self regulation in order to keep governments from interfering. This has benefits, but it also makes the action of the industry a dialog between government and private sector. Voluntarily removing undesired content is technically not censorship ordered by the government, but it is also not completely separated from the wishes of the government.
> We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering.
> In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators' educational levels is available -- the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 -- 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth...]
I would never expect any theocracy to be a bastion of democracy. Israel can't really realize its goals and be free at the same time. Those goals are not compatible.
This is mostly a symbolic move that will make very little difference. Likely it will push Al Jazeera to be more anti-Israeli but I'm sure they can make up (pun intended) for their lack of physical presence in the region. People that want to consume that content in Israel will have no problem (many already get this via satellite).
A by the way is that this can still be challenged in the courts. If Al Jazeera chooses to go to the supreme court I imagine there's a pretty good chance that the decision will get overturned. They might intentionally decide not to do that because that outcome will put Israel in a positive light.
One of the genuine cultural differences between the US and Israel is that while Americans prefer greater liberty (even if it means less security), Israelis prefer greater security (even if it means less liberty). Which is to say, both cultures appreciate both values, but they have different priorities.
Israel is a country where you will have your bags searched before entering shopping malls or train stations. That Israelis' privacy is violated on a daily basis by other Israelis is popular. There is a sense that the privacy violations are genuinely needed, result in genuine protection, and are not abused by those in power.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/south-africas-genocide-...
This is false and shows a misunderstanding. Choose better information sources.
ICJ only decided whether it is plausible to allow South Africa to continue with this process on behalf of Gaza. It has nothing to do with the court's opinion on the plausibility of the -underlying- case but on the questioned legality of the process itself.
[1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240430-yes-it-is-genocid...
"In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly."
For whatever reason most people don't get that. I came to live in Germany around 15 years ago during the economic crisis and was pretty shocked that it was normal to say in public that Greeks are lazy. I couldn't understand the difference between that and "Jews are evil" and similar rhetoric that led to the Holocaust. And that in the country that should've learned something from the past. This time around I am not surprised they are fully behind this genocide simply because it's more convenient to look the other way.
Shame.
No, they had a very good reason: They hate Jews and do not believe Jews have any right to national sovereignty in their own land.
No - they just don't happen agree with them on the question of whose land it is.
You don't have to agree with their historical reading of the situation, of course. But it's really quite straightforward and simple, really. And if people are firing rockets at you -- it's probably best not to invent outlandish and unreal explanations for why they're doing so.
In any case -- pretending that the rest of the world obviously and unquestionably accepts the idea that this is all "Jewish land" (now or in 1947) -- or that if they don't, it's because the simply hate Jews, or won't accept the idea of Israel existing in any form -- definitely isn't helpful.
(And no, I'm not justifying or "explaining" the firing of rockets at anyone - please don't go there).
The court ruled that South Africa had plausible standing to bring a case defending Gazans, not that there was plausible genocide. Bringing wikipedia as a source about a very hot topic doesn't lend any support to your argument.
She very clearly stated, they didn't find or make any ruling on the plausibility of genocide, just that it was plausible that they might not be able to be protected in a case where a genocide were to happen.
They couldn't honestly claim there was any merit to the claim of genocide, but people were screaming for blood so they did this doublespeak thing where if you squint you can claim they 100% claim genocide is happening to mollify the anti-semites while not actually saying anything.
Essentially, she said, "we haven't found a genocide, but were a genocide to be attempted, it would be difficult to prevent" which is true in every single case of war, especially asymmetric warfare, where one side is much stronger than the other.
If someone were to bring a case against the US back in 2004 following the invasion of Iraq a similar finding would be totally within reason... but does anyone claim NATO committed genocide? No, but it's plausible that that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Iraqi right to be protected from genocide.
As I re-read this, I struggle to understand what this means; everything done during war time falls under the provisions of the Genocide Convention, that doesn't mean that genocide is happening, but rather again, that it's a war and people are being killed. Its kinda like calling an airstrike against a military target "premediated murder in the first degree" or calling all soldiers who have killed the enemy serial killers.
If you squint and remove all context the labels apply but they're meaningless under our current understanding of those words.
> I also never claimed that risk of losing your right to be protected from genocide is like getting your Nintendo Switch stolen, it was just a pointer for you to think about what it actually would mean.
"I never made the comparison, I just made the comparison because I was conducting a social experiment" Ok, I'll let you continue trying to figure out what you mean by that.
If we go back to your original comment, you also made a number of false statements in there:
> Israel is actively blocking delivery of food to the civilian population and has already in one case caused a massacre of people trying to get their hands on basic supplies.
This is totally false. Israel is not actively blocking delivery of food and the case of a massacre can be clearly seen in video to be caused by people trampling each other after attempting to rush at a platoon of soldiers.
> At the same time, a minister in the government is publicly calling for occupying Gaza and "motivating" civilians to "voluntarily" leave.
Would you care to explain what specifically is problematic about saying that terrorists should be encouraged to move their terror activities away from Israel? Or what is problematic about Israel governing an area that they've shown they can govern in a much more democratic and fair way than the currently elected suicidal death cult? Were you upset when the US occupied Germany for 11 years? and continued to have a large presence for the next 30 years?
> But speaking of holes, I guess I discounted the large void between your ears.
Insults are always used by those who know they've lost. Thank you for admitting defeat.
It's funny how I say "minister 'motivating' civilians" and you ask and replace civilians with terrorists. Wasn't there an old looney tunes cartoon with a not very bright character picking up a can of gasoline and blowing himself up after saying g-a-s what a strange way to write water? I guess he won at being stupid, which seems to be a common theme here. Congratulations on your victory.
By showing your inability to have a civil discussion you've proven you don't have a leg to stand on.
Is that what you believe?
That's a pretty grotesque thing to say, even if it's not really clear what it means.
Instead of failed attempts to cast insults and innuendos why don't you actually address the discussion.
Admit that you made a grotesque comparison in an attempt to prove your moral superiority but instead got caught in your own hubris. Admit that you're making up quotes left and right so you can try to salvage some part of your argument, admit that you're putting words in other peoples mouths so you can build up strawmen to attack. Admit that every time you're shown you're wrong you refuse to even acknowledge it and instead start hurling insults as if that will make people forget the preposterous arguments you attempted. Admit that not once in this entire discussion did you approach it with even an ounce of curiosity, and instead assumed malice at every step. Then we can continue to have some sort of civil discussion, otherwise you're tilting at windmills and it makes you look foolish.
You've broken nearly every hn guideline for good discussion and continue to fume, it might be time to step back and step away for a bit.
The last sentence really defines you. You feel mighty and powerful don't you, you know it's your time and nothing can stop you. Here's a song you can sing to celebrate this accomplishment:
I’m sorry you’re feeling so hurt and upset, hopefully you’ll heed my well intentioned advice and take a sabbatical from your culture war, just to recharge and gain perspective.
As long as we’re giving each other extra curricular activities I suggest you read this book: https://www.amazon.com/High-Conflict-Why-Get-Trapped/dp/1982...
I promise you it’ll make you a happier less brooding person.
As there doesn’t seem to be anything productive happening here, this my au revoir. I hope you find the internal peace you’re so sorely missing.
Also me: I am the world renowned expert on letting go
For the people that have trouble getting things, where it says "me" it's actually meant "you"
If you break the site guidelines like this again on HN, we will have to ban you, no matter how provocative someone else's comments are or you feel they are.
Absolutely no more of this, please.
If you break the site guidelines like this again on HN, we will have to ban you, no matter how provocative someone else's comments are or you feel they are.
Absolutely no more of this, please.
Seriously? You have been accusing me of anti-semitism but now you play straight into a harmful and anti-semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros, with hints to another very damaging and equally anti-semitic conspiracy theory about Cultural Marxism.
For what it is worth, George Soros does not fund any of the student movements responsible for the pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide encampments. One of the charities he helps fund has awarded grants to two student organization which the New York Post has claimed (but now proven) to be involved in the protests[1]. This is several degrees of separations, and the link is on flaky grounds.
Kapos’ interview above was excellent. He describes visiting another holocaust survivor [T=00:05:17] in Israel and being shocked at how racist she was:
> Yet she came back to Israel, and she was as racist as the rest of them, against the Palestinians.
> I think this has to do with the extreme propaganda, and the dehumanization. Zionism was a very unfortunate and sad development for the Jewish people. It broke a much longer tradition of always being on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressor. And the charitable nature of Judaism and the humanity they advocate, into a kind of exceptionalism and nationalism. And in practical terms the impossible project of taking over another people’s country.
> So when I visited them—that was my first brush of Zionism—I was completely shocked—despite their experiences during the Holocaust—they were racist, against the Palestinians. I couldn’t understand it, and I can’t understand it, but they were, and there is no denying it. And I found that racism was prevailing generally in Israel. And I turned strongly against that.
1: https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/may/02/fact-checking...
So what you are trying to claim is that the World Court never explicitly claimed, in direct words, that some of South Africa’s allegations for genocide was plausible, therefor the court never ruled that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, we have no authority claiming that Israel is committing genocide, and therefor, any claims of Israel committing genocide are unfounded.
First of all I want to address how weak this line of argument is. The ICJ is not the only authority which has claimed plausible genocide (yes, the ICJ did claim that; I’ll come back to that), second, we have plenty of evidence which indicts Israel for the crime of genocide, including, but not limited to South Africa’s filing at the ICJ (see sources on Wikipedia). Even if we take your or Joan Donoghue’s interpretation at face value, raxxorraxor’s claim that “the accusation is ridiculous and lacking any form of sincere analysis and judgement” is it self pretty much wrong.
Second, the court did rule that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide, by any reasonable interpretation of the ruling. Even though most people cite Article IV paragraph 54 (See [1]; quoted above) as the smoking gun (which it absolutely is) equally relevant is Article II Paragraphs 30-32 where the court decides it has jurisdiction over the case, citing Article IX of the Genocide Convention. The court would not have done that if it did not think it was plausible that Israel were violating the terms of the Genocide Convention. In other words, the court ruled that some of South Africa’s accusations were plausible. And put yet another way, the court decided that it is plausible that Israel is committing the crime of Genocide.
The problem with your interpretation, and your citing of Joan Donoghue’s answer in this context, is that she is actually answering a question relating to the provisional measures ordered by the court on January 26th 2024 (which is what Article IV is all about), and again on March 28th 2024. My personal opinion is that by answering the question this way she is actually being willfully misleading. It is beyond a doubt that the court decided that some of the accusations were plausible, her clarifying and stating that technically the court only decided on provisional measures, is obscuring the fact that it did rule to start investigating Israel for the crime of Genocide.
ICJ member often rules in alignment with their nation’s foreign policy, and Joan Donoghue has shown that to be the case under her presidency, I actually find it a miracle that the court ruled in favor of South Africa under her presidency. My personal belief is that the case against Israel is very obvious, and there was no way the court could rule any other way. This interview is she rectifying US foreign policy, and offering a plausible deniability to what the court actually ruled.
1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
Read Paragraph 62: "The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of rights under that instrument."
The preservation of rights is a procedural matter for the court; they are measures to prevent prejudice against the case, and to prevent the irreparable harms claimed by the plaintiff. The facts under consideration there are viewed in the light favorable to the movant, because they are not in fact a disposition of the question. ["preservation of rights" filetype:pdf] is a good search here.
The ICJ did not in fact find that Israel had engaged in acts of genocide.
If you use a casual or non-legal definition of "genocide" --- "any campaign of ethnically targeted mass violence" seems like a reasonable one --- this is a live argument. But if you're going to cite chapter and verse from the decision and the Genocide Convention, I think you're clearly on the wrong side of the argument?
I—nor any uptread posts I read—claimed that the court found and ruled that Israel had engaged in Genocide. Merely that the court found it was plausible. I stand by these words, that the court did indeed find it plausible.
As I understand it everything in Article IV (including Paragraph 62) in the January 26 order was relating to the preliminary measures as requested by South Africa. Everything ruled there would be without prejudges with respect to the final ruling, as Article IV’s primary function is to prevent the Palestinian people from genocide (a function it has utterly failed at in my frank opinion).
Article II is, however, very relevant in the context of arguing whether the World Court finds the genocide accusation plausible. Article II is all about establishing jurisdiction, which it does by establishing that Article IX of the Genocide Convention applies. Article IX says:
> Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article III of the Genocide convention lists every crime which is punishable by the convention, including (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; and (e) Complicity in genocide.
By establishing jurisdiction the case the court must find that Article IX applies, and to find that Article IX applies, it must show that it believes Israels conduct may be in violation of the genocide convention. Or as the ruling says (Paragraphs 19-20):
> To determine whether a dispute exists in the present case, the Court cannot limit itself to noting that one of the Parties maintains that the Convention applies, while the other denies it
> Since South Africa has invoked as the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction the compromissory clause of the Genocide Convention, the Court must also ascertain, at the present stage of the proceedings, whether it appears that the acts and omissions complained of by the Applicant are capable of falling within the scope of that convention ratione materiae.
In other words, if the court would not believe that Israel’s conduct (as described by South Africa) does not fall inside the Genocide Convention, then the court would reject the case on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction.
Note, I think this was most of Israel’s legal defense, that it was trying to establish that their conduct does indeed not fall within the Genocide Convention.
The crucial finding (as my limited mind understands it) is then in Paragraph 30:
> In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention.
To my ears, this sounds like—while the court hasn’t issued a final ruling—it does indeed find it plausible that Israel is committing a genocide.
EDIT: The only other reading I can entertain is that the court believes none of the accusations brought by South Africa which fall under Article III (a) of the Genocide Convention are plausible, and merely some of the accusations relating to Article III (b)-(e) apply. In which case, I stand corrected.
What you're reading about is the ICJ equivalent of a preliminary injunction. An injunction is a court order issued before the case is decided. Injunctions are based on balancing tests: some likelihood of irreparable harm must exist, and some likelihood that the movant will succeed at trial must exist. The more harm you demonstrate, the less likelihood you need to demonstrate, and vice versa.
Here, the harm South Africa is concerned about is of the gravest type possible.
Again: it is just not accurate to suggest that the ICJ has determined Israel has committed acts of genocide. It's "not even wrong"; the decision you're referring to is an interim provisional ruling.
I specifically said nobody is trying to argue that the court has ruled one way or the other. Merely that by accepting the case, the court did view some of the actions as capable of falling inside the Convention.
We are basically arguing over what the word plausible means here. I still stand by my words that the word applies to the courts believes as stated by the ruling.
If you do some reading on the "Plausibility" standard in the ICJ --- it's a recent development --- I think you're going to find it's a pretty low bar.
I guess I see one more scenario here, where the court did not find it plausible. That would be that the court found South Africa’s accusations to plausibly fall under the Genocide Convention, but did not look at the credibility of the accusations. However in the rulings of the preliminary measures, they do state that the risk of genocide inflicted on the Palestinian people was plausible, so frankly, I don’t think the court found the accusations implausible.
In any case, I guess if that is the case, I stand corrected, however given the mountain of evidence given by South Africa, and the fact the people don’t dispute the authenticity of those evidence, the fact that the court found the accusation plausibly fall under the Genocide Conention is almost identical to the statement that the court found the accusations plausible. The nuance here is so small that it is completely irrelevant.
I’m hardly the only one which has this reading of the court order[1]. Here is a human rights lawyer speaking with the Times[2] which describes the ruling as:
> Having the World Court say to the state of Israel that it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide will be heard by the rest of the international community, even if Netanyahu doesn’t want to hear it,
Like I said earlier we are actually arguing about the meaning of “plausible”. I’m using this word in a non-legal way while applying it to the legal definition of genocide. The ICJ on the other hand uses it in a legal way, for them plausibility has a legally defined meaning, and using it must meet some specific standard[3].
The conduct in question here is the general behavior of Israel in Gaza, which some of our ancestors say:
> Its not a genocide by any definition
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268163
or:
> I would not agree this constitutes genocide.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40273408
they are talking about Israel’s general conduct.
South Africa brought in its case many examples of general conduct and accused them of violating the Genocide Convention. Israel—in its defense—did not deny this conduct, but rather stated they weren’t Genocidal, and didn’t violate the Convention, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction over the case. The court ruled that these allegations “appear to be capable” of falling under the Convention. Meaning that the court thinks that the same conduct we are arguing whether constitutes a Genocide, the ICJ has said: “appears to be capable” of falling under the legal definition of Genocide.
When I, or the NPR, or the BBC[4] say the ICJ “decided there was a plausible case under the 1948 Genocide Convention,” we are using the world plausible in laypeople terms. So I stand by what I said. If we use the legal definition of Genocide, the ICJ has ruled the conduct of Israel in Gaza can plausibly be described as Genocide.
1: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocid...
2: https://time.com/6588931/icj-ruling-israel-genocidal-acts-ga...
3: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plau...
What you're saying now is "because I got the injunction, I won the case". Obviously, no.
"Plausibility" at the ICJ is a technical term, part of a 3-part test to determine if any preliminary orders can be issued ("in preservation of rights") at all in a case:
"What is required is something more than assertion but less than proof; in other words, the party must show that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the right it claims exits as a matter of law and will be adjudged to apply to that party’s case".
Plausibility is virtually always established in these cases.
Now, look at what South Africa asked for as a preliminary measure, and look what they got.
Again, it is weird that we are still talking about this, because I quoted for you the numbered paragraph in the decision that repeats the point I am making.
Later
I'm noting that we are so far to the right margin on this very old, cursed thread that this post gets only 250px in my browser window. It's fine if we're not going to convince each other; we can just leave it here. We're probably the only two people reading this.
Go read up on ICJ preservation of rights process, though. It's fascinating. It's like a whole parallel law system, being worked out in our lifetimes.
If your arguments are strong, well-expressed, and calm, they'll do fine here, and there's no need to pick apart the people trying to rebut them. We know less than we think we do about people commenting here; I've spent 16 years watching people reach all sorts of weird conclusions about me. Let's not do that to someone else here. These threads are bad enough as it is.
The legal argument for genocide is strong. Not only by referring to the ICJ case, but also several legal experts who have conducted a thorough study in the subject.
I’m returning to this thread because of the publication today of a 100 page long report which the authors claim is “the most comprehensive legal analysis to ate of Israel’s military operation in Gaza since October 7, 2023.” This report is from legal experts exploring the legal argument of genocide, using the 1948 convention as the definition for genocide. The authors, comprise of independent human rights scholars and legal experts from University Network of Human Rights, Boston University School of Law, Cornell Law School, University of Pretoria, and Yale Law School. They conclude that: “srael has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3538249d5abb21360e8...
The Arab Spring and all the bad things that ensued from it was effectively a giant geopolitical windfall for the Qatari royal family and their investments in founding that broadcaster.
They (almost) changed the entire geopolitical landscape of the Arab world to their benefit. Installing a caliphate here, toppling a major power like Egypt there. They even forced Saudi Arabia into concessions.
All of that, like the NATO-buffoons sending fighter jets into Libya because the Qataris social-engineered the Western public into demanding it, is an amazing show of political skills.
Gee, the poor Europeans till this day don't even realize how much their "refugee-crisis" has been instigated as a "weapon of mass migration" by the Qataris using their set of tools of which Al Jazeera is one.
> They're not humanitarians.
They're a news organization.
You can't also compare the interest of US and Israel in manipulating public with any other country in the planet. US & Israel plays the game dirtiest, does false flag attacks, kill children and mothers carrying white flags, bomb hospitals and families of journalists.
Qatar does not do any of these and do not need to manipulate you. US and Israel have to keep manipulating you, because as citizen, you need to be a part of the crime.
Just like in Nazi Germany.
However I am hearing more and more people mention TikTok and Israel together inside congressional circles than mentions of "TikTok and China". Here is an example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
India banned TikTok in 2020 accusing Chinese influence, are they time travelers?
Did israel convince all of these countries to ban TikTok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_TikTok Wow the Jewish World Domination Forum is really pushing its weight around lately.
Inside "Congressional circles" as clearly written in my post. And I should have added within the past few months.
>>India banned TikTok in 2020 accusing Chinese influence, are they time travelers?
India can have its own reasons, my argument is limited to the United States and that too, through wooing Congress
>>Did israel convince all of these countries to ban TikTok?
I didn't say that, of-course not.
>>Wow the Jewish World Domination Forum is really pushing its weight around lately.
I like you... I mean the way you classified me into your world view, twisted my arguments. You think, I will now defend a conspiracy of "Jewish World Domination"? Very impressive sir!
It's not great, but it's also far from what you said "democracy only in name."
I'm very aware of why this is the case and the history. This is the current case on the ground. Palestinians do not have their own state (according to Israel), so they are occupied and have all their imports, exports, water usage, food intake, ability to earn money, etc. etc. regulated and controlled by a government they cannot vote for, while a minority of people on the other side of a wall can vote for that government.
That's a democracy in name only
Israeli citizens, including Arabs, Jews, and others within the borders recognized internationally as Israel, all have the right to vote. Residents of East Jerusalem, mostly Palestinians, are typically offered permanent residency status but not citizenship. They have the right to apply for citizenship, though it involves a complex process. They can vote in local elections but not in national elections unless they become citizens. Inhabitants of the West Bank are not Israeli citizens and do not have the right to vote in Israeli national elections. They are subject to some Israeli military law and some laws set by the Palestinian Authority. Gaza Strip is governed by Hamas, and the inhabitants do not have rights to vote in Israeli elections. Israel does not have administrative control over Gaza but does control most of its borders, airspace, and maritime access.
https://time.com/6971009/tiktok-banned-restrictions-worldwid...
Israel isn't even on this list.
Like in this very recent case: https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake...
Edit: haaretz link: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-0...
The reason stated on why Hamas affirmed the rape story was false wasn't 'because it backfired and made civilians flee'. This never happened,and the justifications is too convoluted. No, they took a page out of IRA and ETA's: total transparency. They want people to believe what they say, and for that, you can't be caught lying. I don't know if it's recent or not, but that's also the reason why the death toll reported by Hamas is lower than the one expected by the US and most military intelligence. If a news is from a Hamas official spokesman, it's likely true (might be misleading, but always factually true)
Shame on Al-Jazeera to let liars on air, but to be fair, that 24h news for you.
What? They lie constantly! They just got caught. Here is what happened when BBC just reported them without checking:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250
And then when they apologized admitting they should have not speculate:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/israel-accuses...
Because I can think of quite a number of stories over the years, and even in terms of this current conflict in the Middle East, where there were falsehoods in the fog of war or even intentionally seeded that turned out not to be true and many of the news organizations airing them initially only took stories down and didn't run front page denouncements of their own reporting.
I agree that retractions and in general journalistic integrity needs a bit more attention as a global society, but banning news organizations that print things you don't like is something I tend to associate with a very Stalinesque mindset and not a bastion of democracy and liberty.
In general, individuals and groups are bettered by exposure to naysayers than surrounded by yes-men.
But that the whole point. It's not just that Israel "don't like it". It's false claims.
> aren't sufficiently loud about retractions
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Almost every news agency got this wrong to some degree [1]. What matters is whether they corrected their story as new information arose.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-b...
What matters is how often this happens and what the response is when it happens. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is not significantly worse than anyone else here. There's a difference between "spreading misinformation" and "being wrong every once in a while".
The problem with sites like "honest reporting" is that they take these incidents, completely ignore (or outright defend) all the types their side has been wrong on this type of stuff, and then construct a narrative that "proves" that "the other side" is merely a malicious cluster of evil that seeks to spread evil for evil's sake. This is exactly the type of dehumanizing hyper-partisanship that got us in this mess in the first place.
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Also: why are you using two accounts? :-/
Sure, I would like to see something similar from Haaretz/Ynetnews where they believed Israel without critical due process. And did not retract in a consistent matter.
And the second account is my mobile (I like it separate)... that is why I gave them the same name.
It also number 1 reporter killing country in the world. Killed more than 100 in the last 365 days. Does EU kill reporters?
So stop your false comparisons.
And if foreign journalists want to get into Palestine, they have other options than entering through the Israeli border, they can enter through the Egyptian border.
First, they don't. All crossings are controlled by Israel. There's a reason why you have a lot of foreign reporting on the ground from Syria civil war and nothing from Gaza. (I noted your switch from Gaza to Palestine, btw) And journalistic agencies complain about this repeatedly.
10% of journalists killed (against 2% of total population killed) and ratios of killed/injured certainly suggest special targeting.
So here, have a blast and count for yourself based on your definition of collateral damage: https://cpj.org/2024/05/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... there's a story/sources there for every single killing that is known/documented.
To me, it looks like majority were killed intentionally based on that list. Things like sniper and other direct fire killings, being killed in their homes along with their families when doing nothing but dinning or sleeping, or at assignments, or in front of hospitals near journalist tents, or being denied medevac after critical injuries, is not how I'd define collateral damage.
This is false. Israel does not control Egypt's or Jordan's borders.
> To me, it looks like majority were killed intentionally based on that list.
By CPJ's own account, that list is not verified:
> Our database will not include all of these casualties until we have completed further investigations into the circumstances surrounding them. For more information, read our FAQ.
I did check some of them, and I would agree some of it look concerning at face value, but I'm not sure if I would take any of those sources at face value. I would very much like to see some investigation into this, but without the war ending, I don't really see how that will happen.
Of course it does. It closed the crossing shortly after Oct 7. Crossing it, requires Israel approval and inspections. The moment Egypt stops observing Israel's rules, it will bomb the crossing. It did bomb it already a few times last year in order to close it. Israel already stated that it will operate anywhere in Gaza militarily, that includes the Rafah crossing, and it does.
That's pretty much what anyone would consider being in control of a crossing, effectively.
In addition, despite this crossing being between Palestine and Egypt, the agreement that splits the roles of who does what at the crossing is between Egypt and Israel as part of Israel-Egypt peace treaty https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-real...
So Israel does partially control it even in this "legal" aspect. It kinda makes sense given that Gaza is still considered an occupied territory by UN. Since when occupied territories control their own corssings with other countries?
> By CPJ's own account, that list is not verified:
Yes, that goes back to Israel refusal for independent foreign journalists presence in Gaza. Or ICC investigators. Convenient.
No control. Right.
https://theconversation.com/why-egypt-refuses-to-open-its-bo...
In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency.
It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk.
Why would you allow that to continue in your country?
BBC is known to have issues with factuality.
https://deadline.com/2023/10/bbc-wrong-to-speculate-on-gaza-...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/bbc-reporter-nig...
But to address your point:
https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/5/3/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D...
"Russia is ready to discuss serious peace proposals, and Zelensky is rushing British weapons "
I am failing to see how an article about Russia's war correlates to OP's claim about Al Jazeera showing Hamas videos calling for an uprising. Can we get a direct link to the article that the OP mentioned?
There is a spectrum of factuality, BBC News has problems with the govt threatening to shut it down if it doesn’t report what the govt wants it to report, but it’s no Russia Today, Daily Mail, or Fox News.
> "Russia is ready to discuss serious peace proposals, and Zelensky is rushing British weapons "
Is that not correct? Or what's the problem with it? A basic translate + fact check seems it's basically correct?
"Russia is ready to discuss serious peace proposals, and Zelensky is rushing British weapons
"
Just a minute of searching directly.
https://www.memri.org/search-results?country_id_report%5B0%5...
There's nothing more shocking than the stuff Ben Gvir (security minister of Israel) does or says.
The second interview even references his calls to burn women and children as, yknow, a bad thing.
"memri" doesnt seem to consider that valid context, that is probably because it is a state propaganda outfit acting on behalf of that same Israeli minister who openly expressed a desire to burn women and children.
This describes most interviews I've seen with Israeli government officials in the American press, although it's starting to change over the last few months.
So you seem to be trying to hold Al Jazeera to a vastly higher standard than mainstream US media, at least in this particular regard.
Simply reporting without comment on what important/influential individuals and groups are saying, and adding basic objective context, is a large part of mainstream journalism.
Pushback is often limited to the opinion pages.
The mainstream US news media would fall foul of broadcasting standards laws in a lot of liberal Western democracies. Here in the UK, due impartiality is a legal duty of news broadcasters. The First Amendment is not the norm globally and the US is exceptionally laissez-faire when it comes to the regulation of broadcast news.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...
The most-read newspaper in Israel, Israel Hayom, is owned by a friend of Bibi. Is it impartial? Should it be shut down?
https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/where/arab/palestin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...
Saudi Arabia is not exactly a bastion of free speech and murdered US journalist Jamal Khashoggi using the cover of an embassy. Not exactly a great endorsement of what Israel is doing here.
If I recall Egypt partially did that after the military coup, and some Gulf countries. None of which are known for being kind to criticism. So this point is more validating of Aljazeera's position as relatively honest journalism in the a region full of dictatorships and corrupt governments.
Regardless, a news organizing funded by a monarchy not exactly known for its human and civilian rights mostly like has an agenda beyond "honest journalism".
BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism.
I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.
With respect to everything except the middle east.
I won't deny that they have generally good coverage on many subjects, but the nuance is that they leverage / launder that credibility towards advancing the state aims of Qatar whenever needed.
And as OP mentioned, if you look up how AJ covers a topic in English and how they cover it in Arabic, it's wildly different.
And journalism can be technically right while still showing a very one sided view.
Not that I'm pro ban, just saying that there's a good reason to be vigilant when it comes to their news coverage and make sure it's not you're only source.
Especially when you have, in your country, about 20% of muslim arabs, most of which being israelo-palestinians (i.e. palestinians with an israeli passport).
The last thing they'd want, in addition to fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would be an uprising of the israelo-palestinians who live in Israel.
It's of note that while there about 20% muslims in Israel, there's about zero jewish person in Gaza (there are some israelo-palestinian though) and zero jewish person in Iran. Or close to that.
The number of publication and jewish newspaper offices in both Gaza and Iran should also be food for thought.
You're talking about Israeli citizens. The way you keep them from uprising is by giving them political power. (I also see no evidence any uprising is imminent.)
Muslim Israelis have representation in the Knesset. Their community simply hasn’t aligned itself with the American pro-Palestinian movement. (There are absolutely racism issues in Israel. But it’s not Jim Crow.)
Or they’re a diverse set of people whose views can’t be summarised based on their race and religion alone. I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Though I'm not a member of that group, so I don't want to misrepresent "their" views (and of course there is no such thing as "their" views, as you mentioned, they are a large and fairly diverse group).
> I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Why do you say that?
Israel is rich. Palestine is poor. It would be on par with a German or Korean reünification in terms of cost.
Also, Israel has a relatively-liberal voting population. Palestine does not. One could have reasonable concerns around losing valued freedoms if a single Palestinian state drifts towards regional norms.
Of course. The original point was that they defy, as a community, summary.
> It's of note that while there about 20% muslims in Israel, there's about zero jewish person in Gaza (there are some israelo-palestinian though) and zero jewish person in Iran. Or close to that.
Actually, while there are ~zero Jewish people in almost all Arab countries, Iran specifically has an actual Jewish population, though a very small one - I think the current estimate is around 8,000.
Not only are there Jews in Iran, they even have a seat permanently reserved in the Iranian parliament.
The ethnic cleansing isn't totally complete, but it's quite close. It's nice that the Ayatolla made a fatwa to protect them though. But if I were Jewish in Iran I would expect that protection to fall the second the Ayatolla dies.
Sure, there used to be more. Sure, there are obviously better places to be as a Jew.
But ... I replied to the comment that said "there are no Jews in Iran" . There are Jews living in Iran. That's it.
It's easy to just claim something, but it's crucial to back your point up front when it's particularly sensitive so as to not inadvertently spread misinformation. You may be correct, but that's why the citations are needed.
> According to a news bulletin on the Qatar-based channel, Mr al-Hamr said the ban was being imposed because the station was biased towards Israel and against Bahrain.
> Mr al-Hamr is said to have accused the station of being infiltrated by Zionists. "We believe (Al Jazeera) is suspect and represents the Zionist side in the region. We will not deal with this channel because we object to its coverage of current affairs. It is a channel penetrated by Zionists," he was quoted as saying.
This is perhaps making the opposite point I think you intended to.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/14/media-blocked-threatened...
Although VoA is the USA's state sponsored news outlet, they have reasonably good analysis on what led up to the 2013 ban. https://www.voanews.com/a/al-jazeera-iraq/3306460.html
FWIW it's what Qatar does. They've also been caught the hand in the cookie jar bribing EU officials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili
She's a MEP and yet went on to defend Qatar as a bastion of democracy (!). Close to a million EUR was found in cash at her apartment: which probably helped defend a country where the official law is the Sharia law as a bastion of democracy.
War is ugly but religious extremism is ugly too, especially when it's financed by a shitload of oil.
People would do well to wonder who's financing all these "grassroots" movements in the EU and the US defending people who voted in power a terrorist organization who swore by the death of Israel.
We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them a right to make up our minds on the basis of an uncensored discourse. That's the other, implicit half of the first amendment: the right to listen to what others want to tell you.
Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in.
Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives.
I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...
You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread.
From the poster a few levels above:
> In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency.
Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him.
Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide.
America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.
There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".
I'd hope this only applies to the government though and not towards groups of people or ethnicity.
However, if you agree that Brandenburg set the correct limit, you can conditionalize aid on it. It’s just not a first principles approach.
Saying "ethnic group XXX should be exterminated" does not meet the standard for incitement. I don't know why the debate has become about US law but I'm even more puzzled about so many people confidently stating, wrongly, that the US bans hate speech. The US has frequently been criticized by Europeans for this exact reason -- in their view, the US stance permitting hate speech is irresponsible.
Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada"
...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.
For several decades, Israel's Likud party (currently in power) election manifesto was...
"From the river to the sea, there will be only Israeli sovereignty".
Perhaps that's where the Palestinians got it?
"Palestine will be free" is not "openly calling for murder".
Literally nothing in the definition of the word means what you are attempting to make it mean:
free | friː | adjective (freer | ˈfriːə | , freest | ˈfriːɪst | )
1 able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another: I have no ambitions other than to have a happy life and be free | a free choice.
• [with infinitive] able or permitted to take a specified action: you are free to leave.
• (of a state or its citizens or institutions) subject neither to foreign domination nor to despotic government: a free press.
• historical not a slave: the poor among the free men joined the slaves against the rich.
• [in names] denoting an ethnic or political group actively opposing an occupying or invading force, in particular the groups that continued resisting the Germans in the Second World War after the fall of their countries: the Free Dutch, Free Polish, and Free Norwegian fleets. See also Free French.
2 [often as complement] not or no longer confined or imprisoned: the researchers set the birds free | police were forced to let him walk free.
• not physically obstructed or fixed: he tried to kick his legs free | she smiled, leaned back, and waved a free arm in the air.
• Physics (of power or energy) disengaged or available. See also free energy.
• Physics & Chemistry not bound in an atom, a molecule, or a compound: the atmosphere of that time contained virtually no free oxygen. See also free radical.
• Linguistics denoting a linguistic form that can be used in isolation.
3 not subject to engagements or obligations: she spent her free time shopping.
• (of a facility or piece of equipment) not occupied or in use: the bathroom was free.
4 (free of/from) not subject to or affected by (something undesirable): our salsas are free of preservatives.
5 given or available without charge: free healthcare.
6 using or expending something without restraint; lavish: she was always free with her money.
• frank or unrestrained in speech, expression, or action: he was free in his talk of revolution.
• archaic overfamiliar or forward.
7 (of literature or music) not observing the normal conventions of style or form.
• (of a translation) conveying only the broad sense; not literal.
8 Sailing (of the wind) blowing from a favourable direction to the side or aft of a vessel.
Free as in judenfrei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei
Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.
In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.
Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.
And the E.U. banned Russia's RT media network, and has strict rules over foreign-owned media. This is all just the pot calling the kettle black to score points with anti-Israel domestic audiences. Literally every country complaining about it has some kind of similar restriction. Qatar doesn't recognize Israel as a state and has funded Hamas for years; Israel banning their state-owned media domestically is only controversial because some people find Israel to be controversial. Qatar complaining about it is especially ironic, since they hand out life sentences in prison for criticizing the Qatari government (e.g. Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami).
https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...
The US Constitution applies to any US Person - someone within the US’ international borders, regardless of citizenship status.
Banning a foreign news outlet who broadcasts outside the US isn’t violating anyone’s 1st amendment rights.
This is basically untrue. At times, the court has applied different standards to speech by residents, but this does not mean that they would allow the government to apply any kind of limit on their speech, or indeed, more than very narrow ones.
In addition, the first amendment also covers the right to receive information.
Foreign ownership rules are not the same thing as the EU banning RT through legal means, or Israel shutting down Al-Jazeera and instituting internet blocks. You will notice that RT is not blocked in the US, nor is any other foreign media company.
Anyway, I get your point but the difference here is this, you're allowed to ask questions like that in the very places where this nonsense is being fabricated.
That same toxic propaganda shouldn't be allowed to spread freely and unabated within our information space or we become those very dystopias we try to avoid.
I think this blind belief that "all information" is part of "free speech" is our Achilles heel, it might destroy our country.
Haha. And we're going to let the government decide what is "correct" and "accurate"?
Letting whoever is currently in power control what information the electorate has access to is one of the single biggest threats to democracy.
> Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind.
The correct response is pointing out that their numbers are made up. In a working democracy you get people to see truth through public discourse, not censorship.
Don't make a deal with the devil just to shut up the neighbor's annoying dog.
in an idealistic world, this is true.
Unfortunately, it is also empirically true that, at least in the USA, the majority of the voting population has become a bit dumb, and does not personally try to verify these things they see or hear on the news.
Civic duty in democracy includes this sort of scrutiny, but sadly this level of critical thinking has been in decline in recent decades.
Ok, so how did all this unchecked exposure to propaganda workout for Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Palestine etc? Did it lead to some kind of "free thinking" utopia?
Free speech hasn't been banned in Israel. Access to information hasn't been banned. What has been banned is a platform for foreign agents to easily negative influence their populace and to broadcast nonsense en masse to their people.
If any Al Jazeera staff who have a residency permit want to walk the streets and discuss things their passionate about to other people, it will be allowed. But it won't be allowed if it turns out their being paid to do so by a foreign government. It's no different.
Sorry to say this, but you have yet offered a sane alternative here.
We can't just have autocrats from foreign countries broadcasting nonsense, unabated to whoever wants to listen, else our society will look no different to those dystopias.
Domestic free speech within a democracy is one thing, foreign interference is another.
You did not think this argument through. None of the aforementioned countries have free press. They censor heavily.
In all of the above countries the government dictates what is "correct" and "accurate" information. News outlets saying anything else are shut down, banned, and journalists are sometimes jailed.
All of these non-democracies are afraid of free press. Is that the company Israel wants to keep in this matter?
> Access to information hasn't been banned [in Israel].
Al Jazeera is literally banned and blocked.
> We can't just have autocrats from foreign countries broadcasting nonsense, unabated to whoever wants to listen, else our society will look no different to those dystopias.
This defeatist argument leads to the conclusion that democracy cannot work. Democracy cannot work without free press, and according to you it cannot work if press is free from government interference.
Is that what we want to do? Give up?
You cannot let the legislative decide what constitutes an "enemy disinformation campaign" and what is "free press". It's an obvious weak spot in your democracy bad actors can exploit - far more dangerous than foreign propaganda that has to measure up against friendly outlets.
I think it would be a mistake to characterize the difference between Israeli media and pro Palestinian media as simply disagreeing about numbers. If we’ve learned anything about global conflict, numbers don’t mean anything to people. If all Al Jazeera were doing is putting a black text white background body count on screen, there would have been no issue.
The difference is the images that are being depicted. People are moved by images of suffering. And depending on whose side you’d like to benefit, there’s plenty of suffering to show. This is likely one of the reasons Israel is shooting journalists. They might show pictures that complicate their black and white depiction of the conflict.
It’s also a trap to say that showing one side diminishes the suffering of the other. Fundamentally, neither’s suffering is more important.
Sorry, but I can't just take your words for it. It looks more like propaganda.
The more I read Al Jazeera, the more I respect their high journalism standards. I'm from a third world country and really envy the quality of the news.
The second half contains emotion which makes clear where your heart is on this. So, that casts a shadow of doubt.
Could it be that there is credibility to your point but not to such an extreme extent where it’s like this deliberate conspiracy? I mean, as soon as everyone finds out, then this would actually be kind of a dumb plan on their part. The Arabic audience can inform the English audience of the discrepancy and vice versa. What if it’s not a conspiracy but a consequence of a large organization containing a blend of biased opinionated departments? Some more focused on journalism, and some on catering to local audiences’ tastes. That would make more sense to me, along with the typical biases of all news-media orgs everywhere in the world..
If you mean that they were covering such demands and showing clips in which they are made etc. - what's the problem with that?
> for being a security risk.
goes to show they were doing some decent journalistic work then. Not that Al-Jazeera is saintly, or unbiased, or treats all subjects fairly etc. (they are under the indirect control of the Qatari government after all) - but they certainly offer critically important coverage of what's happening in Palestine in general, and Gaza in particular, which is very hard to get elsewhere.
> Why would you allow that to continue in your country?
If by "you", you mean a semi-totalitarian state which wants to silence coverage of its crimes and hide the horrors of its actions from the world and from its residents, then - you're right, you definitely wouldn't want it to continue operating.
Have any citations?
This is the entire point of all mass media. There is no such thing as unbiased news.
If you value liberty or democracy the only valid question is: why wouldn’t you?
The point is, in the US we forget that our speech didn’t used to be so unrestricted. What some countries call a security risk, in America we would call essential political speech.
Of course there remains the question of the extent to which we should support countries which do not share our values.
Isn't this the point of any news organization whatsoever?
This is a fact best appreciated in the context of the Sunni-Shi'a sectarian divide.
Anyway, you know which news outlets also have local and international versions with different content? BBC, CNN, ...
Also western democracies allowed "Letter to the American People" to be published in full. Also a messaging from an active terror group with significant impact at the time, more significant than Oct 7.
So yeah, countries allow that stuff.
I presume North Korea does, but I don't actually know. These aren't designed to be leading questions. I don't know the answers, and rather than searching, I figured someone else here might know offhand.
Then again I could be wrong and the U.S government just doesn't like people people dancing, hard to tell which one is the reason behind it all.
The best they can aim for is trying to create a narrative that at least somewhat aligns with the reality that is impossible to fully hide now.
The administration has been threatening tiktok for two Presidental terms, but it wasn't until pro-Palestinian tiktok content had "more reach than the top 10 US news sites, combined" that they've taken broad bipartisan action.
I've personally experienced the propaganda that US mainstream media doles out, I know it's real; in my mind this smacks of leaders reacting in fear to the erosion of control over what the American people can know about what's happening in the war. This lines up exactly with Israel's muting of Al Jazzera.
Pretty amusing to watch sibling's link of Mitt Romney and the interviewer haltingly say "narrative" in hushed tones, like they know it's some kind of dirty word.
The thing with propaganda is that it needs to have parts rooted in truth in order to be effective outside total information control; I consider the ability to consume everyone's propaganda an essential tool in distilling the most truth possible in a world where media and leadership across the world are openly concerned with the breakdown of their PR (read propaganda).
The medium is the message...
If Israel could force the sale of Al Jazeera to Israeli businesses I'm sure it's content would become far more acceptable to the Israeli government.
Also, the law could be changed or overruled in the next year. Don't count chickens before eggs hatch?
It is likely more countries will follow. India trail blazed by banning TikTok almost 4 years ago after the border skirmish with China
Note, too, the difference between the app being banned and the source being banned. TikTok.com will continue to resolve even if they remain under Chinese control.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/1ckte1k/...
There were attempts at banning it before the war, so probably not the only reason but it does seem to be why the push to ban it reemerged again.
Russia is certainly jailing journalists. As example, Evan Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter, is currently imprisoned: https://www.wsj.com/news/evan-gershkovich.
Nowadays, every country has an interest in preventing foreign influence operations across traditional and social media
It is also famously killing them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i...
Also the United Kingdom has added several of it's own citizens to sanctions lists for journalism within Ukraine/Russia.
All countries are on a spectrum, there is no clear line between shiny democracy and brutal dictatorship. They all have institutions that look similar on the surface. A democracy is not going to stop having a police force just because some police states also have one, for example.
So yes, some democracies ban some media spreading propaganda for foreign interests, but the details matter.
Source?
Again, source?
How heavily has RT been censored in the USA? Has the government ever censored it or pressured others to censor it, or is it just that links/rebroadcasts have been dropped by private entities of their own volition?
It hasn't been. Probably more accurate to state that when it was carried on cable media they broadcast a bowdlerized version. Al Jazeera did the same thing when it was carried by cable/satellite in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America
This was the RT channel you're probably thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America
Really?
I am a long way away, but I thought the constitution prevented that
Ukraine has shut down everything but the state-sponsored television.
Russia has shut down most independent media since the beginning of the war as well.
But admittedly, they are in a war of (dis)information so might not be representative of the freedom of the press.
Also, this measure is temporary, only lasting 45 days.
Not many countries enshrine press freedom as a constitutional right. US can't directly shut down news agencies by law but there are other less direct ways to restrict their ability to operate (like not granting visas). The US has all sorts of fringe news outlets, including some run by cults like Falun Gong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television )
Europe likes to claim they support press freedom but they banned RT in many countries. Looking at the press freedom index my kneejerk is to rank a lot of their countries lower, but then I remembered there's a habit of suing or disappearing journalists in the US that probe into larger corps.
As for Russia/DPRK/China, laws heavily restrict reporting. These are all way worse than Israel's current restrictions. DPRK has fully centralized mass media, so any other reporting inside is illegal by default without explicit approval of the state. China and Russia I think allows some reporting, basically anything appearing critical of nations of China or Russia can get you jailed/killed.
The documentary can be viewed in full on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY
EU is the same: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorist-co...
UK is the same: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stricter-laws-to-tackle-t...
Why would it be surprising that Israel should follow the example of the rest of the Western world?
when a friendly state does it - it is because it was a threat to democracy.
don't confuse 'em
—George R.R. Martin
[0] "Note that this footage permits no room for "it was a mistake," showing repeated, specifically-targeted strikes on the unarmed and even wounded. The sort of behavior the ICJ explicitly forbid in the genocide ruling against Israel." https://x.com/Snowden/status/1770936325996155290
[1] Gaza 'Textbook Case of GENOCIDE' - Holocaust Scholar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUeEnjULHe0
[2] Holocaust Survivor Tells Me: Israel Is Committing Genocide - w. Stephen Kapos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4PFmz4MNdg
> the world seeing israel as an illegitimate pariah state
Your other claims are true. This one is not.
>Your other claims are true. This one is not.
I should have phrased that more precisely but I was just judging by what Israel's ministry of hasbara itself seems to be most concerned with and fears the most is people questioning israel's legitimacy. Combined with the sentiment that can be seen across social media where even regular folks have started seeing israel as a racist settler colonial project that has no legitimacy. But you're correct, my previous wording was too ambiguous since "the world" is too broad and can refer to too many things.
A majority of Americans support Israel's war [1]. An overwhelming majority believe Israel has a right to exist [2]. (The exception being 18 to 24-year olds, among whom 31% believe Israel does not.)
Israel has faced practically zero actual diplomatic consequences as a result of its war, with even those voting against it at the UN continuing to e.g. trade with and talk to it [3].
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-s-say-i...
[2] https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP...
America is a special case and does not represent the regular folks of the world because it's home to the strongest israeli lobby on the planet and their supporters are mostly die-hard evangelicals for whom no evil israel does is too far.
Just listen to Jonathan Greenblatt's admission in the leaked[1] conversation where he verbatim states: “We have a major, major, major generational problem, All the polling I’ve seen: the ADL’s polling, ICC’s polling, independent polling, suggests that this is not a left, right gap folks. The issue of the United States’ support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old.”
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bec4z5/...
Israel's net favourability is down globally [1]. But there is zero evidence it's losing legitimacy; very few countries flipped sign. Instead, it was countries that didn't like Israel a bit disliking them more. (And again, not to the degree of carrying policy consequences.)
> issue of the United States’ support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old
Sure. 31% is a lot. But it's also still 31%.
[1] https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-global-opini...
>zero evidence it's losing legitimacy
zero? "Colombia nation cuts ties with Israel amid Columbia University protest"[0]
Your judgment on this is rather shortsighted and there is more than enough evidence that israel is losing legitimacy. The people's opinion rarely turns into policy over night, even in democracies.
I've observed the sentiments on this particular issue for more than a decade and I can tell you that I've never seen such insane amount of regular folks, from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, who fearlessly speak truth about israel in a manner that would make Menachem Begin tremble in his grave. I'm observing Israeli accounts and hasbara efforts and it's evident, from the content they produce, that they fear losing legitimacy and are acting accordingly e.g. investing a lot of money into gerrymandering/astroturfing[1]
Even dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own legitimacy because of what their own people perceive[2][3] as corrupt and subservient behavior to the empire. Those dictators are one arab spring away from getting brought to justice by their own people for their complicity in israel's genocide and they know it and they fear that.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/05/02/columbi...
[1] https://x.com/5149jamesli/status/1783144486031495389
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-01/saudi-ara...
[3] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240415-jordans-treachery...
Ukraine has cut diplomatic ties with Russia; the Baltic states have gone almost as far [1]. That doesn't mean they deny Russia's legitimacy as a state.
There has been zero change in recognition of Israel since October 7 [2]. (Belize and Bolivia also severed relations, by the way. And Turkey stopped trading. But again, very different from disagreement and denying legitimacy, and why I said practically zero diplomatic consequences, a threshold much lower than loss of legitimacy.)
> more than enough evidence that israel is losing legitimacy
Open to being convinced, but do you have a source?
> I've never seen such insane amount of regular folks, from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, who fearlessly speak truth about israel
Plenty of batshit crazy stuff seems widespread on the internet.
> they fear losing legitimacy
Sure. They should. America fears China annexing Taiwan; that isn't evidence it's happening.
> dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own legitimacy
The ones who helped Israel repel Iran's attack?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blames-baltic-co...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_I...
>Open to being convinced, but do you have a source?
A state's legitimacy hinges not only on diplomatic relations with other states but also significantly on public perception and global discourse. This is particularly evident in the case of Israel, where many now view it as a racist colonial entity which is a danger to israel's legitimacy. As I've stated before, your judgment on this seems to be extremely shortsighted, you may dismiss the countless of crucial events of the past months but israelis certainly don't, they speak of the existential threat of "delegitimization" of israel and they are fighting it tooth an nail[0]. Why would they so fiercely fight the "delegitimization" of israel if they didn't see it as a real & existential threat?
>> I've never seen such insane amount of regular folks, from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, who fearlessly speak truth about israel
>Plenty of batshit crazy stuff seems widespread on the internet.
Without "batshit crazy" people israel couldn't even survive, those "batshit crazy" evangelicals have immense influence on policy. Furthermore, your dismissal is a bit flippant, the people I've seen speak out are sensible & reasonable; people from whom I would have never expected to hear harsh truths about the zionist colonial project.
>> they fear losing legitimacy
>Sure. They should. America fears China annexing Taiwan; that isn't evidence it's happening.
I don't think that is an adequate comparison. I'm not interested in writing an essay on how different those conflicts are, I'm pretty sure you know enough about that.
>> dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own legitimacy
>The ones who helped Israel repel Iran's attack?
Yes, the article[1] I linked above literally mentions that and I really don't see how your point diminishes in any way what I've argued for.
[0] The Diane and Guilford Foundation that grants this fellowship to you has as its stated mission "the prosperity and safety of Israel". Their grant focuses include "confronting the delegitimization of Israel" and to advance "Israel's geopolitical interests" https://x.com/birdelaire/status/1784413355236790382
[1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240415-jordans-treachery...
It's not about recognition of Israel as a nation, it's about legitimacy of Israeli policies. The phrasing of "illegitimate pariah state" (not my phrasing) was rather unfortunate IMHO.
And I think it's very hard to deny that criticism of Israel's long-term policies of settlement has increasingly come under more and more scrutiny. Even your own links are demonstrating that. This is not new criticism: pretty much the entire world except Israel and the US has been saying for decades that the settlement policy is illegal and the major roadblock to peace.
Oh absolutely. The legitimacy of Israel’s entire Palestine strategy has essentially crumbled. Its ability to conduct diplomatic relations has been impaired, and it’s got a massive perception problem across an entire generation.
But when someone says Israel is losing legitimacy, they are arguing that its continued existence as a state is under threat. When the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, they lost legitimacy with the United States. That’s what a country losing legitimacy means—it’s no longer treated like a real country. (I don’t necessarily think everyone who says this understands this. But that’s what those words mean.)
And in respect of Israel, that simply isn’t true. In terms of pariah status it isn’t even in the world’s top ten. Its support in America—its security guarantor—is surprisingly stable. It has nukes. This isn’t a view seriously held by anyone with any military or international relations credibility. That said, I see why it has appeal in a sort of karmic justice way. Because it’s not fun to watch e.g. a Sudanese warlord or junta in Myanmar commit war crimes and win.
[0] Palestinian resistance weapons continue to evolve during genocide, with Jon Elmer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF9OsxkttM0
It's quite chilling that western democracies have stood back from ensuring journalistic freedom is upheld in the reporting up until now. To allow the removal of the last effective observational counterpoint to Israel's narrative points to the acceptance of despot power of Israel over the population of Gaza.
Effectively it sanctions whatever Israel wants to do to that population without any oversight or reporting. Given what has been done in sight and the obvious desire of the Israeli government to attack Rafah, and the US's impotency to influence Israel it's clear this move is just to reduce the risk of ongoing exposure of children and other innocents being slaughtered on TV repeatably and without having to even pretend justification.
We live in extraordinary times.
HN's moderation approach is (a) most political stories are off topic (this is at the top of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html for a reason), but a certain amount of political overlap is (b) inevitable—we learned that the hard way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251, and (c) in keeping with HN's organizing principle of intellectual curiosity.
Those are the principles, and they've been stable for a long time. Then there's which stories get to count as clearing the bar. That is also contentious, but a different question: it's about how to apply the principles, not what the principles should be.
We look for stories that contain significant new information [1], aren't too repetitive of recent discussion [2, 3], and have at least some chance of providing a foundation for intellectually curious conversation.
If you want to understand HN moderation, you need to understand the difference between those two questions—what the principles are vs. how to apply them in specific cases. It's the difference between the rules of a game and the calls made by refs on specific occasions.
The rules are stable and we're confident that they're right. Particular calls, not so much—we sometimes get them wrong. We're often willing to make adjustments in specific cases, especially when users persuade us that we got something wrong. But we're much less willing to change the rules themselves, because they've held up well over many years, and provide a good basis for running HN for its intended purpose [4].
As you can imagine, this question shows up often—especially on divisive topics like the OP—and I've written different versions of this answer many times. You can find a bunch of past explanations from threads about the current topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973. If you, or anyone, still have questions after reading the current post, I suggest looking at that link (and the links back from there). If after that you still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
The amount of blood the current Israeli government is willing to shed is just creating future generations of terrorists. Hamas may eventually get rooted. But only at significant cost of civilian life. The Israeli-Palestinian war will never end. Violence begets violence.
On the other hand, killing children is always wrong. Fucking stop it.
Since you brought up the "cycle of violence" argument, I remember Shaun making an excellent video[1] on the topic and also addressing that specific talking point.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
[1] The History of "Socialist" Zionism | Leftist Zionists did the Nakba & founded Israel https://youtu.be/ehp9PZo4UR0
Thanks!
Do you shoot back?
Did you just hesitate? A bullet just scraped your wife on the side of the leg. Hesitated again? Son just got a bullet in his arm.
You fire three bullets. The baby is dead and so is the intruder.
Are you in the wrong here?
---
I'm not saying this is the same as what's happening in Israel and Gaza. But "always wrong", like many views on this conflict, is sorely lacking in nuance.
With thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, ignoring nuance is disrespectful to their memories and will not lead to realistic progress.
Yes, what was done is wrong. It might be justified, even forgivable. But it's still wrong.
In your example, yes. Reality is more complicated; that usually gives reasonable people room to disagree.
Killing children is always wrong.
What makes this situation uniquely toxic is how America and most of its allies vehemently insist on total impunity for the crimes of one side.
Note: You don't need to reply and specify which. Apparently you've picked a side, as have I. No point debating that here I think. But each side would claim that the other is committing war crimes and inhuman acts and not being held to account.
No, they do not. There are still less full aid trucks even after the murder of the World kitchen volunteers massively increased international pressure on Israel to let aid in.
Northern Gaza is now in full blown famine as defined by top US officials that define famine, with southern Gaza on the brink of famine, as all farming infastructure inside gaza gas has now been destroyed. They need drastically more full trucks than the the 500/day that was the norm before the war started, not drastically fewer.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-aid-coordinator-says-israel...
If anything I'd want to see less current politics on HN
In Northern Ireland and the Balkans international intervention almost certainly saved lives and helped bring about peace and relative stability. How long had they been fighting? There's probably some more examples. So I'd argue that it's not useless either.
And Jewish and Israeli (and by extension, Palestinian) history is strongly connected to the history of 19th and 20th century Europe in all sorts of ways, and I don't think you can just cleanly separate that.
Of course on a personal level I can imagine people reading the news, feeling powerless to change anything, and just not being interested. That's fine. But on a governmental/policy level, I do think we (the world) needs to stay engaged. Not just here, but also elsewhere with long-running issues. It's not our problem to solve, no, but we can facilitate and help.
That's only true if you view the "Israeli government" and "Hamas" as the only sides that exist. That is not the case; you don't need to choose either of them.
Now, of course it's true that everyone has legitimate grievances here for all sorts of reasons, an it's also true that forever banging on about every little thing anyone has ever done wrong will lead to another 100 years of suffering. But that doesn't mean we (broad international community) can't and shouldn't try. Even if it fails, I think it was worth the effort to try.
Extreme voices tend to drown out everyone else. I mean, what type of reasonable person has the energy and will to involve themselves in this toxic quagmire, right? The type of people willing to do so are strongly biased to people with Very Strong Views.
Trying to organise a protest around unfocused nuanced views is hard. "Free Palestine" is easy and straight-forward. "Hamas is wrong, but Israel should offer a solution for the people of Gaza that does not involve a de-facto concentration camp under military control" doesn't really fit on a billboard.
And lets also be realistic: yes, "both sides" have blame, but "both sides have blame" does not mean "both sides are equivalent". The people of Gaza are by and large powerless, and have been for a long time. The initiative for any solution really rests primarily on the Israeli side, who have been controlling much of life in Gaza for a long time now. The situation in Gaza and that Israel has never seriously offered any solution is frankly just disgraceful, and could only have ended in violence one way or the other sooner or later.
The interesting question is how many people do not have strong opinions and how this could affect them.
My guess is it also won't. Why would you be paying attention to news you haven't cared about up to now? The nonopinionated will likely not hear of this
Look at the consequences for Snowden, Assange and Manning.
We probably need to mandate third party international journalist access as some kind of rules of war expectation.
Otherwise basically any war crime can be waged with impunity until well after the fact if you can cutoff access to discover it
[0]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has...
[1]: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1787134138283155963
it's not coincidental that these are where all the protests are, and suddenly college students have access to thousands of $ of camping gear...
they're also aggressively anti israel/jew: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560
they employ high journalistic standards for everything but israel.
Students paying $65K/year in tuition fees can also afford a $100 tent? Must be covert Qatari funding for sure. /s
Opposing Israeli war crimes is not anti semitic. Claiming that Israel represents all Jewish people worldwide, though, is anti semitic.
im maybe lucky i have some israeli ex colleagues who can help me see that the people there are also against violence and injustices. (what those are is not the point i guess. - maybe that's an opinion different on both sides of a fence..)
There's in our national news things like a report that says there's like 35k deaths in gaza, then the next report says there's like 30k children killed. - it's really easy to get a weird idea here..... (I simply assume no soldier would willingly just kill mostly children - but maybe thats also wrong??)
don't want to say i am with one or another side. just want to point out how reporting, as you said, can make things look a certain way, while they might not be. This is now true for most conflicts as there's so many sides of each story, and then all the content-farms and propaganda ontop of that.
everyone is trying to win the others over to their side of the debate to justify their war, rather than to build peace. (i think?)
IDK about your country, but Latam RT was 25% discussion about how Russia has been great through history, 25% one sided debates about how democratic countries are hypocrites and bad, 25% wrong and one sided reads into current events, and 25% travel bloggers in Russia.
I am on the fence about removing RT, but arab Al-Jazera calling for action and praising the martyrs falls into my censorable bag
And at least 2 posts in arabic exposing some of hamas lies or expressing empathy and support to Israel?
Even a single post calling hamas terrorists (or at least some of their actions a terrorist attack) would suffice to convince me.
2. I don't much care about what opinion pieces get published in Al Jazeera, or whether they meet your political demands. I care about the news reporting that Al Jazeera does from Gaza. On that score, Al Jazeera is the best source out there.
I'll take you up on that.
From [0], "At the time of writing, one month has passed since the barbaric terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7. A total of 1,400 Israelis were murdered. Over 230 people were taken hostage."
0. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/11/7/one-day-the-war...
Sorry, but you're either completely out of touch with what's going on there. Or you have bad intents.
Regardless of your attitudes and ideological preferences - calling Al Jazeera "independent" is the winner of international nonsense contest.
Independent in general, or their Gaza branch in particular - it is a nonsense.
Last independent people in Gaza were thrown off the roof about 15 years ago. Unfortunately. Don't you know how dictatorships work? Even if for the arguably right cause...
The major threat to Al Jazeera journalists over the last several years has come from the IDF, not from Palestinians. There are plenty of examples of the IDF killing Al Jazeera journalists, but I'm not aware of any cases of them being killed by Hamas.
That said, banning media presence in Gaza by Israel, and the overall hesitance of western media to report on the devastation is very disappointing.
1 point by rajishx 0 minutes ago | next | edit | delete [–]
Isn't the same as when RT was not allowed to broadcast in Europe after the war? I wonder why the news about Al Jazeera and Israel makes more splash than the RT and Russia news
Al Jazeera condemns Israeli government decision to shut down channel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40266122
I’d love to hear some perspective other than rabid politics.
There can be regulatory bodies, which ideally should be self governing the media instead of executive of the elected government, which regulate some of the media attributes. But a blanket ban on a media house, for criticism in the name of national security? No. That is the failure of the civilian leadership to provide the security to the nation. Admitting that you are naked should the norm, not blinding the population from seeing you.
Other broadcasters critical of Israel seem to have that part figured out.
Do you have a source for this? To me this sounds like a misunderstanding, but I’m open to being shown otherwise.
“The text is an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Chomsky critiques Western media's portrayal of the Khmer Rouge, arguing that it's exaggerated and ignores broader historical context, particularly U.S. involvement. He suggests that atrocities attributed to the Khmer Rouge may have been exaggerated or even fabricated, emphasizing the need for independent investigation. Chomsky's attitude toward the Khmer Rouge appears critical of Western narratives, highlighting skepticism and a call for a more nuanced understanding.”
That’s does not give any truth to your claim of idolizing, as I expected. It’s quite believable that western narratives could be manipulated as that is common place and the subject of Chomsky’s expertise. Pointing out the manipulation of the media and painting the target as more nuanced and not as evil as media makes them out to be is a far cry from idolization.
And Chomsky doesn’t just make empty claims or “believe what he wants”. He usually cites sources from within the US government, like published State Department memos stating the position he’s claiming they had.
And we are talking about a media outlet controlled by the government of a foreign country that also directly finances the opposing terrorist group and houses their leaders.
Democracy merely depends on free media, not on free foreign or adversary media.
But I make it the centerpiece of my best-case scenario for the region: imagine that gap left by the absent constitution getting filled by something aggressively secular, with a strong set of entrenched clauses (aka eternity clauses) protecting individual religious freedom from any majority shifts that might happen. Perhaps even with some strong federal element enabling peaceful growth (and Brexit-like shrinkage) like the EU. I'm certainly not holding my breath, neither expecting Israel to come up with anything like that (despite their internal made-up-as-they-went not being terribly far off, I think) nor this having any effect on countries refusing recognition. But then what other best-case scenarios are there?
On an assessment by these very basic qualities, the current Regime in charge can't be really classified as a democracy. It is an excuse for democracy. An overgrown military outpost formed out of crusade era objectives and European anti semitic emotions. Not to mention the oil and perceived potential of the region to be a western adversary. In the words of US president, US-UK still believes that if there were no Israel, then they would have to create one. Which is ironic, since they are the ones who created it.
We all know Israel wouldn't do anything of the sort right, along with killing on average 50 children a day for the last 220 days.
I hope this comment is in spirit of HN which has consistently taken down stories about Israel.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/15/media/associated-press-al...
I don’t think there is much of a market for either Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post in Gaza, so I would be really surprised if respective offices care to distribute their papers there.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14631745
Do you have any reports which indicates that Hebrew (or any other) newspapers are censored in Gaza?
All that said, press freedom is definitely a concern in Gaza, however that is a result of the Israeli occupation, which prevents access, targets journalists, blockades the enclave, and sometimes even levels foreign press offices, such as the AP’s.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
I don't say this as a personal view, but as a logical inevitability.
The State props up the religion by normalising it and undermining its competition, and the religion props up the state by providing convenient pretexts and effective brainwashing mechanisms. I am not Jewish, but I find it particularly disgusting too. My sympathies to humanist Jews who are thrown into this nightmare.
Pretty much every of the hundreds of millions of muslims who live outside Saudi Arabia (and probably a large number of those who live inside it) laugh at that, and despise the Saudi regime. If you do not believe me, try talking to some and asking them.
That being said you'll find a variety of opinions with the Muslim community both from Saudi and non-Saudi Muslims.
I imagine my relationship with KSA is similar to how some if not many US Jews feel with Israel. Just like I have an emotional attachment to Mecca and Medina which is currently under Saudi control I can understand how those among the Jewish diaspora may have an emotional attachment to Israel or believe in principle jewish self determination even when they vehemently oppose the government or have reservations about the modern state.
It always starts like that, and it's usually the #1 motivation to sell censorship laws to the population in countries that don't have them already in place. It also has the side effect to create a mind association where censorship is seen as positive. Then, once those laws are passed, it's too late as they will be slowly but progressively applied also against anything that government sees as hostile, including legit political opposition that could change or remove those laws. "Think of the children/fear terrorists" laws that usually are enacted in "western" countries follow the same pattern where the powers need a stronger and more fear inducing argument than gambling, prostitution or drugs. Israel isn't the 1st and won't be the last democratic country to go down this route.
Banning Al Jazeera is arguably more humane than shooting a rocket into their offices, as was done by Israel in Gaza and the US Army in Baghdad.
#ZeroIsASpecialNumber
For now. They are likely to be the next outlet banned. The government has been openly threatening them for a year or so now.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article/is...
There is a big difference between banning what can only be described as a fake news outlet controlled by the adversary government of Qatar vs. banning the most important or second most important independent newspaper in the country.
When _that_ happens then the completely unjustified outrage in many comments here will be justified as that would indeed be an unprecedented step.
I'm looking at the Google Translate version of their Arabic site right now:
https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_t...
It's all looking like pretty standard news stuff to me.
And I don't know about you, but I see "controversial, disputed, or downright false claims that were reported uncritically as facts" all the time even in mainstream US publications.
So I'd need to see some evidence here that Al Jazeera is particularly worse.
> It seems almost certain to me there has to be some conspiracy amongst US publications to conceal certain information around Israeli-Palestinian conflict and history
No evidence was provided, just another unfounded conspiracy theory. What can we take away from this?
For examples of stories or topics that appear to be dramatically underreported in the US:
- extremist positions of Israeli cabinet members. Including associations with Zionist terrorists, obviously very anti-Muslim/Arab but also including anti-Christian positions
- Israeli settlers expansions and history of aggressive actions
- famine conditions in Gaza
- and most simply the very high levels of casualties in Gaza, including children and women in huge numbers.
I really don’t ever hear any of those items mentioned even in left leaning US media. Now you might say well France and Qatar are biased due to more Arab listeners. Maybe a bit yeah because I think I hear less on Hamas atrocities perhaps than in US media.
Every media is biased.
Now per my other comment, once you criticize either side then you get automatically labeled as on the other side, our instinct is to use Hero-Villain frameworks, not Villain-Villain. Once you break out of that both leadership and politics on both side look really bad and weighing evil is not a good approach.
Here's Al-Jazeera echoing completely made up rape accusations. Why were the accusations retracted? https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake...
Here's the (English) report on the Israeli strike (that wasn't) that (didn't) kill 500 in Al-Ahli hospital - a widely quoted and echoed further lie https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israe...
I can go on but I think it's better you continue the search.
[EDIT: fixed typo in hospital name]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...
Specifically, that is the position of the intelligence agencies of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, and also the conclusion of investigations by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. That's really the best we know about it.
In this case, they have a good argument.
Now remote forensics on the site makes it implausible that the initial reports of an Israeli airstrike were true, however we still haven’t ruled out other types of munitions by the Israeli military.
Note that the initial reports of those supportive of Israel were also false. They claimed that they captured the rockets which they claimed hit the hospital on camera. It turned out this footage was of an unrelated rocket which got completely destroyed in air. Al Jazeera was actually one of few media outlets which correctly hypothesized that this rocket was unrelated to the incident.
The fact is, we still don’t know what happened, all we know is that many of the initial reports were false. There was a lot of lying involved to win the narrative (especially by Israeli officials), and there are at least two very credible hypotheses on what happened.
The "Summary" is clearly biased and absolutely not "The best we know" depending on who is "we"
I have no idea about the reasons of the explosion, but contesting the palestinian dead toll without [credible] sources is politics.
I dare say United Nations might have a more balanced approach, and they cite the enclave health authorities when they say that as of April 22th there are 34,000 deaths. No other source is cited for some reason. I have no idea how all those newspapers could manage >>independent<< investigations, as the Israeli army banned journalists. The first time [that I saw] CNN reported on something they actually filmed was The Israeli army pointing at tunnels.
BTW, CNN is now much less biased towards the israeli narrative. During 2023 [Latam] CNN seemed a Netanyahu's outlet more that anything. France24 and DW >>seem<< neutral right now. Spain outlets have mediocre coverange, and Latinamerican outlets are only citing random news from other outlets.
The Wikipedia "Summary" is clearly biased and absolutely not "The best we know" depending on who is "we"
I dare say United Nations might have a more balanced approach, and they cite the enclave health authorities when they say that as of April 22th there are 34,000 deaths. No other source is cited for some reason.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876 https://archive.ph/B4MuA
Edit: your first source is a pro-Israeli advocacy group run by a former AIPAC employee, which has marked its coverage of the war with things like baselessly claiming reporters were in on the October 7th attacks:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-photographers-attack...
Given that in this case they ran a report by a witness, and then publicly updated that to say that a Hamas investigation had called her credibility into question, it’s interesting to note how carefully the “Honest Reporting” writer relies on uncited insinuation or tries to distract your attention to statements by people who are not part of al Jazeera. Again, it’s not great that they ran a story by someone who lied but that’s a hazard of breaking news coverage and it’s hardly unique in the field.
I don't think there's much of a question, the claims were just fabricated, according to Hamas themselves.
By "publicly updated", do you just mean quietly deleting the articles with false information? As far as I know, they never acknowledged the error and published a retraction, which calls into question their legitimacy as a news organization.
https://twitter.com/abuhilalah/status/1771996521312973088
Now, I do think they should have put out an official statement pointing out the unreliability of the interviewee rather than simply yanking the video but a single unreliable witness interviewed in a tumultuous event which is promptly dropped seems to fall well short of establishing a lie. All news organizations interview people who turn out to be wrong or misleading, so we’d want to see more than a single interview to establish whether there’s a pattern of poor vetting or running a story after evidence has come forth that the witness is unreliable. The public has rather strongly expressed a desire for immediate news coverage rather than waiting for lengthy review and corroboration.
As a good example of how messy this can be, consider this story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-at...
They fairly quickly ran into some problems with reliability of one of the key witnesses which reached the point where a number of journalism professors wrote an open letter: https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2024/04/29/journalis...
There’s a rundown with many links here: https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/family-of-key-case-in-new-yor...
None of that is mentioned on that story and the only correction is a minor detail.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that it’s okay for Al Jazeera to be sloppy if the NYT is sloppy but rather that we should be consistent in our standards and they should probably be higher for everyone. The public and especially people covered in these stories deserve better.
> We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s investigation which was rigorously reported, sourced and edited.
A lot of the "debunking" seems fairly weak in my opinion. E.g. Gal Abdush's brother in law made a rather baseless statement that "the media invented" Gal's rape. Really the article was reporting what Israeli police believed, mainly based on (non-public) video evidence which the Times reporters also reviewed.
I think it would be comparable if Israeli police retracted their claims and stated that Gal was not raped. Then surely the NYT would make some kind of clear correction/retraction, rather than quietly deleting (part of) the report.
Anecdotally I've noticed the biggest delta between their English and Arabic reporting in the immediate aftermath of major events. For example after the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, the English version of their reporting was along the lines of "According to a Gaza Ministry of Health spokesperson, 500+ people were killed. A Hamas spokesperson said that the explosion was caused by an Israeli airstrike, launched via an F-16 or F-35." They made sure to hedge and make clear that their sources might be biased.
This[1] seems like the sort of Arabic coverage I remember seeing in the past, a much more definitive statement just saying that the occupiers massacred 500+ martyrs.
Unfortunately Google Translate doesn't play nicely with the wayback machine so it's tedious to build up a library of concrete examples.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20231017203426mp_/http://www.alj...
Can you provide citations?
If not, I'd suggest you are just making this up.
Probably no one who needs convincing is willing to read the ADL on him, but you can basically pick your source.
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/Sheik-Yusuf-al-Qarad...
Here's a video of him asserting that "Hitler was a god given punishment upon the Jews, (not that the holocaust was as bad as they say)" on Al Jazeera TV.
https://www.memri.org/tv/sheik-yousuf-al-qaradhawi-allah-imp...
I guess you have to trust Memri's translation?
Now, how much editorial input AJ has over this channel, that I don’t know.
Edit: Kind of proud that my quick explanation lines up pretty well with the wiki entry haha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Mubasher
Anytime I ever bring up say Kissinger and the crazy realpolitik actions he took, or now this lunatic Ben-Gvir in Israel I’ve recently learned about, other people are trained to see me as a communist or anti-semite immediately, because if I object to a US figure, I must be with the other side, same with Israel.
I don’t really know how to navigate this problem to be honest.
You are 1000% correct al-Qaradhawi is total evil.
Realistically, you can't, other than finding people who can accept that reality is shades of grey, not "my team good, other team bad."
I don't know Arabic, but I am Muslim, and Yusuf al Qaradawi is probably most known as a preeminent Islamic scholar. Any mosque you go to will likely have a work by him because his scholarship on the Quran and Hadith (not necessarily his views on current events) are very renowned. I'm not sure what makes him so radical and evil to be honest. He has written tons of scholarly works about Islam, interpretation of Islamic rules and laws, etc. And from looking online I see he was on Al Jazeera hosting a program called "Sharia and Life". These kinds of call-a-sheikh / Islamic info shows are pretty common in the Muslim world and probably have more viewership than news channels. Something Americans probably might not understand...
But it makes total sense for Al Jazeera Arabic (a channel with possibly a 90% Muslim viewership) to have a Muslim ask-a-sheikh show.
To me it just sounds that he's an expert in convincing people that it is god's will to implement his agenda. Taking the Quran as a source of absolute truth and then taking the further step of handing the reins of interpretation to some "preeminent scholar" is a recipe for exactly the kind of extremism that you see plaguing the Islamic world.
Your and my claims about what Qaradawi is are not mutually exclusive, and are in fact deeply correlated.
The guy famously studied for like 20 years at Al-Azhar getting a bunch of degrees in Islamic scholarship from the largest mainstream Islamic school in the world. That's what I mean.
>To me it just sounds that he's an expert in convincing people that it is god's will to implement his agenda
Can you cite some controversial or not seen before analysis from any of his works? Most of his publications, that I'm aware of, are pretty standard interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence. It's nothing that would shock or surprise an average Muslim, imo.
>Taking the Quran as a source of absolute truth and then taking the further step of handing the reins of interpretation to some "preeminent scholar" is a recipe for exactly the kind of extremism that you see plaguing the Islamic world.
That's actually the kind of stuff he and other modernist Islamic scholars (Israr Ahmed is a similar scholar but for South Asia, where I'm from) were against. They both championed the idea that the Quran and Hadith are pretty clear and don't need expert opinion for many things. That people should take the time to read Arabic and read Quran and hadiths and they would not have much need for Sheikhs.
In general, this type of "democratic" or "non-hierarchical" view of Islamic scholarship is pretty modern. Older peoples (before the "extremism" you're talking about ostensibly) would have been much more hierarchical and rigid about the need to consult scholars rather than attempt to learn things oneself.
> Your and my claims about what Qaradawi is are not mutually exclusive, and are in fact deeply correlated.
So then you agree it's not a big deal that Al Jazeera has him on their network, since he's a pretty mainstream scholar? Okay, thanks for the chat I guess
I claim that religious scholarship and religious fundamentalism are one and the same. You're arguing that Qaradawi was an Islamic scholar, I'm arguing that he was an Islamic fundamentalist. However, in all religious scholarship, there are further choices to be made once you are a fundamentalist. The book contradicts itself (intentionally, as it's more important that people who believe different Islams both be able to call themselves Muslim), and Qaradawi had further used his position of "celebrated religious scholar" to assert that it is Shari'a to annihilate the Jews, and used his general credibility to deny the severity of the holocaust. That's just this clip.
You can't become a religious leader without being a religious scholar, and you can't lead an extremist sect without leaning on that classification pretty heavily.
> I claim that religious scholarship and religious fundamentalism are one and the same
This is straying quite a bit from the original claim, that Al Jazeera was wrong to have the scholar on the air. But if you believe, as you claim to, that religious scholarship and religious fundamentalism are the same, then you can't really begrudge the network for having him on, for they could not have any religious scholar on who was not a fundamentalist, according to you. And at least they picked a very mainstream one, no?
That logic out of the way, what do you describe as "fundamentalism"? If the idea that the Quran is the literal, unchanging word of God is fundamentalist, then yeah, all Islamic scholarship will be fundamentalist. If non-fundanentalisn is described as beliefs not orthogonal to the fundamental beliefs of the religion, then yes, you'll be right.
It depends on what you mean.
> The book contradicts itself
In what way, relevant to the discussion we are having where you seem to be most concerned with Qaradawi's anti-Semitic remarks? There's a whole litany of irrelevant arguments we could have about contradictions in the source material, but what specific contradiction do you think he can exploit to make questionable claims in your mind about Israel and/or Jews?
> is Shari'a to annihilate the Jews, and used his general credibility to deny the severity of the holocaust.
So the clip you linked does not say that. Sharia is law. What he's echoing is the belief that sometimes calamities in the world are punishments for moral failings of groups of people. Many religions believe this. It was even insinuated by Muslim scholars that loss of dignity and faith by Muslims was what led to the calamity suffered by the Palestinians. [1]
Is it anti-Muslim to believe that the moral failings of billions of Muslims can cause many Muslims to face calamities as we see today? I don't think so. Many Muslims believe that. Likewise, I don't think it's wrong to believe this about any people, and that's what he's saying in this clip.
If you believe people are not collectively punished by God as groups, that's fine, but there are very clear examples of this happening in religious source material (Sodom is the main one). And as such, I think the only questionable element is him saying "they exaggerate" when referring to the Holocaust. And yes I disagree with that. But it's not an Islamic scholarship issue, that.
The current prime minister and the IDF make controversial, disputed and downright false claims as well.
My understanding is that the degree to which "freedom of speech" is protected in the USA (a country I'm more familiar with) is actually pretty rare globally
To be fair, I think that blocking etc. is a dumb move by the government. Even though they are clearly a very biased organization the damage of closing their offices is probably worse than the alternative.
The fear mongering of the top parent comment is unjustified and not exactly accurate. I'm physically in Tel Aviv and can access the Al Jazeera website just fine. News outlets can't be closed and there's no "great firewall" in Israel. There is a censor but its usage is relatively limited in the age of the internet.
Examples of Al Jazeera bias include a famous video of a Gazan interviewed by a reporter blaming Hamas for everything and the reporter immediately cutting it off so it won't break the narrative that everyone in Gaza blames only Israel.
They're the ones that promoted the fake hospital bombing and they are the source of most fake unsubstantiated stories. Their Arabic language channel is far worse than their English coverage.
They made up fake stories about IDF soldiers raping in Gaza and obviously didn't report about the actual rapes by Hamas.
They refuse to interview people who can actually answer questions legitimately in Arabic such as Yosef Hadad since that would let their audience receive unfiltered truth.
Now that would make an interesting hn story.
[EDIT: sorry, having read the bill again, it's also required for Haaretz to be "a foreign news channel"]
The article's content evokes a bit of Orwelllian irony though, Minister of Communications threatening to ban the long(est?) standing news outlet.
> I don't understand why you even want this topic on HackerNews.
I don't think I'd say 'want' (what I want is to spend Sunday afternoons working on something else), but the issue is the principles by which we moderate the site. If you look at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 (edit: which I just posted in the current thread) and then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 and the links back from there, you should find plenty of explanation of the relevant points. If you (or anyone) want to familiarize yourself with those answers and still have a question I haven't addressed, I'd be happy to try.
If you see cases where this is not true, the most likely reason is that we haven't seen them yet. (We don't see everything that gets posted to HN, or even everything that gets posted to a large thread.) The thing to do then is flag the comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cflag) and/or to email us at hn@ycombinator.com in egregious cases.
I don't see why not. Just because it's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.
This attitude toward moderation is a large reason I do not participate on this site like I used to.
I hope it's not. Trolls aside, I've found HN's discussion on this topic to be interesting.
For example, this comment [1]. I hadn't considered belligerent status as a relevant factor before. (It's obvious once pointed out, and not a decisive factor. But it has weight nevertheless.)
That situations conflict which are already well understood to history are regurgitated as mysteries, and the knowledge system is practically useless to providing coherent access to previous experience and context.
When a mod has to write:
> If you look at <URL> and the links back from there, you should find more than enough (indeed, frequently repeated) explanations of the relevant points. If you (or anyone) want to familiarize yourself with those answers and still have a question I haven't addressed, I'd be happy to try.
Why has a new thread been created?
Why isn't this article and the attending thread of comments already situated within existing paths of discourse helping readers to assess the long prevailing (say 100 years) of understanding on the topic and identify, explore and integrate the outlying views? Why hasn't all the redundant and trivial junk of the previous thread been sifted and gleaned into salient regards for the situation?
Does any media apparatus help with us with knowing how what's happening today relates to what we understood yesterday and the days before?
Why is all news manifest as a reverse chronological list of forgettery, de-contextualized factoids and rediscovery of precedents among initiates?
A user posted it and other users upvoted it. Other users flagged it, but I chose to turn off the flags on this one, for reasons I've explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 and in many other places linked to there.
> Why isn't this article and the attending thread of comments already situated within existing paths of discourse
It is in the sense that the web already does that. I often post lists of related links from past HN discussion (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but that's not doable when my hair is on fire and I'm also trying to keep my head above water.
This is the most interesting position i ve seen on the subject.
You are deceiving yourself, dang. You cherish every single second of it.