As an American Jew who grew up with a distorted and racist world view in regard to Palestine this just feels like history repeating itself. The troubles that face Israelis have always been amplified over those of Palestinians in my experience. That control of the narrative led me to be actively racist for most of my life while thinking I was not and also morally superior. This kind of censorship has a body count, and it lets war crimes happen in clear view while the on lookers think they are doing the right thing.
As an American who moved here from a Muslim country let me assure you Muslims are socialized to feel the same way about Jews.
Took me a long time to see it. In high school I obviously supported Palestine and thought Israel was a settler colony (all of it, not just Gaza). Then I realized: wait why do I even care? I’m from 3,000 miles away in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, people don’t even care about Bangladeshis being held in near-slavery conditions in Qatar. (More Bangladeshi workers have died in the Middle East since 2010 than Palestinians killed in the conflict with Israel since 1947.) They don’t care about the Rohingya. They don’t care what Saudi is doing in Yemen. They’re very friendly with China and don’t care about Uighurs. But everyone has an opinion on how Israel is oppressing Palestine.
The opinions of Americans in particular on this issue are very relevant. The U.S provides Israel with a diplomatic, military and financial blank check. Many of the most aggressive elements of the settler movement that makes life so difficult for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank are funded by American non-profit groups like the Central Fund of Israel. In addition some 60,000 ideologically driven American citizens are living as settlers in the West Bank.
As I posted eleswhere, note that American Christian Evangelicals support Israel's right-wing policies much more strongly than American Jews, who are mostly liberal and Democrats.
> Pew Research surveys find that similar shares of Christians (29%) and Jews (31%) say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel. Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel.
Context matters, but often I like a search result over article. When someone knows vast majority of results go the stated direction vs here is an article that supports a view as often that is bias writing. A search result link to a degree shows greater neutrality vs particular press in the right context.
I'm confused why this post was described as "flamewar" as it's a single sentence of factually correct information.[1] The only part I'd take issue with is the use of the word "fable". Fables are succinct short stories which end in a moral lesson—and the apocalyptic Book of Revelation is neither short nor moral.
That's stretching way too far. "Apocalyptic fables" was obviously a religious putdown. People aren't allowed to smear each other's religions on HN because it leads to some of the nastiest, dumbest, and most repetitive internet threads. It should be obvious from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html why we don't want that.
I'd still assert that "fables" is merely inaccurate, but I will accept this can be a matter of opinion. However you just quoted "apocalyptic fables" as though describing it as apocalyptic were somehow relevant to the negative connotation. Book of Revelation isn't just any apocalyptic literature, it's prototypical of the genre.[1] Apocalypse is the literally a Greek-derived word for revelation.[2]
I know where the word apocalypse comes from. It doesn't change the point: "apocalyptic fables" was obviously a religious putdown, and those are not cool on HN.
> Unfortunately "people of faith" tend to take any sort of criticism of the mechanics of their faith as a personal attack.
An unavoidable consequence of any belief system which assigns significant personal reward upon faith, because criticism of faith places their personal reward into question. More unfortunate is how secular institutions are unintentionally rewarding people of faith for having a thin skin by so eagerly accepting it as a signal to quash criticism. I'd argue that nothing "tramples curiosity" quite so much as the systemic disappearance of criticism in the public square.
People use the word "censor" in many different ways that it's not always clear what they mean by it.
We don't moderate HN comments because of the views they express; we moderate for comment quality and adherence to the site guidelines. In the vast majority of cases where we moderate a comment, it's not because of the view it expresses, but because it expressed it in a way that's destructive of the culture we want here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). You can call that censorship if you like, but I don't think it's what the word classically means. In most cases there are other commenters expressing the same view thoughtfully and substantively, and those comments don't get moderated at all. I think we can say after 10+ years of working with this strategy that it definitely isn't "the shortest way to the bottom" - quite the opposite.
That’s not what I’m driving at. My point is that there is a reason Bangladeshis all learn about Israel oppressing Palestine but don’t care about other Bangladeshis being worked to death in the Middle East. There’s a reason that’s the thing that gets people’s attention compared to all the other human rights issues out there.
Maybe whataboutism. Why Bangladeshi whataboutism is supposed to be of interest to us I'm not sure.
Arab countries also use Israel to highlight the disingenuousness of America's supposed concern for human rights. Ironically not having it as an ally might make military interventions in the Arab world easier.
It’s not “whataboutism” to ask what might be motivating people to care about a particular issue thousands of miles away when they don’t pay any attention to human rights issues on their own border.
There is a reason. Maybe this reason is that the "conflict" has been going on for 70 years? Maybe the reason is that the situation is particularly humiliating for Muslims, who saw the West unilaterally decide to install some Europeans in one of Islam's most historic places? Or maybe the reason is that, different from other injustices, this one is brazenly denied both by the perpetrators and by those who should be witnesses? Because an injustice will upset, but there is nothing more enraging than seeing those in power deny the obvious and pretend that the perpetrators are victims.
So there can be many reasons. Why do you choose the one that, once somehow transferred 5500 km from Bangladesh to Palestine (not sure how much they have in common), puts the Palestinians' struggle in the worst possible light?
Most Israelis come from Arab countries(because they were expelled), this is a common myth that Israeli's are "european", there is many from Eastern Europe, and there are many ashkenazi jewish immigrants from the USA, but this is a fraction. And Jerusalem is the holiest place for Jews, and it has been since before Islam existed
yes it is, look at the numbers. 26 percent from europe, 27 percent from "non white" Middle east mainly, would be 28-29 percent but I am not including potential mizrahim from USA/Canada, even though many are probably persian/iraqi origin.
Look at it carefully, there is no Middle East Continent, look at the countries in the list... Are you saying Iraq is not an Arab country, Because it is in Asia? No arabs in Morocco because it is in Africa? My point is that Israel is not "European Colonials". Argentinian ladino speaking sephardic jews white? An Iranian-American Jewish family moving to Israel is European? You are nitpicking, and more than half of the population is not 'european', also count in the the druze, bedouin, and christian and muslim arabs that live here, with full rights, political representation, and benefits
edit:
Looking at your history "Peace is not possible on occupied land or in an apartheid state." seems like anything I can tell you wont matter because you have already drank the koolaid
Iraq is included in Asia. Asia + Africa = 25.05% which is less than the 30.9% Europe + America. So you were incorrect when you said the majority of Jewish Israeli’s are from Arab nations.
You are still wrong.. when most of the jews were kicked out of Arab countries they went to countries all over the world United States, Europe, Argentina/Brasil.. You are not considering any of this and just pulling census 6 year old census data that doesnt describe ethnicity..
from the article:
"About 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population identify as either Mizrahi or Sephardi, 44.2% identify as Ashkenazi, about 3% as Beta Israel and 7.9% as mixed or other"
This is from 2013, and there has been a lot more mixing since then.
That says nothing about their country of origin. These people literally emigrated from Western non-Arab countries. Your statement is just incorrect and now you’re moving the goal posts.
I posted proof, im not goal posting, and you are missing the entire point of what I originally said. Mizrahim/sepharidim are jews from arab/meditaranean/african countries.. they are more than 50% the population of jews in Israel. I am not arguing with any more. Your previous comments describe how you feel already.
You did not post proof. The numbers directly contradict your statement. More emigration happened from Western countries than Arab countries. No amount of goal post moving will change that your original statement is factually incorrect.
There are only so many hours in a day. This should be true at the community level, but an individual passionately caring about all of those injustices at once will end up spamming social media with advocacy because there is not enough time to pick any one to do something with greater impact.
You literally do not have enough time to care about all the travesties in the world, you will just 'care' about them taking up all of your time while doing nothing to actually improve the world. You are 1 human of billions, you try to make the world better as much as one average human can. Which is for most people, raising their children well, being a good person and doing good work. You only have energy for one cause I like to say, it's up to you to choose it.
So beyond a general sense of "these things suck and I emphasize, but I don't have time to think about it", there is really not much else you should do beyond that if your not actually going to do anything about it other than read some media, feel some emotions and have opinions about something you have remote to zero experience in and zero power or desire to actually do anything about it.
And after that one, you have the other 100'000 small and large travesties to process.
Intersectionality is just viewing all struggles commonality. You can focus on whatever you want and center it with regard to everything else that’s wrong. For me, that’s been a very hopeful concept because you obviously can’t do a million things at once.
> n individual passionately caring about all of those injustices at once will end up spamming social media with advocacy because there is not enough time to pick any one to do something with greater impact
One solution, a well-established one, is to focus on universal human rights. The rising tide will lift all boats.
Also, caring does not necessarily mean action. I do have limited time, but I've heard the above used as an excuse for most of my life, and used to subscribe to it. I've learned that while people are talking about whether and how and should you care, you can just do something. It's that easy.
When you can't even get major powers on board with universal human rights, what hope have you of going after others? They seem about as effective as the UN itself.
Major powers have been on board with universal human rights since WWII. They aren't always perfect, but the effort and progress since then is astounding. Look at the world now vs 1945, or 1845!
As a general principle, yes, all of humanity matters, and all grave matters deserve grave attention. At the same time, how a given issue impacts you and those around you, how much influence you can possibly have over the matter, and how much responsibility you and those like you truly bare in its existence are all of upmost importance when deciding where you should be putting your emphasis, morally speaking.
For example, for your typical US citizen, decrying the plight of the Uyghurs is fine in principle. But if one goes and weights things relative to the above criteria -- though admittedly there's no clean way to do so -- I'd argue that China's Uyghur genocide would not even make the top 100 of things that deserve to be morally prioritized (again, by your typical US citizen).
And forgive me if I read to far into what you wrote past what you intended; it just struck me as possibly flattening a bit too much.
a) they are DOING something bad: attacking, occupying, oppressing, blocking, so we need to stop them, kick them out, liberate from their oppression, break their block, etc.
b) they ARE (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., or a nation, or a group), and they are bad because (list of historical or invented reasons), so we need to kill or enslave them or force assimilation of them.
For example, recent Russian-Ukrainian war, from Russian side:
* Ukrainians are bad, because they are Nazi. Reasons: Ukraine is Nazi country because it is independent Nation, which is bad for Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: kill Ukrainians, close Ukrainian schools, magazines, sites, TV and radio stations, force Ukrainians to abandon Ukrainian culture.
* Ukrainian are oppressing Ukrainians, speaking in Russish. Reasons: nobody will speak in dumb Ukrainian language at their own will, when they can use Great and Mighty Russish Tongue (Великий и Могучий Русский Язык), so, obviously, Ukrainians are forcing Ukrainians to speak in Ukrainian language, AKA «forceful ukrainization»/«насильственная украинизация» (and Ukrainian language is dumb, obviously, because it causes laugh, when a Russish hear it). Thus: invade Eastern Ukraine to protect Russissh-speaking Ukrainians from forceful ukrainization (direct speech: «защитить русско-язычных жителей Юго-Востока Украины от насильственной украинизации»).
From Ukrainian side:
* Russians are invading Ukraine. Reasons: they want to destroy Ukrainian nation and make it part of Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: Ukraine must stop invasion.
I’d urge people not to give up caring. There’s a lot of crappy things happening in the world and it can be a lot to deal with, but just tossing your hands up isn’t the answer.
I’d also argue that tax paying Americans are obligated to care. Our money is funding Israel’s crimes and we are morally culpable if we don’t resist or try to change policy.
Yes, I am aware of that and do care for justice but am afraid to talk abour it IRL to be honest. To be publically acused of antisemitism for being critical to Israel could be a real nightmare Im not ready to go through. I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish. Am I a coward? I think so but I have a family and want to hold onto my job. Here on HN I am not afraid to comment because this account is not tied to my real identity.
Ps There is one think I do which I know is directly connected to this. I boycot Israeli food products, mostly grown on occupied lands. The inpact is close to nil but it’s the most I can do at the moment.
> I am aware of that and do care for justice but am afraid to talk abour it IRL to be honest. To be publically acused of antisemitism for being critical to Israel could be a real nightmare Im not ready to go through. ... Am I a coward? I think so but I have a family and want to hold onto my job. Here on HN I am not afraid to comment because this account is not tied to my real identity.
You're not a coward; you're human. Here's what I tell myself: There are people who sacrificed far more for freedom than whatever I risk - anger, rejection by some, even my job and reputation. However, I only have one job and one reputation, and I'm not sacrificing them for nothing.
And regardless, taking a dramatic stand rarely accomplishes anything. Listening to others, being curious and open about their positions, and then responding thoughtfully accomplishes much more with much less risk.
> I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish.
FWIW, this is a classic line of prejudiced people: 'I'm not anti-X; some of my best friends are X.' There was even a public service commercial in the 1980s that used almost that exact line. Whatever your thoughts, I wouldn't say it. It sounds defensive, for one thing. Say something affirmative - e.g., 'Israelis have a right to peace and justice, as do Palestinians.'
If you are prejudiced (I have no idea; I'm not drawing a conclusion based on one sentence in an online post; and I am certainly nobody's judge), it's ok. We all are to various degrees - the point for me is to be aware that I am human too, that I have this human potential and to be aware of it and notice it, and also to be aware that I also have the human potential for much greater things, and I have a responsibility to embrace that and change my perspective.
I agree this is a real issue. Even if it’s just voicing support under a pseudonym (such as I’ve done here), it’s better than nothing. The younger generations are definitely more aware of the issues Palestinians are facing and more vocal about putting an end to it. That offers me some hope.
You should know that saying some of my favorite people are jewish is something that sounds pretty bad. The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.
A lot of people are critical of Israel's policies, including many Israelis. There is absolutely no problem with that.
Why is it bad if I admire jews? I think this is going too far, I am not ill intended towards anyone but you just gave me an example why as a non jew I should stay quiet if I don’t want to be labeled as anything or god knows what else
> The idea that you would be branded as an anti-semite and lose your job because you are critical of Israel also sounds bad.
Sounds very plausible instead. The original cancel culture is exactly that used to silence critics of Israel- the accusation of antisemitism has been used for decades to terminate careers. People have learned very well to keep their mouths shut.
There's lots of critics of Israel. Can you give me 3 (or 10) examples or people who lost their jobs as a result of some reasonable criticism of Israel's policies? Weren't there recent petitions in Google and Amazon to boycott Israel? Did anyone lose their jobs? And this is political activism at your workplace, which isn't exactly the same thing as stating your opinion outside work. If you choose to bring politics into your workplace anything can happen.
Let me tell you how this sounds to me as a Jewish person, it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory that is alluding that "we" are somehow pulling some invisible strings to get people fired for being justly critical of Israel. I could be paranoid but honestly I've earned the right to be paranoid.
I would fight for anyone's right to criticize Israel. I would also fight for the discussion to be based on facts and for Israel not to be singled out for "preferential" treatment. There is no problem being critical of Israel. Antisemitism is a big problem. If you don't feel like you can draw this line just study the question before commenting. It's really not that hard.
Let me give you a specific example. If you say Israel is intentionally trying to inflict damage on Gaza in order to deter Hamas and the population from re-engaging Israel in the future and that's a questionable tactic. I would say this is reasonable criticism (at least should be discussed). If you say Israel should not be evicting Arabs from their homes at the moment from disputed territories even if they are legally entitled to, or you want to debate said legality. Fair game IMO. However if you say look how many Palestinians died vs. Israelis in the latest round of violence and use it as a measure of morality that is problematic. In war each side tries to minimize damage to their side and inflict as much damage on the other side. People saying this are either incredibly naive or are twisting the (sad) reality to fit some agenda IMO. I don't think what I am saying here is that you can only have a voice if you agree with me. You can even choose to disagree with me on the question of war and proportionality. But you better come to this discussion with some good supporting arguments. There is certainly a lot of history and a lot of room for debate about this.
You can hold any position on Israel up to and including that it does not have the right to exist and still not be anti-Semitic. I do not agree with the formation or expansion of Israel, including the Balfour Declaration. I am not anti-Semitic.
In fact I think anti-Semitism is a very real problem. Historically and now. It also hurts the legitimate arguments against Zionism because invariably real anti-Semites show up and become the focal point.
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"
Nobody has banned John Lennon from the radio last time I checked.
Until a position is backed up with some rational arguments it's sort of just your opinion. Why should we care? If you are going public with a certain position and advocating for action the burden of proof is on you. Especially if there are consequences. There's plenty of nonsense going around that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. But you can "hold" any of those positions wrt/ Israel or any other topic.
This is a non sequitur and a straw man. I don’t agree with the Balfour Declaration because it was strongly opposed by the Palestinians, 90% of the population at the time.
I have no idea why you are quoting John Lennon. It has nothing to do with the topic.
It's good that you are backing your opinion with facts. That's a great start to a rational debate. I don't think the muslims in the region were referred to as Palestinians at the time but it is a fact that they were the majority (I could nitpick specific regions and numbers but sure, as a rule I'd agree). Do you have any reference to their strong opposition? (it sounds reasonable though, so quite likely, but let's differentiate facts from opinions). My counter is that the reason the Jewish population was a minority at the time was that Jews were expelled from the area and prevented from returning. I do support the Balfour Declaration. There are other reasons for my support, such as the persecution of Jews in other countries.
Let's say we have this debate and you convince me, and I agree with you, that the Balfour Declaration was "wrong"(?) because it's not "right" to say people X should take location Y as their country while the locals are not consulted with. Not sure that really gets us anywhere. Lots of countries "exist" without Britain bothering to have declared that they should be countries and lots of countries exist because Britain and France arbitrarily made them so. Saudi Arabia pretty much owns its existence to similar circumstances, the British war on the Ottoman empire. But sure it is part of the long and relevant history of the region.
You can also say the UN should not have passed resolution 181. Again, not sure where that's gonna lead us.
If you have issues with the Balfour Declaration presumably those should be taken up with Britain?
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think you're saying that despite the long and documented history of the Jewish people to the land of Israel the fact that the Jewish people were a minority in the area for a lengthy amount of time means that they have no right to that area at all. My counter would be that pretty much any country anywhere in the world doesn't actually satisfy your requirements and that if anything the Jewish people have a stronger "right" to that land than most other people living in other countries. And then you'll disagree. And we'll agree to disagree. And the question of how to resolve the situation today remains.
That other countries have also engaged in colonialism, doesn’t mean we have to support it, especially modern day colonialism.
We won’t agree on a solution or even the problem, but my point in this particular case is you can be against Israel as a geopolitical entity and not be anti-Semitic.
Idk this doesn't sound true about any of the Bengalis I have met. They all seem to care a lot about Rohingya (since it is especially close to them and they see the suffering), the Uighurs, Yemen, etc.
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is decades older than all the conflicts you mention, which is why they probably don't get as much airtime comparatively.
I'm a nobody but I didnt see anything wrong with the comment. Its pointing out the illogical idea of caring for a cause only because others cared. I'm sure this is a big problem today with social media. People (generally speaking) just want to fit in, they have no real motivation to support a good cause at their own expense.
This feels like hair-splitting to me. Your comment obviously broke the site guidelines. If you'd please re-read them and do a more careful job of sticking to the rules, we'd appreciate it. Note this one, for example:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
There is a big difference between saying "your argument is terrible or infantile or whatever" and saying "you are such and such", I don't think that's hair splitting at all and I also don't think that the guideline you have referenced applies in this case either, but whatever you are the moderator so there is no point in even trying to argue. I edited the problematic part out.
If you read the site guidelines closely I think you'll see that they very much do apply in cases like this. Note this one:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Not just "you are (idiotic|infantile|...)", but also "that is (idiotic|infantile|...)" is ruled out as name-calling here.
If you want to understand why we have such rules, the key thing to consider is that the quality of your contribution has not only do with your perspective (e.g. "The reasoning is objectively infantile"), but also that of the reader—or rather the distribution of readers that your comment is probably going to land with. If you (or anyone) are interested, I wrote a long, in-depth explanation a while ago for a commenter in a similar situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161365. The in-depth portions are here:
The sad part is that you can get called an anti-Semite (or self-hating Jew) for expressing any sort of solidarity with Palestinians. The sadder part is that actual anti-Semites then jump in and use that situation to further their agenda.
I’ve not run into this very much. I’ve had very good luck advocating against antisemitism while also advocating against Israeli settlement policies. I think by advocating against antisemitism I demonstrate that I’m actually committed to justice. It seems when people are accused of antisemitism they are often not only criticizing settlement policies but also advocating for the destruction of Israel and are generally silent on Jewish persecution.
There's another contingent that's quick to label any criticism leveled against the Israeli government as anti-semitism, which in itself is an antisemitic trope (which insinuates that all Jewish people, including the Jewish diaspora, and the country/government of Israel are inseparable)
Yes, labels are prepared for any type of criticism. The sad part is that there is some genuine anti-semitism out there (same is true for racism) and lumping this acusation with any criticism will weaken a real cause (again, same is true for racism).
I don't know if there's maybe something to this analysis on a global scale (certainly I've got zero confidence in the good faith of Saudi and Qatari foreign policy), and it's absolutely the case that there's an insidious strain of antisemitism hiding in advocacy for Palestinians, but plenty of people I talk to about this problem are observant Jewish people; they're absolutely not antisemites, or getting "played", any more than people who advocated against apartheid were getting played. The situation is by all accounts very, very bad.
I don't disagree with you, but I think you and GP are both correct. Lots of people care about this issue and think that things should change and/or that Israel is "in the wrong" so to speak (I myself am one such person).
However, you said "maybe something to [GP's] analysis on a global scale" and also " The situation is by all accounts very, very bad."
From an Israeli perspective, this is the thing that bothers me. The situation re: Israel/Palestine is bad, but it's also nuanced and complicated and has very few paths forward, even to people very motivated to solve the problems. (Even if I had any political power, I really don't know what I would do at this stage.)
And yet, the way the situation is talked about on a global scale makes it seem: 1) way worse than it really is, 2) loses a lot of nuance and makes Israel look way worse than it really is, 3) makes the issue appear far more important compared to other problems happening in the world.
And the reason for the above is because of GP's analysis (or at least, that's what it seems like to me): a lot of countries have a huge interest in making the situation the one that people focus on. It's easier for many Muslim countries to make their citizens focus on a bad situation in Palestine (ignoring their own complicity in it), and thereby distract them from far, far worse situations happening literally every day.
I don’t say “everybody.” I said “most people.” Across the entire Muslim world there is a feigned concern for Palestinians that’s mainly about showing solidarity with other Muslims in opposing the existence of Israel. I’m not talking about random Americans who happen to jump into the cause.
>it's absolutely the case that there's an insidious strain of antisemitism hiding in advocacy for Palestinians
There's a rather more insidious strain of state supported Islamophobia and Israeli racial supremacy hiding in almost every trumped up accusation of anti-semitism.
It comes routinely from institutions who purport to speak for Jews.
For example, there's an institution named "stop antisemitism" who recently tried to offer money to dox a writer from The Onion for a joke that could in no way be construed as anti-semitic in any way, shape or form: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/the-onion-stop-antisemitism/
These people did not make a mistake. They weren't being incautious or overly zealous. They are simply racists.
You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological flamewar. I refer not only to the barrage of comments you've been posting on this topic, but your comments on other topics also. Using HN primarily this way will get you banned here—it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. This is long-established moderation practice: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
Since we've warned you many times before (going back years actually) and you've continued to break this rule, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No, this isn't because of any of the topics you've been posting about, and certainly not the current one. We actually don't care which political (or ideological, or whatever) side you're on. It's because your account has repeatedly and consistently been breaking HN's rules despite our many requests to you to stop. Not cool.
Check how many US based Jews are part of anti Israel organizations such as BDS compared to other organizations that are anti other countries. Why? because they care more about the image of Israel in the world than the image of Iran or China for example. Even though they don't live in Israel and are not Israelis. That's because non-Jews often put Israelis and Jews in the same bucket, due to ignorance and/or racism. Similar to how many people put all Arabs/Muslims together.
How do we measure this sort of amplification objectively? How do we account for context? I would say that it's exactly the opposite, that through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli. Israel has faced many boycotts, many attempts to destroy it, and generally as less than favorable in world public opinion.
It is maybe true that there's been a little shift with the collapse of the soviet union and the split in the Arab world. I would still say that Israel gets more negative coverage in comparison to other world events and even within the specific conflict.
Just a recent example, at some point during the Covid crisis Israel was extensively criticized for not treating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza equitably with regard to vaccine distribution. Nobody even mentions that Israeli Palestinians are treated equitably in this regard. Nuances are lost. Recently when Israel did agree to provide Palestinians with vaccines the Palestinians rejected them:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-covid-...
EDIT: And forgot to add my point, that this did not receive as wide of a coverage.
Lack of "censorship" also has a body count. What about all the Covid conspiracy theories? Should we give those guys a free stage on social media? Incitement to commit real violence is also common in social platforms. To give an example from the "other" side some mobs that gathered to attack Israeli Arabs during the last conflicts organized on social media. Would you be critical if those voices were suppressed?
I can be really critical of Israel for many things. But I'm really not buying that the balance is set the wrong way. Keep in mind a lot of us are consuming the kind of news that amplifies our world views anyways. Which brings me back to how do we measure this in a controlled way?
> through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli
There is absolutely no question that Israel has more support in the West. The US doesn't give billions a year in military support to the Palestinians or Arabs - except Egypt, when signed a treaty not to attack Israel. The head of the Palestinians doesn't give speeches to join sessions of Congress. Yes, Israel gets criticized (as does everyone), and they do a lot of shit; it's laughable to portray Israel as a victim - and an old rhetorical tactic to claim victimhood when you do something wrong and take heat for it.
How did we get to the question of monetary aid here? What about the UN? Security council? Also of note is that until 1985 financial aid was much lower, a lot of this aid is in the form of loans or requires Israel to only use it for purchases from the US. The US generally supported Israel to further their own interests, oil and the cold war. Jordan also gets >$1B from the US a year. Let's not forget that the US actually went to war for some of its other pals in the region.
At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion. When the media does report it totally lacks any context (honestly that applies to the all coverage, whether you may view it as positive to Israel or negative). You can't simply show a rocket hitting a building or a bomb hitting a building or people getting hurt (which they are) without context. Sure, the military aid is context, the history of the region is context, the suicide bombings of the early 2000's are context, the deportation of people from their homes are context, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is context, the Hamas taking over Gaza by force is context, how they use their $ aid is context, the connection of the Jewish people to Israel is context. With no context (or rather with no study of the details) this is just emotional mumbo jumbo. And sure, some things are clearly wrong even out of context, and some things are clearly right, but for the most part that determination can't be made from some 140 character tweet. No context results in shallow discussions.
I stand by my opinion that Israel is portrayed more negatively and generally not enough context is given, relative to other world events, and within the specifics of the conflict. You haven't really answered my question of how you measure this, and so without measurement you are entitled to your opinion (and your use of rhetoric) and I'm entitled to mine?
Israel is not (yet) a victim here. Are the Palestinians a victim? Perhaps. Israel isn't solely to blame for that. Is Israel doing some things I don't like? Absolutely. Are Palestinians doings things I don't like? Absolutely. Is the way out of this mess to shift the blame around? I don't know about that one. This shifting of the blame is just another angle of the conflict and something the sides (sure, both sides) are doing because they don't actually want a resolution.
This story we're discussing, which isn't really any sort of objective reporting (to say the least) really supports my point IMO. I definitely support the right of all sides to be heard though, and here we have one side being heard.
> At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion.
I don't know why you think that was the topic, but U.S. monetary aid (and voluminous other support) is hard factual evidence of opinion in the U.S.
> When the media does report it totally lacks any context ...
That's not my experience. The media I read, such as the NY Times, generally (I perceive - subjectively, sans data) provides context when it supports Israel, and omits it when it's critical of Israel. In fact, I think it's the NY Times' biggest flaw by far.
> here we have one side being heard
Israel's side isn't heard in American news media? Seriously? That's laughable. Look at the NY Times op-ed page, any day (or any day there is something in the news about Israel). And Murdoch publications Fox and the WSJ also support Israel. What major opinion source does not?
I'm not really talking about American news media specifically. I don't read the NYT or the WSJ or watch Fox News. These are all anecdotes. I respect your perception but the news I consume don't seem to behave the same way. Naturally I have my own biases here.
"A random check carried out this week showed that there is one citation on Google News for every 50,000 Chinese or Indians, 20,000 Bangladeshis, 8,000 Pakistanis, 5,000 Russians, 3,400 Egyptians (in the midst of horrific soccer riots) or 1200 Syrians (although the regime in Damascus is doing its best to improve its rankings by steadily decreasing the number of living Syrians). But it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."
> I'm not really talking about American news media specifically. I don't read the NYT or the WSJ or watch Fox News.
Well, you keep moving the goalposts. I'm sticking with those goalposts, which are the leading news sources in the most important country by far in regard to Israel.
Seriously? Wikipedia? What basis is there for saying it's decent? But the NYT and WSJ aren't worth your time?
> "... it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."
Singled out implies intent, which there's no evidence of. Are Americans highly interested in Israel and not interested in much of the world? That's not news, nor does it show any bias for or against Israel.
Americans are more prone to this kind of thing because they're already used to overriding settler-colonial propaganda influencing their mindset; Zionist propaganda is just another flavor.
Lots of countries have similar sorts of histories I think; while I'm sure what you say is part of the equation, I think it doesn't fully explain why Americans are much more likely to support Israel than people in other countries (for instance, Australia.) I think another piece of this puzzle is the popularity of Evangelical Christianity in America, particularly Christian Zionism and the belief that the state of Israel is a necessary precondition for the return of their Messiah. That's the sort of rhetoric I was raised with anyway.
In that case Israel should follow New Zealand's example and allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews, stop with the racism and start behaving like the progressive country they pretend to be.
> allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews
If that happened, then Palestinians would outnumber Jews and could dominate the country democratically. I can understand the potential for discrimination.
That's why the two state solution is often considered the only just solution: Both groups each have a country in which they are the majority.
The Israeli right rejects the two state solution, and clearly they reject being a minority, so that only leaves oppression of Palestinians (which is awful and unjust, to avoid any doubt).
> the progressive country they pretend to be
Israel hasn't pretended to be progressive in awhile. Netanyahu and some of his predecessors made no pretenses about it.
> The Israeli right rejects the two state solution, and clearly they reject being a minority, so that only leaves oppression of Palestinians (which is awful and unjust, to avoid any doubt).
Actually I'm fairly sure it could have happened at some point if it hadn't been loudly rejected by Arabs.
> In that case Israel should follow New Zealand's example and allow all Palestinians to become citizens, with full rights, stop being an ethnostate for Jews,
This would have been somewhat reasonable if it hadn't been for the fact that Jews have been driven out from neighboring countries in larger number than Arabs from Israel.
I'm not sure this is the mic drop you think it is, since what you're pushing back on here is the idea that Palestinians living in Israel should be allowed to simultaneously remain in their homes and have full political rights and agency. Which of those two things do you disagree with?
You're excluding the middle a lot in these comments, suggesting that the only two valid perspectives on this conflict are "Israel must be an exclusionary ethnostate" and "Hamas is a legitimate actor". It's possible to disagree with both of those statements. People who stick up for Hamas are dumb. Ethnostates are immoral.
There’s nothing immoral about ethnostates. Not every country needs to be a multiethnic democracy like the US. I agree certain human rights must be respected, but there’s nothing wrong with Israel being structured as a homeland for Jews. To assert otherwise is to elevate notions of non-discrimination above the right to self-determination. My parents’ generation fought a war with Pakistan to have a home for Bangladeshis. (The ethnic group is in the name of the country!) If there was any risk of Bangladeshis losing political control of the country, they’d be entirely within their rights to prevent that.
Perhaps they ought to set up their constitution to have a military pledged to the maintenance of a purely secular state that will overthrow any overtly religious government, no matter the electoral margins they earned when getting installed.
Or they could do what Lebanon does and have some mandatory representation from all ethnic groups in all important public institutions.
There are definitely ways to make this work, if there is a true willingness to live in peace.
> a military pledged to the maintenance of a purely secular state that will overthrow any overtly religious government
That's an idea with a very bad history and no political legitimacy: What grounds does a general have to tell their neighbors what to do? Nobody voted for them. What stops the general from arbitrarily wielding that power?
Why vest that power in the military? A civilian institution could make the decision, such as a court interpreting a constitution.
I think you're being naive because the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend. What would make it legitmate is that the people agreed to it ahead of time.
> the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend
Maybe in your fantasies, but not in advanced democracies. Nobody would follow those orders; there's no evidence of it ever happening, in centuries. Technically, the people of Washington DC have the power to overthrow the government if they all rush the seats of power at the same time, but really they don't.
There have been hundreds of coup d'etat and attempts at such in "advanced democracies." And if you're trying to claim they aren't advanced if they haven't had a coup d'etat then there's just no true Scotsman, is there?
When? Where? I suppose it could depend on definitions of 'advanced' democracies, but it ain't happening in the modern US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, Canada, Australia, etc. etc.
> In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e. selected to be in a covenant with God.
> This view, however, does not always preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God. Biblical references as well as rabbinic literature support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh",[4] and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel. Based on these statements, some rabbis theorized that, in the words of Nethanel ibn Fayyumi, a Yemenite Jewish theologian of the 12th century, "God permitted to every people something he forbade to others...[and] God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language."(Levine, 1907/1966)
> The Mishnah continues, and states that anyone who kills or saves a single human, not Jewish, life, has done the same (save or kill) to an entire world. The Tosefta, an important supplement to the Mishnah,[5] also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a).
I just want to point out that this nonsense is Islamophobia and should not be tolerated.
Muslims are no less people than anyone else. They are not the cartoonish evil character that you believe them to be.
>I just want to point out that this nonsense is Islamophobia and should not be tolerated. Muslims are no less people than anyone else. They are not the cartoonish evil character that you believe them to be.
He said progressive. Progressive doesn't mean "not evil", it means progressive. Can you name a single Muslim-majority country that allows gay marriage?
>Can you name a single Muslim-majority country that allows gay marriage?
I think that's a false dichotomy. The question is not if a country is a Muslim-majority country or a Christian-majority country, but if it's secular enough or not.
You never answer my question - why would Israel give full citizenship to people in Gaza and let’s add on top parts (Area C) of the West Bank entirely controlled by the Palestinian Authority?
And the funny part is, the reason Israel control parts of the West Bank is because they were attacked in 3 wars (1948, 1967, 1972) and won.
New Zealand is a bad example to use, given that it's one of the few cases where settlement was based on a non-coerced treaty intended to actively integrate the native people as equal citizens with the settlers. While the NZ government later spent about a hundred years ignoring the treaty and treating the Maori badly, the treaty itself, the process that led to it, and the actions of the settler leaders at the time of its signing had a legitimacy that most other cases of colonization and settlement (including that of Israel) have generally lacked.
"in" and "since" is somewhat different. Do Chinese have a claim on China? Do Japanese have a claim on Japan? Are Spaniards OK to live in Spain? Are Jews ok to live in Judea?
Looks like for all of these questions the answer is "duh, yes for sure" - except for the last one. I wonder...
The Romans destroyed the Jewish state and renamed the area. I don't celebrate that but I'm sure that there has not been a Jewish state since the 10th century. That is the difference.
Hacker News is for a different sort of discussion than this, as the site guidelines make clear: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You can't break them like this, regardless of how dumb something sounds or you feel it sounds. We ban accounts that do that, and since you've already done this at least once elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27642465) I've banned this account.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Jews and christians were there before Islam even existed and Arabs invade. Talking about propaganda, indeed the craziest of the world is Pallywood because it's so blunt, using takkia like this will give good points to go to heaven faster.
I'm from Algeria so I could go on all day long and even complain about the Arabs of FLN who stripped my grand parents from their lands.
But instead, I'd rather complain about how silly a lot of people are, eating pallywood propaganda without a single doubt, I mean, it's not like this article was showing the posts in question at all, the mere partial description they made of it are tailored to correspond the propaganda, really is there someone to believe that using the word "resist" online is enough to get an Israeli arrest?
> I will not succumb to the “peaceful solution,”
Yeah, maybe they were arrested for incitation because of the part that was before the "resist" line pointed by this article. So that's some nice takkia right there, all this to get some good points, and y'all fall for it like school kids, that's so cute!
That’s a hilarious assertion. One of the things we found puzzling when we moved here was why Americans spent so much time in school studying all the bad things the country did. Totally bizarre to us, coming from Asia.
I’m making a different point. The idea that Americans whitewash their history is absurd compared how kids are educated in nearly the whole rest of the world.
I don’t have any issues with teaching about American history and things that were done that were wrong (in hindsight or at the time).
But what you might be referring to is this bizarre self-flagellation that has grown in popularity which focuses exclusively on the errors and ignores any of the good things about America.
My personal opinion is it’s because the people doing it want to remake America - throw away the old and create a “more just” society (obviously following their politics).
If you can use this self-criticism to destroy the foundation of America (through association) you can get rid of those pesky ideals preventing you from transforming society. Things like individual freedom, personal responsibility, inalienable rights, judging the individuals by their own actions and not the sins of their ancestors, etc.
as an israeli jew that gets shouted down and banned from every platform where a pro-palestinian opinion is present, i can tell you i can easily assemble similiar facts about the "erasure" of Israeli opinion while violent anti-semitic and ofter plain murderous opinions stay online (especially if you consider arabic language media)
As an Israeli who lives in the Southern part of Israel, and who lived here during the Second Intifada, I think you would change your mind if you walked a mile in my shoes.
I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been absorbed by social justice movements in the USA and people apply it to the BLM movement. It just does not fit the same narrative no badly how much Americans and Europeans want it to, but it is terribly convenient to pretend and act as though it is.
Note that the Israeli right-wing's biggest supporters in the US are Christian Evangelicals, not Jews. Most Jewish Americans vote Democrat and are liberal.
Most recently, bombing the offices of multiple news outlets during a conflict comes to mind. But what made me change my mind was actively seeking out Palestinians to talk to one on one after a close friend told me I was racist. This isn’t particularly profound or anything, but a now very close friend of mine talked to me about how she could barely see her family in Palestine and that I could get a free trip and citizenship with no connection to the land because I was Jewish. That seemed so completely bonkers to me and still does.
> Most recently, bombing the offices of multiple news outlets during a conflict comes to mind.
to steelman the assertion, will you pick one of the targets you are referring to and tell us what Israel says about the reason for the target? also, can you discover if Israel warned the people in the building they targeted about the action and gave them time to evacuate?
i understand if you don't want to steelman the assertion, so i'll try to do that for you if you can pick just one action you are referring to.
> friend of mine talked to me about how she could barely see her family in Palestine and that I could get a free trip and citizenship with no connection to the land because I was Jewish.
A few years ago, criticism of Israel's policies started being called anti-antisemitism.[1] That made it OK to censor criticism of Israel.
Israel's policies got more divisive under 12 years of Netanyahu, and there's more reason to be critical of them. Those two trends are in collision.
> A few years ago, criticism of Israel's policies started being called anti-antisemitism
I'm not sure if that's new. And while it's certainly true that you can criticize Israel without being an antisemite, it's also true that a lot of people can't seem to thread that particular needle.
> One of the charges brought against them was that “their nationalistic sentiment” posed a threat to “state security.”
Reprehensible. But when you have powerful enough friends it turns out it's perfectly acceptable. There will always be someone else out there to serve as the "greater evil" cover and this is a great disservice to the world, as crimes against humanity are just swept under the rug.
> Social media, our last remaining avenue for exposing the violence, was aiding and abetting Israeli crimes against us. Our documentation and testimonies of the violence we faced from Israeli settlers were shut down by tech companies far from Palestine. This included videos of mobs chasing Palestinians while screaming “Death to Arabs;” Israeli police firing live ammunition at unarmed Palestinians; the carpet bombing of Gaza;
As long as western social media is almost entirely under US control one has to accept that everything there will dance to the tune made by and for the US and their closest interests. That much touted freedom of speech extends only as far as it isn't an inconvenience or embarrassment for those with the strings and levers. Carpet bombing civilians doesn't send a good message to be associated with the US by alliance.
It's much more a of an oligarchy than the social media company's being controlled by the US. The Irony of Democracy is a book that goes into detail on this.
Jillian C. York’s book “Silicon Values” has a chapter about this “electronic apartheid”. For all of the big social media companies, the content moderation for both Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is handled by the Israeli office.
I have some Arab friends who are very active on social media. It doesn't surprise me that the sheer volume of their political posts triggers all kinds of anti-spam mechanisms.
I have also occasionally tried researching the background of the claims made in some of the posts. Most were highly misleading or completely made up. So Facebook's campaign against misinformation might have something to do with the described removals. That being said, I still see tons of posts every day and don't have the impression that the platforms are hiding many of them. Even open calls for violence usually stay up.
The issue of alleged censorship aside, I am not convinced that this type of social media activism is beneficial for society. It would be great to have an open discussion on the many issues in the Middle East, but this doesn't really happen there. Most posts are straight up propaganda and and it appears to be taboo among Arabs on social media to even consider the Israeli point of view. Like the author of TFA, they even reject the term "conflict" because it might be thought to imply that both Israelis and Palestinians can have legitimate interests.
As a progressive Muslim - I believe both Israel and Palestine have the right to exist, and thrive.
Unfortunately, it looks like the state of Israel has now become a needless oppressor and are content building an apartheid state without learning from the past.
As a conservative former Muslim: As long as Palestinians chant “from the river to the sea” and tolerate Hamas any talk about a two state solution is a joke. By not rejecting Hamas, Palestinians make themselves a military problem rather than a civil rights issue. You don’t give civil rights to people who are military threat.
This isn’t a point about morality, but the simple reality of nations protecting themselves. If you don’t have military superiority then scrupulous non-violence is the only alternative.
The problem with peaceful protest is that it can only work if there is very strong international pressure to stop Israel, because they most definitely won't stop by themselves.
The problem with expecting any international pressure, is that America vetos any such event, and Israel work really hard to make sure they always have the backing of all the countries that matter.
In any case, Hamas's existence is completely orthogonal to the reason for Israel's aggression. They want more land and less Palestinians on it.
All Palestinian violence, especially by Hamas, is used very effectively to gain international sympathy for Israel and to excuse violent & unjust policies.
A much greater level of non-violence from the Palestinian side would result in far stronger international pressure, and also domestic American pressure.
> A much greater level of non-violence from the Palestinian side would result in far stronger international pressure, and also domestic American pressure.
The 2018-2019 Gaza border protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_...) began with extended peaceful demonstrations and dancing by Palestinians. This was met with live fire from Israel, maiming tens of thousands and killing well over 200 people.
There was no meaningful international response, with America only voicing support for Israel's "right to defend itself."
Of course that was gross criminality & basically mass murder from the IDF side, but they still used the excuse of Hamas using the protests as cover to attack, to breach the border, to fire flaming kites, etc. Nevertheless there was quite a significant international response and loads of reputational damage to the IDF. The difficulty is that the non-violence has to be deep and prolonged.. The current leadership of Hamas controlling Gaza makes things extremely sad/difficult & is a great gift to the Israeli militarists..
Israel currently will use that as a public excuse, but Israel will clamp down on non-violent protect and violent protest fairly equally. There is always an excuse for why Israel has to take land and also why it has to have racist laws.
The problem is that if you look into it, it is a demographic battle to ensure that Israel keeps the West Bank and also that there is a Jewish majority in that region at whatever cost.
And here is an Israeli ambassador making the case that Jews are reproducing more than Arabs and that is a great thing (although he excludes Gaza, which Israel hopes that Egypt takes over): https://www.jns.org/opinion/blinken-is-wrong-on-israels-demo...
Israel is a really strange nation these days. It is very racist and openly so.
I don't agree at all, and I don't think others agree either. Hamas is the government of the area in question. Why are they not allowed to fire into Israel but Israel is allowed to do all manner of crimes in Hamas' territory?
Shooting innocents, storming innocent gatherings, espionage, wounding and killing innocent people is always done by Israel especially in land it internationally has no right to (think East Jerusalem).
No government in the world would allow such unchecked aggression and militarism within their borders. Hamas does not allow it either.
Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by most of the western world. Hamas now runs the government in Palestine. Sounds like check mate by the israeli's to me. Palestine fucked up by letting a terrorist organization take over their country.
Because this is the first time murdering a bunch of hamas members wasn't par for the course historically. Now it's Palestinians not 'Hamas' for the Palestinians, but one-in-the same for the US and Israeli governments. The other side of this is that they are a terrorist organization and need to be exterminated. Hamas says the same thing about the israeli's.
Also, war crimes as a subject is always brought on by the winners, just like the telling of history.
The world is a brutal place. Hamas has proved they are not a military match for israel and the war will continue until israel has complete control of the region. That's how one sided conflicts have happened historically.
Unchecked illegal settlement makes anti-Israeli sentiment inevitable. If the obvious outcome of playing by the rules is losing all their land and livelihood anyway, people won't play by the rules.
>By not rejecting Hamas, Palestinians make themselves a military problem rather than a civil rights issue.
Why does this statement not work against Israel for supporting governments that build settlements? Surely the war crime of building settlements is worse than a chant?
I don't disagree with your assessment, though it's not like Israel is perfect either - Israelis have been happy to continually vote for people who don't particularly prioritize peace (to put it mildly), and Israel has basically been strategically strengthening their position in negotiations by building settlements for the past 50 years.
The situation is complicated exactly because there are few ways forward if neither side has any incentives to compromise (partly for real strategic reasons, partly because the people in charge have goals that are not equivalent to making their people better off).
> As long as Palestinians chant “from the river to the sea” and tolerate Hamas any talk about a two state solution is a joke.
Comments like this one are the gears that turn to prevent peace. As with many conflicts, both sides do things that are incompatible with peace, and will not give them up because they see what the other side does. The answer is not to blame one side for reacting to the other.
It's not a novel situation at all. There are well-established, well-studied ways to build trust and peace.
> the simple reality of nations protecting themselves
Israel is stealing from others (this is an established fact), its victims react, so Israel "protects itself" against that reaction. Are you ok with this? Do you think that robbers have a right to protect themselves from their victims?
> As long as [...], any talk about a two state solution is a joke
It sucks to have to say, but no one in any position of power on any side of this conflict believes a two-state solution is possible anymore. That ship sailed a decade ago or so, depending on who you ask, and all of the players have moved on; it's only parts of the public who still believe it's possible. It may still be desirable, of course - I certainly desire it - but the "facts of the ground", as the Israelis love to phrase it, don't allow for it, and won't. (Said "facts" have been engineered for precisely that purpose: to make a Palestinian state impossible to achieve in any reasonable and practical sense.)
Can we stop throwing around the word apartheid? Just because something is bad, or racist, doesn’t make it apartheid. That is descriptive of an extremely specific economic state that existed in the “dual” economies of South Africa after decolonization. What Israel is doing is not similar to Apartheid.
I think you'll find that the generalized definition does apply[1] and that Human Rights Watch naturally agrees [2]. In fact it will apply to any ethnostate and Israel does define itself as an ethnostate for Jews.
Not sure why HN moderation changed the original title, which was "I am Palestinian. Here’s how Israel silences us on social media." to its current form.
I changed it the same way we change every such title which relies on linkbait tropes (which is what "I am $X. Here's how $Y" is). Linkbait tropes make HN threads worse. Editing them is standard moderation practice (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), and is also in the site guidelines ("Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Whenever we do any moderation on any divisive topic there's a strong tendency to leap to the conclusion that it signifies some political agenda, secret opposition to one side, secret support for the other, and so on. I understand that that's how the internet works. But it's deeply untrue. We're simply doing what we always do, as even-handedly as we're able.
Unfortunately, to the extent that one is even-handed (and I'm not saying we do that perfectly, just to an extent), passionate partisans on every side of every divisive topic end up feeling like the mods are secretly against them. Why? Because by definition even-handedness means they all have some data points to object to, and that's all they need to jump to such conclusions (actually, even just one data point, or maybe two, is enough to produce this conclusion). There doesn't seem to be any way around that, much as I wish there were.
dang, why are such posts even allowed? It's posted by an anonymous user who's just created his account, and the content his highly one-sided and prone to create political flame wars.
Some posts with political overlap are on-topic for HN. Exactly how we handle that is a complex question, but also one that has been well-worked-out over the years. Here are some detailed explanations:
The current post was obviously submitted because https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27638871 got flagged. I'm currently trying to decide whether to restore the earlier submission instead of this one, which is what we'd normally do, or whether that thread is unsalvageable. Not clear. Edit: that thread looks pretty unsalvageable.
That blog article contains misinformation which I was too busy to address. I don't think this platform is the place for political flamewars. Facebook and other media platforms are full of anti-Semitism (yes, not just anti-Israeli stuff) in the Arabic language -- something which escapes many people here and in the media in general.
This is the sort of internet cheap shot that passionate partisans come up with. If you multiply all the moderation actions you agree with by 0% and all the ones you disagree with by 100%, yes, you're going to end up with quite a picture of bias. But it's a picture you've generated yourself by weighting the variables that way.
For example, I specifically turned off the flags on this submission. That's a moderation action you presumably support, since you submitted it. But you overlook that, while a title edit is "very telling". Meanwhile there's someone on the opposite side of the question who's weighting the same two actions in the opposite way and coming up with the opposite conclusion, which they no doubt also consider "very telling".
> Act.IL is a Social networking service launched in June 2017 that can be used via a mobile app on mobile devices running iOS or Android.[1] It is used by supporters of Israel to oppose "anti-Israel content" such as boycott, divestment and sanctions movement (BDS).[2][3][4]
"For months, the 23-year-old el-Kurd twins had become the faces of Palestinian resistance in Sheikh Jarrah, broadcasting on Twitter and Instagram how they and seven other families refused to be forcibly expelled from their homes by Israeli settlers. "
So there was not really a problem with social media then.
I am hearing that recordings of violence got silenced, thats not weird. If i post a violent video of something, changes are that they are muted also.
The issue is that the social media platforms specifically target silencing Palestinian content. Both Twitter and Facebook attributed it to technical bugs [1] [2] while they kept hiding the content.
Well they say automated systems did it, could be. Especially if the social media teams or other supports from Israel are constantly reporting (violent) content, then that content would be flagged/deleted etc.
> I am hearing that recordings of violence got silenced, thats not weird. If i post a violent video of something, changes are that they are muted also.
This is a good reason to mourn the demise of liveleaks. For as gross as much of that content was, I think our society still needs a way to publish videos that make advertisers uncomfortable.
There wasn’t a problem until there was. Just because they weren’t silenced until the issue gained global notoriety outside of the social media bubble doesn’t mean there is no problem.
Israel is an apartheid state. Stealing land and declaring a "jewish state" is no less criminal or insane than what isis / islamic state tried to do.
Anti-zionism is not equal to anti-semitism. Just like I can criticize the USA without hating Americans, or criticize Iran without discriminating against muslims.
Name me one land in all of history that has not been stolen or conquered? Also, could LGTBQ individuals live in Islamic State (or even Gaza or the West Bank!)?
Btw, you made claims of apartheid but offered 0 arguments in support of your position.
"Israel is apartheid state" is a very old thesis which the left hoping to apply to Israel after their South Africa success. There's nothing in support of it in terms of law, though. It doesn't even work as libel anymore. Just a marker phrase for antisemitism.
I know many users have flagged this because moderator, dang, has turned off the flags for this post. I'm sure it would be off the front page by now if he had not.
I also know that after some period of relative peace, the Palestinian people allowed over (conservatively) 3,000 rockets to be fired on Israel by their militias, injuring over (conservatively) 100 and killing 10 (as reported by the Associated Press).
To me this questions the entire framing of the issues involved.
> I also know that after some period of relative peace, the Palestinian people allowed over (conservatively) 3,000 rockets to be fired on Israel by their militias, injuring over (conservatively) 100 and killing 10 (as reported by the Associated Press).
Why, after some period of relative peace, did the Palestinian people suddenly "allow" rockets to be fired on Israel? Were there any proximate causes which they were responding to?
How many missiles did the Israeli people allow to be fired into Palestine? How many Palestinians were injured (conservatively)? How many Palestinians killed?
Hamas controls Palestine, which is deemed a terrorist organization by half the western world. Also, the US got a pretty good test of it's iron dome system it lent to israel. As long as Hamas runs Palestine, this conflict will never end until the complete utter destruction of Palestine is reached. Palestine needs to ditch their leaders.
The major reason was the elections in the West Bank, which threatened to shake Fatah domination there, and a change in US policy (Biden expected to be softer on Arabs than Trump). The violence propaganda started on TikTok weeks before the conflict. The Hamas's goal once in several years to exercise power, get international intention and get more funds to live. That's how they do many years already.
More than 4000 rockets, about a third of which failed and crashed in Gaza, killing and injuring their own populace. And yes, this is post wartime propaganda.
For people with almost (or absolutely) no contextual exposure to this conflict, can people recommend good sources to understand more about it and its history?
My personal preference would be for book sources, and if it's a case of "no unbiased account", then book sources from both sides of the conflict.
I will say my even though my History teacher taught it without any visible bias, I got the impression she was more on the Palestinian side (as was most of my class).
Wow... this comment section is proving the point of the article. This was posted last night as well and got flagged right away.
The discussion is important as it is about Tech platforms deciding to side with Israel and silencing Palestinians in social media and they have no recourse. We have had plenty of discussions here about social media censorship (especially during covid and trump era). This is a valid discussion as well as it is about human rights.
If we can talk and about Indian and Nigerian, or Chinese censorship against the Uyghurs and the Tiananmen square masacre, then we can talk about Israeli censorship war against the Palestinians as well.
Also Computer Ethics is part of the Computer Science curriculum in most colleges, and part of technology. We are not going to solve this conflict here, but we should know where censorship in tech is being used to suppress the voice of a whole population. I was born in a former communist country (1980, Albania), and censorship and media control was used to suppress the voice of the people in order to prop up a brutal regime.
"In addition to using social media to incriminate Palestinians, Israel has also used it to muzzle us. In 2016, Israel’s then-Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked boasted that, in the previous four-month period, Facebook had complied with 95% of Israel’s requests to remove Palestinian content on the vague basis of “incitement.” A year later, Israel tried to push the “Facebook Bill” through the Knesset, legislation which would force Facebook to remove any content designated as “incitement.” "
Please don't take HN threads directly into nationalistic/religious/racial flamewar hell. That's exactly the opposite of what this site is for—regardless of how difficult the topic is. A topic being difficult just not justify setting it immediately on fire.
I've addressed that in numerous comments in this thread, for example this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27646204. If you look at the past explanations linked from there, you should find that they cover it. If not, let me know and I'll try to answer.
The short version is (1) some stories are on topic for HN even though they have political overlap; (2) users still need to follow the site guidelines in such threads—in fact more so ("Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."); and (3) that very much includes not going into flamewar, let alone repeating flamewar tropes.
Please don't take HN threads straight into nationalistic flamewar hell, regardless of what site of what battle you happen to be on. That is emphatically not what this site is for.
Except it's easy for you to do a cliched "omg it is Nationalist flamewar" but essentially end up proving my point. Palestinians have no high ground here. You have silenced me for saying what is a fact. Dang you are a tool.
Peace is unlikely as long as settlers continue to claim Palestinean land and force them out of their own homes, considering what an obvious mockery this makes of any kind of negotiations even for those Palestineans who do actively want peace.
There was a court case that ruled that they have to be evicted because of not paying rent.
"In response, the owners of the property (a private Israeli NGO, Nahalat Shimon), claim they have the legal title to the property in question and that, in the absence of rent being paid by the tenants, the tenants ought to be evicted for breaching the law."
So it's not some hayfork/violent spur of the moment thing. Ownership is somewhat regulated and can be fought in court.
"The Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (as described by the Israeli government and their supporters) or the Expulsion of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah (as described by Palestinians and their supporters) is a long-running legal and political dispute between Palestinian refugees and Israeli Jews over the ownership of certain properties and housing units in Sheikh Jarrah, East Jerusalem that has been called a microcosm of the Israeli–Palestinian disputes over land since 1948. Israel's laws allow Jews to file claims over property in East Jerusalem which they owned prior to 1948, but reject Palestinian claims over property in Israel proper which they owned. In this specific case, the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah were refugees who got plots, previously owned by Jews, in UNRWA lottery, relinquishing in return their refugee documents and accompanying rights. They have no right under Israeli law to repossess their pre-1948 homes in Haifa, Sarafand and Jaffa."
This specific case has little to do with most illegal settlements, which have no dispute over ownership and are generally acknowledged as illegal by the Israeli government (but are de facto tolerated and sometimes even actively protected by the army from angry Palestineans).
And similarly peace isn't possible while the wall is there. Although the reason it was built was because there wasn't peace. And so on about a thousand years back.
The most obvious thing that motivates Palestineans to actively be violent rather than living in misery (and people can take a lot of misery) is that ongoing settlement and similar measures make it clear that the Israeli government wouldn't actually let them live in peace even if they wanted it.
Or, in other words, I believe that Hamas would have much less pull if it was just walls and not all the other stuff too.
Those circumstances are pretty unlike these ones, though, in that they involved (among other things) the UK being badly over-strained in every possible way in the aftermath of WW2, India being large enough and relatively untouched enough from WW2 to be increasingly ungovernable, and an independent India being little to no threat to the UK despite those first two factors.
You banned my account for highlighting the fact that social media is majority controlled by Jewish (and therefore more than likely Israeli) interests. I'm not sure exactly what I said that warranted being banned and shown the guidelines. If you think I was trolling - no, I was pointing out the bloody obvious that the rest of the posters here don't want to bring to light.
People seem to believe that if you bury your head in the sand, nobody can see you. Just because you don't talk about something openly it does not imply that the discussion doesn't happen at all. It happens in closed circles which just fuels the hatred towards the censorship and those who enforce it. You can't forbid people to think and have opinions. What is the point of flagging this entry? You either introduce a policy that forbids posting political issues on HN entirely or you don't, selection makes you a hypocrite.
If anyone has a question that hasn't been answered there, I'd like to know what it is, and if you know a better way for HN to relate to political topics while fulfilling its mandate, I'd definitely like to know what it is. Just please familiarize yourself with the past explanations first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why it won't work.
All depends on what is meant by the word which all-too-often denotes an all-inclusive label for a cluster of characteristics chosen according to the political inclination of the user.
Wikipedia says "Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty)".
Which other particular source of political power would you suggest for the US or any other country ?
