return to table of content

Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices

Animats
332 replies
21h31m

"and block its websites." So this keeps Israelis from reading Al Jazeera.

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...

angra_mainyu
281 replies
20h54m

Europe has done the same with Russia.

Also, I think a few other Arab countries like Egypt have blocked/banned Al Jazeera.

mrtksn
237 replies
20h10m

That's correct and IMHO its the right thing to do when shooting begins because when people shoot each other this is no longer a discussion and the press is part of the warfare. Remember all the Russian media and social media accounts claiming that its American hysteria that they will invade Ukraine? They denied and mocked anyone who claimed that they will invade up until the tanks rolled in.

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.

guappa
124 replies
10h48m

It's a bit ironic how we are constantly reminded that china isn't a democracy because they have censorship, while we are free and democratic and don't have censorship (except we do).

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/)

dudeinjapan
31 replies
6h13m

Considering what happened in Germany the last time it held mass gatherings to protest against Jews, better to err on the side of caution.

pdinny
30 replies
6h3m

This type of conflation is extremely dangerous. Criticism of the actions of the government of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism (a real and very bad thing).

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.

Clubber
24 replies
5h44m

Criticism of the actions of the government of Israel is not the same thing as anti-semitism

Unfortunately, it seems the protesters themselves often don't make the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.

Adverblessly
16 replies
5h23m

You appear to have fallen victim to a similar attempt at conflation, Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years. Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.

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).

ethbr1
7 replies
5h8m

Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land of thousands of years.

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?

Adverblessly
6 replies
4h56m

Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?

meiraleal
2 replies
4h3m

What's meant is that nobody would be called antisemitic for being against them if not for the fairy tale definition of a promised land.

Adverblessly
1 replies
3h21m

Not sure what you mean by a fairy tale definition of a promised land, we are talking about actual land that they've actually lived in for thousands of years (though naturally not all of it continuously, after the Roman exile not that many Jews were left. Though if you accept that as removing their right to live there then surely you'll have no problem with Israel doing the same to the Palestinians).

meiraleal
0 replies
2m

You're using imaginary references, there's nothing to discuss here.

ethbr1
2 replies
1h30m

Why not just disenfranchise and/or murder any non-French person within the borders of the French people's native land?

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.

Adverblessly
1 replies
1h13m

I still don't follow your logic, I can't find a more charitable interpretation then you just saying that Jews are inherently murderous and the French are inherently not.

Somewhat ironic as currently the average French person is probably safer in Tel Aviv than the average Jew is in Paris.

ethbr1
0 replies
57m

You said "Being antizionism is antisemitism because it negates the right to self-determination of the Jewish people."

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.

harimau777
3 replies
4h55m

Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land?

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).

Adverblessly
2 replies
2h57m

Don't the Palestinians also have the right to self determinization in their native land?

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.

pasabagi
1 replies
1h59m

Don't you think 1400 years is a bit long? If you considered 'native people' to go back that far, you could get all sorts of really strange 'native lands'.

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.

Adverblessly
0 replies
39m

Don't you think 1400 years is a bit long?

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.

AlecSchueler
3 replies
3h29m

Zionism is a movement to fulfill the right for Jewish self-determination in their native land

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.

Adverblessly
2 replies
2h38m

The thing is, though, it's not a right, it's their belief.

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.

AlecSchueler
1 replies
2h6m

Would you also say you have no right to live in the United States, and it is only your personal belief?

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.

Adverblessly
0 replies
1h23m

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).

pdinny
3 replies
5h33m

This is, by definition ("the protesters" used to generalise to all protesters), a gross generalisation. Based on what evidence? All the protests I have been to people have taken great pains to make that distinction.

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.

Clubber
2 replies
4h54m

I like how you cut my quote in half to misrepresent what I said. Well done.

pdinny
1 replies
4h30m

I do sincerely apologise for omitting the word "often". My point remains that generalisations should not be made based on the views of a minority.

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.

Clubber
0 replies
4h7m

Thanks for that.

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.

AlecSchueler
2 replies
5h41m

I've seen thousands upon thousands of people protesting with my own eyes but never caught onto anything anti semitic. In fact I often see Jewish groups attending as well.

I'm sure there often are people espousing vile views, that's a statistical inevitability almost, but it's clearly far from the norm.

AlecSchueler
0 replies
3h33m

Yes, I know it well. I remember a very striking moment during some protests in London. The GB news was presenting it as having turned violent, with close ups of protesters clashing against the police. At the same time many individuals who were at the events themselves were able to broadcast on social media showing thousands of people peacefully walking together in a very positive atmosphere totally unaware that a small alteration had taken place elsewhere on the fringe of the event.

Aunche
4 replies
5h34m

Germany isn't banning criticisms against Israel. They're banning antisemitic symbolism (whatever that means) that gets used in the protests. They have been like that for a long time with Nazi symbolism that isn't explicitly antisemitic.

pdinny
3 replies
5h29m

The general dynamic remains: protests against specific actions of Israel are dismissed as anti-semitic by definition. Banning Nazi symbolism is a good thing. Trying to equate neo-Nazis to anti-war protesters is disingenuous.

Aunche
2 replies
5h7m

Far-right conservatives in Germany have claimed to be persecuted in this way for a long time, claiming that they aren't antisemitic. My point is that it's nothing new.

hnbad
0 replies
2h11m

Far-right conservatives in Germany claim to be "not antisemtic" by using dogwhistles (similar to the US, e.g. "elites" - the Nazis literally used "international bankers"). However they generally don't oppose Israel's right to self-defense and they are anti-Palestine because they don't like Muslims. In fact "actually the rise of antisemitism is caused by all the Muslims in our country" has been a major right-wing conservative talking point in Germany (and other parts of Europe) because it serves as a distraction. As there's no "risk" of increased Jewish immigration to Germany and Israel actually literally wants the opposite (i.e. for Jews to leave their home countries for Israel to increase the Jewish population in the Middle East, especially if they're the "right" kind of Jew), being pro-Israel is actually an effective strategy even if you turn around to blame all ills on a nebulous group of Jewish "elites" (and in Germany this is usually very nebulous as even far-right conservatives aren't dumb enough to be openly antisemetic).

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.

AlecSchueler
0 replies
3h36m

That can be true but it doesn't logically follow that the people being shut down today are from the same group or are employing the same rhetorical strategies.

vr46
28 replies
7h42m

I would likely be arrested if I wore my UK-created anti-fascist Football Fans Against Apartheid/Free Palestine pin, so it’s going into a drawer. Zionism has drowned all voices, my Jewish friends are being harassed for dissent too.

vixen99
27 replies
6h34m

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha...

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.

ethbr1
15 replies
5h13m

The issue is how culpable civilians are in Hamas' atrocities.

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.

[0] https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/21.html

hnbad
13 replies
4h48m

FWIW most Western militaries have specific ratios that are deemed acceptable for neutralizing a target (i.e. killing a baddie). These ratios are usually ranked based on the target's importance with a regular soldier being very low and a military leader being ranked very high. Often collateral damage from strikes against high value targets is more acceptable because the high value target is accompanied by lower value targets adding to the ratio.

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.

nivertech
8 replies
3h44m

Strictly speaking, they are all "civilians", since Gaza is not a state (it is just the coastline of the western Negev - a geographic region of Israel) and does not have regular armed forces. Does this mean that these "civilians" have carte blanche to commit any unthinkable atrocity and remain unpunished?

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.

AlecSchueler
7 replies
3h37m

Good to remember the real world consequences for the people on the ground when we declare combatants as non-state paramilitaries rather than recognising them with fuller status.

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.

nivertech
6 replies
2h55m

> 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.

AlecSchueler
5 replies
2h17m

I wasn't making an analogy, just pointing out another time when the definition of what was and wasn't a war had real world consequences for people on the ground.

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.

nivertech
3 replies
2h0m

> a war had real world consequences for people on the ground

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.

AlecSchueler
2 replies
1h50m

I want to add something to the previous response.

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...

nivertech
0 replies
47m

I'm familiar with Anglo-Saxon and Norsemen colonization of Celtic people in Britain and Ireland. The latter is referred as a series of "Plantations"[1, 2].

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

https://postimg.cc/xJ1XpHx7

[2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland

ethbr1
0 replies
1h8m

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.”

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.

hnbad
0 replies
1h53m

I remember when during the 2020 civil rights protests in the US people were talking about the Geneva convention and calling what the police did "in violation" of it, especially wrt chemical warfare, only to be surprised to find out it doesn't apply outside formal wars.

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.

bitcurious
2 replies
3h48m

I’m not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF.

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#

hnbad
1 replies
1h29m

The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul.

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.

ethbr1
0 replies
1h4m

If you want to end a comment with "I'm not going to engage with you further," better to not make that post.

Getting the last say in an argument by fiat isn't healthy.

Don't want others opinions? Don't offer your own.

ethbr1
0 replies
1h12m

The Guardian published a piece on the automated ISR systems Israel uses, with cited ratios. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai...

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.
emmelaich
0 replies
28m

This talk of a ratio is mostly irrelevant. Palestinians are not being killed as a matter of retribution. They are being killed as enemies or collateral in the pursuit of enemies.

If Israel could neutralise Hamas and retrieve the hostages with zero casualties, they would do it. That's obviously impossible.

dbspin
10 replies
5h26m

In this case it's akin to the bullied child crying 'I'll kill you', from his puddle of blood on the ground. Israel's own conduct in Gaza and the West Bank is the primary threat to the existence of the state. Not two million impoverished people who've been crushed under an imperial boot since the theft of their land almost eighty years ago. Israel is a wealthy, post industrial US backed, nuclear power. Hamas are a convenient boogyman allowing them to further consolidate their control over land that international law recognises as occupied [1].

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

vixen99
9 replies
2h15m

Yes but how about answering the question because lives depend on it. What should Israel do? Live with Hamas and the 80% of Palestinians who support them? Give up and move ten million people (including some ~20% Muslims & Arabs) to somewhere else? Where? Let's get serious! Again, what to do? How about a constructive response including your advice to Israel under these circumstances. I have no dog in the fight, criticize Israel how you like (undoubtedly much of it justified) but what's the solution? If there is none forthcoming, and there has not, then we move to Clauswitz. Whatever he meant with his famous dictum, that says there is no alternative. Appalling, much like the Ukraine/Russia horror show.

AlecSchueler
6 replies
1h56m

What should Israel do? Live with Hamas and the 80% of Palestinians who support them?

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.

myth_drannon
4 replies
1h18m

That's what Oslo peace agreement was about. Palestinians rejected it and went back to intifada. They received the land and independence. Gaza had an international airport that Clinton landed in. They overwhelmingly rejected it. They elected Hamas and strive to erase Israel. There is no such thing as land concessions, they see it as a weakness and demand more. The national Palestinian idea is the genocide of Jews and the establishment of an Islamic state on all of Israel's borders. That's Hamas's stated goal and it is supported by 80% of the Gaza population. Judea & Samaria are the same, despite PLO geriatrics being in control most of the population supports genocide of Jews. It can't be compared to Ireland since the Irish never sought the destruction of Britain and the genocide of the English. The same with Japan. You can't compare. You see it with Western eyes and can't really understand or willfully ignore the Palestinian aspirations.

racional
2 replies
34m

Many distortions above; let's just pick one:

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.

tptacek
1 replies
23m

That is certainly not Hamas's main function. Netanyahu is obviously in some sense culpable for funneling resources to Hamas, but Hamas is, obviously, an independent actor; if it's an instrument of anyone's policy, it's Iran's --- though, since October 7, the aQB wing of Hamas appears to be completely on its own.

racional
0 replies
18m

Of course it's an independent actor, but I'm talking about the bigger picture and the strategic rational behind its continued existence. The Leitmotif if you will.

tptacek
0 replies
24m

A supermajority of Gazans are literally not old enough to have ever voted in an election. Hamas won the 2006 election by force, and immediately replaced open democratic process with a system of internal Shura councils. Palestine did not elect Hamas.

acdha
0 replies
1h3m

I completely agree with your comment and would also note that the median age in Gaza is roughly 18 which is coincidentally also roughly the last time they had an election, which means most Palestinians have had no influence on their government.

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.

YeGoblynQueenne
1 replies
1h23m

> What should Israel do?

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.

tptacek
0 replies
1h15m

I don't think any of this is a particularly fair summary of the situation. In particular, it ratifies Hamas and the 2022 Netanyahu coalition as the leaders of both sides of the broader conflict; neither are really representative of the populations they serve. Hamas has at least since 2017 been run by a millenarian Bond villain, causing much of Hamas's political leadership to flee the country. Netanyahu assembled a neo-Kahanist fringe coalition as a parliamentary maneuver to keep from losing his post, because it's widely believed he's going to end up in prison as soon as he leaves.

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.

meijer
5 replies
8h1m

There are regular pro Palestine protests in my German hometown. And they do condemn Israel's actions.

AlecSchueler
3 replies
7h44m

I know some people who are regularly protesting in Germany also, but my understanding is that they knowingly break the law in doing so. Is this not correct?

hnbad
2 replies
4h27m

It's complicated.

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.

AlecSchueler
1 replies
2h15m

Based of your tl;dr would you say they that the original assertion was true in practice, that they generally "can't publicly gather to protest Israel's actions either, not legally anyway."

hnbad
0 replies
2h1m

I'm not sure whether there have been any pro-Palestine or even simply "anti-war" protests that were properly registered, not disrupted and not dissolved by the police but I guess it depends on your definition of "legally".

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.

riedel
0 replies
7h2m

This article is clearly an oversimplification on aljazeera's side [0], which a bit also highlights a problem with their journalism. However, I guess this is harmless against some tabloids that are far from being banned.

[0] https://www.dw.com/en/israel-gaza-demonstrations-what-is-all...

BurningFrog
2 replies
5h19m

For some reason, Germany has very strict rules and traditions against any hint of anti-Jewish activities.

vacuity
0 replies
4h43m

And there is certainly anti-Semitism mixed in with the protests, but I think Germany is still overdoing it. Silencing plenty of valid speech has a cost, too.

licebmi__at__
0 replies
3h41m

One would have thought that a proper stance is to be against any kind of mass killings, yet given the attitude on the topic of Namibia we do know there are first and second class victims.

mrtksn
31 replies
9h41m

I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time.

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.

cpursley
20 replies
9h22m

What about all the misleading news (i.e., positive spin) in the Western world's "free press" that lead to many believing that Ukraine had a chance for a counter offensive (against even basic military thinking and logic). Didn't that lead to unnecessary suffering and deaths during war time (vs say an alternative, beefing up defense lines)?

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.

mrtksn
14 replies
9h17m

what a starange statement about the counterattack, as if there was a definite knowledge about the future and the Western propaganda suppressed it.

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.

cpursley
13 replies
8h16m

Exactly, I prefer to listen to experts and the experts were saying it was a bad idea (esp without air power). It was news media and politicians (ie, not military experts) that cheered it on.

llamaimperative
8 replies
7h41m

Pretty sure the actual world leading experts on Ukraine’s situation are the ones making battlefield decisions in Ukraine. Like the other commenter said, what a fascinating model of the world you’ve built here.

cpursley
7 replies
7h31m

Holding a non-narrative driven view might be fascinating for some, I suppose.

llamaimperative
6 replies
6h26m

You are literally constructing a narrative that western news media makes the decisions on the Ukrainian battlefield.

cpursley
5 replies
5h35m

Yes, it is a major contributing factor. PR wins help with public support for funding. This situation/topic is not the only situation they intentionally manipulate public option on.

llamaimperative
4 replies
5h25m

Lots of narrative here buddy

llamaimperative
2 replies
3h49m

I'm pretty sure that "western news anchors produce an expected-to-fail counteroffensive in Ukraine" would even make Chomsky roll his eyes.

Your explanation is not even internally coherent. A successful counteroffensive is a PR win. An unsuccessful one is a PR loss, obviously.

cpursley
1 replies
19m

His thoughts on this conflict are a simple Google search away.

llamaimperative
0 replies
13m

Please link to any source in which he makes the argument you're making. I looked and couldn't find any.

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.

mrtksn
3 replies
8h11m

It's amazing how you believe that militaries and politicians operate without experts and there're experts on the social media/ tradmedia who came together analysed the situation, came to a definitive prediction about the outcome of a military operation but the western media surpassed those experts and as a result politicians and military engaged in a futile counterattack.

Fascinating mental model on how the world works.

DiggyJohnson
1 replies
1h38m

You're being very disrespectful in this conversation. I was GP has provided links and references when they made their comment, but they are certainly correct. The way the conflict is covered in US media makes it seem like Ukraine is wily superhero making good progress against the bumbling Russians. This does not reflect the current reality or future prospects in the conflict.

mrtksn
0 replies
42m

Apologies if I sounded disrespectful, I’m just fascinated that people can conceptualize the world in this way.

cpursley
0 replies
7h41m

That’s exactly what happened, yeah. And warfare/foreign policy is not the only issue they gaslight us on.

pastage
4 replies
8h43m

I do not understand how supporting Ukraine can lead to more suffering, there is a long history of implerialism causing suffering so there is a rather large opposition against it in the west. What Russia does to Ukraine is pretty gruesome, it is not even considered a country in russian intellectual discourse that is a bad sign.

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.

cpursley
2 replies
8h25m

I’m not talking about supporting Ukraine vs not, but about wishful thinking propagated by media that led thousands of unfortunate Ukrainian souls into heavily mined traps. And that’s my point, media spread a narrative that was at odds with expert advice and basic military strategy (there’s mathematical equations about force required, etc for these types of operations that was ignored). That idea should have been able to been challenged without accusations of being in bed with Putin. We all saw the aftermath. Bad ideas, even from the good guys, can be deadly.

bazoom42
1 replies
2h53m

Are you saying Ukrainian military base their strategy on media propaganda rather than basic military strategy? Why would they do that?

cpursley
0 replies
25m

That's a good question that has a lot of people scratching their heads. My best guess is top Ukrainian leadership are staffed by a lot of former mass media people, including the president himself (well, until May 20th when his term ends).

DiggyJohnson
0 replies
1h40m

I do not understand how supporting Ukraine can lead to more suffering

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.

raxxorraxor
3 replies
8h38m

It isn't and shouldn't be different in war time either. If you allow this exception, you will just always be at war.

Censorship for security reasons isn't a new concept.

mrtksn
2 replies
7h54m

Not at all, you can't be at war all the time as people and ammo is limited resource. Just stick tight to definitions and observe for technicality BS. I.e. don't take "War on drugs" as a war, don't assume you are at war when the countries no longer fight but technically never signed a peace agreement etc.

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.

raxxorraxor
1 replies
7h29m

Not the war on drugs, but certainly the "war on terror". This is not clinging to definitions, it is political reality that such measures would also be undertaken in peace time, any justification would suffice. Who do you believe would draw the line here anyway?

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.

mrtksn
0 replies
7h12m

Yeah, just don’t fall for that kind of BS.

logicchains
3 replies
9h32m

I’m also quite concerned about the Western world adopting the Chinese style of governance but censorship at wartime is very different from censorship at peace time

If you allow this then the government will just forever find excuses to be at war.

mrtksn
2 replies
9h21m

We live in a broken world, there are no perfect solutions. But I would argue that staying alive comes as a primary priority.

guappa
1 replies
9h17m

Ah yes the "we must kill them, to stay alive" narrative. It has never been abused in the whole history of mankind.

mrtksn
0 replies
9h13m

What are you even talking about? Of course those attacked must kill the attackers to stay alive.

guappa
1 replies
9h18m

Is italy at war? I must have missed the memo.

mrtksn
0 replies
9h15m

It’s not at war, that’s why I don’t support such a thing.

mda
14 replies
10h33m

One of them is 100 times more extensive. Ideal is to have none, but lets not pretend that magnitude and severity is not relevant.

cies
13 replies
10h2m

Relevant to the people living in 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.

llamaimperative
12 replies
7h43m

Not really. Compromise and nuance have always been necessary features of democracies. This has also frequently been seized upon by autocratic apologists with this framing (“it’s actually worse here because of our idealism!”) and yet autocracies remain reliably worse off than democracies in practice.

guappa
11 replies
6h59m

Every country calls their enemy "undemocratic"

llamaimperative
9 replies
6h25m

Stunningly, not all of them are correct.

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.

guappa
8 replies
5h29m

Shall we talk about what % of the population is imprisoned in all the countries you mentioned?

llamaimperative
7 replies
5h19m

Happy to once you explain clearly how that number is relevant to whether a country is democratic or not. Or are you just trying to change the topic?

mistermann
6 replies
4h57m

Did American citizens directly vote for the level of imprisonment in the country?

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?

llamaimperative
3 replies
3h52m

Directly voting on laws is neither necessary nor ideal for a democracy.

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.

guappa
1 replies
2h10m

Only 23 states in USA allow referendum to take place. Being allowed to vote is a requisite for democracy.

llamaimperative
0 replies
1h53m

Thank you for sharing your opinion! It's not a very commonly held view or intuition that directly voting on policy is a prerequisite for democracy. Of course you can use whatever exotic definitions you want to trick yourself into believing you've won an argument, but it will do nothing in terms of actually creating the type of world you'd like.

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this and that's okay.

mistermann
0 replies
7m

[delayed]

cies
1 replies
3h39m

Democratic, rules based order, freedom: all words used to paint oneself in the good and others in the back. They barely have meaning in political discourse nowadays.

llamaimperative
0 replies
3h26m

Go to Qatar and strike up a conversation like the ones that are had millions of times per day in the US about how awful/incompetent/evil/illegitimate the government is.

It's you who is degrading the meaning of these things. You can go experience the difference for yourself.

cies
0 replies
4h21m

I was in China, they called democracy "hopelessly inefficient, will not work for a large population like ours".

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).

tenlp
1 replies
9h10m

In fact, a series of Western media including the BBC, Reuters, CNN, etc. all have offices in China.... and you can also easily access Western media websites through VPN and other methods which are uncensored

gravescale
0 replies
8h14m

VPNs increasingly don't work well, however, it's not like they completely turn a blind eye. It's some kind of statistical thing that drops connections that "look wierd" that can interfere with even quite obfuscated VPNs.

lupusreal
1 replies
9h56m

china isn't a democracy because they have censorship,

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!

raxxorraxor
0 replies
7h24m

A democracy is dependent on people having access to information. Free information is a direct requirement of any democracy. It just isn't the only requirement of course.

_heimdall
0 replies
7h14m

Freedom and democracy are luxuries of peacetime, unfortunately.

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".

BurningFrog
0 replies
5h17m

China agrees that it's not a democracy.

They don't even have sham elections on the national level.

kragen
57 replies
18h7m

That's correct and IMHO [censorship is] the right thing to do when shooting begins

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

dlubarov
37 replies
13h15m

Few questioned Ukraine's decision to ban RT's operations. This doesn't seem terribly different - Al Jazeera has very deep ties to Hamas, the enemy Israel is at war with, and has arguably been acting as their mouthpiece for propaganda.

kragen
35 replies
12h22m

i did and do. banning your citizens from reading the 'propaganda' of your enemy reduces them to subjects and foments further armed conflict. it's also a power invariably used to avoid accountability for petty corruption such as beria's garden full of young, beautiful women

twixfel
24 replies
10h55m

Yes RT was doing wonderful journalistic work in Ukraine and elsewhere... Lol... Poor Ukrainian subjects not getting to read that shite. It was abject shite 15 years ago, let alone today.

ajsnigrutin
15 replies
5h45m

Yes, they should read about how putin has only thre days of supplies left and not worry about the war, because it'll be over by the weekend.

Oh wait, those articles were from 2022:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-food-...

Why not ban Independent too?

twixfel
14 replies
5h12m

It's arguably not propaganda to publish an article quoting a member of the Ukrainian military. It's even in the headline right there: "Ukraine military claims".

If you think the output of RT and the Independent are indistinguishable then yeah I guess we just will never agree. Still, glad my country banned RT nevertheless. If the only downside is the odd anti-west tankie on HN crying about "hypocrisy", then, it's not so bad ;)

ajsnigrutin
13 replies
5h6m

So trust the propaganda side, don't verify and publish such propagnda?

I mean... you can still not read RT, I don't know why you feel the need to forbid others from reading it? What if others want to ban something you wish to read? I mean...i'm glad you admit supporting censorship, but you can't complain then when some other country bans lgbt materials, harry potter, books on sexuality, books about satan, etc.

twixfel
12 replies
4h59m

So trust the propaganda side, don't verify and publish such propagnda?

?

What if others want to ban something you wish to read?

Somethings things get banned even in democratic societies, that's never not been the case. Given that Russia is attacking Europe and has carried out numerous executions of private citizens on European soil, I struggle to see why we are obliged to let them air their propaganda in our countries. Maybe suck cuckholdery is appealing to you, but not to me or us.

but you can't complain then when some other country bans lgbt materials, harry potter, books on sexuality, books about satan, etc

I don't complain. Russia is a shithole, we know this, it's established fact at this point, if it wants to cry about Harry Potter and LGBT rather than finally install toilets in peoples houses and help brings its people into the 21st century, then that's their choice. But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

ajsnigrutin
11 replies
4h54m

The media trusted someone that said the "three days" story, didn't verify and published the lie as propaganda, so more people died because they believed that they'll win after the three days of supplies are used up.

Somethings things get banned even in democratic societies, that's life

Yeah sure, sometimes innocent people die, sometimes a piano falls from a crane and kills a person. Some people like you even support such stuff.

Given that Russia is attacking Europe and has carried out numerous executions of private citizens on European soil, I struggle to see why we are obliged to let them air their propaganda in our countries. Maybe suck cuckholdery is appealing to you, but not to me or us.

Russia is attacking ukraine, the same way as a bunch of european and american countries were attacking afghanistan, syria, libya, iraq, twice, etc. Why do you care now? Because you're not the one on the attacking side?

I don't complain. Russia is a shithole, we know this, it's established fact at this point, if it wants to cry about Harry Potter and LGBT rather than finally install toilets in peoples houses and help brings its people into the 21st century, then that's their choice. But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

I was refering to this: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/harry-potter-series-tops... And more and more books are added to the list in recent time.

But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

Why not? I mean... why is attacking iraq for nonexisting WMDs acceptable, but attacking ukraine for killing minorities in it's own country isn't? I mean.. didn't nato bomb yugoslavia for that same reason?

twixfel
10 replies
4h46m

Why not? I mean... why is attacking iraq for nonexisting WMDs acceptable, but attacking ukraine for killing minorities in it's own country isn't? I mean.. didn't nato bomb yugoslavia for that same reason?

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or acceptable.

But you very clearly seem to think the invasion and genocide in Ukraine is acceptable.

We are not the same.

Anyway you've let your mask slip, you're pro war and pro genocide. I'm glad you're seething on Hacker News about so-called "western hypocrisy". It means my countries are doing something to piss yours off. Good. Have a nice life and carry on seething. Good luck in getting toilet installed in beautiful hut/house/shack. Hopefully it is your turn on waiting list.

ajsnigrutin
7 replies
4h38m

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or acceptable.

But it was. Nothing happened to anyone, no courts, trials, no jail time for any of the politicians, no nothing. So we, as a "western society" (or whatever you might call us) deem such invasions acceptable. Not just that, but we conduct new ones after that. So yeah, if you do something, officially, with documentation, public money, public employees, and nothing happens, how is it not acceptable?

I mean... if it's not acceptable, why did WE do it then? Assuming you're old enough, you literally financed people getting killed there with your taxes.

But you very clearly seem to think the invasion and genocide in Ukraine is acceptable.

In the same way as iraq was. But we're not the ones attacking now, and we're bothered by that, so we're using even more money to get more people killed in this war.

I have a toilet, and my taxes are going to ukraine to prolong this war, as they went to helping the occupiers of iraq, and are still going to syria (we have soldiers there too). We had to run away from afghanistan a few years ago though... it just cost us and our 'friends' a trillion to replace the taliban with the taliban there, and kill a lot of locals. Apparently, that's acceptable too, since noone is in jail for that war.

twixfel
6 replies
4h27m

Seems like a good deal to me if you're worried about money rather than lives: give money to Ukraine, keep Russian dictatorship at bay, before it invades other parts of Europe.

So cheer up, your taxes are not being wasted, they are saving you money in the long run by keeping Russia from invading Europe even more.

ajsnigrutin
5 replies
4h22m

But ukraine is using that money to kill their own men who don't want to fight. Why don't you go and fight instead, and risk your own life instead of forcing them to do it?

Considering the sitation in ukraine, we've wasted a lot of money and a lot of ukranian men for what exactly?

mopsi
4 replies
4h15m

Considering the sitation in ukraine, we've wasted a lot of money and a lot of ukranian men for what exactly?

The alternative is that Russia rolls over Ukraine, murders between few hundred thousand and few million people to enforce the occupation, and then decimates Ukrainian male population by using them as cannon fodder against Poland and other European countries. Please explain me how this is any better.

ajsnigrutin
3 replies
4h7m

I mean sure... it's their choice. If they want to fight against that, sure, let them volounteer and fight. If you can't get any more people to fight without literally forcing them, then you obviously don't have enough "democractic" support for a fight anymore (at least not from the ones whose opinions should matter), and should start looking at the negotiating table.

mopsi
2 replies
3h50m

This is only going to get more people killed.

ajsnigrutin
1 replies
3h40m

If you believe that, then put your life where your mouth is, and go fight. If you want to live, let others live too.

Even during the WW2, a few countries capitulated with the germans and survived, even eg. france. On the other hand, a bunch of those countries (even france), no go half a planet away to kill people over there, and there is no support to those countries to fight harder against the french. And france is far from the only country that does that in europe, not to even mention the USA.

mopsi
0 replies
3h27m

I don't have to volunteer anywhere; I already face rising odds that I'll be conscripted even before this year is out.

As to France and other countries occupied by Nazis, capitulation meant a ride to death camp for some, slave labor to others, starvation and oppression for all. France was used as a staging ground for the Battle of Britain and for the aborted invasion of British Isles, and served as a base of operations for submarines attacking allied convoys in the Atlantic ocean. France didn't regain freedom until massive landings on Normandy beaches and fierce fighting through the country by soldiers who were mostly conscripts and not there on their own will, so I don't understand what it was meant to prove.

DiggyJohnson
1 replies
1h24m

We are not the same.

Anyway you've let your mask slip, you're pro war and pro genocide.

You should consider the the site guidelines. This is completely unacceptable. How can you be so comfortable seeing the world in black and white?

twixfel
0 replies
1h22m

That person is literally defending the invasion of Ukraine, justifying it in terms of "protecting Russian minorities being killed".

How can you be so comfortable casting everything as exactly the same shade of grey, even when it is not always the same shade of grey?

How about you consider the site guidelines, if you're defending that person?

Don't troll by acting like a neutral observer when you clearly agree with him. Thanks. That's bad faith, and goes against side guidelines.

kragen
7 replies
10h47m

if it was abject shite nobody wanted to read or watch, they wouldn't bother to ban it

twixfel
4 replies
9h11m

A country at war has no moral or legal obligation to publish its enemy’s propaganda. This should be very obvious.

And yes RT was always complete shite for gullible morons, though it is rather beside the point in this case actually. The British government had no moral obligation on free speech grounds to allow the spread of nazi propaganda in the United Kingdom during WW2, either. Again, obvious stuff.

raxxorraxor
3 replies
7h17m

Propaganda in war times is very often directed at a domestic audience. Examples are stories like the Ghost of Kyiv on the "western side". There are examples on the Russian side too.

ajsnigrutin
2 replies
5h43m

Sure, but it's still lies.

Somehow we act as if our lies are better than their lies.

twixfel
1 replies
5h10m

Yes: A lie to boost the morale of a country fighting a defensive war against a genocidal dictatorship is unambiguously a better lie than the lies of the genocidal dictatorship to rile up its populace to more effectively execute the genocidal war.

My country lied to its populace during WW2 to boost morale in its fight against Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany lied to its populace to more effectively execute the holocaust. They are not the same.

So it's true, not all lies are equally bad, hope that helps. Most learn that as children.

ajsnigrutin
0 replies
5h4m

So we should lie that israel is losing hard, so good morale brings more and more people to fight for hamas?

dTal
0 replies
5h31m

I would love to live in the universe where popularity was a good indicator of quality.

_djo_
0 replies
10h23m

Propaganda is still dangerous, and a country at war has no obligation to allow the country it is at war with to continue to openly spread it. Banning RT makes sense in that context.

I don't see the banning of Al Jazeera in the same light, as it's not like it's a Hamas-run outlet.

kristiandupont
8 replies
10h22m

Is the fact that you put "propaganda" in quotation marks an indication that you don't consider RT to be that, or that you don't think propaganda even exists?

AlecSchueler
7 replies
8h59m

I think the point is that one side's propaganda is another side's information.

kristiandupont
6 replies
8h38m

As in "there is no such thing as true or false, only opinion"?

AlecSchueler
3 replies
7h46m

In a post truth society, certainly. If you can't verify it yourself it's all a leap of faith.

mistermann
2 replies
4h47m

"Verifying it yourself" is often if not usually also a leap of faith, because how shall a single mind error check itself in a confirmably reliable manner, especially if it's received no specialized training in the domain?

AlecSchueler
1 replies
3h40m

It comes down to the relative stretch of the leap you take.

mistermann
0 replies
14m

And to know that, you need (just for starters) a means of discovering what is True...so you are back to the problem I noted.

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).

weberer
1 replies
7h21m

That's completely unrelated. Obviously there exist objective facts, but outlets get to pick and chose which facts they report and which ones to hide under the rug. For example, its common for state news organizations to report enemy losses, but omit their own.

dlubarov
0 replies
4h32m

Some propaganda goes beyond selective disclosure of facts, like Al Jazeera uncritically reporting questionable claims as long as they're anti-Israeli, and failing to retract the ones that turn out to be false.

dTal
0 replies
5h36m

An important distinction must be drawn between suppressing distribution, and "banning your citizens from reading". In fact it is not illegal to possess or read RT content, nor even for that matter to share it on social media. It is not secret. All that has been done is to remove a propagandist with a megaphone from the town square.

twixfel
16 replies
10h57m

RT is not truth though. When a country is fighting for its very survival against a genocidal foe, I'm not about to start clutching my pearls that they've banned their genocidal foe's propaganda. Seems reasonable to me.

ajsnigrutin
15 replies
5h48m

It's no worse than CNNs take on iraq and weapons of mass destruction, or (to go to the ru-ukr war), all the "putin has 3 days of supplies left" articles from 2022, 2023 and this year.

You just prefer your own propaganda.

twixfel
14 replies
5h5m

I don't think that "putin has 3 days of supplies left" propaganda is just as bad as the kind of genocidal propaganda pumped out by the Russian media, no, sorry.

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.

ajsnigrutin
13 replies
5h2m

But if you truly believe that putin is losing due to propaganda, you'll go and fight a war you believe you'll win... and then die, because the media lied to you. How is this good for you?

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.

twixfel
12 replies
4h54m

Ukraine seems pretty intent on continuing to fight, I'm not forcing them to do anything, indeed I have no power over Ukrainian policy whatsoever. If Ukraine wants to fight then I believe we should support them. Hope that helps.

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.

ajsnigrutin
11 replies
4h51m

Ukraine seems pretty intent on continuing to fight

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.

twixfel
10 replies
4h43m

Yeah that's why war sucks bro. People end up getting conscripted when the war is for the very existence of the country itself. It sucks.

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.

ajsnigrutin
9 replies
4h33m

But if people prefer their own life to some lines on the map... why should we force them to fight? I mean.. shouldn't ukranian individuals have a choice? Are we really supporting forcefully sending them to die? Is this "democracy"? "western way of life"?

If you prefer lines on the map, why not help with the fighting, instead of being a keyboard warrior?

twixfel
4 replies
4h21m

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.

ajsnigrutin
3 replies
4h17m

I'm not desparate for russia to win, I just support people to have a chance to not die for the lines on the map. It's not just ukraine forcing them to do so (and us helping them), but there are actual movements within EU to forcibly send the ones who escaped back.

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.

twixfel
2 replies
3h20m

Nothing necessarily antidemocratic about conscription. Finland is a democracy and has conscription.

You need to focus your outrage on Russia for invading Ukraine

instead of Ukraine for defending itself.

DiggyJohnson
1 replies
1h33m

Do you believe it's possible to support Ukraine, criticize and blame Russia for the conflict, and still think there's much to criticize about the Ukrainian response? It seems like you're not comfortable with that level of nuance, and you're being very disrespectful as a result.

twixfel
0 replies
1h24m

Of course, but they very clearly support Russia, so that does not apply here.

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.

discreteevent
3 replies
3h55m

North Korea is a line on a map.

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.

ajsnigrutin
1 replies
3h30m

You can argue all you want, but you shouldn't be able to force people to die for your arguments. And ukranian men don't want to die.

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.

discreteevent
0 replies
2h19m

I'm not willing to fight for Ukraine but I am willing to support them. If my country was at risk of being ruled by the thugs in the Kremlin, I would fight for it and I would welcome support from anyone.

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.

DiggyJohnson
0 replies
1h34m

You've made it so deep into this discussion and now is when you pull out the "paid troll" comment? Speak directly and don't imply things you're not confident enough to say outright. And frankly, 99% of claims of paid trolls sound like conspiracy theories to my ears.

mrtksn
1 replies
11h21m

I don’t say that the truth should be this or that, all I say is that information flow is part of the warfare and the parties at war will want to control it for their advantage. After all, they are literally killing people.

ajsnigrutin
0 replies
5h50m

Sure, but why should we be subjected to only our own propagandists lies and not be able to hear the other side? Why are our lies better?

Loquebantur
36 replies
19h48m

I find it downright perverse to call genocide "retaliatory" and the act of covering it up "normal".

ipaddr
35 replies
15h38m

To parse your statement we need to understand what genocide means to you. For most it means the systemic killing of every person of a certain genetic identity. Is that what you believe is happening or something else?

If genocide is illegal than covering up would be the only logical move. Therefore it would be normal.

runarberg
34 replies
15h13m

Genocide has a precise definition and has been codified in international law. I believe this internationally recognized definition mirrors what most people mean when they use the term. It does not necessitate the systemic killing of every person of a certain genetic identity.

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_...

edanm
18 replies
12h22m

I think it's fairly clear that given this definition (which is the same one I always reference), Israel isn't committing a genocide.

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.

int_19h
6 replies
11h49m

There were quite a few statements by key people in the current Israeli government that demonstrate clear intent for genocide.

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.

edanm
5 replies
11h21m

There were quite a few statements by key people in the current Israeli government that demonstrate clear intent for genocide.

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?

edanm
1 replies
5h20m

The tech nerd in me insists I complain that this isn't a database. It's just a document.

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"?

runarberg
0 replies
2h11m

What matters is that these statements were both echoed and followed by actions. When random infantry soldiers recite genocidal rhetoric, and don’t get punished for that, at best you are complicit in genocide (which is also a crime according to Article III (e) of the Genocide Convention). When genocidal rhetoric is echoed on the international stage by random journalists, or football players representing your nation, you need to disavow those words (and in case of the football player, dismiss the player from the sport).

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.

A1kmm
1 replies
6h43m

There are clearly genocidal statements from Israeli leadership.

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.

runarberg
0 replies
2h22m

In this context it is worthy to cite Article III of the genocide convention (which directly follows the above definition in Article II):

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.

Buttons840
4 replies
8h0m

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.

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.

edanm
2 replies
7h55m

OK. What would it look like if Israel just wanted to remove Hamas from power in Gaza without wanting to remove Palestinians from Gaza?

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.

Buttons840
1 replies
7h20m

They need a carrot and and stick, not just a stick.

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.

edanm
0 replies
6h59m

They need a carrot and and stick, not just a stick. [...] They need the people of Gaza to see Hamas as the source of their troubles and Israel as a source of aid.

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.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
7h10m

So you agree that the actions of Israel do not look like genocide?

The rest of your comment is conjecture and it sounds a bit conspiratorial.

antman
1 replies
10h55m

I cannot understand your key points that this is a) not genicide, b) it is simply what the US was doing all these years c) Israel kills acts with self constraint not imposed by others

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.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148876

edanm
0 replies
9h54m

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.

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?

NomDePlum
1 replies
11h7m

The two wrongs make a right argument.

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.

ajsnigrutin
0 replies
5h39m

Not just that, the international community [0] is helping them, by giving them weapons, money and other kids of help to do so. Even coutries like germany, who had their own genocidal "incidents" in the past, continue to export weapons to israel.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/tfrh17/the_internati...

raxxorraxor
0 replies
7h14m

Agreed and on moral grounds the war of Israel is far more defensible than these examples because they are directly subjected to the aggressor. That doesn't allow killings with impunity of course, but that is far from what Israel is doing.

boffinAudio
0 replies
10h46m

In fact, the US is guilty of genocide as well - it just has a far more effective media control apparatus, which shields its citizens from the outrage they'd experience if they really knew and understood just how responsible they are for such atrocities as, the funding of ISIS, the destruction of Mosul, the destruction of Raqqa, the destruction of Libya, the military support of the genocide of Yemen, and .. on and on.

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)

xenospn
12 replies
13h15m

The US has killed over 400,000 Iraqis since invading Iraq. Do you think that qualifies as genocide?

pasabagi
6 replies
11h11m

That's a built-in failing of the genocide definition: it requires intent, otherwise no doubt the US would have been on the hook as early as the Korean war.

Sadly for the Israelis, they have a cabinet of the kind of people who just cannot help themselves from communicating intent.

boffinAudio
5 replies
10h40m

Are you familiar with the fine words of Madeleine Albright and her cohorts in PNAC, who very clearly demonstrated the intent to massacre hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, mostly children, and then proceeded to do so?

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.

hardlianotion
4 replies
9h43m

I am not, and I have no idea what PNAC is. I think I am probably representative. Will you explain what you are talking about?

boffinAudio
2 replies
7h52m

PNAC = Project for a New American Century [0]

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...

[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47aaaFhGtMM

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

selimthegrim
0 replies
3h30m

Exactly how you think the US can support ISIS (oil sales via Turkey? Used plumbing trucks to JAS/JAN which aren’t ISIS?) when Lloyd Austin blew hundreds of millions to arm like 10-100 people is beyond me.

bingleboy
0 replies
5h12m

I swerved hard on a girl obsessed with Madeleine Albright. I'm glad I got out and around that because I never really liked the look of that older woman.

segasaturn
0 replies
2h11m

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, yes.

raverbashing
0 replies
11h42m

It isn't

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)

klyrs
0 replies
13h6m

Speaking as an American: yes. Bush and Obama are war criminals and I'd say that they belong in Gitmo but I'm more principled than that and we need to shut Gitmo down.

cm2187
0 replies
5h47m

You may confuse the deaths of the sunni-shia civil war with deaths under US fire. Saddam Hussein like Gaddafi would have died sooner or later. To me there is nothing that suggests that these civil wars wouldn't have happen sooner or later, like in Yugoslavia.

_djo_
0 replies
10h16m

Source? None of the organisations tracking Iraqi civilian deaths that have broken down figures by cause show that number caused by US forces directly.

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.

emmelaich
0 replies
17m

The ICJ are NOT investigating Israel for the crime of genocide. This is a common misunderstanding. See clarifications by the former president of the International Court of Justice, Joan Donoghue.

Google for the clarification or read the actual text https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203847

medo-bear
8 replies
11h43m

It is at least the biggest insult to your adult citizens to say to them, "you are not allowed to read this because you are too stupid."

mrtksn
7 replies
11h24m

I don’t think it’s that at all, it’s about controlling the narrative for your advantage. You might be lying as well, be doing horrible things and you don’t want the people you control to know that or to think that way.

It’s not a noble thing, it’s a war weapon.

medo-bear
6 replies
10h55m

I dont think the EU is at war

actionfromafar
3 replies
9h54m

Someone is blowing up military facilities in the EU though. So if at war or not is starting to be open to interpretation.

medo-bear
2 replies
9h34m

Whats open to interpretation? If sabotage = war we would have seen ww3 several decades ago.

Supermancho
1 replies
8h39m

It is not clear that the pipeline was an act of war, but acts of war can be that simple.

"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.

medo-bear
0 replies
8h10m

I think that denying that ww3 would pose an existential threat to everyone is akin to being a flatearther and an anti waxer. However given todays unfortunate climate it is infinitely more dangerous and war mongorers should be exposed more ferrociously than Russian bots

mrtksn
1 replies
9h47m

Is taking sides in a war though. That’s why the Russian outlets push talking points. This can affect the public support on war efforts issues, which is fine only before shooting start because when no one is shooting arguments(which can be fair ones or designed to achieve something like withholding weapons deliveries) can be addressed in timely manner.

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.

medo-bear
0 replies
7h12m

But banning Russian propaganda surely is an indication of weakness. Banning RT to me also signals that Russia got good at playing the media game, which until recently was largely the playground of US and UK. There is a reason that dry Tass is not banned but snazzy RT is.

Aerbil313
5 replies
14h13m

That's correct and IMHO its the right thing to do

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?

mrtksn
2 replies
13h2m

I’m not pro-censorship at all.

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.

Supermancho
1 replies
8h37m

As a complete aside, I enjoy your posts. Cheers.

mrtksn
0 replies
51m

Thanks!

raxxorraxor
0 replies
7h5m

Certain topics, this is one example, draw a different crowd than other HN articles.

edanm
0 replies
12h36m

How come the current semi-popular opinion on HN happens to be pro-censorship, when HN community is against censorship in every other situation?

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.

Aeolun
1 replies
9h32m

Just because it’s normal doesn’t mean it’s morally correct.

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.

mrtksn
0 replies
9h26m

They have a lot to fear from their citizens knowing that what they hear from their officials is not all the truth.

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.

patall
24 replies
20h37m

Do you have examples for Europe blocking Russia? Because all I have seen is DNS providers omitting certain sites (i.e RT), but their apps still work (plus URLs when using other DNS). An nothing of that coming from the nation states as all seems to be due to the activities of private companies doing these things.

jurmous
3 replies
9h46m

I am in the Netherlands and I am able to visit rt.com without VPN.

AlecSchueler
1 replies
8h53m

Netherlands here also and it's blocked for me.

orlp
0 replies
8h18m

Not for me.

sdk77
0 replies
8h36m

Me too. I didn't even know about this blockade. I'm using T-Mobile fiber internet and rt.com loads just fine.

Hock88sdx
1 replies
18h27m

Many using VPN. For example if you set the VPN servers to HK, RT will display as usual. In general I notice my peers will use anti-west countries based servers for censored western news and the reverse for anti-east. Some do use it so intuitively they might not realized RT or any Russian sites blocked. A lot of time I just assume it is due to network outages.

distances
0 replies
11h23m

I would think most people know about RT blocking because it was widely announced and discussed at the time, and not because they actually tried to access RT.

patall
0 replies
7h17m

I am very much aware of this but as I wrote, I do not consider this blocked as the servers are very much reachable and what you show is that the DNS does not resolve. That is not what I consider blocked by the state. And yes, here in Sweden, rt.com resolves just fine everywhere. That's why I was wondering about specific European legislation as it seemed to be 'only' private companies doing their part.

dariosalvi78
0 replies
8h20m

I'm in Sweden and I can see rt.com

liopleurodon
4 replies
20h6m

It's part of the EU sanctions, EU ISPs are required to block certain Russian sites. But they didn't specify how, that's left up to the countries to figure out afaik. But as you say, some of the what has been done barely qualifies.

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.

patall
1 replies
7h5m

Thanks, though that specifically why I am questioning that it is the EU in this case. Because rt.com is reachable in Sweden just fine, including sub-sites. Which, to me, says that it must be national sanctions, or at minimum, national lists of what to 'block'.

dagw
0 replies
6h18m

Because rt.com is reachable in Sweden just fine, including sub-sites.

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.

guappa
0 replies
10h41m

mullivad has a free to use DNS over https service by the way.

Maken
0 replies
19h33m

It is still perfectly possible to access RT from Spain, even using regular ISP DNS servers.

jdietrich
4 replies
20h20m

RT, Sputnik and related Russian state media outlets are subject to sanctions in the EU, their broadcast licenses have been revoked and their channels have been removed from terrestrial, cable and satellite broadcasts. Their accounts on all major social media platforms are blocked. Their apps are no longer available on the Google or Apple stores. Europe doesn't have a Chinese-style Great Firewall, but EU countries have taken every reasonable step to prevent Russian state media from reaching EU audiences.

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...

medo-bear
3 replies
11h40m

Europe doesn't have a Chinese-style Great Firewall, but EU countries have taken every reasonable step to prevent Russian state media from reaching EU audiences.

Because they think the EU audiances are stupid?

guappa
2 replies
10h41m

Because they don't like anti-government point of views to become too widespread.

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/)

pigpang
1 replies
4h56m

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.

FUD is the reason why Russian liars are banned from EU.

guappa
0 replies
2h20m

Well italy allows the openly racist newspaper "libero" to be open. I don't think FUD is a main concern when blocking websites.

cassianoleal
4 replies
20h28m

At least in the UK, you used to be able to watch RT on broadcast. Now only the Internet version is accessible, and I think some ISPs DNS block them. Granted, a DNS block is easy to circumvent if you understand it, but most users will still be cut off.

jimbobthrowawy
1 replies
15h20m

Was it actually broadcast terrestrially? I remember picking it up from Astra2 (the "skytv" satellite) but looking online, it's not transmitted anymore.

cassianoleal
0 replies
4h16m

I used to watch it on Freeview, picked up via a regular antenna if that's what you mean by "terrestrially".

TylerE
0 replies
19h42m

That’s not really an outlier. Common for political networks, religious channels, shopping networks….

Probably more than half the channels on a typical American cable system are paying to be there. Especially the stuff in the basic tiers.

hardlianotion
8 replies
9h27m

If you believe that RT is an organisation that is not interested in the truth, but is set up purely to disrupt and disturb, then a government can reasonably want to prevent its operation.

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.

awuji
3 replies
9h7m

There are two things wrong with this argument. One, it implies that there isn't a better way to deal with an such a malicious organization. And two, it doesn't acknowledge how such a ban creates an obvious opening for abuse.

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.

hardlianotion
2 replies
8h46m

The argument in no way implies that there is no other way to deal with malice, only that it is an option. The argument further implies that the decision to censor should not be taken lightly. When censorship is being considered in a democratic society, the decision to do so must be argued and debated. Note that it is perfectly possible to be well-educated and still be taken in by bullshit and false information - it happens all the time. Education is a good, not a nostrum, and durable opponents of truth are also motivated, sophisticated and smart. Democracy is about the means you use to undertake drastic decisions, and in no way rules out the restriction of unseemly behaviour.

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.

awuji
1 replies
6h18m

Content is being banned because the governments don't think the citizens collectively can handle that content. This is the government thinking for the people. I wouldn't have an issue if it was really argued and debated, but I don't really see that happening. It is mostly just the government unilaterally deciding that said content is bad and banning it with no really possibility for debate. It isn't too hard to imagine a situation where content would help citizens but harm the government, and who is really deciding what to ban in such a case.

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.

hardlianotion
0 replies
4h30m

Your analogy was bad in that it represented a case that I had not made, that the ban was a convenient lever to be reached for out of convenience.

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.

harimau777
1 replies
4h41m

Who gets to decide that RT is not interested in the truth? Traditionally, liberal democracy has held that it's not safe for the government to make that decision.

hardlianotion
0 replies
49m

It’s a good question. But I think that it is valid for a democracy to decide to tackle it.

cm2187
1 replies
5h41m

I think if you ask the average conservative voter, they would argue the New York Times is a bad faith organisation, uninterested in the truth if it contradicts its narrative, and trying to disrupt and divide. That's why the state should be nowhere near any power to curb political speech. If you would like to shut down a news outlet you don't like, ask yourself if you would like Trump to have that same power.

hardlianotion
0 replies
4h59m

I guess this is what deliberation and debate is all about. I mean, a lot of people thought Trump shouldn't be President at all, but he was.

riffraff
2 replies
14h29m

The main difference would be that Al Jazeera is from Qatar and not Gaza, this would be the equivalent of the EU banning Armenia because they are friendly with Russia.

dlubarov
1 replies
12h52m

Banning Armenia isn't really an apt comparison since Israel isn't banning all media from Qatar, just one particular news organization which has very deep ties to the enemy they're at war with.

guappa
0 replies
10h39m

They're only banning the important one :D

Al-Khwarizmi
2 replies
12h27m

> Europe has done the same with Russia.

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.

guappa
1 replies
10h38m

Nono, it's only undemocratic when china does it.

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.

pigpang
0 replies
4h31m

Exactly. "Foo" is democratic when democratic or non-democratic country does it in a democratic way.

ClumsyPilot
1 replies
18h16m

Europe has done the same with Russia.

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.

objektif
0 replies
16h53m

Also many european countries are not actively fighting a war. I do not really think it was the right decision to ban RT what are they scared of?

DiogenesKynikos
0 replies
5h12m

Egypt is a military dictatorship, so it's no surprise when it bans media organizations.

benja123
27 replies
11h6m

Israeli here - I just checked and I can still access the site in both English and Arabic. My guess is you won’t actually see the site being blocked.

cies
26 replies
10h5m

After rt.com et al were blocked in the EU they also kept working for a few more week/months before I had to use a mirror/VPN to read the new paper of "the enemy".

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.

Ma8ee
14 replies
8h5m

Why the scare quotes you put around “the enemy“?

lozenge
11 replies
7h26m

The state's enemy isn't my enemy. Consider the case of Edward Snowden. Journalism is still valuable even if you disagree with the person's motives or aims.

Ma8ee
10 replies
7h2m

No, but Russia is my enemy, and should be the enemy of everyone who cares about a liberal world order based on law, not might.

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.

cies
5 replies
6h45m

Glad you come to that conclusion.

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

Ma8ee
3 replies
5h50m

This is exactly one of the Russian talking points. "You see, we might have invaded a few neighbour countries with the intention of annexing the territories, but look at NATO, they are equally bad because they invaded Iraq." (NATO didn't invade Iraq, the US did with the help of UK, Poland, and Australia)

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.

cies
1 replies
3h31m

This is exactly one of the Russian talking points.

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?

ethbr1
0 replies
1h37m

Russia would not have invaded if [...]

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.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

mistermann
0 replies
5h5m

but look at NATO, they are equally bad because they invaded Iraq." (NATO didn't invade Iraq, the US did with the help of UK, Poland, and Australia)

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.

ethbr1
0 replies
5h0m

What is RT doing that is not found in FOX, NBC, CNews.fr, Hayom?

Monopolizing discourse.

How many independent news channels are there inside Russia today?

graemep
3 replies
5h22m

When we try to defend our liberal world order with censorship, we are certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.

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.

ethbr1
2 replies
5h2m

Freedom of speech is a grey area, though.

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?

aftbit
1 replies
2h27m

There has never been a situation where all had more equal access to speech than today. Printing presses were expensive and complicated machines, and distributing handbills was far slower and riskier than tweeting.

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.

ethbr1
0 replies
1h33m

I think you're drastically underappreciating the impact of promotion and discoverability on public discourse.

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.

throwawayqqq11
0 replies
7h31m

Because it is a pejorative generalization. Some people are susceptible to labels like "the migrants" and short circuit their reasoning when confronted with eg. articles from RT or aljazeera "must be fictious enemy propanda".

cies
0 replies
6h55m

because they not my enemy. they dont threaten me. imho NATO threatens them by trying to extend into ukraine/georgia and making color revolutions on their borders.

benja123
6 replies
9h38m

I personally don't support blocking Al Jazeera. It's not that I'm a fan of them or any news station operated under a dictatorship without free press. It's clear that Al Jazeera acts as the propaganda wing of the Qatari government, and Qatar, being one of the main sponsors of Hamas, uses it to effectively spread Hamas propaganda. However, the real question is what does blocking them achieve. Does it stop their influence? No. Does it make them harder to watch here? No. Are the people advocating for their blockage even watching it? Likely not. It's mostly done because it's something the government can claim to have achieved for what remains of their base. I'm skeptical that the blocking of the website will actually occur, as it will probably be challenged in court.

Regardless, in a democracy, internet censorship is a slippery slope, and for that reason, I am against it in most cases.

brnt
2 replies
9h14m

Does it make them harder to watch here? No.

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.)

benja123
1 replies
8h55m

I should know better, my wife is a UX specialist! You make a good point. What I should have said is that it won’t stop people who really want to watch it.

brnt
0 replies
6h15m

But then that isn't the goal: totally preventing you from ever seeing Al Jazeera or somesuch. As you noted: that'd be curtailment of freedoms only befitting dictatorships. Nobody wants that.

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.

benja123
0 replies
11m

I'm not going to defend Bibi and his government. They have made and continue to make many decisions I disagree with. Like the vast majority of Israelis, I think we should go to elections sooner rather than later.

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.

DiogenesKynikos
0 replies
5h15m

The Qatari government has been hosting Hamas at the request of the United States and Israel, which want to use Qatar as an intermediary (similarly to how Qatar facilitated talks between the US and the Taliban).

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.

hnbad
1 replies
5h3m

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".

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.

aftbit
0 replies
2h26m

A lie flies while the truth only crawls. Or maybe, a lie rides on horseback while the truth walks.

trimethylpurine
0 replies
7h6m

Do you believe that in a society where money is required to make an advertisement, an alternative path to advertising should be violence?

I wouldn't call that a moral high ground.

raxxorraxor
0 replies
8h44m

It usually is, but more neurotic elements in western governments often tend to not give much on values at all.

suddenexample
14 replies
21h6m

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]

Wow you can't make this stuff up

throwup238
11 replies
19h1m

Armando Iannucci's career has twice now been upstaged by the increasing ridiculousness of reality in politics.

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.

gravescale
5 replies
8h18m

He's not wrong. This is a real Police and Crimes Commissioner and is not a character from the Thick of It: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xlcWVXHv_As

sweetheart
3 replies
7h33m

I genuinely cannot tell if this is real still. Like, I want to believe you, but this person is basically doing the best Michael Scott impersonation I’ve ever seen.

roenxi
0 replies
5h50m

The editing could be described as "unsympathetic". I get the impression that the substance of her responses lives between the cuts. Although this is one of that unfortunate situations where the video is so funny it undermines any interest in what is really going on.

gertrunde
0 replies
7h1m

It helps to bear in mind that Police & Crime Commissioners are people elected by the local population as a sort of overseer of the local police forces.

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)

trimethylpurine
0 replies
7h16m

Ha ha! Wow.

tialaramex
4 replies
17h50m

Iannucci's Death of Stalin has the advantage that it's all history - it can't become more ridiculous after he made the movie because it's in the past. But of course the reality is more or less as absurd as the movie, although different in important ways. (Lots of the timing is completely wrong, events are re-arranged, people are shuffled about so that fewer actors play more important roles) but it does have the advantage that yeah, Stalin can't have another even more ridiculous life which makes the movie seem tame, he's dead.

VelesDude
2 replies
17h25m

I really appreciate works like Death of Stalin that are more than happy to move things around in the name of entertainment. It isn't a documentary so it has the freedom to get creative and hit the key notes rather than pure accuracy. They also just said "No need to have Russian accents, the audience is smart enough to just go with what you have."

tialaramex
0 replies
5h34m

Using an accent without also speaking the right language seems needless.

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.

blululu
0 replies
5h16m

Honestly the accents were a really well done part of that movie. A lot of the diversity and variety of Russian culture does not come through to Anglophone ears with fake Russian accents which are often a monotonous stern and gruff voice but. The movie did a good job illustrating the diversity of Russian society through homologous variety of English accents.

robbiep
0 replies
5h52m

Don’t forget they actually reduced the number of medals on Zhukov’s chest because they thought it was too over the top to replicate what he actually wore

loceng
0 replies
3h50m

In a similar vein: "The closer the collapse of the Empire, the crazier its laws are." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

mynameisnoone
6 replies
15h32m

Apartheid South Africa also tried to ban news media. It's a sign of extreme desperation and signals political vulnerability. Hopefully, Israel will get elections soon, and center- or left-leaning coalition government will pursue different foreign and military policies that a significant majority of Israelis prefer over the absurdity of the militarists and militant settlers.

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)

flanked-evergl
5 replies
7h59m

Nearly every democratic country has previously or is currently censoring the media in some ways, including the US[1] and EU[2]. Single factor analysis is one of the worst kinds of analysis. If we only consider this one factor, then there is basically no country that is not like Apartheid South Africa. Apartheid South Africa was not exceptional or notable because it did what nearly every other country has or is currently still doing, i.e. censoring media. It was notable because people of specific races had fewer legal rights than others.

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...

flanked-evergl
1 replies
4h57m

A better way to engage than to allude to some TV series is to rather look for and present any information that suggests this is not the case, that suggests that there is in fact wide spread opposition to the war in Gaza and widespread support for an independent Palestinian state.

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-...

dunekid
0 replies
1h49m

I thought alluding to this part in Yes, Prime Minister is going to get across the idea of questionable trustworthiness of surveys. I did try to get the survey details from the given page though, but for some reason the survey page is not loading for me.

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.

harimau777
1 replies
4h38m

I think that most people would argue that past censorship by the US was a violation of democratic principles.

flanked-evergl
0 replies
4h30m

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I don't see widespread condemnation for current EU and US censorship of the Russian propaganda outlet RT, and to be quite frank, I think it should be censored. The right to free speech does not extend to people who are not subject to a countries laws, and I don't see why it should.

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.

cjk2
122 replies
21h19m

Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and one which is presented to Middle-Eastern audiences. The media and articles are politically aligned in each region. Don't assume what you read in the US/UK/wherever is the same as over there.

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?

whatshisface
44 replies
20h23m

Why would you allow that to continue in your country?

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.

avip
28 replies
20h18m

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

csdreamer7
6 replies
19h40m

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

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.

jcranmer
3 replies
17h22m

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.

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".

tayo42
0 replies
16h33m

kind of makes sense for americans. I feel like "over throw the government" is a core part of american history and culture.

I'd hope this only applies to the government though and not towards groups of people or ethnicity.

objektif
0 replies
16h46m

This is the correct answer. I think people are approaching this emotionally. The problem is if you start infringing on it there simply is no end.

janalsncm
0 replies
15h0m

There is still a question of whether that is the correct limit. Many people think it is. Obviously Israel disagrees. We can’t use the First Amendment and SCOTUS precedent to uncover aughts, especially to another country.

However, if you agree that Brandenburg set the correct limit, you can conditionalize aid on it. It’s just not a first principles approach.

trogdor
0 replies
17h32m

You can not

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.”

emodendroket
0 replies
14h54m

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.

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.

rendall
5 replies
18h38m

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

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.

FireBeyond
3 replies
15h28m

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

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".

rendall
2 replies
14h19m

This is not an argument. To address my argument, you'd have to show that "free" meant "sovereignty". But you cannot, because that's not what it means. It means the destruction of Israel and the expulsion - at best - of its people. It does not mean "living in peaceful coexistence with". What else do you think it means? What else could it possibly mean?

helpfulContrib
1 replies
14h6m

It means the destruction of Israel and the expulsion - at best - of its people.

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.

rendall
0 replies
40m

#4 is the sense Palestinians mean it while well-meaning Westerners hear #1 and #2. The movement exploits the ambiguity of this term to dogwhistle and get all the no kidding white-supremacist, anti-Semites on board. To play in the bailey, so to speak. You can tell them because they are absolutely, utterly truculent about hearing any fact

Free as in judenfrei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei

ClumsyPilot
0 replies
18h3m

We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"

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.

DEADMINCE
2 replies
20h6m

If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.

bilbo0s
1 replies
19h33m

Um.

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.

jakelazaroff
0 replies
17h20m

I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.

austin-cheney
1 replies
17h16m

That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always.

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.

emodendroket
0 replies
14h55m

You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).

objektif
0 replies
16h47m

Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.

jakelazaroff
0 replies
17h28m

It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent).

Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.

jachee
0 replies
17h10m

I mean, that’s what the KKK does.

emodendroket
0 replies
14h57m

Actually yes.

dangerwill
0 replies
19h19m

Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723

aprilthird2021
0 replies
13h31m

I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it.

Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.

alfiedotwtf
0 replies
19h41m

Forget speech, how about actual right to living… it was only a few years ago that lynching was not uncommon for black people in America.

SuperNinKenDo
0 replies
20h1m

Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.

bamboozled
7 replies
16h59m

This is fine but you have to realise that war isn’t just about bombs. It’s about information too. An information war. In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information. Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind.

chmod775
3 replies
16h16m

In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information.

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.

bamboozled
1 replies
9h6m

Haha. And we're going to let the government decide what is "correct" and "accurate"?

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.

chmod775
0 replies
2h12m

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?

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?

chii
0 replies
15h51m

In a working democracy you get people to see truth through public discourse, not censorship.

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.

objektif
1 replies
16h49m

Do you really think say if you listen to US MSM you will make up your mind correctly?. They are constantly making up stuff and omitting facts to influence public opinion.

bamboozled
0 replies
8h28m

Well at this point, I'm not so sure some of what I've seen on US MSM isn't created by foreign interference.

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.

janalsncm
0 replies
14h43m

You’re absolutely correct about the information war bit. Facts are important. But another equally important component is what is withheld from the public.

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.

reissbaker
5 replies
17h57m

The U.S. Constitution provides rights for citizens to have free speech — not non-citizens. And in fact, the U.S. does not allow broadcast companies (along with various others, e.g. common carrier and aeronautical radio companies) to be more than 25% owned by foreign entities unless the FCC specifically approves them: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... And for 60+ years the cap was 20%, and you could not go higher: there was no FCC approval process, and the cap was mandated by Congress. (And alternatives like the Internet didn't exist!)

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).

amanaplanacanal
2 replies
16h25m

Free speech in the US is not limited to citizens. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law”. It doesn’t say anything about citizens. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the first amendment.

reissbaker
0 replies
12h49m

I believe you are incorrect. While non-citizens are granted freedom of speech while physically present in America, they are not granted freedom of speech outside of America. If they were, legal restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcast media companies would be difficult to enforce, since corporate expenditures are considered speech under Citizens United.

https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...

refurb
0 replies
12h2m

It’s not, but it’s nuanced.

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.

miracle2k
1 replies
16h22m

The U.S. Constitution provides rights for citizens to have free speech — not non-citizens.

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.

reissbaker
0 replies
12h40m

I believe RT actually is blocked from operating broadcast or radio services in America (although not cable services, since those are exempt — only free-to-air broadcast coverage is included in the legal restrictions), which is why it never operated free-to-air broadcast or radio services in the U.S., unlike in other countries.

reddog
0 replies
19h12m

Exceptions: yelling fire in a crowded theater and TikTok.

TacticalCoder
16 replies
20h47m

In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. > > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk. > > Why would you allow that to continue in your country?

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.

JumpCrisscross
11 replies
20h39m

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

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.)

xenospn
10 replies
18h36m

They have a lot of potential political power. They refuse to use it.

JumpCrisscross
6 replies
17h59m

refuse to use it

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.

edanm
4 replies
17h42m

Actually, as far as I understand it, most have historically preferred not to engage with the Israeli political system for ideological reasons. This is changing somewhat over the last few years.

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?

JumpCrisscross
3 replies
17h36m

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.

edanm
1 replies
12h10m

Again, I'm not a Palestinian-Israeli. I'm sure some share that attitude, but considering that many have families that are "on the other side of the border", I think there's quite a few that do want one unified country with everyone having voting rights. It's been argued for quite eloquently by several very prominent Palestinian voices, too (not necessarily Palestinian-Israeli voices).

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
10h24m

there's quite a few that do want one unified country

Of course. The original point was that they defy, as a community, summary.

xenospn
0 replies
17h22m

Israeli Arabs know they have it much better in Israel than anywhere else in the region. They historically have been highly opposed to proposed land-swaps/unification deals with the PA.

xenospn
0 replies
17h44m

How is that relevant? There’s multiple Arab parties in Israeli politics. None of them wield any serious power because the people with the diverse set of views they attempt to represent don’t vote.

IX-103
2 replies
18h6m

"Refuse to use it" like African Americans in the Jim Crow south? Or is there some other context driving their non-participation?

xenospn
0 replies
17h43m

Huh? They simply refuse to vote. They could have considerable power to transform Israeli politics if they did.

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
17h48m

is there some other context driving their non-participation?

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.)

kingofpandora
2 replies
15h2m

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.

Not only are there Jews in Iran, they even have a seat permanently reserved in the Iranian parliament.

boxed
1 replies
12h1m

From 100 000 before the islamic revolution to 8 000 today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

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.

alumnisfu
0 replies
28m

I just knew someone would reply with a comment like this but foolishly I decided not to get ahead of it.

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.

edanm
0 replies
17h45m

Note: The correct word is "Israeli", not "Israelo".

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.

Ahmd72
15 replies
21h9m

Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is doing what you're accusing?

Ahmd72
4 replies
20h34m

I'm not really sure pulling out a controversies tab from wikipedia is making the point that OP is trying to make. It's like citing BBC for their controversies

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

zarzavat
0 replies
14h13m

Every single news outlet is known to have issues with factuality. Reporting the news is expensive and the people paying for it almost always want their point of view to be taken into consideration, regardless of state or private funding.

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.

samuria
0 replies
16h33m

the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas

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?

arp242
0 replies
11h18m

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 "

Is that not correct? Or what's the problem with it? A basic translate + fact check seems it's basically correct?

r00fus
2 replies
20h32m

There are no direct examples I could find. Do you have a direct link?

Ahmd72
0 replies
16h8m

This is about Russia not Hamas or what OP has been asked to link and thanks for the condescending tone.

kats
1 replies
17h33m

fyi, MEMRI is a media outlet literally founded and run by Israeli intelligence officers.

dlubarov
0 replies
12h41m

That seems a bit misleading. According to Wikipedia, there were two founders, one of whom worked in the Intelligence Corps until 1988.

acdha
1 replies
17h25m

That’s an error page but also it seems like you’re conceding the point if you can’t provide a single link and are basically telling someone to comb through the output of a large media organization to try to find support for someone else’s argument. At the very least, the Wikipedia criticism page would be a good place to start doing your own research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...

KoftaBob
0 replies
9h42m

I'm not the original commenter that made the claim, I'm just saying that anyone who wants to check for themselves can use the Arabic Al Jazeera and translate it into English.

keefle
8 replies
20h51m

It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk.

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.

mupuff1234
7 replies
20h19m

I wouldn't say it's validating, just not necessarily invalidating.

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".

neves
6 replies
20h11m

Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC exactly fits your definition :-)

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.

mupuff1234
3 replies
20h2m

The BBC doesn't fit my definition as it's run by a democracy with a high degree of human rights and civilian freedoms.

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.

wahnfrieden
2 replies
17h37m

BBC has been laundering many Zaka lies in recent months

staunton
1 replies
17h9m

What is "Zaka" and what has BBC been saying? Have a link to what you mean?

llimos
0 replies
10h23m

Zaka is the Israeli first responder organization that did a lot of the work on October 7.

wahnfrieden is apparently an October 7 denier and is annoyed that the BBC does think it happened.

dralley
1 replies
20h6m

BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism.

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.

erie
0 replies
10h40m

As an Arabic speaker I notice higher standards in the English version of Al Jazeera, I remember a Qatari cameraman was killed in a shooting attack in Benghazi-March 12, 2011, Ali Hassan Al-Jaber, unlike the English Al Jazeera team, was not wearing any protective gear nor had he undergone any media training for covering war zones. Some interesting take on this goes like this: 'Qatar is not only a historical part of the American security and energy system, as is the case with many other countries. The issue is that, thirty years ago, Qatar went through a difficult period - a crisis of legitimacy, a coup, and a real external threat - that shaped Qatari foreign policy and made the regime understand that, in order to become useful and necessary for Washington, it needed to do “more,” to excel. From the rest of the allies in the region, and for it to have a special role that no one else can play.All Qatari policies since then, from the Al-Udeid base to relations with Israel to hosting Hamas and rapprochement with Syria, then waging war against it, all come within this framework. If you do not interpret Qatari policies within their actual historical and functional context, then you are be misled on the real purpose of Al Jazeera channel. What is interesting here is that the Qatari officials themselves do not hide these matters at all, and they publicize them at every turn and external criticism that comes their way, the latest of which is an official statement from the Qatari embassy in Washington: “We do not act on our heads. We did not host the leadership of Hamas except in response to an American request, and not only with their approval, and the same goes for relations with the Taliban, the Syrian war, and the transfer of money to Gaza was taking place with Israeli approval and under their eyes - we perform the tasks for you.” They say this to the American and Western public exclusively, and as an Arab, when you question Qatari policy and its role, you may not find a single Qatari citizen in the discussion before you. Why do you think, and within any theory of the world, might America ask Qatar to host Hamas or establish relations with Hezbollah?'

exe34
8 replies
21h12m

I didn't realise they had two versions, but it makes sense. Is the anti-infidel version only available in Arabic then?

erichocean
2 replies
20h57m

CNN has two versions too, one for US audiences and one for the world.

vundercind
1 replies
20h11m

I’m pretty sure that’s more normal than not for news orgs that have a home country or region but also compete on the global market. Some have several versions, not just two.

lazyasciiart
0 replies
13h29m

The Guardian is known for having such different takes on transgender rights in their US and British editions that the US employees complained.

cjk2
2 replies
21h8m

Yes it is. They have low to no journalistic standards in that edition and it's heavily propagandized depending on their agenda. Their entire reputation is based on the Western version as "look we use those standards everywhere" which is definitely not true.

jay-barronville
0 replies
20h16m

Where’s the proof to back your statement? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

exe34
0 replies
8h54m

I believe you, but I too would like a citation that I can share with others - even a blog post with some examples would be helpful.

ashconnor
1 replies
15h11m

"anti-infidel version" - Godwin's Law but descending to Islamophobia.

exe34
0 replies
10h36m

I grew up in a place infested with the religion of peace. The last civil war against the more populous other religion had been several decades before I was born, but the people around me had the classic victim mentality "oh poor us Muslims", and celebrated the 9/11 attacks and regularly wished death and destruction on the west. They did not actually take part in atrocities or fund it as far as I knew, but the mentality was not peaceful. It's not a phobia if they want you dead.

eganist
5 replies
20h39m

This is a loaded argument that requires citations. Since you're making the claim, can you please link specific articles from the Arabic site that make your point? As well as linking which Arab countries banned it and when?

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.

samuria
1 replies
16h30m

I hope you actually read those articles, because 2 of them are saying Al Jazeera is biased towards Israel - hence why the ban, and not what you are trying to prove.

zaroth
0 replies
14h51m

Obviously that’s what they would say. The whole point of this discussion is that people tend to say things that advance their agenda, or are politically expedient, not because they are the unvarnished truth.

ceejayoz
0 replies
19h39m

The first link…

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.

nashashmi
1 replies
18h30m

Either the media was in English or in Arabic. If it was English, then it was the same stuff being shown to everyone else in the west. If it was Arabic, then I don’t think Israelis would understand any of it.

edanm
0 replies
17h38m

Many Israelis speak Arabic. Some Israeli Jews, and probably ~all Palestinian-Israelis (20% of the Israeli citizenry).

bamboozled
1 replies
17h1m

I started watching it to try get a different take on events in Israel. It took me about 10 minutes to realise it’s a Hamas mouthpiece. I think they have two audiences to try establish a sense of credibility and then use it to spew lies.

aprilthird2021
0 replies
13h26m

Any citations? Reporting what Hamas says doesn't make it a Hamas mouthpiece, btw.

austin-cheney
1 replies
17h15m

Why would you allow that to continue in your country?

If you value liberty or democracy the only valid question is: why wouldn’t you?

aprilthird2021
0 replies
13h27m

Israel is a country which values demography over democracy, so, like other Arab countries which don't value democracy, press repression is going to be a foregone conclusion

scyzoryk_xyz
0 replies
20h10m

The first half of your comment is fascinating and sounds entirely plausible. At first glance.

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..

omegaworks
0 replies
18h32m

the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency.

This is the entire point of all mass media. There is no such thing as unbiased news.

nextaccountic
0 replies
13h16m

Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency.

Isn't this the point of any news organization whatsoever?

neves
0 replies
20h14m

Would you please link to examples the same news to Western audiences and to Middle Eastern ones? We can use Google translates by our selves.

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.

moneywoes
0 replies
19h52m

In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas

Have any citations?

megous
0 replies
7h9m

Israel blocked English version, too. So clearly they don't aggree with that content either. :)

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.

janalsncm
0 replies
15h16m

In 1919 in the United States we put people in prison for handing out anti war pamphlets. They equated it to “yelling fire in a crowded theater” thus dangerous and illegal. Then in the 60s we revised our “understanding” of the 1st amendment. Today it would be pretty extraordinary to have antiwar proponents thrown in prison.

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.

feedforward
0 replies
20h10m

The reader should take note that when those celebrating "the only democracy in the Middle East" shutting down a news organization, and blocking Israelis from accessing their web site - when they talk about Hamas and the political influence of Qatar - remember that Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad to Qatar weeks before October 7 to encourage them to send money to Hamas ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q... ). He did this because the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank was making peaceful, political headway in getting Palestine internationally recognized.

emodendroket
0 replies
14h57m

Providing political influence is the point of any state news agency, including "unobjectionable" ones like the BBC, among others. In a democratic country worthy of the name they're allowed to operate regardless. I'd like to see some citation for the claim that Al Jazeera was serving as some sort of pro-violence propaganda stream; CNN showed some speeches from bin Laden after 9/11 but that doesn't make them al Qaeda propaganda.

emadabdulrahim
0 replies
20h47m

Provide any evidence of the accusations you’re hurling, please.

einpoklum
0 replies
20h1m

were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas.

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.

cma
0 replies
21h4m

It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk.

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.

caf
0 replies
11h47m

It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security risk.

This is a fact best appreciated in the context of the Sunni-Shi'a sectarian divide.

TacticalCoder
0 replies
20h37m

Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence...

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.

quonn
41 replies
20h11m

They will not be banned. There is zero evidence for this.

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.

subliminalpanda
40 replies
20h3m

On what basis in Al Jazeera a fake news outlet?

Rebelgecko
31 replies
19h28m

As someone who was only familiar with Al Jazeera's English reporting (and thought it was pretty good), it was eye opening to check out their Arabic website translated into a language I speak. Maybe Google Translate was erasing some nuance, but I saw a huge number of controversial, disputed, or downright false claims that were reported uncritically as facts.

crazygringo
16 replies
19h19m

Can you provide specifics?

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.

avip
11 replies
18h25m

Let me help you. Searching is difficult. Examples are in English, to avoid any "lost in translation" issues.

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]

brighteyes
4 replies
17h29m

No, there is wide consensus that it was most likely (but not certainly) an errant rocket from Gaza, and not Israel. Wikipedia has a good summary:

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.

philistine
2 replies
13h17m

You're giving a ton of weasel words here: most likely (but not certainly). All that word salad of wishy washy makes it clear that the fog of war is still present regarding those events.

naoric
1 replies
12h50m

Describing the report as credible is not accurate. Given that many news outlets retracted their initial claims and the official statements, it is very likely that there is enough evidence that Israel did not bomb the hospital and that the reported number of casualties is inaccurate. You using the "fog of war" argument to dismiss his claim—which was honest enough to say "not certainly"—is irrelevant. You could say this about almost every other reported event in Gaza.

In this case, they have a good argument.

runarberg
0 replies
23m

If you include the surrounding context, that al Ahli had been targeted before, and since, and that other hospitals had also been not only targeted but actively sieged for days, at is in fact credible that the Israeli military targeted and hit the Hospital.

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.

catlikesshrimp
0 replies
12h23m

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.

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

acdha
4 replies
18h2m

Your second claim seems to being mistaking their role as telling absolute truth. The very first sentence makes it clear that they are reporting an official government statement, and the next that Israel disputes it and says the PLJ was responsible. This seems very normal for war reporting and I note that they’re very careful to attribute each claim so the reader can decide how much to trust it.

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.

dlubarov
3 replies
13h33m

then publicly updated that to say that a Hamas investigation had called her credibility into question

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.

acdha
2 replies
6h37m

I was referring to the lead in that “Honest Reporting” article which was about one of their employees doing the opposite of this claim by correcting the record:

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.

dlubarov
1 replies
3h35m

I don't really take issue with publishing the allegation (it's credibility might have been lacking, but that's difficult to judge), just quietly yanking the false information. Wouldn't any legitimate news agency do some form of retraction, such as adding a prominent note at the top of the original article?

acdha
0 replies
1h33m

To be clear, I think they should have updated their liveblog to add a link to the subsequent Hamas statement calling its accuracy into question. That said, I think some of this comes into questions about the format - this wasn’t a specific story but one of many breaking news details in a tumultuous event, and it’s far from unprecedented within the industry.

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.

alchemist1e9
2 replies
18h33m

It’s not worse at all. Actually probably the opposite, I learn some crazy stuff watching Al Jazeera and sometimes don’t believe it and go off researching it … and wow it’s very concerning. 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. As one example, read up on Ben Gvir, current National Security Minister … it’s totally crazy.

naoric
1 replies
12h44m

Unfortunately, whenever anything is being posted on this topic, we get to see so many comments such as this.

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?

alchemist1e9
0 replies
7h24m

It’s hard to provide proof of such a conspiracy due to the nature of the conspiracy is to omit information. It’s really only an impression I have when watching France 24 and AJ amongst other non-US news sources and then comparing to US sources.

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.

Rebelgecko
0 replies
13h9m

As far as worse, I'm not conducting a longitudinal study or anything so I can't compare their rate of "fake news" compared to Fox News or MSNBC or whatever your control group is.

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...

noqc
6 replies
18h52m

Took the same path recently. Probably the easiest thing to point to if you're looking for something to convince people of Al Jazeera's nature, (besides specific articles), is the incredible amount of time and editorial space devoted to Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the arabic channel (before his death). The man had an audience of 60 million people for a decade and a half, and could reasonably be called the face of Al Jazeera Arabic. He has caused a lot of problems through that platform that hopefuly only the most radicalized westerner won't view as monstrous.

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?

alchemist1e9
2 replies
18h0m

We are all trained starting from childhood to use a Hero-Villain framework when observing conflicts and it leaves us very confused when the real world is closer to Villain-Villain situation.

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.

wahnfrieden
0 replies
17h39m

Maybe you are ready to learn about Anarchism

jfim
0 replies
13h17m

I don’t really know how to navigate this problem to be honest.

Realistically, you can't, other than finding people who can accept that reality is shades of grey, not "my team good, other team bad."

aprilthird2021
1 replies
13h36m

the incredible amount of time and editorial space devoted to Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the arabic channel (before his death). The man had an audience of 60 million people for a decade and a half, and could reasonably be called the face of Al Jazeera Arabic. He has caused a lot of problems through that platform that hopefuly only the most radicalized westerner won't view as monstrous.

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.

noqc
0 replies
2h9m

Scholarship on the Quran means what, to you, exactly?

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.

Cyph0n
0 replies
18h16m

Just to clarify: that clip was broadcast on a separate channel called AJ Live (“Mubasher”). It’s a 24/7 channel that basically broadcasts entire live events and re-runs - think press conferences, speeches, etc. I would compare it to something like C-SPAN in the US.

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

NomDePlum
4 replies
19h10m

I've done similar in the past, mostly to try to get early sight of news. Never come across anything even close to what you claim.

Can you provide citations?

If not, I'd suggest you are just making this up.

Rebelgecko
3 replies
11h18m

“أبرز تطورات اليوم الـ11 من طوفان الأقصى.” Translated by Google Translate, أخبار | الجزيرة نت, الجزيرة نت, 17 Oct. 2023.

NomDePlum
2 replies
10h49m

Thanks, however I might be missing something but these aren't citations.

Rebelgecko
1 replies
3h2m

If you ask for citations but won't parse MLA format then I might make some suggestions about YOUR motives too ;)

NomDePlum
0 replies
1h34m

I was expecting links to comparative articles that showed the discrepancies you suggested were there. Not phrases that whilst I can have translated by Google have no context.

lupire
1 replies
16h22m

When did Israel make controversial, disputed or downright false claims illegal?

The current prime minister and the IDF make controversial, disputed and downright false claims as well.

Rebelgecko
0 replies
11h8m

The oldest example I can find was passed by the Knesset in July of 1986. I'm not very familiar with Israeli laws so it's totally possible I'm missing prior examples from before 1986... That's just what I found after a few minutes of search engine and wikipedia research, limited to English pages.

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

invalidname
7 replies
16h54m

At the risk of being downvoted as the parent comment. There were many reports in Israeli media showing their reporters framing a false narrative around the conflict.

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.

Amir_A
6 replies
16h3m

Referencing rape propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked makes me wonder whether AJ had a "false narrative" or just a different one.

The objective fact is that IDF soldiers have a well-documented history of internal and external sexual violence going back to the state's founding (by the soldiers' own confession often times, as these acts are rarely punished, even lionized in some settler communities). International humanitarian orgs have concluded there is reasonable evidence for such acts being committed in the current conflict as well (and with all the atrocities we've witnessed, is that really suprising to anyone?).

That you seem unaware of these facts is exactly why we need freedom of press.

invalidname
2 replies
15h11m

That is nonsense. The sexual assault by Hamas is as proven a fact as any can be. Some people tried to debunk it while ignoring quite a lot of evidence: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-04-18/ty-article-ma...

I'm no fan of the settlers but they are deeply religious and won't even talk about sex with their own wives, let alone rape. The idea is deeply abhorrent in Jewish communities. There's no such documentation of any rape at scale. Accusations are easy to make with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

OTOH there are many well documented cases of soldiers doing bad things to Palestinians and getting jail time for that. There's a lot of evidence about settlers doing bad stuff. These sort of lies pollute the objective truth to force a narrative of false equivalency where facts don't matter.

downWidOutaFite
1 replies
13h3m

Some choice quotes from your Haarez link:

"However, at Shura Base, to which most of the bodies were taken for purposes of identification, there were five forensic pathologists at work. In that capacity, they also examined bodies that arrived completely or partially naked in order to examine the possibility of rape. According to a source knowledgeable about the details, there were no signs on any of those bodies attesting to sexual relations having taken place or of mutilation of genitalia."

"200 bodies were documented. These teams did not document a single case of sexual assault or cases of genital mutilation. "

"the intelligence material collected by the police and the intelligence bodies, including footage from terrorists' body cameras, does not contain visual documentation of any acts of rape themselves. "

invalidname
0 replies
12h48m

That is very selective reading of the article ignoring some core facts. Forensic post mortem analysis can't be done on 1,400 bodies most of which were mutilated and many burned. There were just not enough experts available to do that work.

There are many testimonies. Including from the rapists themselves. According to Hamas's interpretation of the Quran rape is legitimate as part of Jihad.

cooloo
2 replies
15h38m

Repeating lies don't make them true. Palestinians use rape to terrorizing women's, did al Gezira report it?

klyrs
0 replies
13h9m

Not every news source need report on every story. Especially in times of war, it's important to read every side's coverage of both themselves and the other side.

dunekid
0 replies
7h54m

Considering what Haaretz is, banning them would not be a good idea. Even by the standards of this genocidal regime, that would be such a rare event of censoring. I think a more gradual and coercive strategy would be applied there. Deployment and outcome of that, if it were to be done, would be a case study.

The article's content evokes a bit of Orwelllian irony though, Minister of Communications threatening to ban the long(est?) standing news outlet.

avip
0 replies
19h52m

In order for that to happen, a Shabak rep. Will have to provide statement that Haaretz poses serious threat to the national security of Israel. Call me when that happens (spoiler: it won’t).

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"]

farseer
7 replies
11h59m

They can ban whatever they want, after all its a democracy only in name. I'd be far more concerned about Israel using its direct influence or its proxies to ban TikTok in the United States.

kmeisthax
3 replies
10h50m

If you want to play conspiracy theorist, the correct conspiracy is that Mark Zuckerberg is responsible for the TikTok ban bill, given that he was lobbying for it.

farseer
2 replies
9h16m

Your conspiracy theory can co-exist with mine :) I believe multiple parties want TikTok banned for their own reasons.

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...

drdrek
1 replies
7h32m

How have you heard more about TikTok and Israel than TikTok and china? How is that possible??

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.

farseer
0 replies
6h14m

>How have you heard more about TikTok and Israel than TikTok and china? How is that possible??

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!

aprilthird2021
0 replies
3h8m

Israel currently denies the right to vote to more people that its government controls the lives of than it grants the right to vote for. This is because it wants to be both a Jewish (demography-first) and democratic (equal-representaition-first) state.

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

jl6
6 replies
21h44m

How big a share of Palestinian media consumption does Al Jazeera have? As in, do the residents of Gaza treat it as the main news source?

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.

[0] https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969

cs702
2 replies
5h25m

Wow, I did not know until now that 90% (!!!) of Palestinians "believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive," and "only one in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed by Hamas." Are they really so misinformed?

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.

kjkjadksj
1 replies
2h2m

Hamas has been in power since 2006 and had reeducated the youth akin to what the hitler youth did. Its no surprise many tow the company line. Majority of people in gaza are under 18 where all they know is that sort of indoctrination.

cs702
0 replies
1h8m

The grandparent comment and my comment are about Palestinians, not Hamas.

JumpCrisscross
1 replies
21h33m

do the residents of Gaza treat it as the main news source?

Does Gaza have sufficient connectivity for its population to have a real news source?

runarberg
0 replies
19h25m

I think they do, as long as their internet connections are up. At least the Gazans I follow on social media seem to be perfectly aware of the world news. Graffiti tags on refugee tents in Rafah thanking American students for their solidarity seems to support that.

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.

1: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14631745

wesselbindt
0 replies
11h8m

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.”

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.

aristofun
6 replies
5h27m

What is exactly wrong with shutting down someone who not just lies (nothing unique there lol) but systematically supports information war against your country?

DiogenesKynikos
5 replies
5h11m

Al Jazeera is not engaged in an "information war" against Israel. Al Jazeera is the major independent media organization operating in Gaza, and one of the main sources of accurate information about the conflict. That's what angers the Israeli government.

aristofun
2 replies
4h57m

Can you show me at least 1 al jazeera article in arabic exposing and condemning oct 7?

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.

DiogenesKynikos
1 replies
2h13m

1. I don't read Arabic.

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.

aristofun
0 replies
52m

Your words worth nothing until you prove they are independent

aristofun
1 replies
4h54m

the major independent media

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...

DiogenesKynikos
0 replies
2h8m

Independent in that they're not beholden to either side: the Israelis or the Palestinians (any faction). They're a major international news organization that has people on the ground.

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.

sim7c00
4 replies
5h24m

i am curious ig there is a valid threat in israelis reading al jazeera. or if they have any proof of any falsehoods being published there and why it would need to be shut down?. any good neutral resource around this for a non-israeli/non-palestinian person to make sense of this? from the surface this looks so grim, but i do not want to jump to conclusions... its so hard to make sense of this more and more.. and it becomes easier to beleive the wrong things.

skulk
1 replies
4h40m

It's hard to read or watch Al Jazeera's reporting on this matter without feeling utterly disgusted at how a certain military is treating a civilian population (be it in Gaza or the West Bank). They make the Israelis and the IDF look like absolute monsters.

sim7c00
0 replies
3h9m

thanks for the reply. i do feel the same, as in, i sometimes even think that way too due to the news. i dont watch al jazera, but in my country, the IDF does not come out good either... Israelis though, they dont get chucked in with the same sentiment. (im dutch, there's reports of the injustices against civilians, but no word on the general population of israel being 'bad' or something like that.)

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?)

catlikesshrimp
1 replies
4h14m

I am all agaisnt censorship, but I am ok with gagging the guy screaming fire in the theather. 90% fake news outlets fall into that category.

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

sim7c00
0 replies
3h8m

I like your analogy on the gagging of the guy screaming fire. this is a very good and clear way to put it thanks. that guy deserves a ban from the theatre for sure ;)

jay-barronville
3 replies
20h3m

As Americans, we’re constantly told, “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.” The narrative is always that they’re “our greatest ally” because we share similar values to them. Well, one of our values—in fact, a constitutionally protected one—is press freedom. Al Jazeera has been the only media/news outlet in Israel that offered the Palestinian perspective and they’ve shut it down. As a rule, you’re probably not the good guys when your tactic for winning the information war is censoring the other side—especially while you’re being accused by millions across the world of committing a genocide (whether you agree with that characterization or not).

bink
2 replies
19h29m

Of course the US just voted to ban TikTok for vague national security reasons, so maybe we do have a lot in common.

Der_Einzige
0 replies
9h30m

That TikTok ban will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

emmelaich
3 replies
15h21m

Hard to care. It's war. Is Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post available in Gaza?

locallost
0 replies
12h45m

Tough look for the "only democracy in the middle east" if it can only get compared to a Hamas led government.

dunekid
0 replies
8h1m

If the Internet is available, then ofcourse these should be available in there. But on the contrary Al Jazeera website itself would be censored out of the Internet for Israel.

zeroCalories
1 replies
19h57m

TBH I don't care to extend charity like freedom of speech to people that don't share our liberal values. Sure, the bar should be very high for such charges, but organizations like Al Jazeera have repeatedly shown their colors.

marxisttemp
0 replies
6h27m

Ah yes, freedom of speech works best when limited only to people who share your values. Truly our greatest allies in democracy.

seydor
1 replies
21h1m

Israel doing this might not be very significant, but if other countries, e.g. Germany do the same then this seems to cross another line

bingbingbing777
0 replies
6h9m

Why does Israel get a free pass?

sampa
1 replies
21h2m

remember, when a hostile state does it - it is because they're dictatorial.

when a friendly state does it - it is because it was a threat to democracy.

don't confuse 'em

gaoryrt
0 replies
9h27m

sarcasm detected, upvote-button clicked.

ofirg
1 replies
9h25m

I support closing the offices and making them persona non grata, but blocking the site is wrong and silly, makes us look like we are afraid of words.

Ylpertnodi
0 replies
7h29m

Then why close the offices and make them png?

imchillyb
1 replies
18h25m

Is it a good idea to allow governments the power to silence journalists so completely?

I’d love to hear some perspective other than rabid politics.

dunekid
0 replies
12h9m

No.

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.

dataangel
1 replies
4h4m

I don't agree with Israel censoring websites, but important to keep in mind Al Jazeera is run by Qatar which is a monarchy without real freedom of the press, it's not CNN. They have strong regional interests and an obvious desire to shape the narrative of the conflict. They're not humanitarians.

Koshkin
0 replies
3h6m

Well, there are quite a few monarchies where people enjoy freedom of press. (You probably meant “absolute monarchy”.) On the other hand, I am not sure what the lack of freedom of press in one country has to do with these events in another. Looks like a straw man to me.)

Beefin
1 replies
21h24m

for anyone reading and wondering what qatar's intentions are with their media arm, they're the largest foreign donor of US institutions: https://tikva.so/qatar

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.

m000
0 replies
19h30m

and suddenly college students have access to thousands of $ of camping gear...

Students paying $65K/year in tuition fees can also afford a $100 tent? Must be covert Qatari funding for sure. /s

xyst
0 replies
18h25m

When you want to control the narrative. Block out any independent journalists. Use your leveraged/blackmailed journalists or state news to push propaganda.

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.

xchip
0 replies
6h0m

Thanks to HN for allowing us have this sort of conversations, talking is much needed!

surume
0 replies
12h32m

Excellent move. They were encouraging terrorism, and are funded by actors who are connected to terrorist activities. It's long overdue.

squarefoot
0 replies
10h47m

Israel started Internet censorship in 2017.[1] Initially it was limited to "terror group websites, online illegal gambling, prostitution services, hard drug sales"

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.

rajishx
0 replies
14h40m

*

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

pomatius
0 replies
16h52m

"The only middle-eastern democracy"

oytis
0 replies
11h18m

I am surprised Israel had local Al Jazeera offices in the first place.

nla
0 replies
7h31m

Here's a better question, why is this on HN?

kookamamie
0 replies
13h29m

I initially read this as "... local AI ..." and was somewhat confused.

henry2023
0 replies
20h15m

The genocide in Gaza and the subsequent full colonization of the strip during the years to come will be the most shameful event of the twentieth first century. Denying the genocide is like denying the holocaust while it was happening.

eli
0 replies
19h6m

Imagine if the US banned a site just because of baseless fears about its content and the foreign ownership of its parent company. Hmm.

cyclecount
0 replies
9h23m

Al Jazeera claims this is direct retaliation for their 7 Oct documentary which is a very thorough analysis of some of the more extreme claims made by the IDF about what happened that day. Ironically, this documentary uses the Israeli government's own information as its initial primary source (including the official record of who died that day).

The documentary can be viewed in full on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY

ThePowerOfFuet
0 replies
20h23m

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."

—George R.R. Martin

NomDePlum
0 replies
19h22m

Al Jazeera was one of the few sources of 'on the ground' journalism in Gaza.

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.

CommanderData
0 replies
13h12m

Al Jazeeras response was to say Israel is trying to cover up their crimes.

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.