Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 216 posts

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#201

Post by ethanbond »

SenAnder wrote: post #182
ethanbond wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a mistake to think the current administration’s White House staffers set decades of defense and foreign aid policy.

You seem keen on implying this is limited to "the current administration's staff", but that's just what we happen to have data on. Unless proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume this over-representation is the rule, not the exception that applies only to the current admin's staff. To support this, see my other comment showing the Federal Reserve chair and political donors exhibit the same over-representation (the…

> You seem keen on implying this is limited to "the current administration's staff", but that's just what we happen to have data on. Unless proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume this over-representation is the rule

So this prevalence is an aberration compared to the base rate in the population, and therefore this aberration should be presumed to be the norm? Interesting approach.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#202

Post by ethanbond »

SenAnder wrote: post #188
ethanbond wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh huh... well I'm open to good reasons for this. All the ones that you've mentioned seem like run-of-the-mill anti-semitic conspiracy stuff: they're overrepresented in the current White House admin (an astounding 34% of a body that has unknown/unnamed/questionable impact on US policy regarding Israel), the Federal Reserve Chair has been held by Jewish folks disproportionately (relevant how?), the President's childre…

Government staff and cabinet [1] and 50% of all donations to Democrats, and 25% to Republicans [2], are not obviously relevant to US policy? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37473807 - Despite your "clear minorities" phrasing, at 7/26 cabinet positions, Jews are the largest group, followed by gentile Whites at 6, Blacks at 5, and Latinos at 3. [2] https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-o..…

Sure, that’s definitely relevant. It would be great if we could talk about the influence of money in US politics without veering through “the President’s kids married Jews” territory.

FWIW it’s not quite 50%/25% of donations, but a napkin math estimate of donated money. I.e. there are a few mega-donors (about 50) who are more likely than the general population to be Jewish.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#203

Post by omniglottal »

stareatgoats wrote: post #152
llamaimperative wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can definitively say “nope” by looking at where the unquestioned US policy support of Israel comes from. It comes from the evangelical right wing in the GOP. They are not fans of Jews per se. They are fans of going to heaven and believe that Israel is a key ingredient for doing that (when the rest of us get slaughtered in a holy war). When did 34% of the current White House staffers become responsible for decades…

> They are fans of going to heaven I can sympathize, heaven seems at least better than the other place. What I don't understand is how eschatological (which are essentially fatalistic) beliefs translate into support for Israel. In a world governed by fate it doesn't matter what you do, it's all predetermined anyway. Which seems to align more with the core Christian teachings: we should not judge (because no-one is es…

This rationale is fundamentally incorrect. God's gift of Free Will (unto Man) is specifically the power (with faith) to manifest that which is nondeterministic. Where you got this notion of determinism, and thus nonjudgment, is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#204

Post by qwytw »

ethanbond wrote: post #173
qwytw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it nonsense if half of Americans believe it? They don't though and there are way more sensible reasons which would explain US support for Israel.

80% of US Christians believe Jesus will return ( https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/09/christians-v... ) The mainstream Christian theology is that Jesus will return in order to wage war on non-believers and secure earth as the heavenly dominion of the believers ( https://www.bibleref.com/Revelation/19/Revelation-19-11.html ) This grand battle and ultimate plundering of the spoils takes place in/near Jerusal…

> The mainstream Christian theology is that Jesus will return in order to wage war on non-believers and secure earth as the heavenly dominion of the believers

That's really not the case, not in the literal sense anyway. Also pretty much all mainstream Christians do not spend any significant amount of time thinking about when will Jesus return and and what will happen then.

> Then Jesus can come with his flaming sword and slaughter ~billions of people.

I bet if you asked the pope what he thinks he'd say that's not what the Catholic faith teaches and he's literally infallible (well technically only in very specific cases but let's just ignore that since we're just saying stupid edgy stuff for no reason).

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#205

Post by weatherlite »

edanm wrote: post #190
gwd wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on that? One interpretation of "Zionism" could mean the idea that Israel should be an ethnically and religiously Jewish state that comprises the Biblical land of Israel, and that everyone else should be second-class citizens; and so simply saying that Israel should be a democracy that gives equal rights to all the people living within its borders, or that Israel should respect the Palestinian territori…

Most people don't have that much knowledge on the matter, nor do they have a very well thought-out idea of what they're actually advocating. A simple "pro-Israeli" vs "pro-Palestinian" split is kind of ridiculos, as you say - there are many interpretations of what it even means to be pro-Israel, since Israel itself is in the middle of a political crisis in which its trying to figure out this question! Having said tha…

> There are good answers given the history why this particular instantiation of Israel is a problem

Give us a few, I'm interested.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#206

Post by weatherlite »

dheavy wrote: post #92
throwaway914 wrote: post #19

I know I'm naive: I don't understand why US companies are so sensitive to respecting Israel. I don't know why our gov is so sensitive to this either. Israel - like all countries - deserves criticism, no? This can't purely be about respecting the billions spent on US weapons to defend Israel, right? I genuinely do not understand, because I think they'd happily buy from the military anyway.

Lobbying? As a secular Jew in Western Europe, I've distanced myself from my religious community due to its insistence on tying my identity to Israel. Where I live, it's less taboo to critique Israel than in the U.S., but still tricky. Advocates of Israel's right-wing politics have blurred the line between criticizing Israel and anti-Semitism, an endeavor helped by actual anti-Semites. I've grown up with these support…

> Where I live, it's less taboo to critique Israel than in the U.S., but still tricky.

Is it really so hard to "critique" Israel? I see daily calls for Israel to be abolished one way or the other (either violently with the help of Iran or with a Palestinian return). You can hear these opinions from politicians, on the news and social media, campuses and schools.

You might be labeled as a leftist as you said because this is generally a leftist stance, that's fair no? If I held a rightwing view I will probably be labeled as a right winger. Most Israelis I know think twice before they identify as Israelis in certain parts of Europe, they don't want a random cab driver to start lecturing them about apartheid (or do something worse). So I'm really intrigued why you think its such a taboo thing to criticize Israel or even openly call for its destruction.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#207

Post by weatherlite »

pydry wrote: post #200
weatherlite wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. How many Americans support the invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan ? Probably around a million dead in those two wars. Less than 10% ?

Most Americans who supported those wars naively believed that they would do more good than harm. It's not quite the same thing as considering a terrorist who shot up a mosque a hero. Hence why accusations of anti-semitism in relation to criticism of Israel usually imply that the accuser is an Islamophobic racist. This is what they're defending.

> Most Americans who supported those wars naively believed that they would do more good than harm.

Your statement implies Americans no longer support these wars, I'm sure many still think they were necessary and good. As was Vietnam and a bunch of other atrocities.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-neo-naz....

So, getting very close to 10% by this poll. And at least Israel has an existential struggle with the Palestinians/Arab world, which explains (but doesn't excuse) racism and terrorism - but what's the excuse for American racism?

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#208

Post by edanm »

weatherlite wrote: post #205
edanm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't have that much knowledge on the matter, nor do they have a very well thought-out idea of what they're actually advocating. A simple "pro-Israeli" vs "pro-Palestinian" split is kind of ridiculos, as you say - there are many interpretations of what it even means to be pro-Israel, since Israel itself is in the middle of a political crisis in which its trying to figure out this question! Having said tha…

> There are good answers given the history why this particular instantiation of Israel is a problem Give us a few, I'm interested.

I mean, Israel now is located on land that was partially owned by Palestinians. Many Palestinians were driven from their homes, partially by various Arab leaders of the region, but also by Israel itself. The Palestinians certainly have a legitimate grievance with what happened in 1948.

In addition, a lot of the occupied territories are effectively lands in which Palestinians are to some extent "imprisoned", neither having their own country, nor being granted any kind of citizenship. These lands were won in a war, true, but the standard course of action is either to return them, or to annex them, neither of which Israel has chosen to do (for obvious demographic reasons). But the end result is a situation in which millions of Palestinians were driven out of their home in 1948, and are now refugees living in territories with no self-determinance.

Israel isn't without a complicated history and a complicated existing situation. The same can be said of many countries, btw.

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#209

Post by edanm »

pydry wrote: post #197
edanm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's terrible that anyone supports any terrorist like Goldstein. It's even more terrible that Ben Gvir was elected, given his views. Though just for context, there is a huge political fight within Israel, partially because of people like Ben Gvir. It's not the whole country supporting this nonsense. And while 10% of Israelis saying he's a hero is 10% too many, I imagine it's comparable to similar numbers in other cou…

>And while 10% of Israelis saying he's a hero is 10% too many 10% is definitely enough to presume that anybody who throws out an accusation of anti-semitism in defense of Israel is racist by default. 10% is enough to presume that the illegalization of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in America is an explicitly pro-racist law. It is possible to make an accusation of anti-semitism that isn't motivated by racism. It's…

> 10% is definitely enough to presume that anybody who throws out an accusation of anti-semitism in defense of Israel is racist by default.

I'm really trying to parse your logic, and failing.

If I understand it, your chain of reasoning is:

1. Someone "defends Israel".

2. The way they do it in this specific case is by saying the other person is anti-semitic.

3. Because some people in Israel think fairly attrocious things and are racist, this implies that any defense of Israel is implicitly a defense of racism, therefore making the defender racist.

Is that the chain here? Basically, you can't defend a country in which 10% of people are racist, without yourself being racist?

If so, that chain of reasoning is pretty ridiculous. That's like someone saying they like the US, and you deciding they are racist, because in a 2013 poll, 17% of Americans were against interracial marriage. It's a huge and nonsensical logical leap to go from "some action that country X has done is OK" to "I therefore support what any subset, even as small as 10% of the country, thinks".

Re: Meta deletes Al Jazeera presenter’s profile after show criticising Israel

#210

Post by stareatgoats »

omniglottal wrote: post #203
stareatgoats wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are fans of going to heaven I can sympathize, heaven seems at least better than the other place. What I don't understand is how eschatological (which are essentially fatalistic) beliefs translate into support for Israel. In a world governed by fate it doesn't matter what you do, it's all predetermined anyway. Which seems to align more with the core Christian teachings: we should not judge (because no-one is es…

This rationale is fundamentally incorrect. God's gift of Free Will (unto Man) is specifically the power (with faith) to manifest that which is nondeterministic. Where you got this notion of determinism, and thus nonjudgment, is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.

> Where you got this notion of determinism (...) is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.

Nice try. But I'm assuming you are just unfamiliar with the history of the Christian church. Or if you just want to weigh in on the side of orthodoxy. But there is obviously a logical conflict between the notions of free will vs the deterministic aspect of religious teaching, sometimes called divine foreknowledge.

It has been the topic of more or less heated discussion up through the ages, where some people claim they have cracked the code (St. Augustine primarily). See these Wikipedia articles for a brief overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology, and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_antiquity#Christi....

Or, maybe it's mainly the link between determinism and nonjudgement that you refer to as "mental gymnastics" etc (even though that's not what you are saying)? Well, granted that's not lifted from any theology that I'm aware of. It just seems a reasonable conclusion, given the premise of a predetermined world. And maybe also a way to sneak in a reminder that religion (and Christianity in particular) is mostly about keeping track of the beam in one's own eye, rather then the mote in someone else's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

Post reply on HN