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

The pro-Israel information war

jackpoulson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#271

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

jdross wrote: post #7

Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms. https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602 If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views https://twitter.com/committeeonccp/status/173279243496103143... It also seems like these platforms create (rather than support) anti-Israeli views: https://twitter.…

My subjective experience is that since Elon Musk visited Israel and met with the government a week ago, Twitter has started heavily promoting pro-Israeli accounts.

Of course, Elon Musk decided to visit Israel after he came under criticism for agreeing with a blatantly anti-Semitic Tweet,[0] so some may question how sincere Musk's sudden change of heart is.

0. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/27/tech/elon-musk-isaac-herz...

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#275

Post by VerminOctopus1 »

Unfrozen0688 wrote: post #132
pazimzadeh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he tweeted a while back the number of palestinian vs israeli children who have died since october 7 there were way more palestinian children who had died, and some didn't like that being broadcast

[flagged]

Conflating nazis and children does not seem to be the logical masterstroke you think it is.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#276

Post by pydry »

squarefoot wrote: post #166
pesfandiar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. It's a common misunderstanding, perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

> perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism. That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply…

The agenda is an overtly racist one, it is to support:

* Bibi's racist amalek "genocide the palestinians" trope.

* Ben gvir when he hangs a portrait of Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein up on his wall.

* Isaac Herzog when he calls race mixing a tragedy.

(To give an example of 3 people who obviously represent Israel, all of whom are proudly racist).

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#277

Post by mantas »

sealeck wrote: post #168
ristlane wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Criticising current Israeli government policy doesn't hold Israel to a higher standard than that of other countries. Also Israel critics also tend to be _much more likely_ to condemn the actions of other states (e.g. Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Indonensia in Papaua, etc). The issue is that the press is less interested in this and the general American public is much more interested in Israel than they are in Saudi Arabia.

Are they? There’s interesting statistics about UN human rights committee resolutions by country. Israel alone gets most resolutions.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#278

Post by wolverine876 »

EvgeniyZh wrote: post #261
master_crab wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong. But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years).…

> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)

What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.

> saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks

Who has said that?

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#279

Post by mrangle »

knd775 wrote: post #256
mrangle wrote: post #236

There was always going to be an opinion war after 1200 massacred civilians, when a large portion of the other side doesn't take the primary tack of "stop bombing Palestine" but instead "Free Palestine". This particular pro-Palestinian argument being so imprecise and tactically wrong, at this crucial time to saving the lives of Palestinians, only guarantees an unsovable hurricane of noise with no outcome but more civi…

> There was always going to be an opinion war after 1200 massacred civilians, when a large portion of the other side doesn't take the primary tack of "stop bombing Palestine" but instead "Free Palestine". The West Bank shows what happens if they only stop being bombed without actually being free. Palestine needs to be free in order for there to be peace.

Your comment implies that Palestinian civilians can't have peace until Israeli territory is ceded back to them. This is in the context of October 7th and a the current Gaza seige. It is reflective of the loudest echo in the war zone.

There won't be a single outcome but the most negative one for radicalized Palestinian civilians as a result. Hopefully, morally clearer voices will be raised higher.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#280

Post by Boogie_Man »

ajb wrote: post #246
Boogie_Man wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I legitimately don't understand what you're trying to imply. As far as I can tell it's a very indirect attempt to imply that people "having a nerve struck" over "Jews coordinating", are bad in a nonspecific way. Can you state more clearly what you mean so I can consider it?

Not the op, but "Jews secretly controlling xxx" where xxx is finance, the news, etc is a common, and very antisemitic, meme. I think the article is probably just pro Palestinian, but the fact that it's examining only propaganda on one side and not the other, even though there will be the same kind of operation on both sides because there always is , make s me also a bit suspicious of it.

I hear what you're saying, thank you for clarifying for op. I think there is a logical jump from coordinating to controlling in this instance. The article doesn't say "The Jews control the media", but rather "Here are documented instances of pro-Israeli people in positions of power coordinating to do X Y or Z".

I can understand that it might seem like an attack on Israel itself, and that an attack on Israel might actually be the intended purpose of the reporting, but it's hard for me to prioritize that over the importance of honest reporting of this sort. It's journalism that is informative and relevant, and that seems to be angering powerful people. I would like a companion peace on the propaganda war from "the other side", but this is the only one available to me at the moment. Fostering an environment in which this sort of journalism can safely be done is critical.

Post reply on HN