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

Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 903 posts

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#801

Post by SgtBastard »

boston_clone wrote: post #791
SgtBastard wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you but I can see why you were - your Wikipedia article doesn't support your argument - the strongest point it makes is that the UN HRC has an enquiry into Israel's actions. There's several references to various NGOs calling for action against Israel but as we've seen recently at the Harvard and other Ivy's, that's deeply murky territory. That's very, very far away from your claim that the rest of t…

Desmond Tutu alleges "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.is... Irish President accuses Israel of war crimes: https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-irelands-sinn-fein-on-the... UN Representatives from South Africa, UK, and India author report on war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mi... Israel's Attorney…

You’re now arguing in bad faith - your original claim was the world generally accepts that Israel commits war crimes and institutes apartheid.

You’ve just posted a bunch of links that reference criticisms of Israel, most of which mention neither war crimes nor apartheid. Every nation has faults and the West Bank settlements are deservedly criticised.

They are neither apartheid nor a war crime, however.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#803

Post by ajmurmann »

bjourne wrote: post #706
ajmurmann wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of those are religions and one of those is an ethnicity as well. One of those also has seen almost constant persecution during history. It's concerning that this needs to be pointed out

That's a lame excuse as if one writes "Fuck Druze" or "Fuck Yazids" Twitter does not add a warning. Besides, Christians have certainly been persecuted in Muslim countries and Muslims are certainly persecuted in Western countries.

That's the exact opposite of what I was saying. Unlike Muslims, Christians and Druze, Jews are also a ethnic groups. Write "kill blacks", "kill Asians" or "kill Uighurs" on Twitter and you'll get similar treatment

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#804

Post by seanmcdirmid »

uoaei wrote: post #766
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant, you could actually execute the experiment yourself and see what happens. You don’t have to trust me, rather just do it and find out how quickly your comment is nuked. You won’t get into any trouble other than your comment being deleted…probably. The truth is easy to discern by just running the experiment if you want, but I’m guessing you have some cognitive bias that you’d rather have confirmed instead?

Anyone could say exactly the same thing about any hot-button topic and feel as self-righteous as you. Again, it's fantasy until you back it up with something empirical.

The experiments are straight forward if someone wants to run them. But your fantasy is backed up by as much evidence as mine, we are arguing about whose anecdote is better until someone does the experiment.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#805

Post by ethanbond »

bsaul wrote: post #800
ethanbond wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i don’t have any definitive answer on that You should consider asking a few people and actually listening to their answers instead of accusing them of being pro-rape for failing to mention your topics of choice in the same breath. A lot of people end up with beliefs and attitudes by sheer inertia of those around them and will accordingly have bad answers. Some people don’t though, and they’re the ones who you can b…

I notice you still haven't given me any plausible reason. What's the "strong version" then ? the "definitive answer" was for the global historical interest on the israel/arab conflict. But once again, this is another issue than what we were talking about.

Strong reasons for why people are so interested in this conflict?

Here are a few reasons Americans seem to be so interested in it:

1. We’re paying for a decent chunk of it, both financially and in terms of international political support

2. It cross-cuts American society along very unique dimensions, creating ad-hoc coalitions between people who don’t normally collaborate very much (e.g. far right white supremacists and Zionists, or far left commies and jihadists). These coalitions are already impacting American domestic affairs and will likely influence our upcoming elections.

3. In general it’s reasonable to pay close attention to situations where a thousand people are killed in a terrorist attack under the purview of a western security apparatus or when an urban area is subject to an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign (given that they tend to be humanitarian disasters even in the best of circumstances)

4. This conflict has a very high potential to unravel into a regional and even global conflict given the networks backing each belligerent

How exactly is it odd that people care so much about the situation?

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#806

Post by tptacek »

qwertthrowway wrote: post #719
rayiner wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muslims conquered that land to begin with, so that’s kind of an important bit of context for everything that follows. And the antipathy in the rest of the Muslim world is mostly about hating Jews. In Bangladesh, where I’m from, people aren’t marching for justice for the Rohingya being genocided by Myanmar—even though Rohingya are closely related to Bangladeshis. But there are huge protests in the streets for Palestin…

The objective is an end to occupation, this is about establishing justice. it would be narrow minded and misguided to claim this is not about human rights and dignity first and foremost, which is a component of justice. People take solidarity with those being oppressed and wronged. The Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestine has been occurring for over 70 years now, and worldwide this is a galvanizing topic es…

Which occupation? Gaza (historical Filastin) and the West Bank? Or the whole of Israel? It depends on who you ask, but the most active and direct organizations working to end "occupation" take an expansive view --- hence the "river" and the "sea". When you talk about the Nakba, remember that Jewish communities in West Asia and North Africa were exiled at the same time --- the majority of the Jewish population of Israel are Mizrahi, the descendants of those exiles.

Very few things about this situation are simple.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#807

Post by tptacek »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #786
rayiner wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with the Palestinians as stateless people with no rights, is a de facto reality, and has been for 56 years now. Remind me, what was it that happened 56 years ago?

Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt, destroying virtually the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. Lacking air cover, Egyptian ground forces in the Sinai peninsula retreated, but were destroyed by the Israeli air force on the roads. Not having a clear picture of what was going on [1], the Jordanians and Syrians entered the war on Egypt's side, only to suffer a similar fate as Eg…

I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. Before the war, Egypt administered Gaza but did not claim it (Palestinians needed something like passports to transit between Gaza and Egypt proper). Jordan was almost kicked out of the Arab League for annexing the West Bank, which it claimed as territory until 1988(!).

There's no question that since the war, Israel has abused its position with respect to the West Bank in particular (it dispossessed Gazan settlers during the disengagement, but has tacitly allowed continued settlement in the West Bank). But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#808

Post by smsm42 »

faeriechangling wrote: post #798
smsm42 wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember a single instance of a mass protest on campus or in the streets, in US or in Europe or in Israel, where the protestors would demand that Israel occupies Egypt, Iraq and Syria, throw their population into the sea (or into the desert) and establish a Judaic theocracy on the freshly liberated land. I can believe that whatever is meant by "Greater Israel" among 8 billions of people would be some that sup…

There is a "Greater Israel" movement worth taking seriously, not because they have as much popular support as "From the River to the Sea" on the streets or in the campuses, but more because of the people who believe in this notion in the halls of power. People have called for the seizure of "Greater Israel" since Israel's founding[1]. The "Movement for Greater Israel"[2] was one of the parties that merged together to…

> It's not fair if we ban things in one direction and not the other

If Hamas would show around the maps, and Netanyahu would show around the maps - I'd say, no problem, let them both have their maps. That's not what Hamas is doing. Hamas has just murdered over 1300 people in Israel, after a long string of lesser murders over 18 years, and after shooting rockets into Israel day to day for all those years. And they plan to continue that - that's not my words, it's theirs. And the "from the river" slogan is an unequivocal support to all that. It's not about drawing of some map, there's not even nearly any comparison between drawing a map and murdering, raping and kidnapping people.

And of course, if you knew anything about policy in Israel, you'd know nobody there, and that includes first and foremost Netanyahu himself, and Likud under his (or anybody else's) leadership, wants to annex Palestinian territories. If anybody wanted it, it'd be done decades ago - as it happened in Jerusalem and Golan. But it's exactly the opposite of what everybody in Israel - very much including Likud, Netanyahu and anybody who is somebody in Israel politics - wants. Only people that know absolutely nothing about Israel politics beyond what they read in some hostile source, itself being derived from some unsourced reddit posting, could claim anything like that. Anybody who knows anything would laugh at it. Israel explicitly exited Gaza because it didn't want any responsibility for it. Israel explicitly signed with PLO because they didn't want to annex the West Banks and have all the Arab population there as citizens. I have no idea what's the story of that map and what was meant by it, and when and in what context it was shown, but if you know anything about what happened there in the last 100 years, you'd know annexing those territories is just the opposite of what Likud or Netanyahu want. So again, there's absolutely no comparison. So if you want, yeah, ban "Greater Israel" - because you'd be banning nothing but the figment of your imagination.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#809

Post by smsm42 »

alternative_a wrote: post #797
smsm42 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For Palestinians to say the want to be “free from river to sea” means the “genocide of Israelis”. Yes. > But, amazingly but unsurprisingly, for Israelis to say they want to be “free of Palestinians” Who says that? And more importantly, who does that? Arabs are 20% of Israel population. They have full citizenship rights. Nobody tries to be "free" of them in any way or form. I mean, there are probably people that dre…

TLDR: “‘Pre-emotive genocide’ is not genocide”.

What? Nothing in what I wrote has anything to do with that stupid claim.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#810

Post by bsaul »

ethanbond wrote: post #805
bsaul wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice you still haven't given me any plausible reason. What's the "strong version" then ? the "definitive answer" was for the global historical interest on the israel/arab conflict. But once again, this is another issue than what we were talking about.

Strong reasons for why people are so interested in this conflict? Here are a few reasons Americans seem to be so interested in it: 1. We’re paying for a decent chunk of it, both financially and in terms of international political support 2. It cross-cuts American society along very unique dimensions, creating ad-hoc coalitions between people who don’t normally collaborate very much (e.g. far right white supremacists…

i'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or not but that's not what i asked. So let me ask again more precisely : Why would a feminist movement only protest for women killed by bombing and not the ones killed and raped 2 days before , in the same region, and would on the contrary ban other feminists that wanted to also protest against those atrocities ?

You keep saying "we should ask them, there's probably a better reason for them to act like this than pure hate". So, let me ask you, what do you think that reason could be ?

Post reply on HN