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

821–830 of 903 posts

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

#821

Post by tptacek »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #817
tptacek wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> 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. The issue is actually hotly debated. To this day, former Egyptian generals say that they only placed a force in the Sinai in order to discourage the Israelis from attacking Syria, which the Egyptians t…

In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of course, as we now know, Egypt had an actual plan to invade, with the intent of eradicating Israel; it's disputed whether Nasser knew about it or how serious that planning was, but it's not disputed that it existed --- it created a diplomatic incident between the US and the Soviet Union.

It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. The whole crisis was a shitshow of poor intelligence and bad faith (Israel's hands weren't clean either; some of the escalation, and Jordan's involvement in the conflict, probably stemmed from the Samu raid). But Israel hit Egypt because Egypt made war inevitable.

I don't think West Bank and Gaza occupation is all that complicated. We probably agree about it. Palestinians should have sovereignty and self-determination in those territories. Israeli West Bank settlements should be dismantled. But that's obviously not all people are talking about when they talk about the "occupation". We're on a thread about the "from the river to the sea". The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.

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

#822

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

tptacek wrote: post #821
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The issue is actually hotly debated. To this day, former Egyptian generals say that they only placed a force in the Sinai in order to discourage the Israelis from attacking Syria, which the Egyptians t…

In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of…

> It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense.

I don't think it's difficult at all. The force that Egypt moved into the Sinai peninsula was far too small to invade Israel, and in internal Israeli government discussions, they don't seem to have viewed Egypt as an imminent military threat.

> The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.

The problem is that the mainstream view in Israel is "from the river to the sea" (the Israeli version, of course), and that that's the de facto reality on the ground. Most of the people chanting "from the river to the sea" want a one-state solution with equal democratic rights for Arabs and Jews.

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

#823

Post by bsaul »

ethanbond wrote: post #814
bsaul wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bett…

> 2. These protestors want a single, specific priority for the protest they organized From several comments up. Seems like a sufficiently plausible explanation not to jump to as cynical and self-serving an explanation as “they think Israeli women deserve to be raped.” And I’d also not be surprised to see them kick out men’s rights activists doing the same thing. It would be excessively cynical and self-serving to jum…

that would explain the kicking out of the protest. It doesn't explain why no proeminent feminist organization marched for those israeli women that got raped.

It's not about them being pro-rape, it's about them hating israelis more than they like women in general (which is a pretty high level of hate if you're a feminist). It's pure hate and i'm not sorry you're failing to see it for what it is. "Trying to find the best argument" for someone's position only works for people that aren't hypocritical. Otherwise it's just a failed analysis.

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

#824

Post by phatskat »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #497
LtWorf wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen comments saying "yes please, show me more bombings, I love to see them die" not taken down, because "them" was palestinians. I wonder how long the comment would have been up, if it was referring to the other side instead. edit: I see from the downvotes that my experience doesn't fit your bias. Sorry people -_-

Doesn’t Facebook have a report button? I’m pretty sure comments like that would be taken down if you reported them, it’s really a no brainer whatever “them” refers to.

One of my local groups has been flooded with porn spam as of late, moderators have abandoned the group (the group was NOT for anything remotely related). I reported the group for spam and for sexually explicit content (I’m talking links with poster images of full on sexual activity, exposed genitalia, etc - the kind of stuff you expect on the homepage of any major porn site). The report was closed without action later that day. Anybody taking two seconds to look at the group would have immediately done _something_, but I’m doubtful that this report ever reached a real person.

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

#825

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

rayiner wrote: post #819
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt So it was just a coincidence that Egypt had massed troops on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and ejected UN security forces two weeks before that?

There was a build-up of tensions in the lead-up to the war, not just on the Egyptian side, but also on the Israeli side.

The Egyptians believed that the Israelis were preparing an invasion of Syria, so the Egyptians moved their own force into the Sinai peninsula, in order to deter Israel. However, the Egyptian force was nowhere near sufficient to launch an invasion of Israel.

The closing of the Straits of Tiran was politically significant, but not very economically significant. Only a tiny fraction of Israel's trade went through the straits.

The Israelis had been planning a first strike on Egypt for a long time. Whether they actually feared an imminent Egyptian invasion in June 1967 is questionable. The Israeli military was very confident of its superiority over the Arab forces, and it may have simply taken advantage of the situation to land a devastating blow against the Arabs.

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

#826

Post by lelanthran »

bitcharmer wrote: post #690
lelanthran wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world. Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?

This is not a hyperbole. It's the current state of affairs

> This is not a hyperbole. It's the current state of affairs

I should have been clearer.

The GP claims that calling for the cessation of existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by the world.

He's correct. Most of the world would consider it justified.

But ... most of the world would not consider it justified to call for the cessation of existence of an entire country and, by extension, it's people.

South Africa was the first and the defining apartheid state. People called for the cessation of existence of the state. Anyone calling for the cessation of existence of the South African country would have been considered insane.

Additionally, the argument presented by GP is invalid anyway:

1. Everyone wants an apartheid state to cease existence

2. $COUNTRY is run by an apartheid state.

3. Therefore, everyone is calling for the cessation of existence of $COUNTRY.

It's simply invalid. The presence of assertions #1 and #2 above does not lead to the conclusion #3 above.

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

#827

Post by johnnyworker »

smsm42 wrote: post #808
faeriechangling wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

Right, the defense minister is handing out assault rifles to West Bank Settlers but nobody really wants to be there.

> Israel explicitly exited Gaza because it didn't want any responsibility for it.

That is not how that works. As an occupying force they are obligated to protect the population they are occupying, not commit genocide on them. No amount of kicking up sand changes that very basic fact. It doesn't matter if they actually want what they are doing, they are guilty either way. Who gives a shit what Eichmann "actually wanted" except Eichmann?

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

#828

Post by [deleted] »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #822
tptacek wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of…

> It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. I don't think it's difficult at all. The force that Egypt moved into the Sinai peninsula was far too small to invade Israel, and in internal Israeli government discussions, they don't seem to have viewed Egypt as an imminent military threat. > The motte is the…

[deleted]

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

#829

Post by tptacek »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #825
rayiner wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt So it was just a coincidence that Egypt had massed troops on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and ejected UN security forces two weeks before that?

There was a build-up of tensions in the lead-up to the war, not just on the Egyptian side, but also on the Israeli side. The Egyptians believed that the Israelis were preparing an invasion of Syria, so the Egyptians moved their own force into the Sinai peninsula, in order to deter Israel. However, the Egyptian force was nowhere near sufficient to launch an invasion of Israel. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was p…

The Israelis were not preparing an invasion of Syria. They were led to believe so by the Soviets; the Soviets were wrong. Egypt and Syria thus mobilized unilaterally.

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

#830

Post by JamesBarney »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #822
tptacek wrote: post #821

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of…

> It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. I don't think it's difficult at all. The force that Egypt moved into the Sinai peninsula was far too small to invade Israel, and in internal Israeli government discussions, they don't seem to have viewed Egypt as an imminent military threat. > The motte is the…

I'm not aware of anyone who is familiar with the situation who think that a 1 state solution is viable. If you can point to any essays or blog posts where someone lays out, how you get the Israelis to agree with it and how you keep the 1 state from devolving into a brutal civil war I'd love to read it.

The 1 state solution turns a Palestinian self determination and Israeli security issues into an existential issue for both sides. This raises the stakes considerably. I can't see it ending in anything but 100's of thousands of dead and a complete meltdown of the middle east.

Post reply on HN