Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

861–870 of 903 posts

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

#861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes the problem is most likely that a lot of people have become hamas's defenders recently for some incomprehensible reasons. when the "good guys" indiscriminately kill over 15000 children in the span of two months, I dunno what you expect but its certainly not "uncomprehensible"

These are the realities of war. There are no good guys in war.

> These are the realities of war.

The proportion of civilian casualties in Israel’s invasion of Gaza is not normal for the 21st century, and indicates a below-average regard for civilian life.

https://www.axios.com/2023/11/27/gaza-civilian-deaths-israel...

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

#862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of banning the phrase, "From the river to the sea" is that in almost every Israeli school, there are maps on the wall that show Israel extending from the river to the sea.[0] Greater Israel, extending from the river to the sea, with the Palestinians as stateless people with no rights, is a de facto reality, and has been for 56 years now. 0. This is a typical map. The only indication that there is any Palest…

> Greater Israel, extending from the river to the sea, with the Palestinians as stateless people with no rights, is a de facto reality, and has been for 56 years now. "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" in a nutshell

The "stupid game" was the British Empire gifting Palestine to a group of people who didn't even live there?

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

#863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people familiar with the situation recognize that a two-state solution is no longer viable, if it ever even was in the first place. Israeli settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have made it impossible to create a viable Palestinian state, and there is very little political will in Israel to enact a two-state solution. The one-state solution has already been implemented by the Israeli government. There…

We could spin wildly off into philosophizing here, but I responded to a narrow point made upthread, and you in turn responded to that post. To sum it up: * The untenable position the Palestinians are in today stems at least in part to the results of the Six-Day War, wherein Egypt ultimately conceded its administration of Gaza --- in which Palestinians were not full Egyptians --- to Israel, and Jordan conceded the Wes…

> months of military provocation by Syria

The Israelis were also incredibly provocative, constantly raiding neighboring Arab territory. Israel had a history of aggression against the Arab countries, such as its invasion of Egypt in 1956 and its numerous raids into Jordan and Syria.

> Had the Six-Day War (and then the Yom Kippur war, which was, like the Arab-Israeli war that preceded the Six-Day War, unquestionably a war of aggression by a coalition of Arab states against Israel) not happened, the cause of Palestine would be directed instead at/against Egypt and Jordan.

There are many false assumptions and representations here. First, the Palestinian cause was directed against Israel because Israel is the country that expelled the Palestinians from their homes, not Egypt of Jordan. Whatever complaints the Palestinians had against the Jordanians or Egyptians, those countries had not kicked them out of their villages and expropriated their homes.

Second, the First Arab-Israeli war was not a war of aggression by the Arabs. The declaration of Israeli independence was effectively a declaration of war on the Arab world. The Arabs could not accept European colonists (which the founders of Israel were in their overwhelming majority) establishing an ethnically exclusive state on Arab land. The Arab-Israeli war was preceded by massive expulsions of Palestinian Arabs from their homes by the militias that would later become the Israeli army. From the Arab point of view, the war was a defensive war against foreign colonists intent on conquering Arab land and on expelling the Arab population.

The Yom Kippur War was indeed launched by Egypt and Syria, but its aim was to reclaim Egyptian and Syrian territory that Israel had militarily occupied since 1967. At the time, the legitimacy of Egypt and Syrian aims in that war were widely recognized by the international community, which had already called on Israel to return the territory to its rightful owners.

> "From the river to the sea" implies, among other things, the dispossession of Israeli Jewish people outside the West Bank and Gaza.

Most people who use the phrase view it as a call to turn Greater Israel, which already exists in practice, into a fully democratic state with equal rights for all its inhabitants, including the Palestinian population of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. This does not imply any dispossession of Jewish Israelis, any more than the end of Apartheid in South Africa implied dispossession of white South Africans.

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

#864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could spin wildly off into philosophizing here, but I responded to a narrow point made upthread, and you in turn responded to that post. To sum it up: * The untenable position the Palestinians are in today stems at least in part to the results of the Six-Day War, wherein Egypt ultimately conceded its administration of Gaza --- in which Palestinians were not full Egyptians --- to Israel, and Jordan conceded the Wes…

> months of military provocation by Syria The Israelis were also incredibly provocative, constantly raiding neighboring Arab territory. Israel had a history of aggression against the Arab countries, such as its invasion of Egypt in 1956 and its numerous raids into Jordan and Syria. > Had the Six-Day War (and then the Yom Kippur war, which was, like the Arab-Israeli war that preceded the Six-Day War, unquestionably a…

No, they were not comparably provocative. Further, you're doing the motte-and-bailey thing again: since you can't make the case that the Arab states hands are clean with respect to Gaza and the West Bank, you've switched premises, so that all of Israel is now occupied territory. To do this, you have to ignore the comparable number of Jewish people chased out of Arab states in the same time period. It's an untenable argument.

We're deep into the thread and nobody is reading us anymore. We're not going to get anywhere with this, and certainly we're not going to resolve the Israeli-Palestine conflict here.

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

#865
post #484
post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even here there are some thoughts you are not allowed to voice. And I’m not just talking about violence/etc but calling out ideas too vigorously etc will get you censored here too. “Flamewar style” is the trope used to justify it. and in general this site also has a massive trend of people who are losing a debate leaning in to rules-lawyering as a means of suppressing disagreement etc. “sorry sir you’re not allowed t…

> and in general this site also has a massive trend of people who are losing a debate leaning in to rules-lawyering as a means of suppressing disagreement etc. Is this specific to or more prevalent on this site though? Seems like common human/business behaviour. If you can’t win on merit, win on technicality, etc.

You're correct, it is common. However, it's the sell. That is, HN sells itself on not being The Common; perhaps even better than The Common. So the irony is, those defaulting to such nonsense should be the ones being down voted (for violating the community standard), and instead they take up the role of The Down Vote Police and/or disingenuous countering arguments.

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

#866
post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples of this? That hasn't been my experience but that may just be the communities I frequent.

Here's a good one from Twitter: https://x.com/hgmeryem/status/1739710696693125432?s=20 I see posts like that all the time.

Another: https://x.com/Hamaddabh/status/1739630849723646415?s=20

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

#867
post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like most arguments in controversial topics, there are good versions of the argument and bad ones. It behooves everyone not to use the bad arguments to outright dismiss the good ones.

I agree with your point, however in this case i think it's important to pinpoint the hypocrisy of some people. You can't blame israel for oct 7, ask them to stop their ongoing operations in gaza, not call for the release of hostages, not say a word about the women raped by hamas and gaza civilians, AND pretend to "just want to spare the civilians population". Those people are in practice siding for the hamas, even if…

More to the point, Israel can't indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians (including Israeli civilians) and torture civilian hostages while claiming they care about civilian lives, and still remain plausible to the world.

Indeed, this hypocrisy is even more important to point out. Do you believe Israeli civilians bear collective guilt for Israel's ongoing war crimes, like you believe Palestinian civilians do?

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

#868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> months of military provocation by Syria The Israelis were also incredibly provocative, constantly raiding neighboring Arab territory. Israel had a history of aggression against the Arab countries, such as its invasion of Egypt in 1956 and its numerous raids into Jordan and Syria. > Had the Six-Day War (and then the Yom Kippur war, which was, like the Arab-Israeli war that preceded the Six-Day War, unquestionably a…

No, they were not comparably provocative. Further, you're doing the motte-and-bailey thing again: since you can't make the case that the Arab states hands are clean with respect to Gaza and the West Bank, you've switched premises, so that all of Israel is now occupied territory. To do this, you have to ignore the comparable number of Jewish people chased out of Arab states in the same time period. It's an untenable a…

I don't see any motte-and-bailey argument. You said that the First Arab-Israeli War was an Arab war of aggression. I responded.

> all of Israel is now occupied territory

This isn't the point I was trying to make. All of Israel was taken from the Arabs - unjustly so. However, I was simply responding to your claim about the First Arab-Israeli War, and when I speak about the "occupied territories," I'm referring to the territories that Israel conquered in 1967, not the 1948 territories.

> since you can't make the case that the Arab states hands are clean with respect to Gaza and the West Bank

Why am I supposed to make that case?

> To do this, you have to ignore the comparable number of Jewish people chased out of Arab states in the same time period.

Jewish people were chased out of Arab countries following the establishment of the state of Israel, and to a large extent, as a result of the establishment of Israel and the antisemitic reaction it caused in the Arab world. The expulsion of Jewish people from the Arab world in the 1950s onwards did not retroactively justify the expulsion of the Arab population from what became Israel in 1948.

> No, they were not comparably provocative.

Launching major raids into Jordan, invading Egypt in concert with France and Britain in 1956 - those are pretty provocative moves.

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

#869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they were not comparably provocative. Further, you're doing the motte-and-bailey thing again: since you can't make the case that the Arab states hands are clean with respect to Gaza and the West Bank, you've switched premises, so that all of Israel is now occupied territory. To do this, you have to ignore the comparable number of Jewish people chased out of Arab states in the same time period. It's an untenable a…

I don't see any motte-and-bailey argument. You said that the First Arab-Israeli War was an Arab war of aggression. I responded. > all of Israel is now occupied territory This isn't the point I was trying to make. All of Israel was taken from the Arabs - unjustly so. However, I was simply responding to your claim about the First Arab-Israeli War, and when I speak about the "occupied territories," I'm referring to the…

Egypt and Syria mobilized on Israel's borders in May of '67. You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier. And this appears to be the best argument you've got, since you keep making it. Let's disengage?

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

#870
post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> defense minister is handing out assault rifles to West Bank Settlers but nobody really wants to be there. The right to self defense is one of the basic human rights. "Human" here includes Jews, to the surprise of many. Israeli government committed a grave mistake of disarming the population in dangerous areas, thinking people do not need to defend themselves, since it's the job of the government. That cost hundreds…

> The right to self defense is one of the basic human rights. "Human" here includes Jews, to the surprise of many.

Oh sure, anyone who criticizes Nazi mentality and behaviour in Israelis hates Jews.

Nope. Leibowitz was right, and your mental gymnastics just underline that.

Meanwhile: "Palestinians under attack as Israeli settler violence surges in the West Bank"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67173344

Post reply on HN