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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#921

Post by rendall »

valianteffort wrote: post #323
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.

The term "anti-semetic" is in and of itself "anti-semetic". It obfuscates the fact that palestinians are true semites by conflating itself with any anti-jewish sentiment or criticism. The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely d…

Nah. The term Semitic was coined to refer to a class of languages, not people. The term anti-Semite was used by anti-Semites such as Heinrich von Treitschke and the Antisemetic League to describe their anti-Jew stance. This is the word as it means today.

The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#922

Post by skybrian »

adastra22 wrote: post #897
skybrian wrote: post #380

Despite all this, as a casual observer, my general impression is Israel has done terribly at making the case for war, and specifically the kind of war their military seems to be carrying out. The most relevant comparison seems to be with the Russians. Russia has no credibility in the West and Israel is rapidly losing any they had, at least with younger people. My general impression is of a Russian-level intensity of…

Are you serious? They were attacked first and invaded, experiencing the equivalent of Pearl Harbor + 9/11 together in relative terms, or in absolute terms the 2nd worst terrorist attack EVER. Entire communities viciously wiped out, and hundreds of hostages taken, followed by a barrage of thousands of rockets on the cities of Israel. I'm at a loss of words. What kind of explanation are you missing?

Yes, they were attacked first and that’s a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, this is the time to do it, while they have the support of the public.

However, as we saw after 9/11, that doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever war a government proposes is a good idea. A counter-attack could still be foolish or unnecessarily brutal (as it seems to be). It might still result in a strategic failure.

The kind of explanation I’d be interested in would be why the way Israel is prosecuting this war is something the US (and other countries) should support.

(Your comment is about what Hamas did, and that’s a different sort of thing than a justification for what the Israel military is doing.)

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#923

Post by mhalberstram »

adastra22 wrote: post #896
mhalberstram wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not confirm your claim that Hamas called for murdering Jews globally. Could you please share a source? My feeling is that media controlled by people - like TikTok - tend to be pro-Palestinian, whereas media controlled by institutions tend to be pro-Israeli (with the exception of the majority of ONGs and human right organizations). > it gets amplified by 1.8 billion people whose holy book calls for attacks on…

Article 7 of the Hamas charter.

Sounds lighter than the Nation-State laws in Israel to me. For reference:

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

> Article 7:

> The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Natio...

> 1 — Basic Principles

> A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

> 7 — Jewish Settlement

> A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#924

Post by dartharva »

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.…

I would take the "Pro-Israeli" views coming out of India with a heavy grain of salt.

The tweets you see of "India Israel" and the like are largely from troll farms intending to use the event to antagonize local Muslims that fall on the opposite part of the political spectrum they support. The average Indian is neither aware of the nuances of the overall conflict nor does he care, since it actually has extremely little to do with his daily life.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#925

Post by oytis »

A1kmm wrote: post #521
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.…

I think the fundamental assumption of the analysis that there are two mutually exclusive groups, 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestine' is flawed. It is possible to simultaneously support the interests of Palestinian and Israeli civilians (and support a peaceful Israel within the 1967 boundaries), while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties) and Hamas. I think it is cur…

I think this position is a small minority in the public opinion, and is virtually non-existent in Arab countries. It doesn't help that moderate supporters of two state solution make little effort to distance themselves from the "from the River to the Sea" Israel hating crowd.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#926

Post by roflyear »

hypeit wrote: post #3

If I'm ever fired for taking a pro-Palestinian stance, I will spend the rest of my life suing everyone involved. The capital community has crossed so many lines in their witch hunt for pro-Palestinan voices that it's not even funny. Our industry has reached a breaking point and I'm not sure what's going to happen since most of the VCs are extremely pro-Zionism and a huge portion of people under the age of 45 are pro-…

I definitely have a client who would fire us if I said anything remotely against Israel.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#927

Post by adastra22 »

skybrian wrote: post #922
adastra22 wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? They were attacked first and invaded, experiencing the equivalent of Pearl Harbor + 9/11 together in relative terms, or in absolute terms the 2nd worst terrorist attack EVER. Entire communities viciously wiped out, and hundreds of hostages taken, followed by a barrage of thousands of rockets on the cities of Israel. I'm at a loss of words. What kind of explanation are you missing?

Yes, they were attacked first and that’s a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, this is the time to do it, while they have the support of the public. However, as we saw after 9/11, that doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever war a government proposes is a good idea. A counter-attack could still be foolish or unnecessarily brutal (as it seems to be). It might still result in a strateg…

Do you think the NATO invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was not a good idea? You are free to your opinion, and there are those idealists who believe such, but it would be counter to widespread consensus. The faults people have with the war on terror were/are (1) the two-decade-long occupation that followed, and (2) the completely unrelated war with Iraq.

But invading Afghanistan to capture/kill the al Qaeda organization, to prevent another 9/11? It is widely understood that the US was in the moral right and on the right side of international norms for its policy actions in 2001-2002.

If one accepts that, then how is what Israel is doing in Gaza any different?

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#928

Post by selfmodruntime »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #140
ristlane wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m not holding them to a higher standard. Imagine if you will someone going to start large scale bombing NYC. Or London. Or Rome. The Hamas attack was unprecedented and horrific. I don’t know that it justifies declaring all out war on and entire city. I can say that without being anti-Semitic.

If repeated terrorist attacks from the government of another neighboring country are not a valid reason to declare war, what is?

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#929

Post by nailer »

A1kmm wrote: post #521
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.…

I think the fundamental assumption of the analysis that there are two mutually exclusive groups, 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestine' is flawed. It is possible to simultaneously support the interests of Palestinian and Israeli civilians (and support a peaceful Israel within the 1967 boundaries), while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties) and Hamas. I think it is cur…

> while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud

This is a surprising statement as I haven’t heard of such an event happening and I’ve followed these events fairly closely.

When was the civilian massacre? Do you have a source? Or did you make it up?

> peaceful Israel within the 1967 boundaries

Israel was previously peaceful within the 1967 boundaries, in 1967. Arab states tried to destroy it in 1967 and again in 1973, resulting in Israel gaining land, something arab states now blame on Israel.

Re: The pro-Israel information war

#930

Post by skybrian »

adastra22 wrote: post #927
skybrian wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they were attacked first and that’s a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, this is the time to do it, while they have the support of the public. However, as we saw after 9/11, that doesn’t necessarily mean that whatever war a government proposes is a good idea. A counter-attack could still be foolish or unnecessarily brutal (as it seems to be). It might still result in a strateg…

Do you think the NATO invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was not a good idea? You are free to your opinion, and there are those idealists who believe such, but it would be counter to widespread consensus. The faults people have with the war on terror were/are (1) the two-decade-long occupation that followed, and (2) the completely unrelated war with Iraq. But invading Afghanistan to capture/kill the al Qaeda organiza…

I’m hoping for a utilitarian justification, not something in terms of moral rights. The problem with a moral right to war, while traditional, is that it seems to make whatever follows permissible? Sort of a get-out-of-jail free card for atrocities.

You do make a utilitarian justification with your claim that attacking al Qaeda helped to prevent another 9/11 attack. I haven’t studied it enough to know whether it did that. There have been similar terrorist movements since then. Perhaps increases in airline security did more against that particular attack?

Also, al Qaeda was hiding in the mountains, not under a city. The consequences for civilians are different enough that I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.

For historical background about changing attitudes towards civilian casualties, Bret Devereaux’s latest post [1] seems pretty good.

[1] https://acoup.blog/2023/12/08/fireside-friday-december-8-202...

Post reply on HN