This story does everything other than show a single example of hate speech and inciting violence posts being a "slippery concept" or a single example of Israel asking for something to be removed that doesnt directly incite violence.
I cant imagine someone thinking a video of a cleric waving a knife telling his followers to stab Jews or of little kids being taught to stab jews as being slippery or possibly interpreted as not inciting violence.
The only thing mentioned is that Israel will help Facebook identify violence inciting posts...not hate speech, not political speech, strictly violence inciting posts...and the Author goes out on a massive limb to paint a picture of censorship and abuse of power and finger pointing at other offenders... remove any calls to violence...especially when you can directly link it to actual violence!
Edit: updated quotes
The point is that there now exists backchannels between governments and corporations who control modern communication, and those backchannels are being used to censor anything.
The content of the messages does not matter one iota, they could have the best intentions in the world. The slippery slope is that we have people in power making decisions without checks and balances, and especially without the checks and balances we already have in place. Even assuming intentions pure as driven snow eventually those backchannels will be abused. It is a matter of when, not if.
That is the slippery slope.
1. Israel isn't censoring anything. They are offering to help Facebook identify content that FB already determined they will remove(inciting violence.)
2. Governments in every country already control communication, Working directly with Facebook is a step towards less government control, not more.
3. The article mentions that hate speech is a slippery topic, not slope. The article is NOT saying abuse might happen in the future, it is saying that determining what is hate speech or inciting violence is slippery implying its arbitrary and subjective...but inciting violence is not subjective at all IMHO, which all that is being discussed.
4. This idea that slippery slope and the importance of free speech is absolute is ridiculous! In my opinion, that all flies out the window when someones life is at stake. Period. Saving a Life is more important than theoretical slippery slopes.
Yes, abuse is always a risk, but in my opinion, I would rather elected officials, we can vote out, be the ones who we are trusting over a corporation that we have absolutely no say or control over.
Facebook's ability to manipulate, control and influence the world is WAY MORE TROUBLING TO ME THAN AN ELECTED (AND ACCOUNTABLE) OFFICIAL's ability to potentially abuse power!
Edit: added the word NOT to point 3.
These backchannels exist between all governments and all media outlets.
Wasting my breath because this comes up so often, but this is not in any way true.
I agree with you though.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr...
Real hate speech and real inciting of violence is obvious to the naked eye. It doesn't need a house of cards built under it to come into focus.
Edit: Just to be clear, the original article says nothing about Israel helping censor hate speech, just speech that incites violence. There is nothing slippery or subjective about "calling on the public to stab Israeli's and Jews in the streets"
I've had my differences with Mr. Greenwald over the years. But he's exactly right about this. I cannot imagine a clearer or more concise statement of the essential issue here at hand.
Having that said, and I'm all for free speech, but a post calling to use a better knife to inflict more damage on an ethnic group (I'm not making this up: http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-h...) should probably be legitimately removed. (and it was removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter)
Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis.
Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this:
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do...
Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed. How do they decide what is illegal? they let their legal department interpret it I assume, or wait to be sued and then decide (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...)
Still, Facebook should handle it as it handles things anywhere else. Maybe Israel have some good examples of content that should have been removed, but in most cases it has been removed, so basically Facebook is outsourcing moderation to the Israeli Government because they don't have enough moderators that can read Arabic or just not enough manpower? No matter if it's justified or not, a government should not meddle with the moderation operations of a global public platform.
Of the new generation of social networks, Instagram is owned by Facebook, Snapchat's CEO is Episcopalian, and Tumblr is owned by Yahoo. So 5 out of 7 are under Jewish control.
So much for all the Constitutions, right to free speech and what have you. The tiniest bout of bad weather makes them go away in a jiffy, if you let our governments decide. One bad day, and we're back to burning witches, because that's still the best PR campaign for any ideology.
Comparing the deaths of massive numbers of civilians to Facebook posts is tone-deaf at best.
It's a real concept with reasonable meaning- digital revolution, digital uprising, etc. Not necessarily related to the first and second initfadas, the historical events.
However posts, in this case critical of the Israeli or Palestinian governments, that criticize actions of public figures and organizations should be protected as free speech.
So, when the POTUS is going to start drumming up support for the next war, Facebook should block him, her supporters, and the media puppet-show that will cheer-lead this adventure?
What about Israeli settler groups? They use violence to take land from its owners. Should they also be blocked?
Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force.
Israeli leftist organizations constantly try to publish the deals knowing that it would result in likely deaths as the penalty of selling land to a Jew (not Israeli but a Jew) under PA law is death, and if the PA doesn't get to you the neighbourhood mob will.
The Israeli settlements especially around the B areas are a problem but it's less the settlement itself and more the supporting infrastructure associated with, primarily the fact that the Israeli armed forces have to step in and provide protection.
Israeli settlement policy is inconsistent they are actively dismantling the smaller settlements and supporting the big ones, however there is also a perception issue every time there is some headlines of 100,000 homes being built it's a gross and intentional misrepresentation of the facts; since they account for every construction permit as a housing unit even if it's a permit to change the porch or move the sidewalk, and there seem to be complete disregard to the difference between E. Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks which are effectively cities and the smaller settlements which spawn sporadically (and often dismantled) deeper within the west bank.
Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what it can and cannot bring down on its property? Feeling unhappy about their heavy handedness? Just stop using FB.
If you see my comments history, you will know that I actually despise FB a lot - but on this issue, I not only feel sorry for them, but I am a little surprised by the double standards.
Question for those who are now suggesting that government of country X should decide what is best to allow on FB's private property (remembering that FB would want to play it safe and in their ideal world would prefer that FB resembles Disneyland where people just wave and smile and buy expensive stuff)
1. Which government?
2. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact opposite view on the censorship?
3. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right thing?
Is there anyone here who is actually surprised a government pounced on the first sign of placation from FB to now demand things which should be best left to FB's discretion? And do you honestly think the governments of other countries are not queueing up with their demand next?
And let us suppose that FB does follow some government's diktat, and takes some action which somehow counterintuitively worsens the situation somehow? Would you all then personally also take responsibility for the consequences? Here is what everyone will say at that point: well, no one can predict the future, and of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion.
And what about this statement: "All of this underscores the severe dangers of having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny number of unaccountable tech giants."
No company has any more power on these matters than that which we give them, often willingly. They certainly exploit it, but why is the article talking about this as if FB sent its troops to scatter people who had gathered for public discourse? In your mind, maybe FB's censorship looks the same - but that is only true if you are left with no alternatives. Public discourse has not been "overtaken", people just want to have their cake (undisturbed expression of thoughts) and eat it too (on property that does not belong to them, or to the public).
I noted before, but FB should have been left alone to bring down any post it wanted, as long as it consistently enforces its rules even if you feel the rules are too naive and simplistic (e.g. nude picture of child).
As a Jew, active on HN for years, I have not seen this to be the case at all.
I have seen sporatic posts that appeared biased or racist on both sides of the aisle...definitely not more or less than exists in the real world... and certainly not enough to generalize about YC at all.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12488743 and marked it off-topic.
The author is suggesting censorship is good and bad at the same time. ;)
And I have "occupation" in quotes because of this (or do your own research, you will find many similar articles): http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-t...
Your second point is unrelated to the topic and runs counter to the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice.
The United Nations is one of the most corrupt political entities so their stance is of dubious value IMHO.
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and...
Edit: If you have a lot of pro Israeli friends and didn't care to check outside of that thats not my fault (feel free to check, some of you might be delighted to see all the hate against Israelis that exists there ;-)
One were full of hate messages towards Israelis.
The other one were full of hate messages towards Palestinian Arabs.
One were closed almost immediately.
One were not.
Care were taken to make sure they were exactly similar.
Sources:
https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+grou...
(Please note that Facebook admitted this to be the case.)
What about a post that calls for women to vote? Or for black people to sit in the front of the bus?
That sounds like a recipe for abuse. It would be more reasonable to only ban enticing violence, for example.
So, professional wrestling?
What about illegal actions like downloading copyrighted material? Depicting Muhammad? Criticising president Erdogan?
They don't. The government does. Which is why even that simple rule is submission to an external, uncontrollable force. The right approach is to sort out your own internal values (free speech, or rule of law, or whatever) and act accordingly to that internal principle.
For example, if you believe certain speech should not be censored, and officials in the country you operate in disagree, you can cease operations or fight back. This approach has been taken by many in China.
Or, if you acknowledge the legitimacy of the local government, and your values say that means ALL its edicts and claimed jurisdiction, then you might collaborate fully.
Or there might be something in the middle. The point is that your internal values guide, not anything else. Retain personal sovereignty and/or corporate responsibility.
"[G]uarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Should blaming Islam, the religion, for disseminating hate be considered hate speech? Islam does exactly that, the Coran having passages that are hateful and truth be told, we can all see what happens when such a religion ends up being followed by extremists with the ability to buy guns. Sure you can blame those nutjobs, but then again, they wouldn't have such an easy time recruiting if we wouldn't be so tolerant of Islam being taught in schools.
Now don't get me wrong, because our own Old Testament also has passages containing hate speech and our religion is also guilty of crusades and murders, but thankfully we outgrew them. Religion, at least in the hands of the uneducated masses, is poison and should have no manifestation in public life outside the places of worship. And on Israel I have nothing against them, except that I think the oppressed became the oppressors, being guilty of unjustified crimes against Palestinians, financed by the tax-payers in the west no less.
Now, should I be allowed to say any of this? Isn't this hate speech? And if it should be censored, then why?
Just because it is illegal? Illegal for whom? In many countries you're allowed to say the above, whereas in other countries it is illegal. Should Facebook just ban everything that's illegal somewhere in this world?
They are clearly doing just that. You know, in Europe pictures of nude children aren't so taboo. In fact I bet most parents down here have pictures of their children nude and you can see nude children aged six and below on most beaches.
Did you, really? Have you looked at the gay-bashing that Christians indulge in? Or how about actively encouraging the destruction of Palestinian property and removal (even murder) of Palestinians, simply because they believe that "Jesus" won't reappear unless all of Palestine is ruled by Jews??
(I will add: if you could plausibly argue that media owners tended to be Catholic, or vegetarian, or Scottish, or whatever, I think you should be able to express concerns about how that would affect discourse without being called a bigot; and likewise here. So I do not condemn your comment. But no group of people are a hivemind.)
While the enterprises named were founded or headed by individuals with Jewish ancestry, there is not much else of significance being said. The statement implies that "Jewish control" is a meaningful idea, but it is not.
First of all, Jews are a very heterogeneous group and vary considerably ethnically, religiously and politically. There is absolutely no central Jewish "authority", and Jews hold very diverse views on all topics. Secondly, imagining there's communication among the 5/7 CEO's to coordinate their corporate policies on the basis of any "Jewish agenda" is in tinfoil territory, and absurd in the extreme. Finally if the commenter is implying there's some kind of built-in, genetic "Jewish worldview" that predisposes to disfavored corporate policies, that's obviously fallacious.
The motivation for making such assertions is unclear, indeed what the writer hoped to communicate is equally foggy. However, the comment emits an aura of antisemitism, as if attempting to attribute undesirable corporate behavior to the mere fact of CEO's presumed Jewish origins. I believe that represents troublesome prejudice that needs to be discouraged.
It's Randi Zuckerberg, Mark's sister, who's the "super Jew" (her words). [1] She organizes trips to Israel for tech executives and supports AIPAC. She heads Zuckerberg Media.
The Facebook censorship seems to be a response to pressure from Israel.[1]
[1] [http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/randi_zuckerb...]
[2] http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...
And "jewish control" sounds really negative.
>UK news organisations are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing ban preventing foreign correspondents from crossing into the Gaza Strip, more than two weeks after Israel's military offensive against Hamas began.
>After months of attempting to limit access, the Israel Defence Forces are still refusing to open the Erez crossing they closed on 27 December, when the bombing campaign began, to anything other than humanitarian aid – despite a supreme court ruling ordering the government to allow members of the international press into Gaza.
>David Mannion, the ITV News editor-in-chief, branded the Israeli media ban "disgraceful", while Dominic Wagthorn, the Sky News Middle East correspondent, said the "unprecedented" level of interference was "very frustrating".
It doesn't matter what country it is.
Or put another way, if you support this, you also (whether you realize it or not) support China, Iran, the UAE, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. doing the same thing. Think you don't? Just wait for the arguments after one of those does something awful.
This is a tug of war between cultures, all sides are culpable.
No one in the west or elsewhere was claiming that Egypt or Jordan were occupying Palestine, no one in the west objected Egypt shelling Gaza pretty much every other night, and no one dragged Jordan to the Hague for Black September, ironically enough the "Black September" terrorist organization which murdered the Israeli athletes during the Munich olympics was named for a terrible event that Israel had nothing to do with, but instead of going to attack Jordanian athletes for the 20,000 Palestinians that the Jordanian army butchered they went after the Israeli delegation.
Wonder how much of that selective reporting is Omidyar vs. the journalists.
As Facebook stated, there is no way to please everyone on this. Even a simple policy of "we censor nothing" is bound to piss off huge numbers of people and many governments
That doesn't necessarily equate to antisemitism but doesn't exclude it either. Anti-Israel sentiment is often associated with strains of "social liberalism"[0] and related political positions, leading to anti-Israel comments being made in the context of policy discussion.
OTOH HN readers have shown keen interest in Israeli technological developments. At times praise for their successes has been evident, so obviously not all comments about Israel are negative. I've had the idea there are distinct subsets of HN users with different attitudes. Depending on the subject matter, one or another group is more inspired to add comments.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
Edit: added reference
Really makes you think, huh?
This is neither a real event nor a reasonable use of terms. It is an abuse of terminology to engender in the reader a particular set of emotions, which leads to a desired set of actions.
In politics, language matters.
> In a simple test, the organization tracked down two existing Facebook pages – one pro-Israeli, and one pro-Palestinian – and uploaded content to each that was rife with incitement to violence and hate.
Sample size of two is just another anecdote.
Anyone who's reported large numbers of Facebook pages - like https://twitter.com/monteiro, who's been on a anti-gun sale campaign - knows getting a page taken down often depends on the random reviewer assigned to the case. I've personally reported the same page several times before someone at FB says "yep, deleted".
naive
While a relationship between Facebook and Israel seems strong. How does it affect posts that are critical to Israeli policy? For example, if I post something that highlights activity that is illegal according to the UN how is Facebook to justify the removal of that post?
Facebook's interests in Israel are independent of religious considerations, that is, if FB wants to do business there, it needs to be responsive to government requirements. I assume that applies to any similar business operating in that environment ownership notwithstanding.
I imagine Randi Zuckerberg's attachment to Israel might increase FB's desire to be in that market, but that's a side issue. I can't see how that affects the business relationship with the government at all. Seems quite clear the government's priority is security, religion or censorship are not the motivation for the actions taken.
Even that is arguably not true. The only real responsibility of a director is to not act in his or her own self interest to the detriment of the company.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
I guess my first point would be that I said, "fiduciary responsibility" not legal obligation.
I really loved this quote at the end... "the idea that good decisions are the product of orderly processes – is more alive than ever in public affairs. ...There is not, and never will be, such a science. Our objectives are typically imprecise, multifaceted and change as we progress towards them – and properly so. Our decisions depend on the responses of others, and on what we anticipate these responses will be. The world is complex and imperfectly known, and this will remain true however much we analyse it."
Why is what? Why did I interpret this as what the author was saying? Why is censorship generally implemented in a biased way?
If the former, based on the way the article was written, I interpreted that phrase as saying that FB is worrying about censoring one side of Isreali-Palestinian, but not the equivalent views on the other side.
And that leads to the conclusion of the latter question above, which is that this is how it generally goes with censorship. We generally only want to censor opposing viewpoints, but not our own views which are often logically equivalent (because being so emotionally invested in our own viewpoints and only being able to see the world from our own vantage point does not allow us to see the opposing views as logically equivalent). That is one-sided and logically inconsistent, but is human nature.
I wasn't saying anything about what should be illegal and what should not, only that I think you misinterpreted what the author was trying to convey.
Some people call that integrity or being self-aware: only doing things that you don't regret. I don't have to explain this, right?
I was thinking more along the lines of stealing US nuclear tech, false-flagging, attacks on US, high-level espionage and "turning" top government officials, negotiating for top posts, etc. Or the whole "mess with us and we'll nuke the world" stance. Behaviour that's unbecoming of such a close ally, and that would be more expected to be coming from North Korea (if they had the resources). Maybe "everyone" does this kind of stuff, but these ones are public knowledge yet bringing them up is usually reacted to very negatively.
Maybe? are you kidding me? How do you think the UK and France got their Nukes? The UK pretty much stole the designs from the Manhattan project because the US wasn't in a sharing mood (even tho the UK gave them the early and flawed weapon designs), so did the French, (Dutch, Greeks, Italians, and pretty much everyone else at the same time that wanted a bomb).
As for spying goes everyone spies it's one of the supporting pillars of modern politics and diplomacy, the US constantly spies on Israel, Israel spies on the US. The UK, France, Germany, Turkey, South Korea, Japan and even freakin Australia spy on the US and everyone else. Espionage isn't a question of will or morality it's a question of resources, and the US spies more than anyone on everyone, so using your argument the US is North Korea to all of NATO and the entire world.
The level of spite you seem to hold towards a single country is simply irrational regardless of how you try to rationalize it, Israel never threatened to nuke the world, I think you are confusing it with some other countries, including a country that pushed for MAD which most of the world seen as the most pretty freaking immoral thing invented and the only reason it worked is because while the soviets were appalled by that idea they had no choice but to comply or risk being on the receiving end of a first strike.
well US is crystal-clear on this - they let Israelis do almost anything they want. Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Europe probably goes +-in same footsteps. I mean, it's the only +- western society that for sure won't go jihad way against west in very lucrative and rich region. they need them and vice versa, business as usual.
that said I must say I have big respect for them for striving in such a hostile environment. or maybe it's exactly because of that - growth due to challenge and whatnot
Jewish concentration camps fired 100,000 rockets into German cities? I never knew, it certainly explains a lot.
But look at matters of scale. In Islamic theocracies, it is frequently illegal and the punishments severe. Even in attitudes, the numbers are really, really bad. Compare these two polls, one of predominantly Islamic countries and one of America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world). Obviously the US still has some work to do, but it's way ahead on this issue.[0] [1]
[0]: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...
[1]: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...
*edit: Typo, and added a qualifier
The only reason its not illegal in much of the US (and, actually, the laws prohibiting it are on the books in a number of states but unenforceable due to federal action) is that would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors. Which is a certainly a good sign for the US, but hardly consistent with the idea that Islam is uniquely problematic and that Christianity has "outgrown" the same kind of repressive tendencies.
> America (arguably the most Christian nation in the world)
Maybe the most Christian first-world state with an area greater than 110 acres, but certainly not the most Christian nation in the world.
>would be Christian theocrats have been defeated by other political actors.
What happens to the people in Islamic theocracies that try to challenge the religious status quo?
And which more Christian nation did you have in mind? Maybe we can dig up something on attitudes there if you think it's a more accurate comparison.
But on a more serious note, the opinions of Supreme Courts have very strong moral force, express well-fashioned legal reasoning, and are frequently cross-cited between nations.
> except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
The Israeli government claims they were "likely to incite" such action. Should they have to prove it in a court, for each separate comment posted, before they can ask Facebook to remove that comment? Clearly that would never scale; it's suitable for books, not for Internet forum comments. What do you think would be reasonable here?
Yes, absolutely, without any doubt or qualification of any kind. "Scalability" is not even an applicable concept.
If Facebook wishes to collaborate with a government, as in this case, that fact establishes a sufficient nexus with the state that invokes the same standard of scrutiny.
In other words, if Facebook acts as the agent of the government, it is subject to the same restrictions as the government. In which case, each and every removal constitutes a specific deprivation of an individual's free speech, and thus must be treated as the extremely grave action that it is.
Your position is suitable for cattle, not humans.
Edit in reply:
True civility is defending the values of the civil.
You are advocating a dangerous and amoral position, and I will not shy away from opposing that position directly.
One may hide behind soothing phrasing and call it "civility," but when advocating censorship, they should always be met with a swift and unwavering response.
Criticizing Erdogan is illegal in Iran. Depicting Mohammed can get you imprisoned or killed in the middle east.
The Egyptians actually fire across the border, flood tunnels with sewage, and without going out on a full on assault do pretty much the same thing the Israelis do but since it's Egypt (almost) no one is reporting on it.
Gaza is a part of a separate sovereign state, with which Israel has tense foreign relations and is within its rights to control exports. and they're posting border guards for those exiting it. It's legally no different from inspections that take place at U.S./Mexico border checkpoints.
> They also reserve the "right" to invade Gaza whenever necessary
Source?
> while keeping the population locked in
Source? No country is obligated (except for E.U. member states) to allow the free flow of people without visas. The only thing I've read which might qualify for this claim is naval blockade of the coastline.
> The whole world agrees that it constitutes an occupation
Gaza? Source?
The creation of support infrastructure, and the need to defend it is an obvious consequence of settlements - just like the obvious consequence of that defense is the partitioning of Palestinian land, military checkpoints, disruption of freedom of travel, arbitrary detention, and the occasional excursion and killings.
These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.
The average sale is over 50 times the value of the property.
>A camp prisoner selling their personal property, or their talents to a prison guard is not a fair exchange of value either.
Your analogy is really really wrong.
>These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.
That is a correct statement, but if you actually deconstruct it the argument isn't the one you are trying to make.
Without the violence towards Jews the settlements would not be needed at all, if a Jew can buy a house in Hebron which had a vibrant Jewish community up to it's slaughter during the Arab revolts at the end of the 19th century and live there in peace and quiet there would be no need to call it a settlement.
Many of these "settlements" aren't towns, they aren't cities, they are apartments that were purchased in a town where Jews used to live and were driven out. This includes places like Hebron and Jerusalem, because according to the press and some people a Jewish family moving into a house in E. Jerusalem is a new settlement, or at least an expansion of an existing one.
If Jews could live there without the fear of violence there would be no reason for the "infrastructure" which causes so much "inconvenience" to Palestinians, I'm pretty sure that the Jews would also prefer it that way, they might actually be able to open a window.
> Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force.
That's not true. Best estimates by Peace Now and B'Tselem is that 30-40% of the settlements are built on private Palestinian land. In addition to that, a lot of land is expropriated using absentee land laws (a relic from the Ottoman period in which unused land reverts to belonging to the state after a set number of years) and only a small minority is purchased. See
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-...
You are also incorrect about the use of the absentee law, this was used however it was used within Israel after the 1948 war, and the last time it was used was in the 1950's and since then has been surpassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws
In theory even if that law was valid today it could not have been used in the west bank, the law is part of the Israeli legal code which does not apply to the West Bank as Israel has never officially annexed it and applied it's laws within it.
Technically the West Bank (including Israeli settlers) are not bound by Israeli law, they are bound by military law which is administered through the civil administration, there are a few caveats and that Israeli law to some extent does applies within the territory of a specific settlement but overall this isn't uniform.
Israelis can be brought in front of a military tribunal for violating the law within the West Bank and this has have happened before, this is often used to kick out "trouble makers" out of the settlements by effectively denying them entrance into the west bank which cannot be done through Israeli civil law but can be done through the military tribunal process.
Land ownership has been hard for Palestinians to prove in Israeli courts. They are often represented by pro-bono lawyers while the Israeli state is represented by very well-compensated ones. But I have no reason to believe that B'Tselem's and Peace Now's estimates are incorrect. Do you? If so, say what the reason is instead of insinuating that they are dishonest.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws
Wikipedia is a bad source for anything having anything to do with Israel.
> You are also incorrect about the use of the absentee law, this was used however it was used within Israel after the 1948 war, and the last time it was used was in the 1950's and since then has been surpassed.
Haaretz disagrees with you: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/jerusalem-vivendi/.premium-1.52... But you are talking about a different law. During the Ottoman period, land where in a way "leased" to families and if they stopped cultivating the land or abandoned it, it would revert to belonging to the state again after a set number of years. Israel choose to uphold this law in the West Bank after the occupation began in 1967. It allowed it to confiscate land that had been left behind by refugees fleeing the Six-day war. It also means that it is much harder for Palestinians to claim ownership of some piece of land than if they had lived in some other place.
Cited directly from the submission that you clearly did not read.
Soldiers themselves are posting online calling for the death of Palestinians.
This is very far from the case of uneducated Muslims being whipped into a frenzy, and I say that as someone that adamantly views the Israel-Arab schism as a fight between civilized men and savages. I'm about as pro-Israel as you can get but the conduct of Israelis can get just as disgusting as their Arab detractors.
There are more links to sources in the article.
Being targeted by Israeli extremists for holding them to high standards and expectations is pretty unpleasant, and being targeted by Arab extremists for accepting the existence of the Israeli state is also unpleasant.
I sympathize with both Israeli and Palestinian people, I accept the existence of the Israeli state, and I recognize the need for Palestinians to have political representation. Call me what you want but please don't jump to conclusions or make any hasty decisions.
"While the focus here is on Palestinians’ “incitement,” it’s actually very common for Israelis to use Facebook to urge violence against Palestinians, including settlers urging “vengeance” when there is an attack on an Israeli. "
"In 2014, thousands of Israelis used Facebook to post messages 'calling for the murder of Palestinians.'"
Sources are linked in the article.
This is a very sad thing, assuming that a life itself is the most valuable thing in the world.
The truth is: if you value your life more than your freedom then sooner or later you'll be made slave.
-Harriet Tubman
Perhaps if I experienced slavery, I would prefer death, but from where I sit now, I would rather be alive than dead, even if it meant not being free.
I can't imagine what my grandparents went through in concentration camps, but it seems to me that they did everything they could to survive...and I am grateful for that, otherwise, I wouldn't be here today!
My value system puts human life above all else.
The only possible way to value and protect human life is to value and protect human rights, and that includes free speech. The minute you subsume those for safety (or as you put it, "human life", but we've also heard "for the kids", "terrorism", "immigrants", "communists", "monarchists", etc. etc.) you have not only given up your rights, but your life to the powers that be. And those powers do not have your best interests in mind.
These things are not separate, please do not turn this into a false dichotomy. We must protect both human rights and human life, but only by the acquiescence of our rights may they take our lives.
Which life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_doctrines_for_th...
Here, just concerning no 3:
There are different mechanisms by which speech is regulated. It's well accepted that you can be held responsible for your speech if it's illegal (i.e. defamation or the "FIRE!"-yelling classic).
This is different from censorship in that speech is regulated after it's published, not before.
It's also a widely-held misconception that life is more important than anything. Quick thought experiment:
- Current estimates are that costs about 38,000$ to save a life for the most efficient NGOs.
- Say the US presidential election costs about 5 billion.
=> Should we cancel the election or let those 125,000 people die?
But, maybe I am just an evil person sacrificing the rights of the masses...
Regarding you request for source on the "right to invade Gaza": > "Israel will continue to control Gaza's coastline and airspace and reserves the right to undertake military operations when necessary. (Art 3.1)." http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/mfadocuments/p...
This is also evident by the many incursions Israel has made on Gaza. Israel is still firing shells into Gaza with tanks and mortars! https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hundred...
Regarding the Israeli control of Gaza being an occupation:
>In January 2012, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General stated that under resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the UN still regards Gaza to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.[15]
I don't see the text you've cited from your first source when I follow the link about the prerogative of general military operations. There is similar wording in B 3.1 et ff., but limited to defense, and context is needed: Israel is formally at war with Hamas, which (after suspending every election in Gaza after they were put in power) is the de facto regional authority. This is not a claim of a peacetime "right" any more than our in
The second link is not a source, and the most recent attacks at the top of the search are claimed to be a self-defense response.
The link in the third source is nowhere to be found, but it likely rests on UN Resolution 242, of which Hamas (and the PNA insofar as Abbas represents it) has not honored by rejection of affirmation 1(ii): "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf
Israel does not recognize any separate state as having sovereignty over Gaza.
> It's legally no different from inspections that take place at U.S./Mexico border checkpoints.
Last I checked, the US doesn't assert a right to control Mexico's seacoast or airspace, and impose a blockade of shipments into and out of Mexico that do not come through the US.
This isn't how the Israeli legal system works, even in cases where they did prove purchase more often than not the "settlers" lose. The burden is on the settlers not the Palestinians, and they lose over 80% of the cases mostly because the Israeli legal system actually prevents them from proving that the transaction was legal unless the Palestinian in question is no longer in the territories because it would not end up well for them as the punishment for selling land to Jews under PA law is death. Israeli court cases and files are open to the public.
>Wikipedia is a bad source for anything having anything to do with Israel.
The Bias is rarely favoring Israel, and every source is cited. This is about the Israeli legal system, the laws are open to everyone to read.
>Haaretz disagrees with you
I can't access the article.
NVM google fixed it.
What happened here is quite different than what you are trying to present, I'm not sure if you read the article and done your research.
The absentee law (1950) was amended in 1951 and later 1970 and it cannot be used in E. Jerusalem, several cases were brought up during the years by the municipal authority when it claimed eminent domain over properties.
It seems that so far in those cases, and in this 2013 case the court held that that 1970 and 1951 amendments that prevent the absentee law of applying to E. Jerusalem stand.
> But you are talking about a different law. During the Ottoman period, land where in a way "leased" to families and if they stopped cultivating the land or abandoned it.
No we are talking about the same law, the Israeli legal system is a mish-mash of historic Ottoman and British laws that were in effect when the state was founded, bureaucracies tend to change their names but remain more or less constant. That law has been superseded there is no longer a way inact imminent domain without compensation even in absentee cases.
The law was never enacted in the W. Bank, you are maybe confusing it with Jerusalem, Israeli law and through it the absentee law was never applied to the W. Bank only to E. Jerusalem and the Golan Heights through the Jerusalem Law, the the Golan Heights law respectively.
> It allowed it to confiscate land that had been left behind by refugees fleeing the Six-day war
I think you are confusing a few things, the closest thing I can think off is the Jordan Valley, when the Jordanian legiones retreated 100-150K civilian Arabs (at the time both them and the media called them Arabs, the term "Palestinians" weren't used by well the Palestinians until Arab League congress of 1969) fled to Jordan (they were holding Jordanian papers, as Jordan did annex the W. Bank fully), Jordan tried to send them back (sometimes by force), early on about 14,000 of them returned, 40-50,000 of them returned by the mid 70's the rest trickled over the years, mostly during the waves when Jordan retroactively taken away the citizenship from them, the last largest wave was after the 1993 peace accords with Jordan.
Overall you seem to have an idea that any Israeli can just go and claim stake to a land and the Palestinians have to prove their ownership, I don't know what gave you that impression but that's not how it works you are more than welcomed to review the court cases yourself, Google translate is pretty good at translating both Hebrew and common Arabic these days.
Can you cite a reference for that? I think B'Tselem knows how the Israeli system works and if they say 30-40% of settlements are built on private Palestinian property I believe them. You didn't offer any argument on why they are wrong.
> >Wikipedia is a bad source for anything having anything to do with Israel. > The Bias is rarely favoring Israel, and every source is cited. This is about the Israeli legal system, the laws are open to everyone to read.
It's your own choice to trust Wikipedia. But I wont accept it as a legitimate source for "facts."
> The absentee law (1950) was amended in 1951 and later 1970 and it cannot be used in E. Jerusalem, several cases were brought up during the years by the municipal authority when it claimed eminent domain over properties.
Do you have a source for that? Because I showed you a source that said that it can be used in the Palestinian part of Jerusalem. Another source is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-c...
> > But you are talking about a different law. During the Ottoman period, land where in a way "leased" to families and if they stopped cultivating the land or abandoned it. > No we are talking about the same law, the Israeli legal system is a mish-mash of historic Ottoman and British laws that were in effect when the state was founded, bureaucracies tend to change their names but remain more or less constant. That law has been superseded there is no longer a way inact imminent domain without compensation even in absentee cases.
No we are not talking about the same law.
During the Ottoman era, land in Palestine was categorized in three categories; mulk, miri and mawat. Mulk was land someone had full property rights to. Mawat land was land not claimed by anyone and it belonged to the state. Such as arid parts of the Negev. Miri was land someone was cultivating. Families could have been cultivating land for generations, but they hadn't purchased it from the empire, yet the empire considered it to be theirs as long as they were using it productively. Mawat land could become miri land if some industrious person decided to squat there and miri land could revert to mawat land if it was abandoned for three years.
This system is applied on the West Bank when Israel expropriates land for settlements. Land that is apparently not used is declared mawat and the state takes control of it, without offering compensation to anyone.
> I think you are confusing a few things, the closest thing I can think off is the Jordan Valley, when the Jordanian legiones retreated 100-150K civilian Arabs
The Palestinians refugees of 1967 number about 250,000.
> (at the time both them and the media called them Arabs, the term "Palestinians" weren't used by well the Palestinians until Arab League congress of 1969)
This talking point has been rehashed a million times before... You seem to have very strong feelings about Israel and Palestine because you have written so many comments in this articles thread. I just don't think HN is the right place to discuss this conflict in general.
Like I only responded to you original incorrect statement that "the[y] more often than not buy the land".
> Overall you seem to have an idea that any Israeli can just go and claim stake to a land and the Palestinians have to prove their ownership
I didn't say that. But the Israeli state can do that by declaring the land mawat.
Although rhetorical questions do exist, including questions used as arguments or to belittle, is it bad that this interpretation of questions has become so common that people have felt the need to disclaim it somewhat routinely?
I'm genuinely curious. :-)
On the other hand, such misinterpretation - even though it's probably often an honest mistake - is also a signal that the other person might have incompatible goals for the conversation. I try to follow the Principle of Charity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity), the conversational equivalent of "Be liberal in what you accept". But if the other person doesn't do the same, the conversation can become unproductive, and I just disengage.
In addition to charitably reading the words of others, I do want my words to also be charitably read. Not (just) because it's hard not to leave room for misinterpretation, but also because it just feels better. After all, I joined the forum for fun.
I mentioned my grandparents in the context of freedom vs. dying...a very relevant point.
I wasnt talking about Israel in that comment nor did I invoke Judaism or the holocaust in its defense anywhere else.
However, considering how you went on the defensive to a point that wasnt relevant at all (this post isnt about liking Israel, it is about censorship and the limits of free speech)...
It really does beg the question if you dislike Israel for reasons other than the moral standards to invoke from your high horse...I dont know you so I have no opinions about your own prejudices, but I think you should take a hard look in the mirror...if only to be truthful to yourself.
Talk about slippery slope! Pulling the ideological taser the way you did is not just libelous, it is intellectually dishonest.
I might also be a bit biased as around here (both locally and on hn it seems) there is or has been a quite strong anti-Israel bias although at least were I live that seems to have been changing over the last year.
You are absolutely correct that there is (IMO) a healthy amount of Arabs elected to the Knesset, but I think more needs to be done to integrate them into normal and day-to-day Israeli society. Unfortunately, integration into host societies is not popular among hard-liner fundamentalists.
Frankly I think something akin to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in Canada would be appropriate.
Source? Assuming that is true, they have the ability to vote.
There are some companies that go out of their way to employ them (Rami Levy and SodaStream are some of the largest). Unfortunately, extremists use this as an attack vector against innocent men, women, and children, as they exploit their jobs to be able to murder and maim civilians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_attac...).
Israel provides electricity to the PA even though they haven't paid their bill in years, and will probably never pay it in full. We're talking debts of $500M+ (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pa-said-to-reach-deal-on...).
Palestinians have the potential for a very good life in Israel. Sure, there are extremists on both sides. However, Israel is not a country made up of extremists (in fact they are a tiny portion of the population). The key difference is that most Arabs support their extremists though they won't carry out acts of terror (centrists celebrate in the streets after terrorist attacks are carried out; most vocally support terrorism against Israel and the West even if they wouldn't do it themselves, and they would rather see Israel destroyed than have a two state solution implemented) [I know there are sources for this, but I can't seem to find them. I'll instead attribute this to my personal experience with this, and leave you to draw your own conclusions].
The way I see it, it's best summed up with a quote from Golda Meir (disputed, but accurate nonetheless):
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
To your comments on illegal settlements. Yes, there is plenty of support for them. In fact, most of the supporters contend that they are not illegal.
There's a very big difference between supporting the settlements right to exist and supporting extremist violence coming from the settlements. Settler violence is very different than Arab violence. Please bear in mind that what follows is true most of the time, and I'll address a few of the exceptions. They key difference - and this holds for all cases of extremist violence - is that it is thoroughly condemned by the full spectrum of Israelis (except for other violent extremists, although depending on how heinous it was, some of the tamer elements would condemn it as well). It is something that is taken seriously by Israel, especially if it leads to a loss of life, because Israelis care about life. It can even lead to violent crackdowns against settlers (which very often turn into witch hunts that violate due process and humanitarian rights, but the Left is quiet about that - see the dubious detention of Meir Ettinger).
1. Settler violence is condemned by the Israeli public and government - from the Right to the Left 2. Settler violence is proven to have been staged by the Left or Arabs 3. Settler violence is reactionary / provoked (price tags and harrassment by leftist groups and/or Arab neighbors) 4. Settler violence is an anger outlet vs an outright desire to maim/kill and as such rarely leads to bodily harm / death 5. Reported Settler violence is often referring to an instance of an Israeli Settler injuring/killing an Arab as the Arab was infiltrating a settlement or attacking Israelis (reported by B'Tselem a far left HR organization who has since amended their page showing this - http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties_Data.as...) 6. Settler violence committed by a mentally unstable assailant (Abu Khdeir killing)
As I noted, there are exceptions to the above (Goldstein, etc...), but most follow the above points, and rarely end in injury or death for Arabs, as the violence tends to be rioting and property destruction.
OTOH:
1. Arab violence is rarely condemned by the Arab public and government - most rejoice, and the more serious the attack the more they rejoice 2. Arab violence is often committed in public or has direct evidence of its occurrence 3. Arab violence is often out of the blue (not in retaliation for a specific personal attack or provocation) 4. Arab violence is often expressed as a desire to murder innocent Israelis and Westerners and to bring about the destruction of Israel
#5 doesn't really have a corresponding bullet, because most Israeli's entering an Arab settlement do so by mistake. Doesn't stop the population from trying to lynch them (I've heard multiple first-hand accounts of this, including from relatives and schoolmates).
I'm sure there are mentally unstable Arab assailants, but I don't know percentages.
2. Citations, please, as to what the "smolanim" are up to.
3. I don't care if it's a "price tag", it's still a difference of degree, not of kind from Arab violence.
4. Doesn't matter. Are they babies? We hear all the time about how Israel is a more morally advanced, "European" country and yet shouldn't be held to higher standards?
5. Sure
6. OK, and what about that wedding party where they were chanting support for Abu Khdeir's killer?
Now to respond to your OTOH:
1. Violence against whom? Themselves as well? 2. Citation. Also, as opposed to in private in a settlement? 3. Again, citations. Also, if you're living under the control of occupation authorities and harassed at checkpoints that isn't a provocation (this doesn't apply if they attack civilians of course) 4. I think the state of Israel and the Jewish people are going to survive a bunch of people talking shit. 5. Ding ding ding ding ding. And you want to rule over these people? When those Catholics lynched the British Army soldiers at the funeral in Northern Ireland for driving in the wrong way down the street, does that mean Britain should have expelled all the Catholics from Belfast?
My comment was intended to be a real world example of someone choosing life in slavery over dying in response to the idea of "give me liberty or give me death"...
I reread my comment and can see how someone might misinterpret it as invoking the holocaust to defend the state of Israel. That was never my intention and does not reflect my viewpoints on Israel. I dont believe the holocaust or antisemitism has anything to do with the right of the state of Israel to exist.
I do however believe in Good and Evil.
You do however still need to apologize for accusing me of criticizing Israel out of antisemitism. You did it implicitly ("...reasons other...hard look in the mirror..") but it was clear enough that one other commenter has independently criticized you for it. It is for that reason that I have used the rather impolite adjective "deluded" in reference to you -- it's of course extremely common for supporters of Israel to accuse their critics of antisemitism, aiming that accusation at young western liberals who don't even remember the times when antisemitism was an issue in their societies. Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other.
All that being said, to your point of delusion... > "when antisemitism was an issue in their societies"
Antisemitism IS STILL very much a problem today, even in the US.
Here is a quote from the FBI's Websites most recent hate crime statistics (2014)
Religious bias Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:
56.8 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-...
---------------- > "it's of course extremely common for supporters of Israel to accuse their critics of antisemitism, aiming that accusation at young western liberals who don't even remember the times when antisemitism was an issue in their societies. Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other."
The way I feel is that the belief that anti-semitism isn't relevant and tangled into peoples perception of Israel warrants the same criticism..." Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other." ------------- Regardless, all things being equal...give two conflicting positions, both legitimate views based on how the issues are framed and perceived by each side, I would always err on the side of caution and saving a life...
This might be an unfair characterization or comparison(regardless, I ackowledge my own bias on this point)...but given the choice between wrongly accusing someone who is anti israel as antisemitic, versus the alternative of blindly ignoring signs that can lead to antisemitic violent hate crimes, such as we see over 500 times a year in the US alone (much worse in Europe), the choice to me is obvious...Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.
That might sound delusional and paranoid...and I can't disagree with that position from a logical standpoint...but, that doesn't change the reality that there were warning signs for years before the Holocaust, and it took years for the US to intervene despite reports about concentration camps...so, even if the position is seen by the world as crazy and that "the holocaust" could never happen again... forgive us paranoid Jews, from having a plan B...and trying to stop Anti-Semitism proactively, to the point of offending some liberals sensitivities about being accused of being a racist. ---------------------- All of this being said, I do apologize for implying your position against Israel is anti-semitic, clearly that isn't the case with you and maybe even with most liberals...but it's a mistake to think it's not the case with others, just because you are more sensible and reasonable.
----------------------- For what it's worth, the sooner both sides learn to recognize the sincerity and legitimacy of the other sides conflicting perspective, peace will never be achieved. We are all humans, we all have our biases, many of which we are not aware of...and there is a lot to improve on all sides... Israel is not above reproach, and the people who throw out antisemitic accusations against anyone who disagrees with Israel, is delusional...but that doesn't mean they aren't right some of the time...
Reminds me of the saying, "Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't after me."
I am of course perplexed how you perceived that as libel, dishonest, and a slippery slope.
If you knew me, you would know that I was withholding judgement, just encouraging honest introspection...something I try to do constantly.
1. Settlers who commit crimes are prosecuted by the Israeli government, and have no support for their actions from non extremists 2. Pallywood. In terms of smolanim, there are many videos on YouTube showing them harassing and attacking soldiers and civilians, and only filming the response (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood - I'd get some video links for both examples but I really have to get back to work :-) 3. That does take degree into account. Price tags rarely cause injury or death, even though they are often in response to Arabs injuring or killing Israeli's 4. No they're human beings, and they exercise restraint in retaliation. That being said, an overwhelming majority of Israel condemns their actions. You'll be hard pressed to find a Leftist who supports them, and a large majority of the right condemns their violence. 5. Not sure if that's sarcasm or not 6. Both the groom and his parents are on record stating that they do not know those people who were not invited and they were dancing off to the side so they didn't notice them. If they had, they would've removed them from the wedding. In any case, they were violent hilltop youth; again, condemned by a large majority of Israel (http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Abu-Khdeir-murderer...)
1. They celebrate death and injury to Westerners and Israelis. When Arabs commit terrorist attacks against Israel they parade in the streets and hand out candy. The terrorists are hailed as hero's as they celebrate the fact that they just killed/injured innocent people. 2. When an Arab blows up a bomb in a busy street, when an Arab goes in a knifing and/or shooting spree in the street, when an Arab uses his car to ram into people in the street, that's pretty public. There are also less public ones, sure. But you almost never hear of a settler walking into an Arab town in broad daylight and just start killing/injuring people. 3. Ignoring the fact that they do this to civilians, we'll focus on the soldier aspect. You think it's OK for an Arab to approach a checkpoint, pull out a knife, and stab a soldier who was doing nothing other than standing there? How about when they ram their cars into checkpoints, or try to blow them up. It got so bad that the IDF had to instruct soldiers to start shooting these terrorists, because the soldiers didn't want to have to kill anyone, but it was leading to soldiers getting injured and killed. What if it's not at a checkpoint? What if an Arab walks past a soldier in the street and knifes him/her? Is that OK? (http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/11/09/west-bank-attempt... http://www.stogether.org/idf-soldiers-hate-checkpoints/ http://www.ifcj.org/news/stand-for-israel/two-idf-soldiers-w... and there multiple others that are easy to find) 4. The Holocaust started with a bunch of people talking shit. We're very wary of shit talking now, especially when that leads to (and has led to) dead Israelis 5. No we don't want to rule over these people at all. We want them to go away, or stay and be functioning members of society. But no one should have to worry that making a wrong turn will lead to them being lynched.