[HN Gopher] Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices
___________________________________________________________________
Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices
Author : jjgreen
Score : 241 points
Date : 2024-05-05 19:50 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| pseingatl wrote:
| Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
|
| Banning Al Jazeera is arguably more humane than shooting a rocket
| into their offices, as was done by Israel in Gaza and the US Army
| in Baghdad.
| loceng wrote:
| Far too many eyeballs witnessing the "conflict" now - and with
| Elon buying Twitter-X, the censorship-suppression-narrative
| control apparatus has a massive hole in it now.
|
| #ZeroIsASpecialNumber
| dang wrote:
| All: if you're about to comment in this thread, please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make sure
| your post is in the intended spirit of the site. If it isn't,
| please edit it until it is; or simply remember that the internet
| is usually wrong and refrain from posting.
|
| The intended spirit is curious, respectful conversation in which
| we learn from each other. Yes, that is hard when emotions run
| strong, but hard != impossible, and it's what the site rules ask:
| " _Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less,
| as a topic gets more divisive._ "
| juunpp wrote:
| Not that political discussion should not be had, but this has
| nothing to do with HN at all.
| dang wrote:
| Users have a wide range of conflicting views about what HN does
| or doesn't have to do with. You can see that vividly in these
| past examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869,
| which go back many years but sound like they were posted last
| week.
|
| HN's moderation approach is (a) _most_ political stories are
| off topic (this is at the top of
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html for a reason),
| but a certain amount of political overlap is (b) inevitable--we
| learned that the hard way:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251, and (c) in
| keeping with HN's organizing principle of intellectual
| curiosity.
|
| Those are the principles, and they've been stable for a long
| time. Then there's _which_ stories get to count as clearing the
| bar. That is also contentious, but a different question: it 's
| about how to apply the principles, not what the principles
| should be.
|
| We look for stories that contain significant new information
| [1], aren't too repetitive of recent discussion [2, 3], and
| have at least some chance of providing a foundation for
| intellectually curious conversation.
|
| If you want to understand HN moderation, you need to understand
| the difference between those two questions--what the principles
| are vs. how to apply them in specific cases. It's the
| difference between the rules of a game and the calls made by
| refs on specific occasions.
|
| The rules are stable and we're confident that they're right.
| Particular calls, not so much--we sometimes get them wrong.
| We're often willing to make adjustments in specific cases,
| especially when users persuade us that we got something wrong.
| But we're much less willing to change the rules themselves,
| because they've held up well over many years, and provide a
| good basis for running HN for its intended purpose [4].
|
| As you can imagine, this question shows up often--especially on
| divisive topics like the OP--and I've written different
| versions of this answer many times. You can find a bunch of
| past explanations from threads about the current topic here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973. If you, or
| anyone, still have questions after reading the current post, I
| suggest looking at that link (and the links back from there).
| If after that you still have a question I haven't answered, I'd
| be happy to take a crack at it.
|
| [1]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| [2]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
|
| [3]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| [4]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
| juunpp wrote:
| Then I was confused myself. I thought Hacker News was in
| relation to the hacker spirit, embodied best in the book
| "Hackers", or even "Masters of DOOM", with a slight twist of
| VP and startup culture. Even the Big Tech propaganda gets
| tiring and off-topic. But I guess I was mistaken about the
| expectations.
| dang wrote:
| Well, it certainly is supposed to be for those things. But
| if you try to run a site like HN _only_ for those things,
| it turns out that 's not a stable position.
| sfjailbird wrote:
| 'Freedom of speech' as a topic is interesting to HN and has an
| obvious Information Technology angle. It is probably the one
| that skirts the edge the most though.
| juunpp wrote:
| Yeah. The technology angle in this particular one seems close
| to non-existent. To me it really seemed off-topic.
| verdverm wrote:
| Reporters Without Borders gathers data and produces some
| interesting graphics. They recently released their World Press
| Freedom Index
|
| https://rsf.org/en
|
| https://rsf.org/en/country/israel
|
| ---
|
| edit: they appear to keep a list of mirrored news sites to
| circumvent censorship
|
| https://github.com/RSF-RWB/collateralfreedom
|
| (was hoping they had data available for their index, but have not
| found it yet)
|
| ---
|
| edit: the index has a download button in the bar at the top of
| the map
|
| https://rsf.org/en/index
|
| It does not provide source data, just the calculated results
| presented. There is also a methodology link, which points to
| different pages, depending on the year selected
| loceng wrote:
| FTL: "... while more than 100 journalists were killed in six
| months in Gaza by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) ..."
|
| Anyone know where to find what the current accurate count of
| number of journalists killed in the Gaza bombardment to date?
|
| Last I heard it was 170.
|
| There are also journalists who lived but their whole family
| died in the strikes.
| verdverm wrote:
| It is unlikely that reliable numbers will come out of Gaza
| with the media blackout and two sides who both want to
| present information "favorably"
|
| At least until the war has subsided and independent orgs can
| gain access.
| no_exit wrote:
| Gaza Health Ministry numbers are a reliable floor, as
| confirmed by numerous organizations like the US State
| Department. The real count probably above 100k dead so far.
| bawolff wrote:
| Do these numbers distinguish between journalists killed while
| doing journalism vs journalists killed as collateral damage
| not in the capacity of a journalist vs combatants who were
| journalists prior to picking up a gun and joining the war?
|
| I feel like its very hard to draw any conclusions from these
| numbers without distinguishing between those cases (other
| than of course that war is a tragedy and innocents generally
| pay the price of war).
| Qem wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i.
| ..
| user982 wrote:
| I don't know how to interpret the front page saying "More than
| 100 journalists killed in six months in Gaza" directly above a
| "real time" abuse barometer saying that 12 journalists have
| been killed worldwide in 2024.
| NewJazz wrote:
| There hasn't been six months in 2024 yet, for one. Many of
| the deaths could have been in Nov and Dec.
| verdverm wrote:
| The problem is, if you look at 2023, they only count 50
| deaths in the barometer.
|
| Something is definitely amiss, see my peer comment
| verdverm wrote:
| Different (overlapping) time spans
|
| Probably different measuring / classifications at play too.
| For example, they may be including independent journalists in
| one set vs only recognized outlets in another.
|
| ---
|
| edit, they have the following note in the barometer
|
| > Journalists are listed only if RSF has established that
| their death or imprisonment was linked to their journalistic
| activity. The list does not include journalists who were
| killed or imprisoned for reasons unrelated to their work or
| when the link to their work has not yet been confirmed.
|
| https://rsf.org/en/barometer?type%5Btue%5D=tue&annee_start=2.
| ...
| bentley wrote:
| I find it difficult to tell how their reports translate to
| objective numbers. For example, the United States' ranking fell
| from 45 to 55 in the last year. Here are the reports for those
| years:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230817030548/https://rsf.org/e...
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240505202537/https://rsf.org/e...
|
| As far as I can tell, the only negative differences between
| these two reports are that a reporter was killed while
| investigating a murder by the murder suspect (who is now in
| jail and on trial), and that Biden "has come under criticism
| for failing to press US partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia
| on press freedom." Falling ten places is a significant change
| (and is called out in the preface to the whole report)--are
| these two things really enough to justify such a change, or is
| the ranking sourced from more data not present in the report?
|
| Here's another story about Reporters Without Borders, about the
| first time I dug into one of their publications. In 2018, I
| read a report they published listing the six most dangerous
| countries for journalists: India, Yemen, Mexico, Syria,
| Afghanistan, and the United States. It described how in Mexico
| journalists are executed by cartels and organized crime, how
| journalists in Yemen die in prison due to mistreatment, how in
| Syria journalists were killed in airstrikes and taken hostage
| by Islamic militants, how in India Hindu nationalist mobs would
| run down journalists with trucks... and how in the US, four
| journalists were murdered by a stalker angry at a 2011 story
| the newspaper had published (subsequently jailed, tried, and
| found guilty of mass murder); and two more were killed by a
| falling tree. Somehow these two cases were enough to warrant
| the United States being called out with the other five
| countries. And it made the headlines everywhere, of course,
| because it was the midst of Donald Trump's presidency.
| burkaman wrote:
| It's a ranking, so presumably part of the US dropping is due
| to other countries improving. There is another major negative
| change noted though - more newspaper closures and huge
| layoffs at news organizations. It also sounds like the
| Sociocultural section might be partially based on polling of
| trust in media, which could have dropped, but I don't know
| where to look into that more.
|
| The 2018 report you're talking about is here:
| https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/worldwilde_round-up.pdf.
| The list is not the most dangerous countries for journalists,
| but the most deadly - a straightforward measure of how many
| journalists were killed in each country. They publish this
| every year and the US is usually not on it, but this year
| someone murdered 4 journalists because of their reporting.
| I'm not sure how they could make this more objective, and I
| can't think of any metric that would include murders
| committed by angry men in cartels or angry men with SUVs in
| India but not angry men with shotguns in America.
|
| Obviously the falling tree is not reflective of the
| journalistic climate in the country, but if they had been the
| only two the US would not have been listed. The mass shooting
| is what put it within the same neighborhood as Mexico and
| India.
|
| Here's the latest one of these, which as usual does not
| feature America: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/medias/f
| ile/2023/12/Bila....
| bentley wrote:
| > It's a ranking, so presumably part of the US dropping is
| due to other countries improving.
|
| Is that the case? Do the other countries' entries in the
| report reflect that?
|
| > I can't think of any metric that would include murders
| committed by angry men in cartels or angry men with SUVs in
| India but not angry men with shotguns in America.
|
| One such metric would be whether a country's justice system
| arrests and puts the perpetrator on trial, as happened with
| the American murder and presumably didn't happen in the
| case of Mexican cartels or the Indian mob.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes, the following countries improved their scores
| between 2023 and 2024 and passed the US (71.22 -> 66.59)
| in the ranking: Chile (60.09 -> 67.32), Ghana (65.93 ->
| 67.71), Poland (67.66 -> 69.17), Fiji (59.27 -> 71.23),
| Armenia (70.61 -> 71.6), Slovenia (70.59 -> 72.6),
| Mauritania (59.45 -> 74.2), Suriname (70.62 -> 76.11).
|
| I agree that whether or not perpetrators are tried is
| relevant to the country, but I don't agree that it's
| relevant to this metric or to the dead journalists. They
| don't come back to life if their murderer is imprisoned,
| and the conviction rate doesn't have any impact on how
| dangerous it was to be a journalist that year. If they
| were to do a forward-looking report on the outlook for
| journalists in each country in the next 10 years or so,
| then I do think the effectiveness of the justice system
| might be relevant.
|
| In the Indian cases named in the 2018 report, arrests
| were made: https://apnews.com/general-news-
| eb9e0dbcdbab4d93a2d90767c270...,
| https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/madhya-pradesh-
| journal....
|
| The situation in Mexico was a bit more grim, but in at
| least one of the cases the police did make several
| arrests: https://cpj.org/data/people/mario-leonel-gomez-
| sanchez/.
| wslh wrote:
| The world is so focused on Israel that forget the rest.
| x3n0ph3n3 wrote:
| @dang -- you're not going to get the polite, respectful
| conversation on this topic that I think you're hoping for.
| Instead, you're going to get criticisms on the legitimacy of each
| organization involved in this conflict. I don't understand why
| you even want this topic on HackerNews.
| dang wrote:
| Having spent entire days moderating previous threads on this
| topic, I know what kind of conversation we're likely to get.
| But abandoning discussion altogether is also not an option.
|
| > _I don 't understand why you even want this topic on
| HackerNews._
|
| I don't think I'd say 'want' (what I _want_ is to spend Sunday
| afternoons working on something else), but the issue is the
| principles by which we moderate the site. If you look at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 (edit: which I
| just posted in the current thread) and then
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618973 and the links
| back from there, you should find plenty of explanation of the
| relevant points. If you (or anyone) want to familiarize
| yourself with those answers and still have a question I haven't
| addressed, I'd be happy to try.
| siva7 wrote:
| I've been part of this but these are different than the
| typical political heated discussions on HN like in the trump
| era. These here tend to swift quickly into antisemitism.
| dang wrote:
| Comments do that are usually swiftly and correctly flagged
| by users (or mods). In egregious cases, or repeated cases,
| we warn and/or ban the account.
|
| If you see cases where this is not true, the most likely
| reason is that we haven't seen them yet. (We don't see
| everything that gets posted to HN, or even everything that
| gets posted to a large thread.) The thing to do then is
| flag the comment
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cflag) and/or to
| email us at hn@ycombinator.com in egregious cases.
| nkurz wrote:
| Alternatively, since different people have different
| thresholds for considering something to be antisemitic,
| there may often be things that are not flagged that
| others think should be, and vice versa. It's difficult to
| determine what the right threshold should be, but it
| often won't match the preference of the most sensitive
| users. If productive conversation is to happen, it may
| require some degree of discomfort.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > But abandoning discussion altogether is also not an option.
|
| I don't see why not. Just because it's _hard_ doesn 't mean
| it shouldn't be an option.
|
| This attitude toward moderation is a large reason I do not
| participate on this site like I used to.
| dang wrote:
| The site hasn't changed in this respect. If you look at the
| examples in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869,
| you'll see that all these things--the moderation approach
| to politics and all the common complaints--go back 15
| years.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _because it 's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be an
| option_
|
| I hope it's not. Trolls aside, I've found _HN_ 's
| discussion on this topic to be interesting.
|
| For example, this comment [1]. I hadn't considered
| belligerent status as a relevant factor before. (It's
| obvious once pointed out, and not a decisive factor. But it
| has weight nevertheless.)
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268043
| _wire_ wrote:
| This point inadvertently exposes an aspect of information
| management which is sorely unaddressed and inadequate to
| purposes of understanding within a commonwealth:
|
| That situations conflict which are already well understood to
| history are regurgitated as mysteries, and the knowledge
| system is practically useless to providing coherent access to
| previous experience and context.
|
| When a mod has to write:
|
| > If you look at <URL> and the links back from there, you
| should find more than enough (indeed, frequently repeated)
| explanations of the relevant points. If you (or anyone) want
| to familiarize yourself with those answers and still have a
| question I haven't addressed, I'd be happy to try.
|
| Why has a new thread been created?
|
| Why isn't this article and the attending thread of comments
| already situated within existing paths of discourse helping
| readers to assess the long prevailing (say 100 years) of
| understanding on the topic and identify, explore and
| integrate the outlying views? Why hasn't all the redundant
| and trivial junk of the previous thread been sifted and
| gleaned into salient regards for the situation?
|
| Does any media apparatus help with us with knowing how what's
| happening today relates to what we understood yesterday and
| the days before?
|
| Why is all news manifest as a reverse chronological list of
| forgettery, de-contextualized factoids and rediscovery of
| precedents among initiates?
| dang wrote:
| > _Why has a new thread been created?_
|
| A user posted it and other users upvoted it. Other users
| flagged it, but I chose to turn off the flags on this one,
| for reasons I've explained at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267862 and in many
| other places linked to there.
|
| > _Why isn 't this article and the attending thread of
| comments already situated within existing paths of
| discourse_
|
| It is in the sense that the web already does that. I often
| post lists of related links from past HN discussion (https:
| //hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...),
| but that's not doable when my hair is on fire and I'm also
| trying to keep my head above water.
| seydor wrote:
| > But abandoning discussion altogether is also not an option.
|
| This is the most interesting position i ve seen on the
| subject.
| juunpp wrote:
| > what I want is to spend Sunday afternoons working on
| something else
|
| You are deceiving yourself, dang. You cherish every single
| second of it.
| dang wrote:
| Well that's one word for it.
| dathos wrote:
| I think freedom of press is of some significance on a site
| using news sources as content.
| nothercastle wrote:
| Seems pretty civil at the moment
| meow_mix wrote:
| Wow. First the Tiktok ban now this. Sad day.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Is there anyone else who doesn't support either side of this
| conflict? They've been fighting each other for over 100 years.
| They both want the same piece of land. It's on them to figure it
| out. People around the world don't need to 'pick a side'. We can
| protest for both sides to sort their shit out, and not drag the
| rest of us into it.
| qarl wrote:
| Yeah, I'm totally with you. At this point it's like the
| Hatfields and the McCoys. I don't care what was the last thing
| the other guy did - he did it to get back at you for the second
| to last thing you did.
|
| On the other hand, killing children is always wrong. Fucking
| stop it.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| It's not a "cycle of violence" - "both sides" scenario for
| anyone who has actually put in the effort to study the
| history in detail.
|
| Since you brought up the "cycle of violence" argument, I
| remember Shaun making an excellent video[1] on the topic and
| also addressing that specific talking point.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xottY-7m3k&t=10s
| qarl wrote:
| I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
| underdeserver wrote:
| A man comes into your house. His 2-year old is in a baby
| carrier on his chest. He has a gun and is firing at you. Your
| wife and 5 year old son are behind you on the couch, and you
| have a gun too.
|
| Do you shoot back?
|
| Did you just hesitate? A bullet just scraped your wife on the
| side of the leg. Hesitated again? Son just got a bullet in
| his arm.
|
| You fire three bullets. The baby is dead and so is the
| intruder.
|
| Are you in the wrong here?
|
| ---
|
| I'm not saying this is the same as what's happening in Israel
| and Gaza. But "always wrong", like many views on this
| conflict, is sorely lacking in nuance.
|
| With thousands of Israelis and tens of thousands of
| Palestinians killed, ignoring nuance is disrespectful to
| their memories and will not lead to realistic progress.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _baby is dead and so is the intruder....Are you in the
| wrong here?_
|
| Yes, what was done is wrong. It might be justified, even
| forgivable. But it's still wrong.
| underdeserver wrote:
| On that we agree. It is wrong. But you're either wrong or
| dead.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It is wrong. But you 're either wrong or dead._
|
| In your example, yes. Reality is more complicated; that
| usually gives reasonable people room to disagree.
| qarl wrote:
| HEH. I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to
| disagree.
|
| Killing children is always wrong.
| TillE wrote:
| I'd say quite a lot of people are not particularly invested in
| any "side" but are repulsed by obvious war crimes.
|
| What makes this situation uniquely toxic is how America and
| most of its allies vehemently insist on total impunity for the
| crimes of one side.
| baumy wrote:
| I think what really makes the situation uniquely toxic is
| that after reading your comment, I genuinely have no idea
| which side you're referring to that you think is getting
| total impunity.
|
| Note: You don't need to reply and specify which. Apparently
| you've picked a side, as have I. No point debating that here
| I think. But each side would claim that the other is
| committing war crimes and inhuman acts and not being held to
| account.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| I think it's less the impunity and more the active
| supporting. The US is building a floating pier and air-
| dropping aid instead of simply pressuring Israel's government
| to let trucks through.
| patrickmay wrote:
| Israel lets more aid through now than before the October
| 7th atrocities. That aid is intercepted by Hamas and does
| not reach the intended recipients.
| lightbritefight wrote:
| > Israel lets more aid through now than before the
| October 7th atrocities. That aid is intercepted by Hamas
| and does not reach the intended recipients.
|
| No, they do not. There are still less full aid trucks
| even after the murder of the World kitchen volunteers
| massively increased international pressure on Israel to
| let aid in.
|
| Northern Gaza is now in full blown famine as defined by
| top US officials that define famine, with southern Gaza
| on the brink of famine, as all farming infastructure
| inside gaza gas has now been destroyed. They need
| drastically more full trucks than the the 500/day that
| was the norm before the war started, not drastically
| fewer.
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-aid-coordinator-says-
| israel...
| itscodingtime wrote:
| I agree with that line of thought too, but one side is sort of
| represented a terrorist organization who have the ability to
| murder 1200 people and kidnap others while the other is a
| western democracy that has the ability kill 30k people as
| collateral damage level. The collateral damage is so high but
| people like Sam Harris is saying Israel is engaging in a
| restrained manner compared to other powers previous retaliatory
| actions to terrorism.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It's worthwhile learning the history of intervention in this
| conflict by the US and UK. It's not just two groups fighting
| amongst themselves. It's western governments putting their
| thumbs on the scales to massively help one side destroy the
| other. The Hundred Years War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi is
| an excellent book on the subject with a good audiobook on
| audible. It's remarkable how one sided this conflict has been
| with western support since the beginning.
| mongol wrote:
| I think it is not the kind of conflict where you pick a side.
| There are legitimate and illegitimate claims on both sides. As
| a bystander I try to evaluate specific actions, not choose a
| favorite.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| I agree with you. What I'm saying is that all I see are
| people who have picked a side and no one in the middle
| saying, 'you are both wrong. figure it out'
| Beefin wrote:
| AJ is far from bipartisan wrt to the conflict. they employ high
| journalistic standards for just about everything except israeli
| news, for that they become rapid dogs. example:
| https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560
| haunter wrote:
| Honestly I couldn't care less.
|
| If anything I'd want to see less current politics on HN
| arp242 wrote:
| I think lots of people don't really have a "side", other than
| the side of just not wanting to see people suffer. I don't
| think that closing your eyes to that is neutral. Sometimes "do
| nothing" is an act of evil.
|
| And both in Northern Ireland and the Balkans international
| intervention almost certainly saved lives and help bring about
| peace and relative stability. How long had they been fighting?
| There's probably some more examples. So I'd argue that it's not
| useless either.
|
| And Jewish and Israeli (and by extension, Palestinian) history
| is strongly connected to the history of 19th and 20th century
| Europe in all sorts of ways, and I don't think you can just
| cleanly separate that.
| siva7 wrote:
| I've recently visited my parents in europe. I have no
| affiliations with Israel or Jews. My parents watched a local Al-
| Jazeera channel in their mother tongue since Qatar seems to
| strategically deploy satellite offices of Al-Jazeera in different
| countries, even european. Boy was i shocked at the level of
| propaganda from this channel. Basically all day in big letters
| "genocide in gaza" with anti-jewish paroles. I can understand why
| Israel decides to close down such a channel.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Many people would say "genocide in gaza" is exactly what the
| television should be saying.
| Beefin wrote:
| its not a genocide by any definition.
| kevingadd wrote:
| You can think what you want but to act like this is
| undisputed is a bit silly.
|
| https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-
| wor...
| jackjeff wrote:
| The ICJ is currently investigating a genocide case against
| Israel. So I guess we'll find out... eventually.
|
| https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/south-africas-
| genocide-...
| kevingadd wrote:
| Sincere question: what was propaganda about it? Was it openly
| anti semitic blood libel stuff? Debunked claims? Or something
| else?
| phantompeace wrote:
| Any regime that seeks to suppress the media can't be up to any
| good, IMO.
| yonixwm wrote:
| On the other extreme, Are media that spread misinformation
| without any due process are just protected indefinitely?
|
| Like in this very recent case:
| https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake...
|
| Edit: haaretz link: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-
| news/palestinians/2024-0...
| jjgreen wrote:
| _Honest Reporting is an Israeli media advocacy group._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting
| jamra wrote:
| The tweet that is linked in the web page is from the former
| managing editor of Al Jazeera. You can just click on the
| tweet directly and use Google translate.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| "honestreporting.com" is ironically dishonestly reporting,
| it's a propaganda outlet with no credibility.
| sam1r wrote:
| Maybe the "actual" news should be rebranded to "fake news"
| in rebuttal.
| orwin wrote:
| I've read the article. One counterpoint though:
|
| The reason stated on why Hamas affirmed the rape story was
| false wasn't 'because it backfired and made civilians flee'.
| This never happened,and the justifications is too convoluted.
| No, they took a page out of IRA and ETA's: total
| transparency. They want people to believe what they say, and
| for that, you can't be caught lying. I don't know if it's
| recent or not, but that's also the reason why the death toll
| reported by Hamas is lower than the one expected by the US
| and most military intelligence. If a news is from a Hamas
| official spokesman, it's likely true (might be misleading,
| but always factually true)
|
| Shame on Al-Jazeera to let liars on air, but to be fair, that
| 24h news for you.
| yonixw wrote:
| > If a news is from a Hamas official spokesman, it's likely
| true
|
| What? They lie constantly! They just got caught. Here is
| what happened when BBC just reported them without checking:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250
|
| And then when they apologized admitting they should have
| not speculate:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/israel-
| accuses...
| vbezhenar wrote:
| My opinion is that freedom of speech must be absolute,
| despite all the issues and shortcomings coming with it. You
| must be able to speak, write, draw anything you like, without
| any limits.
|
| Words are not knifes. People eventually will adapt to lies
| and weird things. And truth will find a way.
|
| Because other alternative is just grim. As long as government
| can draw lines, it'll draw more of them, may be not today,
| but tomorrow, to "protect children" and "prevent terror".
| yonixw wrote:
| > Words are not knifes. People eventually will adapt to
| lies and weird things. And truth will find a way.
|
| I really see it differently that both ends are equally bad.
| After all, on the same night that the BBC announced 500
| dead after the "bombing" at a hospital in Gaza, which
| turned out to be a Hamas missile that fell and killed at
| most 50 there... crowds took to the streets and created a
| threat to Israeli embassies around the world.
| bentley wrote:
| Correction: a PIJ rocket, not a Hamas rocket.
| adhamsalama wrote:
| Do you have a source that it was a Hamas missile, or do
| you simply spread Israeli lies?
| yonixw wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-tries-to-
| back-u...
| jolj wrote:
| AP: https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-
| war-hos...
|
| CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/21/middleeast/cnn-
| investigat...
|
| Economist: https://www.economist.com/interactive/the-
| economist-explains...
|
| Guardian:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/18/al-ahli-
| arab-h...
|
| WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/video/video-analysis-shows-gaza-
| hospital...
|
| Also worth reading this document straight from Hamas: htt
| ps://twitter.com/cogatonline/status/1774437234579558643
| Qem wrote:
| > which turned out to be a Hamas missile
|
| Debunked: https://forensic-
| architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...
|
| IDF has bombed the entirety of Gaza health infrastructure
| by now. It's odd they don't want us to believe they would
| be capable to bomb this particular hospital when they
| destroyed every single other one.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Words are not knifes. People eventually will adapt to
| lies and weird things. And truth will find a way._
|
| In the meantime there could be a war [1].
|
| [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/remember-the-
| maine-56...
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Words are not knifes.
|
| The pen, I remind you, is mightier than the sword.
|
| Much of the anti-Israeli sentiment seen across the globe,
| including murder, is the direct result of incendiary media
| lies. And those who spread the lies say without reservation
| that they do so "to arouse the nation's fervor and
| brotherhood". That is a direct quote and I encourage you to
| google it and click on whatever media outlet you trust.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > My opinion is that freedom of speech must be absolute,
| despite all the issues and shortcomings coming with it. You
| must be able to speak, write, draw anything you like,
| without any limits.
|
| This would make all libel and defamation permissible.
|
| This would make any type of business fraud permissible.
|
| This would make it permissible to lie and fabricate
| documentation in order to target vulnerable populations for
| theft and fraud.
|
| This would make identity impersonation (including of, say,
| law enforcement, medical, legal, or engineering
| professionals) permissible.
|
| This would make it permissible to fabricate evidence for
| use in legal cases.
|
| This would make it permissible to lie or fabricate evidence
| for sexual partners regarding STIs or contraceptive use.
|
| Other than free speech zealots, you're not going to get
| anyone on board with rebuilding society so that we have to
| preemptively guard against all of these things, and have no
| recourse against bad actors.
| kromem wrote:
| Are you saying that every news outlet that reports false
| claims by eyewitness accounts which turn out not to be true
| and aren't sufficiently loud about retractions should be
| banned by their host countries?
|
| Because I can think of quite a number of stories over the
| years, and even in terms of this current conflict in the
| Middle East, where there were falsehoods in the fog of war or
| even intentionally seeded that turned out not to be true and
| many of the news organizations airing them initially only
| took stories down and didn't run front page denouncements of
| their own reporting.
|
| I agree that retractions and in general journalistic
| integrity needs a bit more attention as a global society, but
| _banning news organizations_ that print things you don 't
| like is something I tend to associate with a very Stalinesque
| mindset and not a bastion of democracy and liberty.
|
| In general, individuals and groups are bettered by exposure
| to naysayers than surrounded by yes-men.
| yonixw wrote:
| > that print things you don't like
|
| But that the whole point. It's not just that Israel "don't
| like it". It's false claims.
|
| > aren't sufficiently loud about retractions
|
| And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash
| is big enough? Like in the case where there were no
| hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a
| failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
|
| https://archive.is/r6noB
|
| and the same version today:
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-
| ha...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a
| direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on
| hospital_
|
| Almost every news agency got this wrong to some degree
| [1]. What matters is whether they corrected their story
| as new information arose.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hos
| pital-b...
| arp242 wrote:
| All newspapers get things wrong some of the time. With the
| best of intentions and best of skills, it ... just happens
| because the world is just too complex to always be 100%
| accurate. Of course they should strive to be accurate all of
| the time, but we also need to be realistic. This applies even
| more to warzones.
|
| What matters is how often this happens and what the response
| is when it happens. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is not
| significantly worse than anyone else here. There's a
| difference between "spreading misinformation" and "being
| wrong every once in a while".
|
| The problem with sites like "honest reporting" is that they
| take these incidents, completely ignore (or outright defend)
| all the types _their_ side has been wrong on this type of
| stuff, and then construct a narrative that "proves" that
| "the other side" is merely a malicious cluster of evil that
| seeks to spread evil for evil's sake. This is exactly the
| type of dehumanizing hyper-partisanship that got us in this
| mess in the first place.
| yonixw wrote:
| > All newspapers get things wrong some of the time.
|
| And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash
| is big enough? Like in the case where there were no
| hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a
| failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
|
| https://archive.is/r6noB
|
| and the same version today:
|
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-
| ha...
| arp242 wrote:
| I can go tit-for-tat with examples from Israeli
| newspapers or even Israeli government for the rest of the
| day, but like I said, what matters is the overall pattern
| and how this compares. And as far as I know, Al Jazeera
| is not significantly worse here.
|
| Also: why are you using two accounts? :-/
| yonixw wrote:
| > examples from Israeli newspapers ... Al Jazeera is not
| significantly worse here.
|
| Sure, I would like to see something similar from
| Haaretz/Ynetnews where they believed Israel without
| critical due process. And did not retract in a consistent
| matter.
|
| And the second account is my mobile (I like it
| separate)... that is why I gave them the same name.
| afavour wrote:
| I'm not sure about "dark day for the media" but it does feel like
| a dark day for Israel.
|
| Once you've established that the government can unilaterally ban
| a voice for reasons of "national security" you've essentially
| given them a free pass. As Americans living post-9/11 will know,
| "national security" is a deliberately elastic term that can cover
| anything required in the moment.
| _Microft wrote:
| I think it's neither surprising nor necessarily bad. Just think
| of how Russia Today was spreading disinformation and propaganda
| about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Banning them from the EU
| was certainly in our interest.
| brabel wrote:
| It's disinformation according to the Government though, which
| is the same thing happening here with Israel, isn't it?
|
| Do you believe Al Jazeera is spreading misinformation? Even
| if Israel says so? Even if the USA starts saying so as well?
|
| I don't know where we can draw a line here.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It's possible to make a fair judgement about what a
| government is doing, and in many places people trust their
| government and accept their actions.
|
| But it's notable that the Israeli government refuses to
| submit itself to an election, especially in the face of
| widespread popular demands.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| We can draw the line when they report proven false
| information and never apologize for reporting so.
|
| We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al
| Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.
|
| We can draw the line when their reporters were (since then
| eliminated) active member of Hamas rocket teams.
| beyondCritics wrote:
| Can you back up the implied claims with some references?
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-
| an-israe..., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNLvL_8SeY
| this was proven false by many sources other than Israel
|
| 2. You can just google Al Jazeera Arabic anti Israel
| propaganda and you will find more content to read and
| watch than you can do in your life time
|
| 3. https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-
| reporter-in... https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-
| accuses-al-jazeera-jo...
| adhamsalama wrote:
| You can search for Israeli war crimes and you'll have
| more to read and watch than you can do in your entire
| lifetime.
| jolj wrote:
| Not parent, but:
|
| 1. False report about IDF rape
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-
| idf...
|
| 2. Arabic vs English Al Jazeera, conflicting messages
|
| https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-
| Jazeer...
|
| https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-
| analysis/aljazeer...
|
| 3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-
| reporter-in...
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-
| also-...
|
| https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812
| 921
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent
| in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to
| debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully
| report on Israel?
| jolj wrote:
| The difference is that Times of Israel is privately
| owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian
| government. also the information I posted can be found in
| other places. However, if you think a government that
| promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for
| journalism, that's your choice to make.
| adhamsalama wrote:
| Al Jazeera is biased. Source: my biased side.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| > We can draw the line when they say one thing on English
| Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.
|
| The vast majority of media companies that own media in
| different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line
| then, including most companies that have social media
| channels in different languages.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest.
|
| but you had no _say_ in the matter; so if a future ban is not
| in your interest, what will you do?
|
| no, the government should not stifle the market of ideas.
| that is not in our interest in the long run.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the government should not stifle the market of ideas_
|
| America is uniquely individualistic, our First Amendment
| uniquely strong. I believe in it. But it's not clear it's
| the only optimum.
| lukan wrote:
| "Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest."
|
| It is not in my interest, to become more like authorian
| russia for the sake of fighting them.
| Hoasi wrote:
| Exactly. It's undemocratic. It's also unwise strategically.
| forty wrote:
| I know the whole radical free speech theory where
| everyone should be able to see all discourses and make
| their own informed opinion. The thing is, the facts are
| that propaganda and fake news are super effective.
| Probably a failure of western democracies to develop
| critical sense of their citizens, or the lake of
| preparation to the quick rise of social networks. And now
| far right are rising in Europe too, of course driven - in
| part - by Russian propaganda and fake news (and funding
| too).
|
| So I'm not sure what is the good solution now. I'd be
| happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons
| for children to understand how those fake news work. But
| this is long term. Short term I think I'm okay if we
| don't have RT in France.
| loceng wrote:
| This is anecdotal, however I've seen some of this on social
| media: there are many Israelis - perhaps the majority - who are
| trying to be as vocal as they can to say that they don't
| support what their current government is doing.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support my
| government and my army's efforts to return the remaining
| hostages even in the face of double-standard world efforts to
| legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and
| misogynistic Hamas regime.
| C6JEsQeQa5fCjE wrote:
| > Then let me go on record as saying that I fully support
| my government and my army's efforts to return the remaining
| hostages [...]
|
| This is a common talking point that makes no sense when you
| think about it. Could you please explain how you envision
| the hostage release to be achieved through bombing and
| systematic destruction of the area that they are held in?
| It sounds much more likely to kill them instead. Why not
| simply negotiate a hostage exchange? Do you expect that if
| Hamas was about to be completely wiped out, that they would
| not simply kill all the hostages that were still alive up
| to that point?
| bawolff wrote:
| > Could you please explain how you envision the hostage
| release to be achieved through bombing and systematic
| destruction of the area that they are held in? It sounds
| much more likely to kill them instead. Why not simply
| negotiate a hostage exchange?
|
| That presumes that there is something hamas wants that is
| viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious that
| is the case in this conflict.
|
| Its not like "carrot and stick" negotiating tactics are
| unique to this conflict.
| afavour wrote:
| > That presumes that there is something hamas wants that
| is viable for israel to give them. Its far from obvious
| that is the case in this conflict.
|
| If that's true (and I agree that it may well be) then
| surely Israel's army's efforts _can't be_ in aid of
| hostage release, because it's an entirely unattainable
| goal?
|
| I think that's what the OP is getting at. The tactics we
| see don't seem like they'd be effective ways to rescue
| hostages. Nor does it feel all that viable to persuade
| Hamas to release the hostages. So what _are_ the current
| tactics in aid of?
| bawolff wrote:
| There are two ways it could in theory be in aid of that
| goal:
|
| - putting pressure - even if there is nothing now to
| negotiate with, military action could reduce hamas's
| negotiating position and in principle cause them to sue
| for peace. I'm a bit doubtful in this conflict, but
| traditionally this how war works. If your enemy refuses
| to surrender, you take their land until either they
| surrender or they have no more land. For example in world
| war 1, there was still a lot of deaths right up until the
| armistice even though people knew fighting was going to
| stop soon, because the sides thought the more land we
| have now, the better our position will be during the
| peace negotiations.
|
| - second, Israeli army could find where the hostages are
| and take them back by force. Also pretty hard, but if
| negotiations are unattainable its not surprising they
| would go here as the only other option.
|
| Most wars happen to obtain goals that are unattainable by
| peaceful negotiation. I don't think this conflict is any
| different in that regard than any other.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why not simply negotiate a hostage exchange?_
|
| Because there are two war aims: hostage release and the
| removal of Hamas.
|
| > _Do you expect that if Hamas was about to be completely
| wiped out, that they would not simply kill all the
| hostages that were still alive up to that point?_
|
| No, for the same reason countries don't kill all their
| prisoners of war right before surrendering. You still
| need to negotiate the terms of the peace.
| afavour wrote:
| > in the face of double-standard world efforts to
| legitimize the genocidal, racist, homophobic, and
| misogynistic Hamas regime.
|
| I ask this question very genuinely: what world efforts are
| seeking to legitimize Hamas? I have seen a great many pro-
| Palestinian perspectives but have not seen anything pro-
| _Hamas_ beyond fringe kooks.
|
| As for double standard... I think the reason you see the
| double standard is precisely because the comparison is
| racist, homophonic, misogynistic, etc. Israel _is_ held to
| a higher standard than neighbouring countries because it's
| a liberal democracy as opposed to a theocratic
| dictatorship. I (as an outsider of course) would think it a
| great loss for the world if Israel starts to consider Iran
| to be the bar they have to clear rather than anything
| higher.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what world efforts are seeking to legitimize Hamas?_
|
| No real efforts. But a surprising number of young people
| don't believe Israel has a right to exist.
| avip wrote:
| The opinion of Israel's majority about the government would
| usually be measured by elections, not social media.
| bawolff wrote:
| From what i understand, most polls in Israel suggest that
| if an election happened right now, the current government
| would lose.
| brabel wrote:
| The EU has banned many Russian and Belarussian news sources
| since the invasion of Ukraine.
|
| The USA seems to not have followed through (as far as I know -
| as Russian news sites seem to be available).
| taf2 wrote:
| We definitely did block or at least make them less available,
| as I recall prior to the invasion RT was commonly on when
| walking into a hotel room or in Youtube recommendation lists.
| Post invasion in US I never see it in any hotels or
| recommended on Youtube... was it censored or maybe just
| wildly boycotted, not sure... but seems appropriate as a
| response to me
| johnmaguire wrote:
| I think there is a huge difference between the government
| blocking access to a media outlet versus hotels choosing to
| no longer display said media outlet on their televisions.
|
| AFAIK, there has been no ban. It would probably face some
| backlash given the First Amendment right to freedom of
| press. (Though I'm not sure that truly extends to the press
| of a foreign country?)
| oivey wrote:
| This is a government ban. It is not at all comparable to
| your perception that private businesses are playing less
| Russia origin media.
| arp242 wrote:
| RT was outright banned by the EU after they invaded
| Ukraine:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Responses -
| it's also been dropped/banned by most mainstream platforms.
|
| I don't think you can compare Al Jazeera and RT, because
| one has been a firehose of bullshit that has literally
| advocates invasion of Ukraine, and the other does not. As
| far as I know, Al Jazeera is banned purely because they've
| been critical of current Israeli policy. There are some
| reasonable criticisms of Al Jazeera and things they could
| have done better, but that applies to every media outlet on
| the planet.
| jolj wrote:
| You'd might want to watch some arabic al jazeera. While
| Al Jazeera English pushes s the progressive post-
| colonialist narrative in the United States, Al Jazeera
| Arabic gears the Middle East for a war by pushing a
| Muslim Brotherhood idea of a Sharia state, Salafism and
| Jihad.
|
| Both have the same aim, just as Qatar Airways sponsor
| your flights with oil money so you might fly through
| Qatar, Al Jazeera pays journalists so they can push
| Qatar's narratives to Western or Arabic audience. This is
| highly similar to RT in intent.
|
| Looking from Israel standpoint, it's a news outlet that
| pushes your enemies propaganda arm videos unfiltered and
| also uses it to radicalize part of your population
| arp242 wrote:
| I don't speak Arabic so I can't really judge that; I'm
| sure there's tons of stuff I'd find distasteful, but
| being distasteful or even inflammatory (within some
| limits of reason) should not be outlawed. All I can do is
| go by articles such as this, which don't really seem to
| cite the same "firehose of bullshit"-type stuff.
|
| Also note that the Israeli government spends tons of
| money to push Israeli narratives and viewpoints. That's
| fine, they're allowed to do that, but we can leverage the
| same "highly similar to RT in intent" accusations against
| them. In the end we should judge actions, not intent.
| jolj wrote:
| In most of the world outside of the United States, there
| are laws that relate to the concept of a "defensive
| democracy". For example the laws that outlaw display of
| swastikas in Germany are contradictory with freedom of
| speech but are aimed at denying a democracy being
| exploited by extreme groups (see ww2).
|
| The discussion here is about the actions of Israel versus
| Al Jazeera, not a possibility of banning Al Jazeera in
| the United States or maybe Israeli viewpoints.
|
| Also, I am pretty sure Israeli spendings to push Israeli
| narratives in the US are minuscule, especially compared
| to Qatar's.
| A1kmm wrote:
| Do you have a link to an article in Arabic where they
| incite violence?
|
| I've spent a while translating various articles on the Al
| Jazeera Arabic site from Arabic to English with
| mistral-7b. Everything seemed to be very fact based, and
| was emphasising things like civilian deaths, which aligns
| to what I'd consider public interest.
|
| The Arabic text does consistently use the term shhyd
| (martyr) to describe Palestinian civilian casualties in
| Gaza, which is the closest thing to biased language I
| found across multiple articles about Israel and Palestine
| - but I think that is normal in Arabic for describing
| even non-combatant casualties and not necessarily
| reflective of bias given Arabic conventions.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Propaganda is a tool of war.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Is Qatar a belligerent in the war? Belarus has allowed Russia
| to use their territory as a point from which to launch both
| ground assaults and missiles into Ukraine. Hard to say the
| same about Qatar and Hamas. If Al Jazeera were an Iranian
| publication the comparison might be more similar.
|
| _Israeli news reports and analysts say Qatar has sent more
| than $1 billion to Gaza over the past decade._
|
| _Qatar sent that aid through fuel to the Gaza Strip 's Hamas
| government, which in turn sold it and paid partial salaries.
| In the past, the money was sent via suitcases stuffed with
| cash._
|
| _Israel allowed these transfers to Hamas. Supporters of
| Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say the payments his
| government approved helped keep the status quo in the Gaza
| Strip and Hamas from escalating attacks on Israel._
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210110109/qatar-israel-
| gaza-...
| avip wrote:
| Is this some kind of rhetorical question? Qatar is the main
| funder of Hamas regime. And hosting Hamas leadership. They
| fund Hamas more than Iran, according to Israeli
| intelligence (which may be wrong but that's the source we
| have)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Qatar is the main funder of Hamas regime_
|
| Iran is Hamas' main backer. Qatar funded Hamas with
| Israel's consent, so it's not really fair to hold this
| against Doha. (Their continuing to host Hamas' leadership
| is fair to criticise.)
| jjgreen wrote:
| _In July 2017, former CIA director David Petraeus
| revealed that Qatar has hosted the Hamas leadership at
| the request of US._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-
| sponsored_terr...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Petraeus revealed that Qatar has hosted the Hamas
| leadership at the request of US_
|
| Sure. Hence why I qualified my statement with
| "continuing." Doha hosting Hamas in '17 was fine. Doha
| hosting them after October 7 is fair to criticise.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Discovering that request surprised me, it strikes me as
| pragmatic and forward thinking; it also suggests that
| Qatar is rather keen to accede to US requests. Has that
| US policy changed now? If so I would have expected Qatar
| to expel.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I wish I could source this but I was reading rumors
| earlier this weeks that the US is currently in talks with
| Doha to expel Hamas leadership.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Has that US policy changed now? If so I would have
| expected Qatar to expel_
|
| Yes. Hamas was seen by even Israel as better than
| anarchy. That's why they let Doha fund them.
|
| We're now seeing American lawmakers criticising Qatar
| [1]. That's prompting Dohas to "re-evaluat[e] its role as
| mediator in ceasefire talks" and weigh "whether to allow
| Hamas to continue operating [its] political office"
| [2][3].
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-
| gaza-ce...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-
| gaza-ce...
|
| [3] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-
| considers-fu...
| forty wrote:
| > Hamas was seen by even Israel as better than anarchy.
|
| Better then anarchy or better than peace? There is some
| people on both sides of this conflict which are happy to
| see it radicalized and I think those people all benefits
| from the other being strong on the other side.
| YZF wrote:
| Better than anarchy and better Palestinians divided
| between Hamas and the PA is fair statement. Most Israelis
| don't believe any Palestinians have an interest in peace
| (I don't have a survey handy but I'm sure we can find
| one) and their actions reflect that belief. But if you
| can make a reasonable argument how defunding Gaza would
| result in peace then I'd be interesting in hearing it.
|
| All that said, the actions taken by the Israeli right are
| certainly not helping the possibility of a future peace
| agreement, but it's not clear whether this specific
| action belongs in that group. One might argue that a
| stronger central authority in Gaza means there is a
| partner for a future agreement and that if Gaza can
| transition to be a more peaceful place (and it seemed to
| be heading in that direction) that would also support a
| future agreement.
| NewJazz wrote:
| India pays a lot of money to Russia for oil, it doesn't
| make them a belligerent. China also has close ties, but
| arguably they've refrained from arming Russia.
|
| Are missiles coming out of Qatar? Are they even supplying
| arms to Hamas, or do they simply fund the civilian
| portions of the government?
| zeroCalories wrote:
| Both India and China produce their own fascistic
| propaganda supporting Russia. I wouldn't blame the EU for
| banning the Global Times.
| YZF wrote:
| Qatar is not exactly a belligerent but it hosts the Hamas
| leadership. It has been funding Hamas and other groups. It
| (partly) funds Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is considered by some
| to be its PR/Propaganda arm and has a low standard for
| factual reporting - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-
| jazeera/
| robert_foss wrote:
| Isreal has funded Hamas directly too.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israe
| l-q...
| lucumo wrote:
| Is that claim in the part behind the paywall?
|
| The furthest the freely accessible part goes is to say
| Israel "encouraged" Qatari payments to Hamas.
| Xeronate wrote:
| non paywall version: https://archive.fo/lgtyM
|
| from what I can see it never mentioned Israel directly
| giving money to Hamas. But encouraging payments seems
| close enough.
| YZF wrote:
| Israeli enabled money to go in to pay government salaries
| to prevent Gaza from descending in chaos. That said I
| think it's a matter of fact that maintaining Hamas as a
| counter to the PA was part of strategy of the Netanyahu
| government.
|
| I think pretty much any money going into Gaza should be
| considered funding Hamas. It either went directly to
| Hamas or it was taxed or it allowed Hamas not to spent
| that money. This means Europe and the US also funded
| Hamas.
| maskil wrote:
| Since when is the entire Europe a party in the war on
| Ukraine?
| NewJazz wrote:
| I didn't say that, and the matter is irrelevant to the
| status of Russia and Belarus and their media outlets.
| screye wrote:
| Qatar plays both sides. They have friendly relations with
| Hamas, Houthis and Iran.
|
| AlJazeera is known to be untrustworthy on matters of the
| middle east. Just as BBC is untrustworthy on matters of UK
| international politics and the NYT [1] can't be trusted on
| US foreign policy matters.
|
| AlJazeera, NYT and BBC are weapons of mass propaganda just
| like Globaltimes or RT. The main (and admittedly stark)
| difference is how often these weapons are deployed.
|
| []1 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandp
| ublis...
| avip wrote:
| Al-Jazeera propaganda/free press sites are also available in
| Israel
| loceng wrote:
| Censorship occurs on most of the major platforms, targeting
| specific topics or phrases, instead of outright banning
| channels; arguably to be as discrete as possible and not
| spook the herd, and where Twitter-X is going to allow the
| most information to flow - arguable more lies, but arguably
| also more truth.
| atlantic wrote:
| > The EU has banned many Russian and Belarussian news sources
| since the invasion of Ukraine.
|
| Yes it did. And that was a dark day for Europe.
| jorvi wrote:
| > The EU has banned many Russian news sources
|
| rt.com, enter... loads instantaneously.
|
| sputnikglobe.com, enter... loads instantaneously.
|
| Please don't lie.
|
| Edit: it was not a lie, my apologies.
|
| One of the most ineffectual bans I have ever seen.
| forty wrote:
| Maybe not for whole EU, but I read it was banned in France,
| and I can confirm I cannot reach it now (from France).
| jorvi wrote:
| I did some further research and technically the EU _has_
| banned them, but only from being broadcasted and they are
| supposed to be DNS-blocked but failing to do so is
| without legal consequences.
|
| To me this is more a discouragement of promotion than any
| real ban, but I will edit my previous comment.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The only justification would be if they are broadcasting
| government secrets.
|
| Clearly they're not doing that, just criticizing the
| government.
|
| The obvious next step is outlawing any speech criticizing the
| government (or rather 'speech that is a threat to national
| security'), then you've got the same laws as in Russia.
| deciplex wrote:
| Israel is also responsible for 3/4 of all journalist deaths
| in the last year.
| YZF wrote:
| There's plenty of Israeli media attacking the government day
| in and out. Haaretz, Yedioth, etc.
|
| They were not closed because they're "criticizing the
| government". They were closed because they're acting on
| behalf of a foreign agent and spreading propaganda (I think
| the actual language "is harmed national security"). Qatar is
| not a free country, it funds Al-Jazeera, it hosts the Hamas
| leadership.
|
| https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/
|
| "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that
| were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that
| favors Qatar."
| darkclouds wrote:
| Lets not forget that the British Govt banned Russia Today from
| broadcasting in the UK a few years back. Such is their planning
| and manipulation of events on the global stage!
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/18/will-ofcoms-de...
|
| Notice a pattern with the British Govt? They get their
| "independent" depts and businesses to do their dirty work for
| deniability!
| arp242 wrote:
| Russian government literally assassinated or tried to
| assassinate several people in British territory. That the
| Russian government's propaganda arm hadn't been given the
| boot after these spectacular acts of bad faith demonstrates
| that the UK government perhaps has slightly more dedication
| to press freedom than you're suggesting.
| fidotron wrote:
| Indeed, up until 2014 the BBC World Service was literally
| funded by the Foreign Office.
| exe34 wrote:
| It's quite usual to ban the enemy from inciting dissidence from
| your own population during a war.
| atlantic wrote:
| Yes, propaganda is acceptable during a war, and censorship is
| a part of that. But Europe is not at war with Russia. They
| are simply giving material support to one of the
| belligerents. Outside the context of a declared war,
| censorship should not happen in so-called democratic
| societies.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| That's quite a blunt viewpoint. Is it possible the
| situation is more nuanced?
|
| To resort to official declarations of war or lack thereof,
| to hamstring the US response to widespread dissemination of
| Russian propaganda is plausible on the face of it.
|
| But consider: the US is under no obligation to facilitate
| Russian propagandists. To deny them access is a matter for
| the State Department, as it's dealing with foreign
| nationals. It's quite routine to deny rights to non-
| American citizens.
|
| Finally, a declaration of war with Russia could destabilize
| politics everywhere. Or even, destroy the world. It's
| disingenuous to ignore that and quibble over the rules,
| especially since those rules clearly don't apply to foreign
| governments trying to operate in the US.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| > But Europe is not at war with Russia.
|
| Not yet, they're not.
| belorn wrote:
| I know that people in general seems to react strongly negative
| to government censorship, but I can not avoid seeing it through
| the light of recent trends of post-truth online censorships
| that blasted the internet during the last decade. Popularity of
| censorship is something that seems to go in wave, and outside
| the US there seems to be more acceptance to government
| censorship as comparative to platform censorship. In smaller
| countries the distinction becomes a bit blurry if it is the
| government doing the censorship, or the ISP's doing it
| voluntarily, or the dominant market platform making the same
| decision.
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| Honestly, I kind of think censorship would be a positive
| thing when applied to people lacking education. Where to draw
| the line is the issue, but at the least maybe people who
| didn't finish highschool or get a GED or equivalent shouldn't
| be exposed to conspiracy theories that they then act on.
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| > I'm not sure about "dark day for the media" but it does feel
| like a dark day for Israel.
|
| I would never expect any theocracy to be a bastion of
| democracy. Israel can't really realize its goals and be free at
| the same time. Those goals are not compatible.
| nkurz wrote:
| How much precedent is there for this? Are there parallels for
| other countries? Does the US prohibit any news agencies from
| operating in our borders? Does Europe? Does Russia? Does China?
|
| I presume North Korea does, but I don't actually know. These
| aren't designed to be leading questions. I don't know the
| answers, and rather than searching, I figured someone else here
| might know offhand.
| stoperaticless wrote:
| Tic toc was recently banned in US.
| LocalH wrote:
| Tik Tok isn't a news agency
| wudangmonk wrote:
| Its not but it is being banned because people are getting
| their news from there and its not following the right
| narrative that the 'real' news agencies are failing at
| peddling to the public.
|
| Then again I could be wrong and the U.S government just
| doesn't like people people dancing, hard to tell which one
| is the reason behind it all.
| user982 wrote:
| The congresspeople who voted to shut down TikTok have
| been very open about the reason: https://twitter.com/wide
| ofthepost/status/1787104142982283587
| nurple wrote:
| Like sibling said, they've been pretty clear on the why.
| They called an emergency session and Senator Ricketts was
| pretty clear that they view pro-Palestinian tiktok
| content as Chinese propaganda that's inciting the youth
| to protest[0].
|
| The administration has been threatening tiktok for two
| Presidental terms, but it wasn't until pro-Palestinian
| tiktok content had "more reach than the top 10 US news
| sites, combined" that they've taken broad bipartisan
| action.
|
| I've personally experienced the propaganda that US
| mainstream media doles out, I know it's real; in my mind
| this smacks of leaders reacting in fear to the erosion of
| control over what the American people can know about
| what's happening in the war. This lines up exactly with
| Israel's muting of Al Jazzera.
|
| Pretty amusing to watch sibling's link of Mitt Romney and
| the interviewer haltingly say "narrative" in hushed
| tones, like they know it's some kind of dirty word.
|
| The thing with propaganda is that it needs to have parts
| rooted in truth in order to be effective outside total
| information control; I consider the ability to consume
| everyone's propaganda an essential tool in distilling the
| most truth possible in a world where media and leadership
| across the world are openly concerned with the breakdown
| of their PR (read propaganda).
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8apP1YYg2o
| Ecstatify wrote:
| It's a forced divestment; they weren't banned but have a year
| to comply.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Eh, it's effectively the same thing.
|
| If Israel could force the sale of Al Jazeera to Israeli
| businesses I'm sure it's content would become far more
| acceptable to the Israeli government.
| verdverm wrote:
| It's only "effectively" the same thing if ByteDance /
| China decide to take the loss over selling.
|
| Also, the law could be changed or overruled in the next
| year. Don't count chickens before eggs hatch?
| verdverm wrote:
| TikTok wasn't banned explicitly. They are required to divest
| within a year. If they don't, then the app becomes banned
|
| It is likely more countries will follow. India trail blazed
| by banning TikTok almost 4 years ago after the border
| skirmish with China
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _TikTok wasn 't banned explicitly. They are required to
| divest within a year. If they don't, then the app becomes
| banned_
|
| Note, too, the difference between the app being banned and
| the source being banned. TikTok.com will continue to
| resolve even if they remain under Chinese control.
| cma wrote:
| Here Blinken and Romney discuss why Tiktok is being banned
| over allowing recommendations of Gaza coverage into
| people's feeds:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/1ckte1k
| /...
|
| There were attempts at banning it before the war, so
| probably not the only reason but it does seem to be why the
| push to ban it reemerged again.
| cornedor wrote:
| Not exactly the same, but rt.com is banned in the EU. However,
| I don't know how effective it is, since I can still visit it.
| verdverm wrote:
| WW2 provides ample examples. Information is part of warfare
|
| Russia is certainly jailing journalists. As example, Evan
| Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter, is currently
| imprisoned: https://www.wsj.com/news/evan-gershkovich.
|
| Nowadays, every country has an interest in preventing foreign
| influence operations across traditional and social media
| kergonath wrote:
| > Russia is certainly jailing journalists
|
| It is also famously killing them.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i.
| ..
| rjtavares wrote:
| Russia Today was banned in Ukraine in 2014 and in some (most?)
| EU countries in 2022.
| Ecstatify wrote:
| Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany,
| Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom,
| Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania,
| Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
| Romania, Sweden, Slovenia, Slovakia,
| aunetx wrote:
| I believe RT (which is Russian but produced some interesting
| journalism once in a while) was banned in Europe (or at least
| it is in France). I don't even know what to think about it...
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Both Russia and Ukraine ban multiple news agencies, which
| hopefully doesn't indicate where this is heading.
|
| Also the United Kingdom has added several of it's own citizens
| to sanctions lists for journalism within Ukraine/Russia.
| Bullfight2Cond wrote:
| RT was heavily censored in the USA and is banned in several
| European countries. Press censorship is pretty much the norm in
| 'western democracies' similar to everywhere else.
| kergonath wrote:
| Like any decision, the difference is how it is made (e.g. a
| vote in parliament versus an executive order), how long it
| remains in force (a limited time while a investigation is
| done versus indefinitely), and how accountable the decision
| makers are.
|
| All countries are on a spectrum, there is no clear line
| between shiny democracy and brutal dictatorship. They all
| have institutions that look similar on the surface. A
| democracy is not going to stop having a police force just
| because some police states also have one, for example.
|
| So yes, some democracies ban some media spreading propaganda
| for foreign interests, but the details matter.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _RT was heavily censored in the USA_
|
| Source?
| cma wrote:
| I don't know of any outright censorship of it, but all US
| journalists who worked for it were no longer allowed to
| after the outbreak of the war. If money is speech under
| citizens united, then pay for journalism would seem like it
| could possibly be protected under the same standard, though
| I think election funding is still allowed to be banned from
| foreign states even if they use super-PACs.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _all US journalists who worked for it were no longer
| allowed to after the outbreak of the war_
|
| Again, source?
| cma wrote:
| I thought i heard Chris Hedges claim that, but it looks
| like YouTube removed them and it wasn't necessarily from
| the sanctions.
| bentley wrote:
| > RT was heavily censored in the USA
|
| How heavily has RT been censored in the USA? Has the
| government ever censored it or pressured others to censor it,
| or is it just that links/rebroadcasts have been dropped by
| private entities of their own volition?
| joecool1029 wrote:
| > How heavily has RT been censored in the USA?
|
| It hasn't been. Probably more accurate to state that when
| it was carried on cable media they broadcast a bowdlerized
| version. Al Jazeera did the same thing when it was carried
| by cable/satellite in the US:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_America
|
| This was the RT channel you're probably thinking of:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_America
| worik wrote:
| > RT was heavily censored in the USA
|
| Really?
|
| I am a long way away, but I thought the constitution
| prevented that
| newsclues wrote:
| Lots of democracy limit journalism during war.
| tredre3 wrote:
| There's lots of precedent. We just have to look at the Ukraine-
| Russia war.
|
| Ukraine has shut down everything but the state-sponsored
| television.
|
| Russia has shut down most independent media since the beginning
| of the war as well.
|
| But admittedly, they are in a war of (dis)information so might
| not be representative of the freedom of the press.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The United States right of free speech is uniquely strong.
| That's why we're all just sitting here acting completely blase
| about bad faith propaganda destroying us.
| underdeserver wrote:
| Well, Al Jazeera is or had been banned in many Arab countries.
|
| Also, this measure is temporary, only lasting 45 days.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| I'll try to tackle this as objectively as possible.
|
| Not many countries enshrine press freedom as a constitutional
| right. US can't directly shut down news agencies by law but
| there are other less direct ways to restrict their ability to
| operate (like not granting visas). The US has all sorts of
| fringe news outlets, including some run by cults like Falun
| Gong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television
| )
|
| Europe likes to claim they support press freedom but they
| banned RT in many countries. Looking at the press freedom index
| my kneejerk is to rank a lot of their countries lower, but then
| I remembered there's a habit of suing or disappearing
| journalists in the US that probe into larger corps.
|
| As for Russia/DPRK/China, laws heavily restrict reporting.
| These are all way worse than Israel's current restrictions.
| DPRK has fully centralized mass media, so any other reporting
| inside is illegal by default without explicit approval of the
| state. China and Russia I think allows some reporting,
| basically anything appearing critical of nations of China or
| Russia can get you jailed/killed.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| RT and PressTV are banned in quite a few western countries.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Al Jazeera condemns Israeli government decision to shut down
| channel_ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40266122
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Did they wait for the world press freedom index to get published
| before doing this to artificially inflate their position on this
| year's list (it's published on world press freedom day, may 3rd
| annually) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
| DataDaemon wrote:
| How is this possible in a democratic country?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It's a great question. I suggest reading up on what democracy
| really means in the modern world:
|
| https://chomsky.info/consent01/
| quonn wrote:
| There is plenty of precedent as others have pointed out,
| including in the EU.
|
| And we are talking about a media outlet controlled by the
| government of a foreign country that also directly finances the
| opposing terrorist group and houses their leaders.
|
| Democracy merely depends on free media, not on free foreign or
| adversary media.
| usrusr wrote:
| Israel has never formally left behind the "make it up as you
| go" spirit of the founding days. Not entirely surprising
| considering that they've never had a lack of more pressing
| problems. But a "who needs rules if we are all friends"
| attitude certainly seems a bit anachronistic by now, and really
| not a good fit for the reality on the ground.
|
| But I make it the centerpiece of my best-case scenario for the
| region: imagine that gap left by the absent constitution
| getting filled by something aggressively secular, with a strong
| set of entrenched clauses (aka eternity clauses) protecting
| individual religious freedom from any majority shifts that
| might happen. Perhaps even with some strong federal element
| enabling peaceful growth (and Brexit-like shrinkage) like the
| EU. I'm certainly not holding my breath, neither expecting
| Israel to come up with anything like that (despite their
| internal made-up-as-they-went not being terribly far off, I
| think) nor this having any effect on countries refusing
| recognition. But then what other best-case scenarios are there?
| akira2501 wrote:
| If you allow "national security" to be used as an excuse to
| "grant powers" which ultimately just "destroy freedom" then you
| will end up with leaders who intentionally do a bad job at
| security in order to access the power that grants them.
|
| If your government cannot protect the country from journalists,
| then you should force them to resign, and call for new elections.
| ttul wrote:
| Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial looms large over all of
| this. If he were to lose power, he would be far more vulnerable
| to conviction and potential imprisonment. So from this vantage
| point, the Al Jazeera ban could be seen as an act of desperation
| - muzzling a high-profile critic as a concession to far-right
| parties, even at the expense of free press principles, all in
| service of his own political and personal survival.
|
| It paints a troubling picture of a leader whose decision-making
| is distorted by clinging to power at all costs. Undermining
| democratic norms to appease extremist coalition partners is a
| dangerous road that could lead Israel to more illiberal and
| authoritarian policies, especially toward Palestinians, the Arab
| media, and domestic dissent.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It was a very strange day yesterday: the whole week coverage
| had been building up to a meeting in Cairo, Hamas signalled
| they were going to accept the cease fire.
|
| Saturday AM EST, it was reported that Hamas confirmed they were
| going to accept the deal. By noon Saturday EST, the "Israel-
| Hamas War"...idk what to call it, live blog? collection-of-news
| headline?...was gone for the first time in months.
|
| Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple,
| protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to
| Israel rejecting a cease fire. Piecing it together from Twitter
| natsec people, standard blob, certainly not polarized against
| israel, Israel didn't even send a delegation to the talks, and
| the far right Israeli leader said Bibi promised him they
| wouldn't accept "a rushed deal" (i.e. the cease fire), and
| people were irate. An irate Israeli TV reporter revealed the
| anonymous "diplomatic source" promising no deal Friday night
| was Bibi himself.
|
| The blogs are back up now, with a sort of hurried framing that
| the talks fell apart because Hamas wanted a permanent cease
| fire (no mention of any of the above -- I assume that'd
| complicate it too much for, it needs to be a nice little set
| piece of Israel vs. Hamas.
|
| It's really, really strange watching the coverage the last
| week, in America, without any attachment to either "side". I
| guess its easier to push the A vs. B framing on a new subject,
| our college kids, rather than trying to explain how any of this
| makes any sense at all.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in
| Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining
| hostages.
|
| https://text.npr.org/1248276817
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Israel's war aims have transparently been about both
| returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
| NewJazz wrote:
| I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on
| agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably
| need to have new elections.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Israel isn 't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire
| anytime soon_
|
| A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A
| multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in
| exchange for hostages.
| arp242 wrote:
| "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I
| guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly
| what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point
| of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the
| possibility of something long-term? It's a completely
| absurd thing to say.
|
| This has long been the problem, with the Israeli
| government never offering any perspective or hope on a
| long-term solution.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What 's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at
| least offer the possibility of something long-term?_
|
| To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and
| restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent
| ceasefire.
|
| I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire
| being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
| runarberg wrote:
| I think it is much easier to understand the situation if
| we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any
| ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps
| saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact
| that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to
| vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary
| one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a
| ceasefire.
|
| The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent
| with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire
| talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and
| Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If
| Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would
| not antagonize the mediator this way.
|
| No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire,
| neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they
| want is to make it look like they are making an effort,
| but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a
| faction inside the military which actually wants a
| ceasefire, so perhaps--and hopefully--a ceasefire can be
| negotiated _despite_ vandalism attempts by the Israeli
| government, but I'm not hopeful.
|
| In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that
| he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade
| Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically
| cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
| arp242 wrote:
| > open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire.
|
| Israeli government already very clearly and explicitly
| said that this window doesn't exist; that was my entire
| point. If he had said "we MAY still invade" or anything
| even slightly more qualified, then sure. But he didn't.
| Unless something went spectacularly wrong in translation,
| what I read is that he said in very clear terms that
| Israel will absolutely invade.
|
| Whether that's just empty threads or not is a judgement
| call, but it's certainly not the language of good faith.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It's a nice set piece, it's a simple idea that's
| impossible to disagree with -- we have to eliminate the
| terrorist military leadership that perpetrated a
| massacre. why would they get a permanent cease fire?
|
| To your point, in my varied Israeli media diet, it's
| well-understood in the _entire_ press that Bibi went out
| of his way to torpedo it by saying this simple idea over
| and over. A majority is weary of it because the
| implementation of those specifics is "we will work our
| way through the refugee camp and then ???"
|
| We can confirm this is from an unbiased perspective by
| noting that the protests kicked up a notch, and the TV
| presenter outed the anonymous diplomatic source as him,
| and then perusing original sourcing as to why. (to share
| something I learned re: sourcing, Haaretz will be seen as
| some interlocutors as a left-wing rag doing performances
| for overseas audiences, Times of Israel is better)
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| He's playing with the same rulebook of Slobodan Milosevic -
| He's trying to make apparent to everybody that if he goes down,
| his own country will go down with him.
|
| Frankly, it feels like the only hope for an end to this
| conflict is in the hands of the internal Israeli political
| opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not stopped, we're
| gonna see the same... "approach" used with Palestinian people
| applied to whatever internal resistance is left.
| stoperaticless wrote:
| I share similar view. Israel response is guided by prime
| minister's personal political ambitions, while war is ongoing,
| the leader has more power and less of a chance to be replaced.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| If I was Jewish I'd be very upset of what is being done in my
| name. The Israeli government, by insisting any criticism is
| antisemitic, is equating Judaism with its own actions. With their
| existing extreme, brazen and opportunistic behavior they're
| slowly mainstreaming antisemitism as outrage grows at the
| government and people accept being called 'antisemitic' if they
| oppose it. It's a tragedy for Jews.
|
| I don't say this as a personal view, but as a logical
| inevitability.
| aqme28 wrote:
| I am Jewish, and that's pretty much how I feel. Israel wants
| criticism of itself to be seen as antisemitic, which means that
| anything Israel does that warrants criticism (e.g. killing
| children) ends up driving people towards antisemitism.
| kergonath wrote:
| It's a standard behaviour in theocracies. Being against the Al-
| Sauds means being against Islam (according to the Saudi
| government), other governments do that too. Being against Trump
| is being against Christianism (according to Republican
| fundamentalists, hopefully those won't end up in the cabinet
| again).
|
| The State props up the religion by normalising it and
| undermining its competition, and the religion props up the
| state by providing convenient pretexts and effective
| brainwashing mechanisms. I am not Jewish, but I find it
| particularly disgusting too. My sympathies to humanist Jews who
| are thrown into this nightmare.
| gigel82 wrote:
| You can make a parallel with Russia Today being (effectively)
| banned in the US (albeit not via direct government action). Both
| are just mouthpieces of their respective masters and not a source
| of objective information.
|
| That said, banning media presence in Gaza by Israel, and the
| overall hesitance of western media to report on the devastation
| is very disappointing.
| kristopolous wrote:
| The optics are interesting. People who have opinions on things
| are unlikely to change them due to this.
|
| The interesting question is how many people do not have strong
| opinions and how this could affect them.
|
| My guess is it also won't. Why would you be paying attention to
| news you haven't cared about up to now? The nonopinionated will
| likely not hear of this
| fathyb wrote:
| What is worrying is what it'll mean for the access to the West
| Bank and Gaza, as they're currently the only international
| media outlet on the field, and are documenting various
| atrocities that are currently being looked at by the ICJ.
| kristopolous wrote:
| I don't think anyone involved in a conflict really wants
| third party journalists around.
|
| Look at the consequences for Snowden, Assange and Manning.
|
| We probably need to mandate third party international
| journalist access as some kind of rules of war expectation.
|
| Otherwise basically any war crime can be waged with impunity
| until well after the fact if you can cutoff access to
| discover it
| H8crilA wrote:
| I don't feel good about this at all, but please keep in mind that
| there is still serious independent journalism in Israel. And it's
| doing very well. For example I can recommend pretty much anything
| published by Haaretz, or Barak Ravid. We should monitor the
| health of their domestic media should things start going un-
| democratic there. After all nothing can replace domestic media,
| this is painfully clear in the case of Russia.
| YZF wrote:
| There are also many other foreign journalists in Israel. Other
| than Al Jazeera there are no restrictions on foreign media from
| operating in Israel. Certainly not western foreign media.
| Ecstatify wrote:
| https://theconversation.com/how-israel-continues-to-
| censor-j...
| sa501428 wrote:
| There are indeed restrictions on western foreign media.
|
| "Like all foreign news organizations operating in Israel,
| CNN's Jerusalem bureau is subject to the rules of the Israel
| Defense Forces's censor, which dictates subjects that are
| off-limits for news organizations to cover, and censors
| articles it deems unfit or unsafe to print. ... the military
| censor recently restricted eight subjects, including security
| cabinet meetings, information about hostages, and reporting
| on weapons captured by fighters in Gaza. In order to obtain a
| press pass in Israel, foreign reporters must sign a document
| agreeing to abide by the dictates of the censor."
|
| https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-
| repo...
|
| https://theintercept.com/2023/12/23/israel-military-idf-
| medi...
| flumpcakes wrote:
| This seems reasonable to me? If a western press were
| outside missile factories saying "this is the only place
| our super missiles are built!" I would expect the
| department of defence to block that information from being
| published...
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| That's unlawful in the United States, whose values Israel
| purportedly represents. It's called "prior restraint".
| flumpcakes wrote:
| Are you saying the United States would not block
| something being reported by the media? Because that is
| certainly false.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| There is not legal mechanism for that to occur unless the
| writer is a government employee
| vundercind wrote:
| It's very much legal in wartime, for exactly those sorts
| of purposes. Though I'm not sure we've tested the
| legality of it in this modern world where nobody actually
| formally declares war anymore--I don't think it's been
| attempted.
|
| (Please don't flame thinking I'm hardcore in support of a
| particular side in this war due to this post--you've very
| likely gotten the wrong impression. I'm commenting only
| on the narrow point that the US in fact can censor,
| including with prior restraint in certain circumstances,
| during war.)
| feedforward wrote:
| Well the parent said there are no restrictions and there
| are restrictions.
| trandango wrote:
| There absolutely are restrictions. No journalists are allowed
| in Gaza, which is at odds with almost every other conflict in
| the past hundred years.
|
| The stated reason is "to keep journalists safe". But
| journalists have risked their lives in many conflicts to
| bring the news to people, its their choice to risk their life
| or not. Unless one were to believe that all journalists
| biased against israel, there is no reason to restrict all
| journalists. Why not let in Christiane Amanpour, or many
| other western trained and western paid journalists?
| flumpcakes wrote:
| Is this true? I do not think journalists are just allowed
| to the front lines of any war. The entire Gaza strip seems
| like one giant front line. There needs to be more
| journalists reporting but I think just allowing anyone to
| walk anywhere because they've got 'press' on their jacket
| is probably just going to end up with dead journalists
| considering journalists will want to be were the fighting
| is and will gravitate towards danger.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| IDF also kills journalists for sport (Shireen Abu-Akleh
| comes to mind).
| flumpcakes wrote:
| That seems very reductive to just say that as if it is a
| fact. 90% of the claims I've seen about the IDF end up
| being just nonsense. I did pay very close attention to
| what happened with Shireen Abu-Akleh and I think that was
| definitely not dealt with in a satisfactory way.
| so_delphi wrote:
| "not dealt with in a satisfactory way" is exactly the
| justification that IDF has used after many similar
| circumstances. Let's say they just don't care, since
| there are no repercussions.
| arp242 wrote:
| > Let's say they just don't care, since there are no
| repercussions.
|
| I think that's a fair statement, but also a far cry from
| "killing journalists for sport". These kind of
| exaggerated claims aren't helpful.
| YZF wrote:
| We should also keep in mind the Palestinians refused to
| allow the IDF to conduct its own forensic investigation.
| That's partly why the was no definite conclusion from the
| investigation into the matter. You can't demand that
| Israel investigate and then not enable it to do so.
|
| "The US State Department subsequently announced on July 4
| that tests by independent ballistics experts under U.S.
| oversight were not conclusive about the gun it was fired
| from but that US officials have concluded that gunfire
| from Israeli positions most likely killed Akleh and that
| there was "no reason to believe" her shooting was
| intentional. US investigators had "full access"[138] to
| both IDF and PA investigations.[139][140][141] The
| Palestinian Public Prosecutor's Office disputes the US
| conclusion that the bullet cannot be matched to a gun and
| maintains its position that the killing was
| premeditated.[142] On July 5, the US stressed that it did
| not conduct its own probe, but the conclusion was a
| "summation" of investigations by the Palestinian
| Authority and Israel.[143]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh#Subsequent_i...
| Jochim wrote:
| Funny how often that seems to happen with the IDF.
| Maxious wrote:
| War correspondents have been around since at least the
| French revolution. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I of
| the Geneva Conventions provides for protection of war
| correspondents to the level of civilians.
| Maxious wrote:
| > Israel's military can continue barring foreign journalists
| from accessing the Gaza Strip, the High Court said Monday,
| citing ongoing security concerns after months in which only
| Gazans or correspondents accompanied by the army have been
| able to report from inside the enclave.
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-says-israel-can-
| kee...
| adhamsalama wrote:
| They literally kill journalists, including western
| journalists.
| eBombzor wrote:
| I'm not a fan of Al Jazeera myself but this sets a very bad
| precedent. Israel is winning the war but they are being very
| short sighted among the decisions they are making.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| I wouldn't classify murdering 30k+ civilians (15k+ children),
| dropping bombs on entire families, being caught[0] executing
| civilians with drones in plain view, having israeli holocaust
| scholars and survivors describing israel's actions as
| "textbook-case of genocide"[1][2], the world seeing israel as
| an illegitimate pariah state, as "winning", but you do you.
|
| [0] "Note that this footage permits no room for "it was a
| mistake," showing repeated, specifically-targeted strikes on
| the unarmed and even wounded. The sort of behavior the ICJ
| explicitly forbid in the genocide ruling against Israel."
| https://x.com/Snowden/status/1770936325996155290
|
| [1] Gaza 'Textbook Case of GENOCIDE' - Holocaust Scholar
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUeEnjULHe0
|
| [2] Holocaust Survivor Tells Me: Israel Is Committing Genocide
| - w. Stephen Kapos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4PFmz4MNdg
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Winning is based on war aims. Israel's were the return of
| captives and removal of Hamas. It is further along in those
| aims than it was in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks;
| that's fairly defined as winning. (Taken to the extreme, Nazi
| Germany was winning WWII in 1940.)
|
| > _the world seeing israel as an illegitimate pariah state_
|
| Your other claims are true. This one is not.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| >> the world seeing israel as an illegitimate pariah state
|
| >Your other claims are true. This one is not.
|
| I should have phrased that more precisely but I was just
| judging by what Israel's ministry of hasbara itself seems
| to be most concerned with and fears the most is people
| questioning israel's legitimacy. Combined with the
| sentiment that can be seen across social media where even
| regular folks have started seeing israel as a racist
| settler colonial project that has no legitimacy. But you're
| correct, my previous wording was too ambiguous since "the
| world" is too broad and can refer to too many things.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the sentiment that can be seen across social media
| where even regular folks have started labelling israel as
| a racist settler colonial project that has no legitimacy_
|
| A majority of Americans support Israel's war [1]. An
| overwhelming majority believe Israel has a right to exist
| [2]. (The exception being 18 to 24-year olds, among whom
| 31% believe Israel does not.)
|
| Israel has faced practically zero actual diplomatic
| consequences as a result of its war, with even those
| voting against it at the UN continuing to _e.g._ trade
| with and talk to it [3].
|
| [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/majority-in-u-
| s-say-i...
|
| [2] https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2023/12/HHP...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Israel
| kelthuzad wrote:
| >A majority of Americans support Israel; that fraction
| has actually grown recently [1]
|
| America is a special case and does not represent the
| regular folks of the world because it's home to the
| strongest israeli lobby on the planet and their
| supporters are mostly die-hard evangelicals for whom no
| evil israel does is too far.
|
| Just listen to Jonathan Greenblatt's admission in the
| leaked[1] conversation where he verbatim states: "We have
| a major, major, major generational problem, All the
| polling I've seen: the ADL's polling, ICC's polling,
| independent polling, suggests that this is not a left,
| right gap folks. The issue of the United States' support
| of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old."
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1
| bec4z5/...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _America is a special case and does not represent the
| regular folks of the world_
|
| Israel's net favourability is down globally [1]. But
| there is zero evidence it's losing legitimacy; very few
| countries flipped sign. Instead, it was countries that
| didn't like Israel a bit disliking them more. (And again,
| not to the degree of carrying policy consequences.)
|
| > _issue of the United States' support of Israel is not
| left and right. It is young and old_
|
| Sure. 31% is a lot. But it's also still 31%.
|
| [1] https://time.com/6559293/morning-consult-israel-
| global-opini...
| kelthuzad wrote:
| >Israel's net favourability is down globally [1]. But
| there is zero evidence it's losing legitimacy; very few
| countries flipped sign.
|
| >zero evidence it's losing legitimacy
|
| zero? "Colombia nation cuts ties with Israel amid
| Columbia University protest"[0]
|
| Your judgment on this is rather shortsighted and there is
| more than enough evidence that israel is losing
| legitimacy. The people's opinion rarely turns into policy
| over night, even in democracies.
|
| I've observed the sentiments on this particular issue for
| more than a decade and I can tell you that I've never
| seen such insane amount of regular folks, from diverse
| backgrounds and political affiliations, who fearlessly
| speak truth about israel in a manner that would make
| Menachem Begin tremble in his grave. I'm observing
| Israeli accounts and hasbara efforts and it's evident,
| from the content they produce, that they fear losing
| legitimacy and are acting accordingly e.g. investing a
| lot of money into gerrymandering/astroturfing[1]
|
| Even dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the
| US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own legitimacy
| because of what their own people perceive[2][3] as
| corrupt and subservient behavior to the empire. Those
| dictators are one arab spring away from getting brought
| to justice by their own people for their complicity in
| israel's genocide and they know it and they fear that.
|
| [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/05/02/
| columbi...
|
| [1] https://x.com/5149jamesli/status/1783144486031495389
|
| [2]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-01/saudi-
| ara...
|
| [3] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240415-jordans-
| treachery...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Colombia nation cuts ties with Israel_
|
| Ukraine has cut diplomatic ties with Russia; the Baltic
| states have gone almost as far [1]. That doesn't mean
| they deny Russia's legitimacy as a state.
|
| There has been zero change in recognition of Israel since
| October 7 [2]. (Belize and Bolivia also severed
| relations, by the way. And Turkey stopped trading. But
| again, very different from disagreement and denying
| legitimacy, and why I said _practically_ zero diplomatic
| consequences, a threshold much lower than loss of
| legitimacy.)
|
| > _more than enough evidence that israel is losing
| legitimacy_
|
| Open to being convinced, but do you have a source?
|
| > _I 've never seen such insane amount of regular folks,
| from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, who
| fearlessly speak truth about israel_
|
| Plenty of batshit crazy stuff seems widespread on the
| internet.
|
| > _they fear losing legitimacy_
|
| Sure. They should. America fears China annexing Taiwan;
| that isn't evidence it's happening.
|
| > _dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the
| US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own
| legitimacy_
|
| The ones who helped Israel repel Iran's attack?
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-blames-
| baltic-co...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recogniti
| on_of_I...
| kelthuzad wrote:
| >> more than enough evidence that israel is losing
| legitimacy
|
| >Open to being convinced, but do you have a source?
|
| A state's legitimacy hinges not only on diplomatic
| relations with other states but also significantly on
| public perception and global discourse. This is
| particularly evident in the case of Israel, where many
| now view it as a racist colonial entity which is a danger
| to israel's legitimacy. As I've stated before, your
| judgment on this seems to be extremely shortsighted, you
| may dismiss the countless of crucial events of the past
| months but israelis certainly don't, they speak of the
| existential threat of "delegitimization" of israel and
| they are fighting it tooth an nail[0]. Why would they so
| fiercely fight the "delegitimization" of israel if they
| didn't see it as a real & existential threat?
|
| >> I've never seen such insane amount of regular folks,
| from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, who
| fearlessly speak truth about israel
|
| >Plenty of batshit crazy stuff seems widespread on the
| internet.
|
| Without "batshit crazy" people israel couldn't even
| survive, those "batshit crazy" evangelicals have immense
| influence on policy. Furthermore, your dismissal is a bit
| flippant, the people I've seen speak out are sensible &
| reasonable; people from whom I would have never expected
| to hear harsh truths about the zionist colonial project.
|
| >> they fear losing legitimacy
|
| >Sure. They should. America fears China annexing Taiwan;
| that isn't evidence it's happening.
|
| I don't think that is an adequate comparison. I'm not
| interested in writing an essay on how different those
| conflicts are, I'm pretty sure you know enough about
| that.
|
| >> dictators in the middle east, who are puppets of the
| US and Israel, are fearing of losing their own legitimacy
|
| >The ones who helped Israel repel Iran's attack?
|
| Yes, the article[1] I linked above literally mentions
| that and I really don't see how your point diminishes in
| any way what I've argued for.
|
| [0] The Diane and Guilford Foundation that grants this
| fellowship to you has as its stated mission "the
| prosperity and safety of Israel". Their grant focuses
| include "confronting the delegitimization of Israel" and
| to advance "Israel's geopolitical interests"
| https://x.com/birdelaire/status/1784413355236790382
|
| [1] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240415-jordans-
| treachery...
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think you should be skeptical of the official state
| claims of war aims. It seems quite apparent that Israel's
| actions are working towards the goal of ethnic cleansing
| and land conquest.
| ahaseeb wrote:
| I am surprised they even had a office there
| jl6 wrote:
| How big a share of Palestinian media consumption does Al Jazeera
| have? As in, do the residents of Gaza treat it as the main news
| source?
|
| The reason for asking is because a poll[0] of Palestinians says
| "90% believe that Hamas did not commit any atrocities against
| Israel civilians during its October the 7th offensive. Only one
| in five Palestinians has seen videos showing atrocities committed
| by Hamas."
|
| So is it Al Jazeera's fault that Palestinians have not seen the
| evidence and seem not to think 10/7 was all that problematic? One
| assumes that if such deliberate distortion/omission was normal
| practice at Al Jazeera, Israel would be able to clearly point to
| it. But the justification for the ban is a pretty vague concern
| about national security.
|
| [0] https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _do the residents of Gaza treat it as the main news source?_
|
| Does Gaza have sufficient connectivity for its population to
| _have_ a real news source?
| Animats wrote:
| "and block its websites." So this keeps Israelis from reading Al
| Jazeera.
|
| Now that's new. Israel started Internet censorship in 2017.[1]
| Initially it was limited to "terror group websites, online
| illegal gambling, prostitution services, hard drug sales". At the
| time, "due to warnings from rights groups that the law poses a
| slippery slope toward additional censorship, the final version of
| the legislation dictates that rights groups may appeal the
| decisions."
|
| Then, in 2021, there was the "Facebook bill", authorizing very
| broad censorship.[2] That does not seem to have passed. It was
| first proposed in 2016, almost passed in 2018 [3], tried in 2021,
| and tried again in 2022. It doesn't seem to have passed.
|
| But something new happened recently. Wikipedia has a note at
| Censorship in Israel: "This article needs to be updated. The
| reason given is: New ban issued by the knesset on foreign media
| channels. Please help update this article to reflect recent
| events or newly available information. (April 2024)"[4] The
| Knesset gave the government the authority to ban foreign media on
| April 1, 2024.[5]
|
| This isn't just about preventing outside media from reporting
| from Israel. It keeps Israelis from viewing media the government
| doesn't like. Haarez has good coverage.[6]
|
| The US White House press secretary issued a weak statement
| condemning Israel's action, but it was on April 1st and the
| costumed Easter Bunny overshadowed that statement.[7]
|
| [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/to-tackle-online-crime-
| israel-...
|
| [2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/proposed-censorship-bill-
| more-...
|
| [3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israel-nearly-destroyed-
| fr...
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel
|
| [5] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israels-knesset-
| approve...
|
| [6] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-05/ty-
| article/is...
|
| [7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-
| briefings/202...
| suddenexample wrote:
| > The US White House press secretary issued a weak statement
| condemning Israel's action, but it was on April 1st and the
| costumed Easter Bunny overshadowed that statement.[7]
|
| Wow you can't make this stuff up
| joecool1029 wrote:
| > Haarez has good coverage.
|
| For now. They are likely to be the next outlet banned. The
| government has been openly threatening them for a year or so
| now.
|
| https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article/is...
| quonn wrote:
| They will not be banned. There is zero evidence for this.
|
| There is a big difference between banning what can only be
| described as a fake news outlet controlled by the adversary
| government of Qatar vs. banning the most important or second
| most important independent newspaper in the country.
|
| When _that_ happens then the completely unjustified outrage
| in many comments here will be justified as that would indeed
| be an unprecedented step.
| subliminalpanda wrote:
| On what basis in Al Jazeera a fake news outlet?
| quonn wrote:
| On the basis that I have read and compared it myself for
| about two decades.
| datenyan wrote:
| That's not a solid basis for considering something to be
| "fake", let alone to be banned.
|
| I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to
| Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that
| doesn't mean it's actually true.
| quonn wrote:
| I didn't ban it and the Israeli government certainly
| didn't ask me for my opinion. They had their own reasons
| and their own evidence and I only gave you _my_ reason
| for considering it fake news, which most of it is.
| quonn wrote:
| > I could say that I have read and compared the BBC to
| Truth Social, and decided that BBC is "fake news"; that
| doesn't mean it's actually true.
|
| If you decide that 2+2=5 that indeed doesn't make it
| true.
|
| I have merely said that I found that 2+2=4.
| avip wrote:
| In order for that to happen, a Shabak rep. Will have to
| provide statement that Haaretz poses serious threat to the
| national security of Israel. Call me when that happens
| (spoiler: it won't).
|
| Now _that_ would make an interesting hn story.
|
| [EDIT: sorry, having read the bill again, it's also required
| for Haaretz to be "a foreign news channel"]
| angra_mainyu wrote:
| Europe has done the same with Russia.
|
| Also, I think a few other Arab countries like Egypt have
| blocked/banned Al Jazeera.
| patall wrote:
| Do you have examples for Europe blocking Russia? Because all
| I have seen is DNS providers omitting certain sites (i.e RT),
| but their apps still work (plus URLs when using other DNS).
| An nothing of that coming from the nation states as all seems
| to be due to the activities of private companies doing these
| things.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| At least in the UK, you used to be able to watch RT on
| broadcast. Now only the Internet version is accessible, and
| I think some ISPs DNS block them. Granted, a DNS block is
| easy to circumvent if you understand it, but most users
| will still be cut off.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| As a total outlier, RT was paying the cable/sat systems
| to be carried in US/Canada, instead of the other way
| around.
|
| https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/rts-purchase-of-
| cana...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/rt-channels-unique-carriage-
| dea...
|
| I wonder if other countries were the same.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's not really an outlier. Common for political
| networks, religious channels, shopping networks....
|
| Probably more than half the channels on a typical
| American cable system are paying to be there. Especially
| the stuff in the basic tiers.
| jdietrich wrote:
| RT, Sputnik and related Russian state media outlets are
| subject to sanctions in the EU, their broadcast licenses
| have been revoked and their channels have been removed from
| terrestrial, cable and satellite broadcasts. Their accounts
| on all major social media platforms are blocked. Their apps
| are no longer available on the Google or Apple stores.
| Europe doesn't have a Chinese-style Great Firewall, but EU
| countries have taken every reasonable step to prevent
| Russian state media from reaching EU audiences.
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-sputnik-illegal-
| eu...
|
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/ofcom-revokes-
| rt-b...
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/01/youtub
| e...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-google-
| blocks-r...
| angra_mainyu wrote:
| rt.com and their twitter are blocked.
|
| How are you not aware of this? It's been a few years
| already.
|
| The EU ruled on this.
|
| https://paste.pics/4b60ebef97d3b7fbb6aba74637c2e818
|
| https://paste.pics/0cb2ae98754165dad5cf086e75c4cc31
| liopleurodon wrote:
| It's part of the EU sanctions, EU ISPs are required to
| block certain Russian sites. But they didn't specify how,
| that's left up to the countries to figure out afaik. But as
| you say, some of the what has been done barely qualifies.
|
| Here's my personal experience with this:
|
| Germany does exactly what you describe, the bare minimum to
| say "we're blocking" --- DNS omitting certain sites.
|
| Spain is doing deep packet inspection, blocking DNS
| requests that lookup RT, so DNS over HTTPS or through a VPN
| is a must. Additionally, they're also reading the SNI in
| TLS requests and blocking that way. If you try accessing RT
| in pure unencrypted HTTP you're get some fortigate blocking
| message back.
| Maken wrote:
| It is still perfectly possible to access RT from Spain,
| even using regular ISP DNS servers.
| mrtksn wrote:
| That's correct and IMHO its the right thing to do when
| shooting begins because when people shoot each other this is
| no longer a discussion and the press is part of the warfare.
| Remember all the Russian media and social media accounts
| claiming that its American hysteria that they will invade
| Ukraine? They denied and mocked anyone who claimed that they
| will invade up until the tanks rolled in.
|
| Personally, I'm critical of the Israeli government but I
| think it's in their right to try to control information flow
| as they are in process of driving people from their homes and
| mass killing people in retaliation of a terrorist attack that
| claimed the lives of over thousand innocent people.
|
| I really dislike glorification war and pretending that it has
| rules or honour or something like that. People are taking
| lives en masse and its more than normal to try to control the
| information flow when doing it.
| Loquebantur wrote:
| I find it downright perverse to call genocide "retaliatory"
| and the act of covering it up "normal".
| mrtksn wrote:
| I get a warning comment and a warning email when I call
| it genocide or something less diplomatic, therefore I
| have to watch my language.
|
| Oh and I find it completely normal for people killing
| other people to try to cover it up. Everyone likes to
| believe that they are the good ones and no one likes to
| face the consequences of their actions, therefore coverup
| it is.
|
| What's perverse with that?
| Beefin wrote:
| for anyone reading and wondering what qatar's intentions are with
| their media arm, they're the largest foreign donor of US
| institutions: https://tikva.so/qatar
|
| it's not coincidental that these are where all the protests are,
| and suddenly college students have access to thousands of $ of
| camping gear...
|
| they're also aggressively anti israel/jew:
| https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560
|
| they employ high journalistic standards for everything but
| israel.
| cjk2 wrote:
| Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are
| two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and
| one which is presented to Middle-Eastern audiences. The media and
| articles are politically aligned in each region. Don't assume
| what you read in the US/UK/wherever is the same as over there.
|
| In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally
| showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across
| the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al
| Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through
| media, not as an unbiased news agency.
|
| It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security
| risk.
|
| Why would you allow that to continue in your country?
| exe34 wrote:
| I didn't realise they had two versions, but it makes sense. Is
| the anti-infidel version only available in Arabic then?
| cjk2 wrote:
| Yes it is. They have low to no journalistic standards in that
| edition and it's heavily propagandized depending on their
| agenda. Their entire reputation is based on the Western
| version as "look we use those standards everywhere" which is
| definitely not true.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| Where's the proof to back your statement? Extraordinary
| claims require extraordinary evidence.
| erichocean wrote:
| CNN has two versions too, one for US audiences and one for
| the world.
| vundercind wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that's more normal than not for news orgs
| that have a home country or region but also compete on the
| global market. Some have _several_ versions, not just two.
| angra_mainyu wrote:
| Other Arab countries banned them too.
|
| You should do some reading up on Qatar's agenda, extremist
| groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and how Al Jazeera fits
| into all of that.
|
| This is part of the reason why some Arab countries have
| banned them.
| gregoryl wrote:
| Which Arab countries?
| Ahmd72 wrote:
| Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is
| doing what you're accusing?
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_Arabic#Controversie.
| ..
| Ahmd72 wrote:
| I'm not really sure pulling out a controversies tab from
| wikipedia is making the point that OP is trying to make.
| It's like citing BBC for their controversies
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_controversies
| r00fus wrote:
| There are no direct examples I could find. Do you have a
| direct link?
| jdietrich wrote:
| See for yourself:
|
| https://www.memri.org/search-
| results?country_id_report%5B0%5...
| pydry wrote:
| Those are interviews with Hamas spokespeople. It isnt the
| opinion of al Jazeera being presented.
|
| There's nothing more shocking than the stuff Ben Gvir
| (security minister of Israel) does or says.
|
| The second interview even references his calls to burn
| women and children as, yknow, a bad thing.
|
| "memri" doesnt seem to consider that valid context, that is
| probably because it is a state propaganda outfit acting on
| behalf of that same Israeli minister who openly expressed a
| desire to burn women and children.
| jdietrich wrote:
| It's not an interview if a spokesman is allowed to say
| whatever they like without being challenged. It's not an
| interview if you broadcast a pre-recorded speech without
| comment. Ben Gvir is awful, but that doesn't change the
| fact that Al Jazeera's Arabic service is not impartial
| and is not acting as a legitimate journalistic outlet.
| tdeck wrote:
| > It's not an interview if a spokesman is allowed to say
| whatever they like without being challenged.
|
| This describes most interviews I've seen with Israeli
| government officials in the American press, although it's
| starting to change over the last few months.
| candiodari wrote:
| The point is that Al Jazeera will purposefully present
| differing views in different languages.
|
| In English:
|
| Ceasefire negotiatios failed again
|
| In Arabic, same news item:
|
| Hamas spokesperson says they'll keep killing and raping
| Israeli's next time in Jerusalem and NEVER accept a
| ceasefire until all Jews are dead
|
| Whether this is more or less dramatic/problematic than
| what some Israeli politicians say is not the point. I
| would also like to point out that you see the same on
| twitter, facebook, tiktok. Victimization in English,
| Threats, racism and claims of victory in Arabic.
| Ahmd72 wrote:
| This is not purposefully, Arabic is the main language of
| the people living in the regions, the Arabs. Just because
| they're catering to that out and giving news accordingly
| to the local demographics, bringing speakers from there
| doesn't make it their viewpoints. If you want to accuse
| someone of pushing agenda then Western media outlets and
| outlets that pushed the "40 babies beheading" stories is
| more factual.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Can you please provide links?
|
| It's hard for me to believe that your "Arabic" version is
| genuine. But if that's just me being naive, then I'd like
| to understand the truth, but I need actual evidence for
| that.
|
| So if there are genuine headlines like that on Al
| Jazeera, it should be trivial for you to provide a couple
| of representative links that we can run through Google
| Translate to verify?
| stareatgoats wrote:
| Sources, please.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| All you're going to get is rhetoric rather than substance to
| justify Israel's obvious attack on press freedom.
| cma wrote:
| > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security
| risk.
|
| Saudi Arabia is not exactly a bastion of free speech and
| murdered US journalist Jamal Khashoggi using the cover of an
| embassy. Not exactly a great endorsement of what Israel is
| doing here.
| keefle wrote:
| > It's even banned in some Arab countries for being a security
| risk.
|
| If I recall Egypt partially did that after the military coup,
| and some Gulf countries. None of which are known for being kind
| to criticism. So this point is more validating of Aljazeera's
| position as relatively honest journalism in the a region full
| of dictatorships and corrupt governments.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I wouldn't say it's validating, just not necessarily
| invalidating.
|
| Regardless, a news organizing funded by a monarchy not
| exactly known for its human and civilian rights mostly like
| has an agenda beyond "honest journalism".
| neves wrote:
| Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC
| exactly fits your definition :-)
|
| BTW both have very high standards and make excellent
| journalism.
|
| I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism
| instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.
| dralley wrote:
| >BTW both have very high standards and make excellent
| journalism.
|
| With respect to everything except the middle east.
|
| I won't deny that they have generally good coverage on
| many subjects, but the nuance is that they leverage /
| launder that credibility towards advancing the state aims
| of Qatar whenever needed.
|
| And as OP mentioned, if you look up how AJ covers a topic
| in English and how they cover it in Arabic, it's _wildly_
| different.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| The BBC doesn't fit my definition as it's run by a
| democracy with a high degree of human rights and civilian
| freedoms.
|
| And journalism can be technically right while still
| showing a very one sided view.
|
| Not that I'm pro ban, just saying that there's a good
| reason to be vigilant when it comes to their news
| coverage and make sure it's not you're only source.
| emadabdulrahim wrote:
| Provide any evidence of the accusations you're hurling, please.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally
| showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across
| the region directly from Hamas. > > It's even banned in some
| Arab countries for being a security risk. > > Why would you
| allow that to continue in your country?
|
| Especially when you have, in your country, about 20% of muslim
| arabs, most of which being israelo-palestinians ( _i.e_.
| palestinians with an israeli passport).
|
| The last thing they'd want, in addition to fighting both Hamas
| and Hezbollah, would be an uprising of the israelo-palestinians
| who live in Israel.
|
| It's of note that while there about 20% muslims in Israel,
| there's about zero jewish person in Gaza (there are some
| israelo-palestinian though) and zero jewish person in Iran. Or
| close to that.
|
| The number of publication and jewish newspaper offices in both
| Gaza and Iran should also be food for thought.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _last thing they 'd want, in addition to fighting both
| Hamas and Hezbollah, would be an uprising of the israelo-
| palestinians who live in Israel_
|
| You're talking about Israeli citizens. The way you keep them
| from uprising is by giving them political power. (I also see
| no evidence any uprising is imminent.)
| eganist wrote:
| This is a loaded argument that requires citations. Since you're
| making the claim, can you please link specific articles from
| the Arabic site that make your point? As well as linking which
| Arab countries banned it and when?
|
| It's easy to just claim something, but it's crucial to back
| your point up front when it's particularly sensitive so as to
| not inadvertently spread misinformation. You may be correct,
| but that's why the citations are needed.
| jdietrich wrote:
| >which Arab countries banned it and when?
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1980191.stm
|
| https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2017/05/24/Websi.
| ..
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/28/al-jazeera-
| ban...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-censorship-
| idUSKBN1...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The first link...
|
| > According to a news bulletin on the Qatar-based channel,
| Mr al-Hamr said the ban was being imposed because the
| station was biased towards Israel and against Bahrain.
|
| > Mr al-Hamr is said to have accused the station of being
| infiltrated by Zionists. "We believe (Al Jazeera) is
| suspect and represents the Zionist side in the region. We
| will not deal with this channel because we object to its
| coverage of current affairs. It is a channel penetrated by
| Zionists," he was quoted as saying.
|
| This is perhaps making the opposite point I think you
| intended to.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide
| political influence...
|
| FWIW it's what Qatar does. They've also been caught the hand in
| the cookie jar bribing EU officials:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kaili
|
| She's a MEP and yet went on to defend Qatar as a bastion of
| democracy (!). Close to a million EUR was found in cash at her
| apartment: which probably helped defend a country where the
| official law is the Sharia law as a bastion of democracy.
|
| War is ugly but religious extremism is ugly too, especially
| when it's financed by a shitload of oil.
|
| People would do well to wonder who's financing all these
| "grassroots" movements in the EU and the US defending people
| who voted in power a terrorist organization who swore by the
| death of Israel.
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _Why would you allow that to continue in your country?_
|
| We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them
| a right to make up our minds on the basis of an uncensored
| discourse. That's the other, implicit half of the first
| amendment: the right to listen to what others want to tell you.
| avip wrote:
| Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in
| the US under the protection of the first amendment ?
| DEADMINCE wrote:
| If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence,
| then yes.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Um.
|
| Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a
| sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her
| brother and took him in.
|
| Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that
| users in game forums had told him he could make these
| kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it
| wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the
| legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at
| that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.)
| Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they
| implemented their own machinations to ensure he was
| effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they
| sent him to live with relatives.
|
| I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can
| say things like this. It's like, well you can _say_
| anything. But if you say things that make oblique
| suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that
| point on. And excluded from any activities that people
| believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they
| now suspect to be your intentions. You can 't talk about
| indirect suggestions of violence against airliners,
| presidents, or students in schools and still expect to be
| able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner,
| or go to the school you attend. Society doesn't work like
| that these days.
| SuperNinKenDo wrote:
| Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference
| between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else
| did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to
| report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing.
| What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know
| that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do
| believe that free speech requires the right to report that
| somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and
| that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to
| rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to
| do so.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you
| aren't inciting _imminent lawless actions_ you can say
| pretty much anything.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Forget speech, how about actual right to living... it was
| only a few years ago that lynching was not uncommon for
| black people in America.
| csdreamer7 wrote:
| > Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic
| group> in the US under the protection of the first
| amendment ?
|
| You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal
| action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment,
| but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in
| this thread.
|
| From the poster a few levels above:
|
| > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were
| literally showing videos demanding further uprising against
| Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the
| entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide
| political influence through media, not as an unbiased news
| agency.
|
| Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for
| genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part
| of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama
| Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to
| report on him.
|
| Please learn the difference of showing a video of a
| terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news
| anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that
| terrorist and joining that call for genocide.
|
| America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of
| media for example which I am not familiar with.
| neves wrote:
| Would you please link to examples the same news to Western
| audiences and to Middle Eastern ones? We can use Google
| translates by our selves.
|
| Sorry, but I can't just take your words for it. It looks more
| like propaganda.
|
| The more I read Al Jazeera, the more I respect their high
| journalism standards. I'm from a third world country and really
| envy the quality of the news.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| The first half of your comment is fascinating and sounds
| entirely plausible. At first glance.
|
| The second half contains emotion which makes clear where your
| heart is on this. So, that casts a shadow of doubt.
|
| Could it be that there is credibility to your point but not to
| such an extreme extent where it's like this deliberate
| conspiracy? I mean, as soon as everyone finds out, then this
| would actually be kind of a dumb plan on their part. The Arabic
| audience can inform the English audience of the discrepancy and
| vice versa. What if it's not a conspiracy but a consequence of
| a large organization containing a blend of biased opinionated
| departments? Some more focused on journalism, and some on
| catering to local audiences' tastes. That would make more sense
| to me, along with the typical biases of all news-media orgs
| everywhere in the world..
| feedforward wrote:
| The reader should take note that when those celebrating "the
| only democracy in the Middle East" shutting down a news
| organization, and blocking Israelis from accessing their web
| site - when they talk about Hamas and the political influence
| of Qatar - remember that Netanyahu sent the head of the Mossad
| to Qatar weeks before October 7 to encourage them to send money
| to Hamas (
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
| ). He did this because the Palestinian Authority in the West
| Bank was making peaceful, political headway in getting
| Palestine internationally recognized.
| ipqk wrote:
| In the USA, we have Fox News & its ilk which advocates for
| overthrowing our own democracy, but it's protected by freedom
| of the press. So yes, I would allow that in my country.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > were literally showing videos demanding further uprising
| against Israel across the region directly from Hamas.
|
| If you mean that they were covering such demands and showing
| clips in which they are made etc. - what's the problem with
| that?
|
| > for being a security risk.
|
| goes to show they were doing some decent journalistic work
| then. Not that Al-Jazeera is saintly, or unbiased, or treats
| all subjects fairly etc. (they are under the indirect control
| of the Qatari government after all) - but they certainly offer
| critically important coverage of what's happening in Palestine
| in general, and Gaza in particular, which is very hard to get
| elsewhere.
|
| > Why would you allow that to continue in your country?
|
| If by "you", you mean a semi-totalitarian state which wants to
| silence coverage of its crimes and hide the horrors of its
| actions from the world and from its residents, then - you're
| right, you definitely wouldn't want it to continue operating.
| moneywoes wrote:
| > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally
| showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across
| the region directly from Hamas
|
| Have any citations?
| flandish wrote:
| > from dang's comment: Yes, that is hard when emotions run
| strong, but hard != impossible, and it's what the site rules ask:
| "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less,
| as a topic gets more divisive."
|
| Remember: it's not divisive when the "other side of the divide"
| supports genocide. Literally _anything_ zionism does needs to be
| questioned and called out with rigor and attention to reality.
|
| Their choice to shut down access to people who's opinions don't
| support their actions says more than the reporting could.
| dang wrote:
| Of course it's divisive. No topic is more divisive these days.
| flandish wrote:
| Except it should not be divisive - as the topic of a nation
| state's actions toward their stated goal of genocide (I'm
| sorry, "mowing the lawn") should turn everyone against said
| nation state. Instantly.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| Doesn't that depend on what you say 'zionism' is? If the
| definition of Zionism is just "a safe place" or "a country for"
| Jewish people, isn't that antisemitic to be anti-zionist? You
| don't want anywhere for Jewish people?
|
| It seems everyone is saying something different and when I see
| things like:
|
| > Literally anything zionism does needs to be questioned and
| called out
|
| I worry that we're glossing over lots of things with a wide
| brush.
| flandish wrote:
| That's.. not what zionism is and even if it was, genocide is
| not ever acceptable as a way toward that end.
| sampa wrote:
| remember, when a hostile state does it - it is because they're
| dictatorial.
|
| when a friendly state does it - it is because it was a threat to
| democracy.
|
| don't confuse 'em
| seydor wrote:
| Israel doing this might not be very significant, but if other
| countries, e.g. Germany do the same then this seems to cross
| another line
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a
| liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might
| say."
|
| --George R.R. Martin
| henry2023 wrote:
| The genocide in Gaza and the subsequent full colonization of the
| strip during the years to come will be the most shameful event of
| the twentieth first century. Denying the genocide is like denying
| the holocaust while it was happening.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| As Americans, we're constantly told, "Israel is the only
| democracy in the Middle East." The narrative is always that
| they're "our greatest ally" because we share similar values to
| them. Well, one of our values--in fact, a constitutionally
| protected one--is press freedom. Al Jazeera has been the only
| media/news outlet in Israel that offered the Palestinian
| perspective and they've shut it down. As a rule, you're probably
| not the good guys when your tactic for winning the information
| war is censoring the other side--especially while you're being
| accused by millions across the world of committing a genocide
| (whether you agree with that characterization or not).
| zeroCalories wrote:
| TBH I don't care to extend charity like freedom of speech to
| people that don't share our liberal values. Sure, the bar should
| be very high for such charges, but organizations like Al Jazeera
| have repeatedly shown their colors.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-05 23:01 UTC)