Palestinians, as well as some left-wing Jews, are being suspended from studies, fired from jobs, or arrested at night — all because of social media posts.
Remember folks. Support Israel because they’re “the only Democracy in the Middle East™”.
Also, you aren’t allowed to criticize Israel. If you do, you must be a anti-Semite or Holocaust denier or something.
Yeah don’t worry, they’re the good guys. The good guys are always the ones arresting and murdering people who critique them. North Korea, China, Russia, the good guys. Support Israel. There is no gun to my head. Support Israel.
*for now…
Ok, I’ll bite. Which country in the Middle East is a democracy then?
Did Netanyahu get a copy of Mein Kampf, cross out every instance of ‘Jew’ and change it to ‘Palestinian’ and then use it as a guidebook or something?
He is a Machiavellian war criminal that uses wars for personal gain. A corrupt hate mongerer.
He belongs in prison.
He belongs in prison.
Literally wasn’t he being charged with a corruption lawsuit before this mess started?
Yes, and he was deflecting and prolonging the trial. If he could gerrymander it, he would.
A grade a, slick piece of shit. Sociopath.
Gerrymandering isn’t a thing in Israel.
The knesset (Israel’s only lesgislative body) uses party-list proportional voting, using closed party lists and the d’hont method for apportioning seats.
Basically, each party publishes a list of candidates. As long as that party gets at least 3.25% of the vote, they’ll get a seat.
On the plus side, everyone has a voice. On the minus side, it’s not hard for the crazies to get a seat at the table and an outsized voice due to having to make a governing coalition.
Yeah, meant that as a reflection on his character, but thanks for being informative! That never hurts.
I thought he managed to change the law so he is legally untouchable now?
He declared himself the only person to declare himself absentee (even if he were to die right now).
That doesn’t mean his term won’t end after 4 years, or that the government can’t disband for elections.
He still hasn’t become Arduan or Putin, which is why most of the violence in the protests was the government vs the people and not a mutual thing.
Does it matter if the government could technically disband if it never does?
Not possible in Israeli law. Yet.
Hopefully, it never will.
Removed by mod
Israel or the settlement preceeding it was allied with Nazi Germany. It is not ironic that Israel built a giant concentration camp in Gaza:
That was the first stage of the Holocaust. The Nazis even considered sending all Jews to Madagascar at one point. Thats one thing that I try to point out to people, the Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers, it started with people being chased out of their homes and treated as second class citizens. It took years of good people doing nothing for it to metastasize into the death camps.
No, he is perfectly fine to discriminate against the self hating Jews /s
I mean… Hitler was fine with discriminating against Christian Germans who weren’t members of the party. That was why he had secret police.
No Christian in Nazi Germany was discriminated for being Christian. Hitler referred to himself as Christian, had a catholic upbringing and was never excommunicated, not even retroactively to this day. The two big Christian denominations received very favorable laws (see Reichskonkordat) which they are very fond of to this day. The antisemitism in Nazi Germany was an aggravation of centuries old Christian antisemitism which could be found all over Europe. All claims that any Christian was discriminated by the Nazis for being Christian is patently absurd. It was a deeply Christian movement with some occult/pagan elements (see Himmler & Co).
I didn’t say they were discriminated for being Christian.
Then what’s the point of saying “Christian German” instead of just “people”?
Because Jews and Roma in Germany were also German.
Still doesn’t make sense to me. The way I’m reading what you’ve written is that you’re insinuating that peoples’ Christianity played a role in them being discriminated by Hitler and his cronies, which was never the case. Peoples’ beliefs played no role in political persecution and hence I don’t see the point in emphasizing Christianity here. He also had no trouble discriminating against Atheist, agnostic, Pagan, … people if they were politically opposed.
Oh that’s great news, maybe you should go ahead and tell the families of the 2500 priests who were incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp. They will be so happy to know that they weren’t discriminated against for their religion. I’m sure those long term plans from the Nazi party to de-christianize Germany were just Nuremberg propaganda.
Oh that’s great news, maybe you should go ahead and tell the families of the 2500 priests who were incarcerated in Dachau concentration camp …
… for opposimg the Nazis. They were incarcerated for political opposition, not for being Christians. The entire persecution of the Jews only worked because of the cooperation of the Christian churches with the Nazi state. There was no central birth register at the time. It was the church books that determined how (non-) jewish you were. Especially the Catholic church facilitated the fleeing of Nazis to Argentia and other places at the end of the war. Lots of the Christian churches actively supported the Nazis, many did not oppose them, and the few that did were persecuted for that; not for being Christian. This is all very well documented.
They will be so happy to know that they weren’t discriminated against for their religion. I’m sure those long term plans from the Nazi party to de-christianize Germany were just Nuremberg propaganda.
This is plain and utter nonsense. That article is pure garbage, misrepresenting what actually happened. Never did the Nazis (as a whole/party line) want to replace Christianity. They wanted to replace the existing denominations with one state run church, with a Nazi-flavored Christianity, but still Christianity. They created new versions of the Bible where they adjusted some parts to better reflect their ideoligy. When they failed to establish that, they intensified their cooperation with the existing churches. Again, this is all very well documented. These top secret documents don’t really provide any new information, unless, like that “news article” you lie about their content and misrepresent “replacing existing churches with a state church” as “replacing Christianity”. What a heap of garbage. You should adjust your bullshit filter and read some proper history books about Nazi Germany and the involvement of the Christian churches. There was just a tiny fraction of Nazis with Himmler on the top who would have liked Christianity gone, who were neither representative of the party line nor in a position to realize that. Representing anything they said as “the Nazis wanted to …” is disingenuous at best.
Jehovah’s witnesses were actually some of the first victims of the Holocaust. Alongside the mentally and physically handicapped.
And are to this day not even considered a religious group, but a sect monitored by the intelligence service (Verfassungsschutz) in Germany. In Germany in the 1930s, ~95% of the population were either Catholic or Protestant; other Christian denominations only accounted for .5% of the population. Don’t nitpick in the .5% when talking about Christianity in Nazi Germany. Red herring much …
They literally targeted Roman Catholics because the feared they wouldn’t be loyal to the state.
That’s simply not true. They didn’t target Catholics, they targeted parts of the Catholic church (the institution) for political opposition. That’s a very different thing.
No it isn’t. When you go after a Church to limit its voice in society you are attacking the faithful. Targeting the church IS going after Catholics.
Maybe from a revisionist perspective. ~20% of NSDAP members were Catholic. Keep in mind that the NSDAP was founded in deeply Catholic Bavaria. ~400 Catholic priests from Germany ended up in concentration camps, out of 20.000. It was no attack on the Catholic church, but on individuals within the church who publicly opposed the Nazis. That’s political persecution, not religious persecution. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.
95% of the German population was either Catholic or Protestant. And so was the NSDAP and their voter base. It tilted more to Protestants, but Catholics were not excluded. The Reichskonkordat benefitted the Protestant and Catholic churches equally.
This is more of a reply to everybody and not just your comment specifically. Where do you people think the antisemitism in 1930s Germany came from? Hitler and the NSDAP came around and turned “everybody” into anti-Semites? No. The Christian antisemitism was already there and the NSDAP tapped into it. Especially, but not limited to, from the Protestant side: Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Pogroms had been taking place all over Europe for hundreds of years before the NSDAP arrived. The NSDAP “only” brought it to the next level. The entire anti-Semite NSDAP movement was deeply rooted in Christianity. If any Christian individual was persecuted by the Nazi regime it was for political opposition, not for their Christianity. If a fringe Christian sect was persecuted by the Nazis, they were persecuted by other flavors of Christianity! That the Nazis (who were by and large Christians) persecuted Christians for being Christians is complete revisionist nonsense!
Remember the past or you are condemned to repeat it!
never excommunicated, not even retroactively
You can’t be excommunicated retroactively.
Excommunication is meant to socially pressure someone into repentance, which is obviously pointless after death.
Well, they also didn’t during his lifetime, did they? And that while being aware of the Holocaust: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-find-evidence-pope-pius-xii-ignored-reports-holocaust-180974795/
By the time he rose to power, Hitler was no longer a practicing Catholic. In fact he publicly aligned himself with “Deutsche Christen”, a Nazi version of Protestantism. So again, excommunication would have been pointless.
And what did the Catholic church at least used to do with people denouncing their faith?
Removed by mod
Not to diminish anything else here but have a look at how much they look like American police uniforms. You can tell we’re a police state because we quite literally export it to authoritarians.
Lol, we export to everyone, don’t get it mixed up. We’re the biggest arms exporter in the world. Our customers are of all regimes, not just fascist ones
I quite literally never made that point nor would I. In fact I implied the opposite in that we are fascists and we’re exporting fascism under the guise of policing.
Hunh? You think that the USA is a police state because we use similar police uniforms with Israel?
I’ll make a bet we’ve trained them and a us company probably made and sold that uniform to them, hence export.
Actually, it’s US police that go to Israel for training. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-us-police-training-end-knee-neck-protests
Crosstraining, they train us in operating open air concentration camps and we teach them how to gas protestors.
Extremely unlikely we are doing any of those things. US textiles are fairly expensive compared to almost all nations and there would be no reason to have US police training Israeli police since they follow different standards and do not encounter similar crime.
US made doesn’t mean made in the us, more often then not it means made in Indonesia, shipped to the US, tags applied and resold. The US is quite literally the largest manufacturer and exporter of police equipment in the world by a large large margin.
They literally crosstrain with a police department that’s so goddamn bad the federal government has to step in several times and their drug task force was disbanded and charged with drug traffic and criminal acts including torture and murder.
Ok but your example is the reverse situation where the Israelis are training American police after the US police crossed too many lines. So this isn’t an example of the US training Israel to be more brutal but rather the Israelis theoretically training them to be less.
No it isn’t, Baltimore is still under consent decree and they didn’t go to Israel to get better at picking, they went to go get better at oppression which is what I said.
You literally suggest Americans trained Israelis and now that isn’t true you are claiming you said the opposite.
So morally upright they have to arrest anyone who accuses them of war crimes. Nope nothing to see here.
Fucking hell.
deleted by creator
Netanyahoo is a fascist shit. The only thing he deserves is to be overthrown.
Netanyahoo
The only acceptable misspelling.
Netanaskjeeves.
Netangoogle.
Netanaltavista.
Netanbing.
Netanlycos.
Netanexcite.
Netandogpile.
Netanhotbot.
Netanmsn.
Netanduckduckgo.
B-b-b-but everyone was assuring me that Israel is a beacon of democracy in a sea of oppression!
Totally normal behaviour from a totally not authoritarian or far-right extremist apartheid government.
This article is important highlighting the repressive actions being done in Israel right now.
I want to highlight two things from the article:
cases of students who published words of praise for terrorism
people being summoned to police investigations or questioning simply for “liking” posts on social media — including an Arab teacher working in Tiberias who was suspended because she liked a post shared by the Instagram page Eye on Palestine
I wish the article would put some more emphasis in distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions on the one hand (which should be considerd protected speech), and incitement to violence and terrorism on the other (which should rightfully be persecuted and banned)
Israel is at war right now, and this causes Israeli instituations to drastically overextend their definition of what constitutes “incitement to violence” and “supporting terrorism”.
We must be able understand the nuances and hold Israel accountable for quashing legitimate speech, while still understanding their duty to prevent incitement to violence, which inevitably leads to real violence.
These same criticisms and nuances should also be directed at Palestinian institutions.
Differntiate legitimate speech from incitement to violence
deleted by creator
Personally I don’t find condemning calls for violence to be mutually exclusive from wanting Palestine free, but you do you I suppose.
Thank you for perfectly exemplifying what “no nuance” looks like
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
So you’re for liberation of all oppressed peoples except in this one instance…and we’re the braindead ones?
Toldry, I have spent the past week doing serious research into the Israel/Palestine conflict. I have looked at pro Palestine arguments as well as pro Israel arguments along with third party sources and cross referenced timelines of events and quotes from key players from the 1800s til now. I can safely say both sides are terrible and there’s a lot more than meets the eye going on right now. Thank you for providing nuance and level headedness in a time when people are increasingly feeling pressured to pick a side. Remember people, you can condemn both hamas and Israel. Both have done dirty things to each other from the beginning and both have engaged in deception so often that I feel there is truly no good guy in this situation.
Is anyone suggesting Israel should ignore outright calls for violence against Israel by people in Israel? Because as far as I can tell that’s not a thing that’s happening, so I’m not sure why you’re making such a big deal of saying it shouldn’t be tolerated.
It is a thing that’s happening.
I don’t have an Englrsh source, but here is an article about some of students in Haifa university that expressed support and cheered on the October 7th attack. They were suspended from the university.
Keep in mind they did this even before the Israeli army responded in any way and did anything in Gaza.
Cheering on the terrorist attach in October 7th that killed thousands of innocents is a call for violence against Israel.
That article isn’t very specific about how exactly they “expressed support” so it’s really hard to say if they were expressing a gross political view or actively inciting violence. I certainly don’t think saying “I support Hamas” should be illegal any more illegal than saying “I support Russia” or even “I support Israel”, but it crosses a line if they tell people to commit acts of terrorism or give material support to Hamas.
I suspect they were removed based on a violation of a student code of conduct, which I think is the right way to deal with high-profile assholes at universities, just as employment agreements are an appropriate way for employers to deal with conduct that’s obnoxious but not illegal.
At any rate, I’m certain Israel already has laws against incitement to violence that were written at a time when people were a bit more level headed. I can’t see an attempt to further criminalize speech as anything but an attempt to stifle political speech that specifically does not incite violence.
First of all, I’m an Israeli, so take everything I say with a grain of salt, and I’ll try to be as unbiased as I can. Hamas, as opposed to Russia (I don’t say Israel because a lot will disagree), is an internationaly recognized terrorist group, which was elected* by the people of Gaza after Israel pulled all civilians and military from the Gaza strip, Hamas has made it very clear that their sole mission was to eradicate all the jews (not Israelis or zionists) from Palestine (and I’m not sure about that - also the world). So an Israeli supporting Hamas would be very problematic, Imagine an american supporting Al qaeda right after 9/11. And I just want to emphasize, supporting Hamas is not necessarily supporting Palestine and vice versa, myself I think that any hamas operative deserve to die, but I really hope and dream for the day that the Palestinians would be our peaceful neighbours. *elected technically, as they drove fatah, their main competitor and more moderate towards israel.
I think we may just have a different idea of what counts as incitement. I’m an American and I can tell you that openly expressing support for Al Qaeda would have made you very, very unpopular here, but it would not be illegal. There are cases where I think the American version of free speech goes too far (in that it protects things like dangerous misinformation and foreign propaganda), but I don’t think this is one of those cases. The social consequences of supporting terrorists are already harsh enough to keep those views mostly suppressed. People can, of course, find like-minded people and express their opinions in private without fear, but even then, if the conversation goes beyond expressing opinions and moves on to making plans to commit a crime, that’s considered a conspiracy, which is illegal. We have counter-terrorism units that actively try to infiltrate extremist groups specifically so they can shut down conspiracies.
I don’t think Israel (or any country) should allow speech that directly puts anyone in danger, but given the right-wing nature of Israel’s government and the tendency of right-wing governments in general to suppress speech they disapprove of, I strongly suspect that any new law will inevitably be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government.
I try to keep my ideas and opinions out of this conversation to keep it unbiased, but the reality I see, living in Israel my whole life is that support for a terrorist organization is directly related to terrorist activity, for example we’ve seen it in 95 when support for a radical right wing Jewish terrorist group quickly ended in the assassination of the prime minister Itzhak Rabin, and Hezbolla supporters are easily recruited by Hezbolla to report where Hezbolla missile hits so Hezbolla can correct they’re aiming. As much as I understand,just supporting hamas’ actions, as vile and horrible as it is is free speech, but the road from there to actively take action in aiding Hamas is extremely short.
I’m prepared to accept that things are different in Israel for a reason. Especially because my opinion on that topic makes even less difference than my opinions on American politics.
Human Rights Watch has a good report about free speech, protest, and journalism under Israeli military orders: Born Without Civil Rights
It also mentions where there is overlap between civil rights abuses from Israel and from the Palestinian Authority, although there is a separate report on the PA: Two Authorities, One Way, Zero Dissent
I also recommend reading the three case studies under section VI. The first one is a doozy, and parts of it are mentioned in the summary below. The third one, a guy gets kicked around by Israel and then also the PA.
Relevant highlights from the summary:
The regulations empower authorities, among other things, to declare as an “unlawful association” groups that advocate for “bringing into hatred or contempt, or the exciting of disaffection against” authorities, and criminalize membership in or possession of material belonging to or affiliated, even indirectly, with these groups.
Military Order 101, which criminalizes participation in a gathering of more than ten people without a permit on an issue “that could be construed as political,” punishable by a sentence of up to ten years. It further prohibits publishing material “having a political significance” or displaying “flags or political symbols” without army approval.
Military Order 1651, which replaced 20 prior orders and imposes a 10-year sentence on anyone who “attempts, orally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area [the West Bank] in a manner which may harm public peace or public order” or “publishes words of praise, sympathy or support for a hostile organization, its actions or objectives,” which it defines as “incitement.” It further outlines vaguely worded “offenses against authorities” whose penalties include potential life imprisonment for an “act or omission which entails harm, damage, disturbance to the security of the Area or the security of the IDF” or entering an area in close “proximity” to property belonging to the army or state.
The Israeli army also regularly cites the broad definition of incitement in its military laws, defined to include “praise, sympathy or support for a hostile organization” and “attempts, orally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a manner which may harm public peace or public order,” to criminalize speech merely opposing its occupation.
Military prosecutors, for example, in early 2018 claimed in an indictment against activist Nariman Tamimi that she “attempted to influence public opinion in the Area in a manner that may harm public order and safety” and “called for violence” over a livestream she posted to her Facebook account of a confrontation between her then-16-year-old daughter Ahed and Israeli soldiers in her front yard in December 2017. Her indictment notes a series of charges under Military Order 1651 based primarily on the livestream, including “incitement,” noting that the video was “viewed by thousands of users, shared by dozens of users, received dozens of responses and many dozens of likes.” Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and case file, and nowhere in the video or case file does Nariman call for violence. Nariman told Human Rights Watch that she pled guilty to incitement and two other charges—"aiding assault of a soldier” and “interference with a soldier”— to avoid a longer sentence if convicted by a military justice system that, as human rights organizations have shown, fail to give Palestinians fair trials. Based on the plea deal, Nariman served eight months in jail.
Not surprising, they’ve gotten their supporters here in the US to crack down on it too.
Tell me your
warslaughter is manufactured without telling me it’s manufactured.Have they some sort of military branch or designated group to handle people expressing opinions contrary to their leader?
See also: Japanese internment camps and the UK’s D-notices during WW2, the Patriot Act and DHS after 9/11.
