> FB blocks any content that promotes violence and terror attacks (on the Israeli side as well).
While I am sure that's the intention, the claim is that this doesn't happen nearly as aggressively for anti-Arab or anti-Palestine content as it does for anti-Jewish or anti-Israel content, and that there are far more false positives.
In the full report (which is admittedly rather long) it mentions that even many neutral mentions of Hamas are removed, and that comments such as "Make Gaza a parking lot" are allowed to stay, which is obviously not just a suggestion for urban planning, or another that supposedly didn't break the rules was "it will wipe Palestine off the face of the earth and the map", and somehow I don't think that was a cartographer disagreeing on the finer points of map drawing.
I don't think this is intentional; "/Hamas/d" is easier than policing that. But that doesn't change the outcome.
I mean, at some point Instagram was hiding Palestinian flags, and mistranslating things to erroneously inserting "Palestinian terrorist".[1] I am convinced this was not intentional and that this is all hard, but again, it doesn't change the outcome.
And to be honest, this also fits my (unscientific) observations over the last 20 years or so. I've lost count the number of times I've seen "Look what the Jews have accomplished! So much! And the Arabs?! All they're good for is bombs, they never accomplish anything! It's clear the Jewish people are just better than the Arabs"-type stuff, and this is often just left standing. Whereas outright anti-Semitic content is much rarer, and much more promptly removed.
"Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam, the report said."
But yes, I would have liked to see some concrete examples.
Heres the vidéo where Netanyahou brags that his strategy is to hurt palestinian (civilians) as hard as possible Into submission, and that hé was negociating the peace accords in Bad faith : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...
Im not sure what better fits the définition of terrorism for you
At thé end of the day most israelis would be fine with a two state solution. This guy and other religious extremists liké Bennet have taken hostage the israeli people
Israel has repeatedly blocked the 2 state solution. Even Rabin’s stance was “the Palestinians should have something but something less than full statehood”
Israel encouraged Hamas by allowing Qatari support in to Gaza with the intent of keeping Gaza and the West Bank
Finally the Hamas charter was amended and no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.
In any case Israel (with the support of the US) has all the power in this conflict and they are the ones actually killing tens of thousands of innocents no matter what Hamas’ official position is.
> In any case Israel (with the support of the US) has all the power in this conflict and they are the ones actually killing tens of thousands of innocents
What’s happening in Gaza right now? Who is dropping the bombs? Whose army is in Gaza? What is also happening in the West Bank? What about the border in Lebanon.
True there was a terroristic raid into Israel in which 1200 people lost their lives but the scale of power does not compare AT ALL
I find this line of reasoning very fascinating. Is your only issue that one side has a lot more weapons? If they were roughly equal would what’s happening in Gaza be ok?
No. And some argue thats precisely why Netanyahu helped them get financed to have a scary enemy and play the security card while pursuing a territorial war instead of working for actual peace.
The short answer is "we don't know for sure"; it has repeatedly says it does, but some are skeptical they mean it. In the last 15 years they haven't really been given much opportunity to prove it, so ... we don't know for sure. But I think an evolution similar to the PLO would have been possible (too late now).
But we can ask the same about Israel: is Israel okay with two states? Because "just keep building settlements on the West Bank" doesn't sound much like it, or the way it's treated Gaza over the last 15 years, or tons of other actions over the last 60 years. And several of the religious Zionists now in government and holding several ministerial posts have pretty explicitly said they DON'T support a two-state solution, and have expressed views that at best can be viewed as supportive of ethnic cleansing (before Oct 7).
I'm not sure it's possible to look at what Israel is doing and say it's not terror. So, charitably, I guess you're saying the IDF is not an organization?
Countries are careful about calling other countries terror organisations. That's a weak argument. To convince me, you have to argue that their actions aren't terroristic.
Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism" involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror from all the other terror organizations?
This response is deranged. Human rights organisation have been criticising Israel for its crimes for a long time, even before this massacre. Hell, just look at the list of UN resolutions condemning Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut...
The only correct thing in your comment is that Hamas is also bad.
Please do research before spreading war crime apologia.
Taiwan isnt a country too? Geopolitics leads to some crazy claims of truth. It couldn't be more clear that there is extreme pressure for states to support Israel, especially due to USA's position. Argument from authority is rightfully considered a logical fallacy
Even the Pope called them terrorists. They were literally funded by two terrorists organizations (Irgun and Lehi). And over the past 70 years their main occupation has been the terrorizing of the few remaining Palestinians. How more plainly terroristic do you have to be?
And now they are here on HN funding posts like yours trying to justify the mass murder of children and women as a form of collective punishment.
Maybe we should call them torturers instead. Maybe that is more fitting.
It is not the words of one "priest", but of all the Catholics in the compound. And I love how you appended "Palestinian" to try to discredit him, as if a Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word of the IDF, who have been caught lying through their teeth about almost everything that has happened on and since 7/10 is. And you are wrong. The compound hosts more than just Palestinian Christians. Catholics from around the world serve in Gaza.
And how is that justified? The murder of two old women in a Catholic church compound, by a sniper no less. And one of them was murdered while trying to retrieve the body of her mother.
Just as there was no clear evidence that Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by israeli snipers before they admitted it many months down the line? There are countless videos and accounts of unarmed old men and young boys being sniped by them.
Please stop posting flamewar comments. You've done as much of that, maybe more, than any other single user in this thread. That's not ok.
I realize it's hard to discuss this topic without falling into that, but if you can't avoid it, please stop posting until you can. That goes for everyone else as well, of course.
October 7th did pretty notably feature a massacre of young people at a music festival, and some widespread killing of civilians at multiple different villages.
Are you employing some non-standard definition of "target" or of "civilian"? Claiming Hamas didn't do any of that?
Hamas is a terrorist organization and anyone who supports them are also terrorists. You should seriously take a step back and look at the antisemitic Jew hating garbage you just wrote.
