Slashdot Mirror
Israel Accuses Facebook Of Aiding Terrorists and Hampering Police Investigations (reuters.com)
"The young generation in the Palestinian Authority suckles all of its incitement against Israel from Facebook and, in the end, goes and commits murders," Israel's Minister of Internal Security said Saturday. "Some of the blood of the victims of the recent attacks...is unfortunately on the hands of Mark Zuckerberg, because the police and security forces could have been told about the post of that vile murderer." Reuters calls the remarks "ramping up the pressure" as Israel prepares legislation which would allow it to order social media sites to remove posts it considered threatening. The security minister says Facebook currently "sets a very high bar for removing inciteful content and posts" and "sabotages the work of the Israeli police" by being uncooperative.
Facebook responded that there's "no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform." BetaNews writes that "while Facebook waits for content to be reported before acting, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said that the site should be pro-active in seeking out offending content instead."
Facebook responded that there's "no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform." BetaNews writes that "while Facebook waits for content to be reported before acting, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said that the site should be pro-active in seeking out offending content instead."
Israel is upset that Facebook didn't spy for them? State's have their own spy organizations that do that stuff. Get off your asses and go look for yourself to see what's posted. Why would any country expect a foreign organization to do their work for them? That's outlandish and pretty damn lazy.
It is one of the most one sided issues in modern history. Everything he said is 100 percent true. There was never palestinian arab identity and it was manufactured and nurtured with the express intent of eradicating Israel. They didn't even hide it. At the same time the arabs waged 2 full scale wars of aggression and the victors were 'required' to act in ways never dreamed about in the history of warfare. At the same time Israel has made deadly concession after deadly concession for naught agains a backdrop of ever increasing non-Jewish hostility. Empathy? For the arabs from the Jews? That's rich. You need to do a bit of investigation into the standard curriculum in gaza and the west bank schools.
No, they're not. They're just engaging in Aggresive apartheid.
And the Palestinians are too STUPID and full of ANGER to try passive resistance, which plays right into the Theocrats and near fascists of Likud's hands
That's right Palestians, every time you blow up a bus or whatever you let the Israels pull the Holocaust Martyr card. And the West, for good reason, still feels guilty about that.
To discuss "The Palestinians" in the context of the ancient history is rather farfetched - under the Ottoman empire it is difficult to say whether the Palestinians identified themselves as Palestinians . Going into detail on your examples, Safed 1517 seems to be a case of anti-semitism during wartime, in the case of 1660 Tiberias/Safed it was the Druze who attacked, for reasons not immediately apparent. In modern times, Druze do not identify as Palestinians. Hebron 1834... was a case of a day of rape and pillage by an army after a 5 months siege, in which there were a grand total of 12 casualties. Calling that a massacre seems more a propaganda piece than a massacre. especially as the Arab population suffered over 500 casualties during that same day. But they don't really count in your examples, do they?
The 1929 riots are more interesting. To quote wikipedia: "The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence "without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."[ It also attributed the cause as being Arab fears of Jewish immigrants "not only as a menace to their livelihood but as a possible overlord of the future."
With the benefit of hindsight we might say they had a point.
When Israel entirely withdrew from all Gaza settlements in 2005, they were immediately met with an increase of violence, not less.
Is that so strange? It is quite obvious to all involved why Israel withdrew: it would make it possible to stall peace negotiations for much longer, it would bottle the Palestines up in West Gaza, a much smaller area than the original plans show, and holding the settlements was politically impossible if Israel wanted to keep up relations with the rest of the world. This was realized by the Palestines as well.
So is there *any* reason to believe the Palestinians -- the same people who overwhelmingly support the government that holds this kind of shit [youtube.com] at their schools -- would stop attacking civilians if the settlements are disbanded?
There are loads of reasons to think that the attacks will *never* stop until the settlements are disbanded, for several reasons.
1) the settlers are responsible for a lot of violence themselves. They are a huge part of the problem as they depend economically on the conflict. They do not want peace and do everything possible to stir up trouble. Shutting down the settlements would be a very small first step in normalizing the situation.
2) the settlements use up a lot of water which is scarce in the area. They are connected by roads that the rest of the inhabitants are barred from even crossing, and occupy strategic areas with fertile lands.
3) It is a visible reminder of the fact the population is controlled by outside soldiers.
Removing the settlements won't stop the attacks on civilians (although it will stop attacks on settlements), but it is at least a start towards a solution.
As for Hamas, yeah, they're wankers. It's not as if Israeli politicians are immune to the hatred though: rabbi Dov Lior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Lior) is at least as big a wanker as any member of Hamas.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
I'm not exactly on the Palestinian side here but, why shouldn't they have weapons? I mean they are a country too, sort of. Israel even had nuclear weapons even though they don't admit it.
I don't think that the Israelis would object to the elected representatives of Gaza and their designated uniformed police and self defense forces having access to reasonable quantities of small arms, light armored vehicles, offshore patrol boats and the like, just like any other small country would have for reasonable border control and internal policing. The objection comes from large quantities of small arms in the hands of groups which don't submit themselves to the authority and control of the elected Palestinian government in Gaza and from the acquisition of offensive military weaponry, including long range rockets and mortars. In my opinion, the concerns of the Israeli government are entirely reasonable and generally speaking they've shown remarkable restraint with the people of Gaza. In prior centuries the people of Gaza would have been wiped out a long time ago and nobody would have said much about it. Of course, that is precisely what the Iranians want to do to Israel today. As an American, I support Israel and the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and with self determination. Most reasonable Arab governments, the Iranians and their allies not included, agree with that sentiment too, albeit not publicly in some instances.