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.
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?
deleted by creator
He belongs in prison.
Literally wasn’t he being charged with a corruption lawsuit before this mess started?
deleted by creator
he belongs in the dirt.
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.
Jehovah’s witnesses were actually some of the first victims of the Holocaust. Alongside the mentally and physically handicapped.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
See also: Japanese internment camps and the UK’s D-notices during WW2, the Patriot Act and DHS after 9/11.
