49 ms·

Israel shuts down local Al Jazeera offices

• 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  [flagged]
• bushbaba 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    Please don't post flamewar comments to Hacker News. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• pseingatl 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
  All: if you're about to comment in this thread, please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 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."
• yonixwm 3y ago
  [flagged]
• juunpp 3y ago
  Not that political discussion should not be had, but this has nothing to do with HN at all.
  • dang 3y ago
    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 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 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 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 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&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=follow-up%20downweight&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20repetition%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... [4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
• verdverm 3y ago
  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 https://rsf.org/en/country/israel 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 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 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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 2y ago
        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.
        • YZF 2y ago
          I don't think this is true. Can you refer to the US State Department official position on this? It's true that in previous conflicts the numbers were in the ballpark but the breakdown between e.g. combatants and civilians was not. This conflict is very different so I don't think we should be extrapolating. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-admits-to-flaws-in-casualty-data/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-healt...
• x3n0ph3n3 3y ago
  @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.
  • dathos 3y ago
    I think freedom of press is of some significance on a site using news sources as content.
  • dang 3y ago
    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 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 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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cflag) and/or to email us at hn@ycombinator.com in egregious cases.
• bottlepalm 3y ago
  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.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • qarl 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xottY-7m3k&t=10s
      • qarl 2y ago
        I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
        • kelthuzad 2y ago
          You can disagree all you want, some people even disagree on if the holocaust happened but no one takes them seriously. The history of Zionism and its goal to colonize Palestine (long before the holocaust even happened) and their ruthless methods of colonization are thoroughly documented[0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun [1] The History of "Socialist" Zionism | Leftist Zionists did the Nakba & founded Israel https://youtu.be/ehp9PZo4UR0 https://youtu.be/ehp9PZo4UR0
• meow_mix 3y ago
  Wow. First the Tiktok ban now this. Sad day.
• siva7 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    Many people would say “genocide in gaza” is exactly what the television should be saying.
    • Beefin 3y ago
      its not a genocide by any definition.
      • kevingadd 3y ago
        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-world-court-order-genocide-case https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-wor...
        • Beefin 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
            > its a deliberate attempt to dehumanize jews. there is no systematic erasure of a culture or ethnicity Israel is being investigated by the ICJ. Calling its war genocide is premature. But rejecting the claim outright is unfounded as well.
      • jackjeff 2y ago
• phantompeace 3y ago
  Any regime that seeks to suppress the media can't be up to any good, IMO.
  • yonixwm 3y ago
    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-news-harmed-israels-reputation-in-less-than-24-hours/#:~:text=That%20was%20the%20case%20this,trying%20to%20silently%20bury%20it https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake... Edit: haaretz link: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-03-25/ty-article/.premium/al-jazeera-retracts-video-claiming-woman-was-raped-by-israeli-forces-in-gaza-al-shifa-raid/0000018e-7662-d3e0-a98e-7766b4a50000 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-0...
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • jjgreen 3y ago
      Honest Reporting is an Israeli media advocacy group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • jamra 3y ago
        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.
      • CommanderData 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • 2y ago
• afavour 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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.
      • TheGuyWhoCodes 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          Can you back up the implied claims with some references?
          • jolj 2y ago
            Not parent, but: 1. False report about IDF rape https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/ 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-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeer... https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeera-one-organization-two-messages https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeer... 3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in-gaza-an-alleged-hamas-operative-flown-to-qatar/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in... https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-a-hamas-commander-idf-says/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-... https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921 https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921
• nkurz 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    Tic toc was recently banned in US.
    • LocalH 3y ago
      Tik Tok isn't a news agency
      • wudangmonk 3y ago
        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 2y ago
          The congresspeople who voted to shut down TikTok have been very open about the reason: https://twitter.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587 https://twitter.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
          • wudangmonk 2y ago
            Watching the clip is just the usual "Who you gonna believe? us our your lying eyes?". Thing is that the days of a media fully controlling the narrative are gone. Before it was easier since all you had were rumors of what was really going on but now anyone can take video and give direct proof, how are you going to Baghdad-Bob your way into the narrative you want?. The best they can aim for is trying to create a narrative that at least somewhat aligns with the reality that is impossible to fully hide now.
• ChrisArchitect 3y ago
  Related: Al Jazeera condemns Israeli government decision to shut down channel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40266122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40266122
• joecool1029 3y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index
• DataDaemon 3y ago
  How is this possible in a democratic country?
  • TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    It’s a great question. I suggest reading up on what democracy really means in the modern world: https://chomsky.info/consent01/ https://chomsky.info/consent01/
    • Gibbon1 2y ago
      I suggest avoiding reading anything by a guy that idolizes the Khmer Rouge.
      • TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        That doesn’t sound like a thing Chomsky would do. I could imagine him saying that certain tactics were effective or certain aspects of their politics were notable, but I don’t see him as someone who idolizes anyone. Do you have a source for this? To me this sounds like a misunderstanding, but I’m open to being shown otherwise.
        • Gibbon1 2y ago
          https://chomsky.info/19770625/ https://chomsky.info/19770625/
          • TaylorAlexander 2y ago
            Bit of a busy day for me so I asked ChatGPT so summarize and explain the author’s position on the Khmer Rouge. “The text is an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Chomsky critiques Western media's portrayal of the Khmer Rouge, arguing that it's exaggerated and ignores broader historical context, particularly U.S. involvement. He suggests that atrocities attributed to the Khmer Rouge may have been exaggerated or even fabricated, emphasizing the need for independent investigation. Chomsky's attitude toward the Khmer Rouge appears critical of Western narratives, highlighting skepticism and a call for a more nuanced understanding.” That’s does not give any truth to your claim of idolizing, as I expected. It’s quite believable that western narratives could be manipulated as that is common place and the subject of Chomsky’s expertise. Pointing out the manipulation of the media and painting the target as more nuanced and not as evil as media makes them out to be is a far cry from idolization.
• akira2501 3y ago
  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.
  • amitport 2y ago
    and if you allow foreign agents to incite for ethnic murder and the destruction and on your country on local cable TV? you think this ends well?
    • akira2501 2y ago
      Isn't that just a crime in and of itself? Wouldn't that entitle the government to just arrest and charge that particular person with these crimes? I think that stands a chance of ending well, or at least, justly.
• ttul 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 https://text.npr.org/1248276817
• dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
    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.
    • C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 2y ago
      > Being against the Al-Sauds means being against Islam (according to the Saudi government) Pretty much every of the hundreds of millions of muslims who live outside Saudi Arabia (and probably a large number of those who live inside it) laugh at that, and despise the Saudi regime. If you do not believe me, try talking to some and asking them.
      • kergonath 2y ago
        I know. The Iranians and the talibans do the same, the 3 are more or less incompatible and yet all pretend to be Islam in their country. It’s mostly for their captive audience. Islam in itself does not have to imply brutal dictatorship (this should not need saying).
• gigel82 3y ago
  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.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • dunekid 2y ago
    I think the said parallel is not true. Qatar is not a belligerent in the conflict.
• kristopolous 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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
    • stefan_ 2y ago
      [flagged]
• H8crilA 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      https://theconversation.com/how-israel-continues-to-censor-journalists-covering-the-war-in-gaza-228241 https://theconversation.com/how-israel-continues-to-censor-j...
    • sa501428 3y ago
      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-reporting/ https://theintercept.com/2024/01/04/cnn-israel-gaza-idf-repo... https://theintercept.com/2023/12/23/israel-military-idf-media-censor/ https://theintercept.com/2023/12/23/israel-military-idf-medi...
      • flumpcakes 2y ago
        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...
• eBombzor 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 https://x.com/Snowden/status/1770936325996155290 [1] Gaza 'Textbook Case of GENOCIDE' - Holocaust Scholar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUeEnjULHe0 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4PFmz4MNdg
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      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 2y ago
        >> 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.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• dakom 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Israel is routinely held up to a far far higher standard than any other country Is it held to a higher standard than countries America provides arms to? (Genuine question.) Note: I'm not saying we haven't provided arms to horrible regimes. But it's loudly criticised. Rightly or wrongly, we hold ourselves and our allies to a higher standard than e.g. Iran, China or Russia. It's partly why we have so many more of them.
    • dakom 2y ago
      Yes, in many facets of this war Israel is held to a higher standard than America itself. When the towers were hit, the gloves came off. America wasn't accused of genocide when civilians were accidentally killed as they went after ISIS. The notion of a news agency reporting on American military strategy and directly inciting an additional attack on American soil in actionable ways wouldn't be tolerated for a second. It's so absurd that there isn't even a real-world comparison, America silences that shit on a personal cellular phone level. It's treason.
  • loceng 3y ago
    I would argue that's an apples to oranges comparison. Since by international law definition Gaza is an occupied territory, for one, and it's perhaps one of the most disproportionate "conflicts" in modern history. Re: journalistic integrity - I thought the idea with investigative journalism is allow people to speak freely - and then let the individual determine how truthful the source is based on a multitude of factors? Couldn't you also argue the 4th most powerful military, and arguably best funded and most sophisticated militaries, will be the most effective at generating and distributing propaganda?
    • dakom 2y ago
      What does proportion have to do with anything? You can't actually expect a country at war to supply the enemy with ammunition, period. I don't expect Hamas to allow an Arutz Sheva, or even Haaretz, office to operate on their airwaves. Re: journalistic integrity. It's arguable, but I would say no- and many others in democratic countries would too. Bleach doesn't cure COVID, vaccines don't cause autism, and Israel isn't commiting genocide. When the facts are being twisted and misinformation endangers human life, there is a responsibility to get it right or shut it down. I am not talking about the average person having stupid uninformed opinions and shouting it to the rooftops. I am talking about professionals. Same goes for many other professions. If you're programming firmware for a dialysis machine, and you knowingly introduce a bug to kill people, your power to distribute that code to hospitals should be taken away before people get hurt.
• ahaseeb 3y ago
  I am surprised they even had a office there
• jl6 3y ago
  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 https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/969
  • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > 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?
    • nailer 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • I_o_IllI__o_I 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • glass-z13 2y ago
          How is the parent comment [flagged] yet this one is not?
          • avvvv 2y ago
            Now I'm curious as to what they said
• Animats 3y ago
  "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-approves-web-censorship-law/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/to-tackle-online-crime-israel-... [2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/proposed-censorship-bill-more-intrusive-than-in-any-other-democracy-say-researchers/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/proposed-censorship-bill-more-... [3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israel-nearly-destroyed-freedom-of-speech-online-without-even-knowing-it/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-israel-nearly-destroyed-fr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel [5] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israels-knesset-approves-law-allowing-government-to-shutter-foreign-broadcasters/ar-BB1kTYDa https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israels-knesset-approve... [6] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-05/ty-article/israeli-government-votes-unanimously-to-shut-down-al-jazeera-in-israel/0000018f-4841-d91a-a5af-e9f5c8de0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-05/ty-article/is... [7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2024/04/01/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-54/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
  • suddenexample 2y ago
• Beefin 3y ago
  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 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 https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560 they employ high journalistic standards for everything but israel.
  • m000 2y ago
    > and suddenly college students have access to thousands of $ of camping gear... Students paying $65K/year in tuition fees can also afford a $100 tent? Must be covert Qatari funding for sure. /s
  • komali2 2y ago
    Nothing in the article you linked appears to indicate that al jazeera is anti semitic. Nor does it indicate it's anti-Israel even. Certainly, it deleted a story, and didn't instead retract it, which isn't great, but how does that support an accusation that the entire outlet is anti semitic or anti israel? Opposing Israeli war crimes is not anti semitic. Claiming that Israel represents all Jewish people worldwide, though, is anti semitic.
• wslh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • SauciestGNU 2y ago
    How can we still continue to call Israel a liberal society when their entire political class is banning and censoring opposition media? Interfaith marriages are illegal. Gay marriage is illegal (not unusual for the region, but since Israel likes to trot out the rainbow flags it bears repeating). It's the thinnest possible vaneer of "western values" slapped over a colonial military outpost.
    • wslh 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • SauciestGNU 2y ago
        So your response is a seven year old video asserting I'm simply ignorant? Not a particularly winning argument. And flagging your initial response since you've now edited in baseless accusations of antisemitism. That's not how you have a conversation here.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Focusing obsesively in Israel is antisemitism Israel is front-page news because it's an American ally. Sudan and Myanmar are not. People are focussing on it because it's being talked about.
    • exe34 2y ago
      > gay marriage is illegal Is that the bar now? Gay people get thrown from buildings next door in Gaza and they get strung up from a crane in Iran. On that basis, as a gay man, I'd much rather let Israel "trot out the rainbow flags" than take my chances with their enemies.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
• cjk2 2y ago
  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 2y ago
    I didn't realise they had two versions, but it makes sense. Is the anti-infidel version only available in Arabic then?
    • cjk2 2y ago
      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 2y ago
        Where’s the proof to back your statement? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
      • exe34 2y ago
        I believe you, but I too would like a citation that I can share with others - even a blog post with some examples would be helpful.
    • erichocean 2y ago
      CNN has two versions too, one for US audiences and one for the world.
• flandish 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 2y ago
    Of course it's divisive. No topic is more divisive these days.
    • flandish 2y ago
      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 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      That’s.. not what zionism is and even if it was, genocide is not ever acceptable as a way toward that end.
• sampa 2y ago
  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
  • gaoryrt 2y ago
    sarcasm detected, upvote-button clicked.
• joecool1029 2y ago
  > 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/israels-communications-minister-threatens-haaretz-suggests-penalizing-its-war-coverage/0000018b-fd0c-de73-a9bb-ffefb9f10000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article/is...
  • quonn 2y ago
    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 2y ago
      On what basis in Al Jazeera a fake news outlet?
      • quonn 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • datenyan 2y ago
          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 2y ago
            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.
• seydor 2y ago
  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
  • bingbingbing777 2y ago
    Why does Israel get a free pass?
• ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  "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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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).
  • bink 2y ago
    Of course the US just voted to ban TikTok for vague national security reasons, so maybe we do have a lot in common.
    • jay-barronville 2y ago
      Even the TikTok ban appears to have been led by the Israeli lobby and Israeli operatives because so much of the TikTok content re the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has leaned in favor of the Palestinians [0][1]. [0]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-hashtags-and-content-during-the-israel-hamas-war https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/the-truth-about-tiktok-has... [1]: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1787134138283155963 https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1787134138283155963
    • Der_Einzige 2y ago
      That TikTok ban will likely be overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.
• zeroCalories 2y ago
  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.
  • marxisttemp 2y ago
    Ah yes, freedom of speech works best when limited only to people who share your values. Truly our greatest allies in democracy.
    • zeroCalories 2y ago
      True! Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't even share a democracy with Qatar, haha.
• NomDePlum 2y ago
  Al Jazeera was one of the few sources of 'on the ground' journalism in Gaza. It's quite chilling that western democracies have stood back from ensuring journalistic freedom is upheld in the reporting up until now. To allow the removal of the last effective observational counterpoint to Israel's narrative points to the acceptance of despot power of Israel over the population of Gaza. Effectively it sanctions whatever Israel wants to do to that population without any oversight or reporting. Given what has been done in sight and the obvious desire of the Israeli government to attack Rafah, and the US's impotency to influence Israel it's clear this move is just to reduce the risk of ongoing exposure of children and other innocents being slaughtered on TV repeatably and without having to even pretend justification. We live in extraordinary times.
• eli 2y ago
  Imagine if the US banned a site just because of baseless fears about its content and the foreign ownership of its parent company. Hmm.
• Qem 2y ago
  Curious fact. The shutting down of Al Jazeera gave at least one journalist the title of being part of media organizations banned by distinct apartheid regimes twice, first SA in 1988, and now Israel in 2024. Wonder it that qualifies for the Guinness Book. See: https://twitter.com/TonyKaron/status/1787171262202019932 https://twitter.com/TonyKaron/status/1787171262202019932 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Karon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Karon
• xyst 2y ago
  When you want to control the narrative. Block out any independent journalists. Use your leveraged/blackmailed journalists or state news to push propaganda. The amount of blood the current Israeli government is willing to shed is just creating future generations of terrorists. Hamas may eventually get rooted. But only at significant cost of civilian life. The Israeli-Palestinian war will never end. Violence begets violence.
• imchillyb 2y ago
  Is it a good idea to allow governments the power to silence journalists so completely? I’d love to hear some perspective other than rabid politics.
  • dunekid 2y ago
    No. There can be regulatory bodies, which ideally should be self governing the media instead of executive of the elected government, which regulate some of the media attributes. But a blanket ban on a media house, for criticism in the name of national security? No. That is the failure of the civilian leadership to provide the security to the nation. Admitting that you are naked should the norm, not blinding the population from seeing you.
    • trimethylpurine 2y ago
      I disagree. The temporary ban is due to the platforming of violence. It's the same ban that the US, UK, and EU have in place and for the same reasons. You can't give terror a voice or it gives terrorists an incentive to commit terror. If AJ wants to broadcast they need to stop airing interviews with terror groups. Other broadcasters critical of Israel seem to have that part figured out.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• pomatius 2y ago
  "The only middle-eastern democracy"
• emmelaich 2y ago
  Hard to care. It's war. Is Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post available in Gaza?
  • locallost 2y ago
    Tough look for the "only democracy in the middle east" if it can only get compared to a Hamas led government.
  • GaryNumanVevo 2y ago
    Considering the IDF bombed the only media office tower in Gaza? Probably not. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/15/media/associated-press-al-jazeera-gaza-bombings/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/15/media/associated-press-al...
  • dunekid 2y ago
    If the Internet is available, then ofcourse these should be available in there. But on the contrary Al Jazeera website itself would be censored out of the Internet for Israel.
  • runarberg 2y ago
    I had this discussion recently and went onto investigate, and I found no reports that any newspaper was outlawed in Gaza. In fact I read that the most popular newspaper is Al-Quds, a Jerusalem based newspaper. I don’t think there is much of a market for either Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post in Gaza, so I would be really surprised if respective offices care to distribute their papers there. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14631745 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14631745 Do you have any reports which indicates that Hebrew (or any other) newspapers are censored in Gaza? All that said, press freedom is definitely a concern in Gaza, however that is a result of the Israeli occupation, which prevents access, targets journalists, blockades the enclave, and sometimes even levels foreign press offices, such as the AP’s. https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israel-palestinian-conflict-fe452147166f55ba5a9d32e6ba8b53d7 https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
• rajishx 2y ago
  * 1 point by rajishx 0 minutes ago | next | edit | delete [–] Isn't the same as when RT was not allowed to broadcast in Europe after the war? I wonder why the news about Al Jazeera and Israel makes more splash than the RT and Russia news
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• kookamamie 2y ago
  I initially read this as "... local AI ..." and was somewhat confused.
• CommanderData 2y ago
  Al Jazeeras response was to say Israel is trying to cover up their crimes. We all know Israel wouldn't do anything of the sort right, along with killing on average 50 children a day for the last 220 days. I hope this comment is in spirit of HN which has consistently taken down stories about Israel.
• surume 2y ago
  Excellent move. They were encouraging terrorism, and are funded by actors who are connected to terrorist activities. It's long overdue.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• farseer 2y ago
  They can ban whatever they want, after all its a democracy only in name. I'd be far more concerned about Israel using its direct influence or its proxies to ban TikTok in the United States.
  • kmeisthax 2y ago
    If you want to play conspiracy theorist, the correct conspiracy is that Mark Zuckerberg is responsible for the TikTok ban bill, given that he was lobbying for it.
    • farseer 2y ago
      Your conspiracy theory can co-exist with mine :) I believe multiple parties want TikTok banned for their own reasons. However I am hearing more and more people mention TikTok and Israel together inside congressional circles than mentions of "TikTok and China". Here is an example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/blinken-romney-israel-hamas-tiktok-b2540021.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
      • drdrek 2y ago
        How have you heard more about TikTok and Israel than TikTok and china? How is that possible?? India banned TikTok in 2020 accusing Chinese influence, are they time travelers? Did israel convince all of these countries to ban TikTok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_TikTok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_TikTok Wow the Jewish World Domination Forum is really pushing its weight around lately.
        • farseer 2y ago
          >>How have you heard more about TikTok and Israel than TikTok and china? How is that possible?? Inside "Congressional circles" as clearly written in my post. And I should have added within the past few months. >>India banned TikTok in 2020 accusing Chinese influence, are they time travelers? India can have its own reasons, my argument is limited to the United States and that too, through wooing Congress >>Did israel convince all of these countries to ban TikTok? I didn't say that, of-course not. >>Wow the Jewish World Domination Forum is really pushing its weight around lately. I like you... I mean the way you classified me into your world view, twisted my arguments. You think, I will now defend a conspiracy of "Jewish World Domination"? Very impressive sir!
• wegwerff 2y ago
  never a good sign https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/world/europe/russia-media-meduza.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/world/europe/russia-media...
• moi2388 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • atypeoferror 2y ago
    That's a bold assertion - do you have any evidence to support this? I find that they do plenty of great journalism, often bringing stories that don't make it into the english-language media via other outlets. For example, just from today an article on the fight for Iraqi waterway restoration: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2024/5/4/dont-be-afraid-for-the-marshes-the-battle-to-save-iraqs-waterways https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2024/5/4/dont-be... In general, the Features page (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/) doesn't exactly smack of Islamic propaganda - so curious to see how you came to this conclusion.
    • moi2388 2y ago
      Well, Al Jazeera English is separate and a bit better than regular Al Jazeera. But look at their stories and the morals they try to show in there. It’s always garnering more support for Islamic causes. They infiltrated several Israeli and Jewish groups, and are funded by the Qatari government. These governments are not okay. State sponsored tv from countries like Iran, Qatar, Russia are not okay. Not even when they report accurately, because of the bias in what and how they report. Not saying western media like Fox News is any better, but yeah. And that they ‘appear’ okay is precisely the biggest problem. If they are so fair; how many reports are pro Israe, or condemn Hamas’s actions? Is it zero? ;)
• oytis 2y ago
  I am surprised Israel had local Al Jazeera offices in the first place.
• squarefoot 2y ago
  > Israel started Internet censorship in 2017.[1] Initially it was limited to "terror group websites, online illegal gambling, prostitution services, hard drug sales" It always starts like that, and it's usually the #1 motivation to sell censorship laws to the population in countries that don't have them already in place. It also has the side effect to create a mind association where censorship is seen as positive. Then, once those laws are passed, it's too late as they will be slowly but progressively applied also against anything that government sees as hostile, including legit political opposition that could change or remove those laws. "Think of the children/fear terrorists" laws that usually are enacted in "western" countries follow the same pattern where the powers need a stronger and more fear inducing argument than gambling, prostitution or drugs. Israel isn't the 1st and won't be the last democratic country to go down this route.
• ofirg 2y ago
  I support closing the offices and making them persona non grata, but blocking the site is wrong and silly, makes us look like we are afraid of words.
  • Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    Then why close the offices and make them png?
• cyclecount 2y ago
  Al Jazeera claims this is direct retaliation for their 7 Oct documentary which is a very thorough analysis of some of the more extreme claims made by the IDF about what happened that day. Ironically, this documentary uses the Israeli government's own information as its initial primary source (including the official record of who died that day). The documentary can be viewed in full on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0atzea-mPY
• nla 2y ago
  Here's a better question, why is this on HN?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• marxisttemp 2y ago
  [flagged]
• trimethylpurine 2y ago
  US law is the same: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B EU is the same: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorist-content-online/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorist-co... UK is the same: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stricter-laws-to-tackle-terrorism-come-into-force https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stricter-laws-to-tackle-t... Why would it be surprising that Israel should follow the example of the rest of the Western world?
• xchip 2y ago
  Thanks to HN for allowing us have this sort of conversations, talking is much needed!
• aristofun 2y ago
  What is exactly wrong with shutting down someone who not just lies (nothing unique there lol) but systematically supports information war against your country?
  • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    Al Jazeera is not engaged in an "information war" against Israel. Al Jazeera is the major independent media organization operating in Gaza, and one of the main sources of accurate information about the conflict. That's what angers the Israeli government.
    • aristofun 2y ago
      Can you show me at least 1 al jazeera article in arabic exposing and condemning oct 7? And at least 2 posts in arabic exposing some of hamas lies or expressing empathy and support to Israel? Even a single post calling hamas terrorists (or at least some of their actions a terrorist attack) would suffice to convince me.
      • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
        1. I don't read Arabic. 2. I don't much care about what opinion pieces get published in Al Jazeera, or whether they meet your political demands. I care about the news reporting that Al Jazeera does from Gaza. On that score, Al Jazeera is the best source out there.
        • aristofun 2y ago
          [flagged]
        • aristofun 2y ago
          English articles would do
          • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
• sim7c00 2y ago
  i am curious ig there is a valid threat in israelis reading al jazeera. or if they have any proof of any falsehoods being published there and why it would need to be shut down?. any good neutral resource around this for a non-israeli/non-palestinian person to make sense of this? from the surface this looks so grim, but i do not want to jump to conclusions... its so hard to make sense of this more and more.. and it becomes easier to beleive the wrong things.
  • skulk 2y ago
    It's hard to read or watch Al Jazeera's reporting on this matter without feeling utterly disgusted at how a certain military is treating a civilian population (be it in Gaza or the West Bank). They make the Israelis and the IDF look like absolute monsters.
    • sim7c00 2y ago
      thanks for the reply. i do feel the same, as in, i sometimes even think that way too due to the news. i dont watch al jazera, but in my country, the IDF does not come out good either... Israelis though, they dont get chucked in with the same sentiment. (im dutch, there's reports of the injustices against civilians, but no word on the general population of israel being 'bad' or something like that.) im maybe lucky i have some israeli ex colleagues who can help me see that the people there are also against violence and injustices. (what those are is not the point i guess. - maybe that's an opinion different on both sides of a fence..) There's in our national news things like a report that says there's like 35k deaths in gaza, then the next report says there's like 30k children killed. - it's really easy to get a weird idea here..... (I simply assume no soldier would willingly just kill mostly children - but maybe thats also wrong??) don't want to say i am with one or another side. just want to point out how reporting, as you said, can make things look a certain way, while they might not be. This is now true for most conflicts as there's so many sides of each story, and then all the content-farms and propaganda ontop of that. everyone is trying to win the others over to their side of the debate to justify their war, rather than to build peace. (i think?)
  • catlikesshrimp 2y ago
• dataangel 2y ago
  I don't agree with Israel censoring websites, but important to keep in mind Al Jazeera is run by Qatar which is a monarchy without real freedom of the press, it's not CNN. They have strong regional interests and an obvious desire to shape the narrative of the conflict. They're not humanitarians.
  • Koshkin 2y ago
    Well, there are quite a few monarchies where people enjoy freedom of press. (You probably meant “absolute monarchy”.) On the other hand, I am not sure what the lack of freedom of press in one country has to do with these events in another. Looks like a straw man to me.)
  • DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    Al Jazeera has much more extensive coverage of Israel/Palestine than CNN does, and I would compare Al Jazeera favorably with CNN, overall. CNN and Al Jazeera definitely have different biases, but if you just want to know what's going on in Gaza, you watch Al Jazeera, not CNN. > They're not humanitarians. They're a news organization.
  • throwaway220033 2y ago
    You can't even compare the reputation of CNN and Al Jazeera. You can't also compare the interest of US and Israel in manipulating public with any other country in the planet. US & Israel plays the game dirtiest, does false flag attacks, kill children and mothers carrying white flags, bomb hospitals and families of journalists. Qatar does not do any of these and do not need to manipulate you. US and Israel have to keep manipulating you, because as citizen, you need to be a part of the crime. Just like in Nazi Germany.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• etc-hosts 2y ago
  How is Israel going to block viewing Al Jazeera content on Youtube from Israel?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• neycoda 2y ago
  Ah I see. They just have to defend themselves from Al Jazeera which is now Hamas? What else is Hamas? Qatar?