I remember there was a piece about universities in the Uk and collaboration with Mossad agents to suppress pro-Palestine student movements. Additionally, if you’ve heard of the “canary list” it’s a website dedicated to dragging students and activists in the mud by associating them with horrible things.
I remember a professor at my university about whom a fake website claiming he sexually harassed a student was created. Of course the claims were false but because he was an advisor for the Palestine club his name was dragged through mud.
Since a previous comment chain with sources has disappeared for some reason, I’ve posted sources for further reading here:
How, I'm genuinely curious. I know that's a common response to it but I find it hard to see.
Even a slight view into the history of israel should allow you to see that there is a valid and consistent basis for its opposition wholly separate from antisemitism, even if you don't endorse that opposition.
As well, non-israeli jews make up a significant portion of the leadership of these groups. Which doesn't inherently make it not antisemitic, I guess, but definitely indicates the situation is much more complex than simple antisemitism.
And also that yes, in the real world that will attract antisemites who oppose israel for that simple reason. In my experience though pro-palestine activists in the US are fairly sensitive to this dynamic and vigilant about not aligning with antisemitic groups who would be willing allies.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what politics or ideology you're for or against.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> Even a slight view into the history of israel should allow you to see that there is a valid and consistent basis for its opposition wholly separate from antisemitism, even if you don't endorse that opposition.
I've commented it somewhere else before: it looks to me that the "behavior-based opposition" is essentially "being a state while jewish", similar to "driving while black". There's plenty of valid reasons to pull people over and check their vehicles, police does it all the time. Yet when a cop exclusively pulls over black drivers, while the percentage of black drivers isn't close to 100%, it's probably not about the driving.
If someone allies themselves with Erdogan and Hamas, their critique isn't because of behavior, but because of who's the one doing it. Another fun example of that is the UN human rights council where such fine and outstanding human rights' advocates as Afghanistan, Qatar and Russia investigate israel. I'm sure you'll see my point: whatever they care about, it's certainly not human rights.
> In my experience though pro-palestine activists in the US are fairly sensitive to this dynamic and vigilant about not aligning with antisemitic groups who would be willing allies.
I've always been under the impression that it's mostly them being far left that keeps them from embracing the far right. To me they've never seemed shy about their ideas for israel's future, they're just not saying the quiet part out loud. They're academics after all, they understand that being too obvious will make the general population recoil in disgust.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what politics or ideology you're for or against. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
There are also US laws in some states that prohibit divesting of universities from Israel, which were specifically written due to influence by lobbies. They breach the principle of freedom of association of the first amendment.
As for “self-hating Jews” I’m not sure those people would describe themselves as such. Much has been written about differences in the US Jewish community, but for an example of diversity of views on Israel among US Jews, you can see this pew research article.
Anyways, I think the evidence should be evaluated instead of labeling a source anti-this and anti-that without further investigation. You can even look at the BBC, which you cited, as being implicated in caving to pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies to censor itself.
Fair point, but at the very least the bias of the articles/sources should be taken into consideration considering the widespread anti-semitism and historical context of such.
from the salon article
"Hanen "acknowledged that [a] pro-Palestinian view is protected by the First Amendment," said Abbas. "That may sound like little crumbs, but that's a controversial take, and it's a blessing."" its not a prevention of being pro-Palestinian or demonstrating any pro-Palestinian activtism, but specifically about BDS in the context of federal law regarding commerce and boycotting.
Trust me, I know about the differing opinions in our community. But there does tend to be some who reject their identity to appease the people persecuting us...
With the final link, the BBC really tries to be impartial so it makes sense they would review content? If they never add it back, or add an edited form back then I'd be more concerned. Plus "Foulkes explained that the series will be suspended from the site whilst an editorial review is carried out and that once the review has been completed, the BBC will decide which content to retire permanently and which to reinstate and / or edit."
Your links contain no proof of BDS being anti-semitic, just some officials of the US and Germany saying that it’s antisemitic. I can’t say much about Germany, but I feel pretty confident not using USA government as a source of unbiased Israel related opinions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/world/middleeast/bds-isra... - "Critics say B.D.S. is actually counterproductive to resolving the conflict, because it rejects Israel’s right to exist in spite of settled international law; encourages Palestinians to insist on the right of return for all refugees, which Israel is unlikely to ever accept in negotiations; pressures only one side to make concessions; and discourages bridge-building efforts between Israelis and Palestinians on the grounds that they “normalize” Israel. They say its rejection of the Jewish state distracts from debate over how to end the conflict and plays into the hands of right-wing Israeli opponents of a Palestinian state."
So its anti-semitic at worst but honestly unproductive at best.
"There are many challenges in Israel, not the least of which is the plight of the Palestinians. This is a real challenge that needs to be addressed with urgency, coupled with the very priority of Israel’s security. Our energy should be more focused on what we can do to move toward peace, what we can we do to lift up the Palestinians in a sustainable way, and not isolate Israel in an anti-Semitic way.
BDS is not about the “pursuit of civil and human rights.” It’s not about the First Amendment. It is an attempt to demonize, delegitimize and apply a double standard to Israel—all three of Sharansky’s indicators. And we, as members of the Jewish and broader communities, should be willing to partner wholly with anyone truly committed to such an end, and not merely using it as cover for implicit anti-Semitic gains."
The ADL tries to redefine any support for Palestinians as anti-semitism... they're not a credible source of information on the topic. Nor is the Jerusalem Post on this topic, nor is the NY Post on... anything?
Looking at the Wikipedia article for Washington Examiner, it does not seem credible either.
(Context: I am American Jew who is Israeli citizen and grew up in Israel.)
I fundamentally don't trust the ADL, so not going to waste time reading their stuff. Based on my political opinions they would claim I'm an anti-semite, and again, I'm Jewish, grew up in Israel, still have family there.
'''
The first reports from George Washington University last October were alarming: Someone had broken into a fraternity house and desecrated a Torah — tearing the scroll and dousing it with laundry detergent. The story spread like wildfire online; hundreds joined a campus vigil against antisemitism.
“The status quo, where Jewish students at this campus are fearing for their lives, has existed for far too long,” declared the fraternity president, Chris Osborne, choking up as he spoke.
Many Jewish students found the assertion exaggerated. The incident was upsetting, but hardly life-threatening: The “Torah” in question turned out to be a small replica, the kind you can buy for $20 at a synagogue gift shop.
And whoever entered the house the night before Halloween damaged the Torah while throwing hot sauce all over the kitchen, ripping out smoke detectors and toppling appliances; Tau Kappa Epsilon is not a Jewish fraternity and the motive of the crime was unclear.
D.C. police closed their investigation a week later without any leads. But in certain quarters, the incident was held up as a kind of Kristallnacht on fraternity row, heralding the peril of Jews at universities nationwide. The head of the Anti-Defamation League condemned it as a “blatant act of antisemitism,” and Algemeiner, a right-leaning Jewish news outlet, called it one of the year’s “most shocking instances of campus antisemitism.”
...
Even those who were sympathetic to the missions of national Jewish organizations said the attention they lavish on the campus can sometimes miss the mark. Too often, they said, the spotlight bends toward histrionics, obscures positive Jewish experiences or simply overwhelms the 18-to-22-year-olds as they seek to navigate the complex politics of Israel and Jewish identity while still making it to class on time.
“All these organizations have their own agenda,” said Jessica Carr, 21, a senior and president of GW for Israel. “Even though we might agree with them — we’re all pro-Israel — they all have their own agenda and it’s not necessarily what’s best for GW.”
Beyond college campuses, rising antisemitism in the United States has included synagogue shootings, a rabbi taken hostage during Shabbat services, and beatings of visibly Orthodox Jews in New York. The campus incidents documented by the ADL almost never involve violence and are usually related to Israel.
'''
My support for the ADL has waxed and waned, me also being Jewish, so I can understand the skepticism.
Interesting. Good article. I can see some of the acts may have been blown out of proportion, and I think it is dangerous to paint _all_ pro-Palestinian activism as anti-semitic. I mean I support all peoples having a home in Israel.
Its just a problem of engrained anti-semitism, propaganda, and students not using their brain enough of the time I guess so most pro-Palestinian activities just get taken over by the loud voices of anti-semites.
Stuff like "But most of these students “personally never experienced antisemitism and did not know of any antisemitic occurrences on campus,” Aeder wrote in a recent essay. “Their fear of antisemitism was informed not by their own experiences, but by what they read online and on social media.”" is interesting.
This happens on both sides of the political spectrum.
People who identify as Zionists are banned, ridiculed, haraassed and in extreme cases (but not that rare) physically assaulted everywhere they go.
Being a Zionist doesn't necessarily mean you support Israel's policy in the West Bank anymore than being Pro Palestinian means you're pro Hamas.
Being a Zionist means you support Israel's right to exist. I am a Zionist and also pro Palestinian in the sense that I support an independent Palestinian state along side (not instead of) Israel.
As for the apartheid analogy, there's some truth to it and also many differences from what happened in South Africa. The big elephant in the room is that no Palestinian leadership, ever, in the last 100 years actually accepted Zionism / a Jewish state in any kind of borders. And many kinds of partitions were discussed throughout history. So settlements or no settlements we are left with a security control / martial law that Israel will have to keep over the Palestinians for its survival as long as this continues since the denial of Zionism is often violent. Is that apartheid? Not in my eyes no. But the settlements are (and are very controversial within Israel btw, and some of them were dismantled).
Is this reason enough for anyone who identifies as a Zionist to be attacked/harassed automatically without even hearing what he has to say? For you it seems like it is. Shouldn't then Americans be spat at as soon as they open their mouths over what happened in Iraq? I mean some people say Americans murdered one million people for no good reason why does this get a pass? The Israeli Palestinian conflict is peanuts compared to some of the adventures the U.S had and Israel at least has a good reason to fight, what's the U.S excuse? Yet its beyond the pale for Americans to be boycotted/harassed simply for being Americans - not now and not when the war was going on.
The situation in Israel is tragic and complex and needs real solutions, but the anti Zionist crowd that sees everything as good or evil (Israel of course is evil, the Palestinians good) has it all figured out.
You are projecting a bunch, like a lot of Israeli people I talk to about this. I never attacked you.
Israel is, and will always be, internationally on the nose for what happened in that region and after the war. Even to people like me who are sympathetic to the historical persecution, brute forcing yourself onto a land you feel your people have a spiritual connection to and forming an ethnic state is regrettable.
I love Jewish people. I've met lots of amazing Israelis and understand the a fair bit about issues, but settling in that region was fucking silly and always going to yield this unending conflict and the dismay of the world.
Anyway, I don't have the inclination to engage in heated online discussions. I may read if you reply but will not respond.
“Timed action: When needed, the operator has an army of avatars which can be configured and timed. Thus a huge group is created, who can echo the negative message on all networks”
This article is a really interesting, detailed piece on what I suspect many have suspected.
I've literally done this myself. I had a specific number of profiles that I was able to leverage them during 2010 and If I remember correctly during 2016 as well.
This is not really news in India because you have the current ruling party involved with
Seems unlikely to work in the US given that we are already highly polarized and dug in to our positions. It's also hard to tell who is a bot and who is not on most forums discussing politics due to the low quality.
I believe all the discord and polarization that has happened over the past 10+ years have been because of psyops. I came to that realization when I read a paper from the CIA about memetics and naturally propagating ideas through a population. Social media makes it extremely easy to do.
It could be russia, it could be china...but the goal is to destabilize the US
I'm not sure that all of it is. I know there has been some. One of the biggest known examples is Russia playing both sides of the Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter issue to drive violence.
My comment was mostly about voting outcomes and not other types of disruption. Following the prior example, the vast majority of people dug into the side they already supported and didn't really affect party choice.
>Following the prior example, the vast majority of people dug into the side they already supported and didn't really affect party choice.
In case you missed it there was a recent paper on this topic:
>Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior
I'm glad you mentioned this. Everyone should take a bit of time and look through the media they were disseminating to familiarize themselves with what their approach looked like.
You can find it here (Sorry, large zip files, but straight from the source):
A lot of this is related to reflexive control theory applied to psyops where you are conditioning a target to respond with anger (negative emotions work best, but any emotional response is valid). The goal being to divide groups and prevent them from establishing a constructive dialogue between themselves and by eliciting predictable (again, often negative) responses to certain stimuli. This allows a malign actor to effectively paralyze a governing body by preventing the two sides from working together to accomplish even the most basic of goals. It's often used in concert with other forms of subversion such as political/legal manipulation and warfare to achieve the desired outcome.
RAND and CSIS have a number of good reports and articles on this type of thing if you wish to know more.
It sounds like you consider it as disruption only when people change their vote from A to B? That's only one type of disruption. Reinforcing polarization is also a disruption.
I’m not sure it would affect total opinion reversals in the US, but it might serve to radicalize existing opinions in the hopes of inciting violence. It might also help reinforce existing extremism by providing the appearance of unanimity within a subgroup (e.g. pick a random Republican and punish them for an insufficiently extreme view by creating a false consensus that “everyone knows” they are OK with Shakespeare casting men in drag).
The out of context and oversensationalized use of a candidate's positions has been used forever. At this point, it could exacerbate the existing opinions, as you point out. My comment was about affecting voting outcomes. I don't see this sort of thing causing people to flip, just digging in more.
> Some of the activity, Jorge casually admitted, is used to inflate the value of cryptocurrency.
I know of some farm operators too and this tracks.
Theyll equally do campaigns for or against NGOs, and any political party anywhere. Getting those contracts are lucrative but the crypto ones are faster.
Like I would say them approaching a crypto project is top of the funnel. And then as customer relationship they also know everyone is in a country they want to influence.
Really weird timing. Israel itself is currently in the midst of protests with multiple foreign Jewish orgs involved. There is even a petition to Supreme Court calling it to remove Netanyahu submitted by an Israeli org that would have been considered a foreign agent in the US due its funding
You don't shit where you eat, to put it colloquially - a common tactic employed by bad actors worldwide, I remember reports about malware disabling itself should it detect a Russian keyboard layout way over a decade ago.
There were a few words about it, actually. TFA mentions that "someone familiar with the matter" told the journalists that a secret Israeli agency once purchased supposedly hacked financial data from Jorge but the data turned out to be useless forgery. Which seems wild to me, that he would try to scam the people who have the most power to stop him.
There's also comments from one of the team that seems to indicate that they aren't involved in such shenanigans locally, but they're not pretending it isn't happening. He still votes because he has "faith".
Who are enablers, people who live their daily lives, go to work, have hobbies? What should they do not to be enablers, take a rifle and go die for a fine cause?
> Who are enablers, people who live their daily lives, go to work, have hobbies?
Yes. No one can force you act against you own comfort for the good of other people. But we can at least remind you that you should feel ashamed for it.
This happens in the US all the time. Political consulting groups have been doing this for a very very long time. It's part of the fabric of our society.
> Timed action: When needed, the operator has an army of avatars which can be configured and timed. Thus a huge group is created, who can echo the negative message on all networks
A competent bot operator would create the accounts far enough in advance that they wouldn't show up as green. Even so, I wouldn't mind a user preference toggle to hide green posts.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> The most common reason is that they were intentionally destabilizing their country and/or governments
The most common cited reason, you probably wanted to say.
Compare: "the most common reason for content removal in Chinese internet is dissemination of fake news" vs "the most common cited reason for content removal in Chinese internet is dissemination of fake news"
That's completely incorrect. The most common reason is that Jews were refusing to give up their culture and religion, which the authorities saw as destabilising. That's not the fault of the Jews, that's the fault of the authorities being unable to deal with diversity. Your comment is highly antisemitic.
I'm not sure how this is much different than what David Brock / DNC and Shareblue did and still does, or the Isreali army does, or Russia. Sounds like Musk was right when saying Twitter was full of bots. Instagram is easiest to manipulate. Again, nothing ground-breaking here at all.
