Though global populations show a larger anti-Israel sentiment, Western media and internet forums don't reflect this balance.
Western media often aligns with Israeli perspectives due to strategic alliances, lobbying influence, and media ownership dynamics, framing Israel’s actions as defensive while sidelining broader Arab or Palestinian views.
Online, pro-Israel narratives are reinforced by organized digital campaigns and moderation practices that shape public discourse. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian voices lack comparable resources and organization in Western spaces, limiting their visibility. This creates a media and digital environment where Western audiences are exposed to narratives that don’t fully represent the global spectrum of perspectives.
> Though global populations show a larger anti-Israel sentiment, Western media and internet forums don't reflect this balance.
I'm not sure you're right. Isn't this a bit hard to judge without first deciding what is true and what constitutes bias? I'm fairly certain we don't agree with on either of these.
Most Israelis consider things like the BBC and the NYT to be biased against Israel. Are you sure they're wrong?
The NYT insisted that a veteran of the Israeli air force, with no prior reporting experience, conduct on the ground research for a massively-significant piece on Hamas sexual abuse allegations.
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...The fear among Times staffers who have been critical of the paper’s Gaza coverage is that Schwartz will become a scapegoat for what is a much deeper failure. She may harbor animosity toward Palestinians, lack the experience with investigative journalism, and feel conflicting pressures between being a supporter of Israel’s war effort and a Times reporter, but Schwartz did not commission herself and Sella to report one of the most consequential stories of the war. Senior leadership at the New York Times did.
Why would you consider the NYT biased against Israel?
1. That's just one interview, I'm not sure it's actually representative.
2. Even if you think it is, that's just the US media specifically. I agree that they tend to be relatively pro-Israel, especially compared to other countries, but there are other countries.
3. If we accept that this is representative, can we also consider Ta-Nehisi Coates's book itself to be representative of the attitude of "intellectuals" in the US on Israel? As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue, and wrote what is likely to be the highest-selling book this year about the topic.
Not exactly a great example of journalistic rigor, IMO.
Sorry—I was focusing on bias in US media. (I live in the US)
> As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue
What is the other side of the issue? He and actually experts who study Israel call it apartheid. Is it not? If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.
Some experts call it apartheid, most Israelis disagree (and Israel officially disagrees). [1]
> If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.
Well, yes. That's exactly the other side of the issue, and is exactly what a real journalist talking about the Israel/Palestine situation should ideally explore.
This is an HN comment, not exactly the place for the history of the relations between the West Bank and Israel, but the short version is - most of the measures taking place in the WB are a direct result of terror attacks committed by the Palestinians, as a means of securing Israel from future attacks. You can see that relations were much better 40 years ago, it's not like Israel set out to have some kind of apartheid regime over the WB - people from Israel used to go far more freely into the WB, Palestinians used to work far more freely in Israel.
But as more and more attacks happened, Israel implemented various measures to stop terror - including the infamous checkpoints, including various border walls, including limiting work permits for Palestinians.
Looking at a snapshot of the WB now is looking at the end result of worsening relations over many years, with many of the things that seem "cruel" being direct measures to prevent terror attacks; and to prevent things like October 7th happening on a far larger scale, as would happen if it happened from the WB.
Most Israelis believe, probably correctly, that without these security measures, tens of thousands of Israelis would be killed. That would cause almost any country to do whatever it can to secure its "border".
[1] I personally don't care much for battles over semantics; if people agree on what is actually happening in the WB, then whether to call it apartheid or not seems irrelevant to me. There are lots of differences from the situation in South Africa, and lots of similarities.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and ostensibly the leadership of the Palestinians, which has a limited government role over the WB, is aiming to become a separate state; those circumstances make it seem, to me, that wondering why Palestinians don't have the same rights as Israelis is a category error, like wondering why Mexicans don't have the same rights as Americans.
Then again, it's also worth keeping in mind that whatever the goals of the Palestinians, in some respects Israel does, in fact, have control over the people of the WB, so in practice there are real problems here.
Finding justifications for apartheid will only be an exercise in racism.
Apartheid is a crime against humanity, illegal under international law, and countries have an obligation to prevent apartheid policies from persisting.
Israel’s policies in the West Bank has been ruled to be an apartheid by the ICJ, and Israel has been ordered (non-binding though) to stop apartheid practices, reverse the damage and pay reparations.
The accusation of apartheid against Israel makes no sense because of what Apartheid means -- institutionalized racism against country's own citizens.
If non-jewish citizens of Israel(that as you know DOES NOT include West Bank or Gaza) had different rights than jewish citizens, than you could argue Apartheid.
Again we are talking about Israel proper, not Westbank(controlled by Fatah) or Gaza(formerly controlled by Hamas).
Please tell me which rights do non-jewish citizens of Israel lack institutionally within Israel that Jewish citizens have?
Please tell us about the JNF, and what happens when non-Jewish citizens attempt to purchase or lease land from it.
After that, please tell us what happens when a non-Jewish citizen seeks to marry and obtain citizenship and residency rights for their spouse, and how this differs when a Jewish citizen makes the same application.
After that you can tell us about the Nation State Law, and the not-so symbolic language it contains.
And after that you can tell us about the 14,000 Palestinians annexed into Israel after the latter's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, who were then forcibly expelled according to criteria determined by the occupying regime. If there's no apartheid in Israel, why weren't their rights protected?
> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
The word apartheid in popular discourse is not this clearly defined, but I’ve personally never heard this provision. After all, the prototypical case of Apartheid in South Africa insisted that their victims were actually citizens of independent Bantustans and thus not subject to equality under South African laws.
But even so, countries occupying territories have an obligation to protect the people of that territory, subjugating them to apartheid policies under such occupation is at best failure to protect them from apartheid, which is still a crime under international law, and has been ruled as such by the ICJ, which actually goes much further.
> Please tell me which rights do non-jewish citizens of Israel lack institutionally within Israel that Jewish citizens have?
Germany has taken commendable steps to confront its role as the perpetrator of the Holocaust and to ensure that Holocaust victims and their heirs receive restitution and/or compensation. Germany also honors and remembers the victims of the Holocaust and has worked to cultivate a culture of remembrance. Its restitution measures range from compensating former owners and heirs for assets wrongfully seized during the Holocaust to making substantial financial contributions to victims’ funds and survivors’ pensions. From 1945 to 2018, the German government paid approximately $86.8 billion in restitution and compensation to Holocaust victims and their heirs.
Your point about EQ's role in speech and its unequal distribution is spot on. It underscores a significant issue: those who can't master the nuances of "acceptable" speech are getting marginalized, especially in fields like academia, journalism, politics, and now social media with this type of legislation.
Plain, straightforward speech has immense value. It promotes clarity and honesty, ensuring ideas are communicated without the need for high-EQ code. Restricting political discourse to high-EQ speech to avoid offense stifles genuine expression and hampers robust debate. This not only limits free speech but also degrades the quality of political dialogue, making it more about adhering to social norms than addressing real issues.
We need to value pluralism and strive for inclusivity in our discourse, ensuring that all voices, regardless of EQ, can be heard and respected.
Being a free speech absolutist ensures that all ideas, even those clumsily expressed, get a fair hearing. It fosters an environment where truth and innovation can thrive, unhampered by artificial constraints on how thoughts must be articulated.
Speech shouldn't require constant PR massaging to be accepted / "legal"
>> Israel isn't trying to push Palestinians out of Israel. The ambition that leaders on both sides agree on is that the Palestinians will have their own state.
Yes and what a glorious state it will be. Here is how much land Palestinians have now (Famous image shown to Obama)
Some of your comments in this thread are crossing too far into battle, which is the spirit we asked everyone not to comment in (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616662). I realize that you have extremely legitimate reasons for feeling the way you do, but even so, I need to ask you to abide by that request. The same goes for the users who are arguing with you and I am going to post the same thing to some of them.
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I'd say Hamas numbers have been reliable based on past conflicts. So, I don't know why you're dismissing them.
>> Given that context, the IDF for sure can still lie, but most likely they will eventually be found out.
Tell me more about the accountability and the cost of those lies and crimes by the IDF. How many IDF soldiers rot in prison for the crimes they committed and the crimes that have been documented by HRW? It's zero.
Even when the crimes are fully recorded, they get a handful of months and a commuted sentence.
When Israel controls the food intake of a population (The Gaza Diet) through a complete blockade, Israel doesn't get to claim they withdrew or respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian people.
Israel tried to do in Gaza what they did in the West Bank. Carve it up, control key resources, create settlements through terrorism and encroach daily on Palestinian territory.
Their settler-colonial crimes are well documented in the West Bank but Israel didn't have enough people and resources at the time to carry crimes both in the West Bank and Gaza.
> Finally, Jewish people cannot colonise an area they’ve been for 3000 years.
I’m not sure what that means.
I’m a person. I have ancestors who were likely [0] forced out of at least four identifiable countries. Many if not most Americans are in a similar position.
Does this mean that my descendants could “colonize” places where my ancestors never lived but could not “colonize” places where they did not live?
If I moved, permanently, to Antarctica, Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, New York, England, Russia, Ukraine, Mars, or Argentina, would I be colonizing, “returning”, etc? Does the answer really depend on where my ancestors lived 50 or 100 or 3000 years ago?
I do think there’s something to be said for someone moving to where their recent ancestors live or lived, but this gets complicated very very quickly, especially when political borders move in the mean time.
I once visited the house in a foreign country where some of ancestors lived in the 1930s, from which they were quite aggressively removed. I’m pretty sure that if I moved back there by force, I would be doing something very very wrong.
[0] I say “likely” because some degree of extrapolation is needed as to what happened tens of generations ago. And the number is likely much larger than 4.
> Jewish people cannot colonize an area they’ve been for 3000 years.
As I understand it, Palestine used to be a majority Jewish area. Their creation myth states that they migrated there from Egypt to escape slavery and oppression. However Jewish people never mass migrated from Palestine like they mass migrated from Egypt. Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew.
While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries. While in Europe, they still managed to intermarry and doubtless some Europeans even converted to Judaism. These immigrants became part of Europe and European heritage, and after so many generations they became European Jews.
This is why I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise. Zionists are mostly European or European descendants who migrated to lands that wasn’t theirs, made it theirs, and displaced the indigenous population from it.
In my opinion this is the worst possible case of colonialism.
> Some Palestinians simply gradually converted religion with during varying colonization, first to Christianity during Roman and Byzantine colonization, then to Islam during Arab and Ottoman colonization and today, most Palestinians are Muslim while Christian minority exists. Prior to 1948 there were even still Jewish Palestinians. Jesus Christ him self was even a Palestinian Jew.
There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves - nobody "met a Palestinian man" prior to this time in any recorded media. People are free to identify however they like, but all people living in this areas were simply Jews, Arabs, or other groups.
Talk about Palestinians prior to this time is part of the same conspiracy theory as the nakba and Jews being from Europe.
> While this is happening, some Jews—instead of converted—migrated from Palestine to Europe, where they were persecuted for centuries.
Kind of? After the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans pushed the Jews out and renamed Israel (then split into Israel and Judea) into Syria Palestinea, after the Philistines (who were Greek).
> I—and others—consider Zionism to be a specific case of the more general European colonial enterprise.
You're wrong. You can't colonise your own country. Islam converting some Jews when the arabs colonised the area in the seventh century doesn't change that.
Which also begs the question - why is arab colonisation acceptable but 'European' (but actually not Eupopean, as Jews are from Israel) colonisation not acceptable?
> There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves
How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1], a map of Palestine in 1482 version of Claudius Ptolemy's Cosmographia [1], a British issued passport and coins from the 1920s[1], a letter from Albert Einstein to the editors of The New York Times about happenings in Palestine and Palestine Jewish communities[2], etc.
The problem with looking for a Palestinian identity prior to 1960s is (a) there are historic artifacts, written records, etc. of one existing as early as the 1920s[*], and (b) the notion of the nation state didn’t exist (or was rather rare) prior to world war 1, and not every nation was given a state when nation states proliferated. So just because the nation state of Palestine didn’t exist before the 1920s, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about the Palestinian people before that period, even if they never called them selves such on written records[†]. Talking about national identity in modern terms prior to the proliferation of nation states is kind of nonsensical.
---
* The same applies to the Nakba, however I choice not to engage in a debate about conspiracy theories which deny the history of very real horrors experienced by very real people, of whom many are still alive.
† This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch from The Holy Grail when King Arthur refers to him self as the “King of the Britons” to the peasantry, to which the peasantry promptly reply: “The king of the who?” and “Who are the Britons?”[3]
> > There was no Palestinian identity prior to 1960. One can easily confirm this for themselves - nobody "met a Palestinian man" prior to this time in any recorded media. People are free to identify however they like, but all people living in this areas were simply Jews, Arabs, or other groups.
> How so? When I search for the history of the Palestinian identity I can easily find something called Dux Palestinae on Roman maps from 400 CE on both banks of the Jordan river[1]...
It doesn't seem like you've read the comment you're replying to again. I'm leaving this conversation.
Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to.
Good question. We do know Hamas has very little interest in meeting the needs of Gaza's population - there are no wells, aid money is taken for weapons and for the personal wealth of it's billionaire leaders instead of it's populace. We'll never know if Hamas can feed Gazans because it puts very little effort into doing so.
Land in Israel was purchased from Ottomans and Arabs before 1948, and gained after winning wars declared by Arab states after 1948.
Are you trying to say that not a single Palesitinan has been displaced? The nakba is largely why we have these problems today, and it's still going on.
Again: Egypt could open it's border tomorrow if it wished to. Egypt doesn't wish to. Hence the agreement with Israel.
> The nakba is largely why we have these problems today
Not quite, the displacement happened, but that's a symptom of the cause: the wars declared by Arab states after 1948 mentioned in the comment you're replying to.
Likewise Poland and France still own land gained from Germany after WW2.
Do you believe that Israel would allow them to open the border and decide themselves what can go over? Israel have de facto control over this border as they decide what goods and which people can move through it. Saying that Gaza is not under a blockade because they have an Egyptian border is meaningless and disingenuous.
So it's just fine if they stole some land and kicked the people out? They should just be happy with losing everything they have.
Is Israel still at war with the west bank? As they're still doing the same thing, and under such circumstances you say it's ok.
Your first question cannot be answered because Egypt has always refused Palestinian refugees. Gaza was Egyptian territory but Egypt does not want them back.
Egypt’s reasons vary. One stated reason was that they fear that Palestinian refugees will attack Israel from Egyptian soil and threaten the 40 year peace between the nations. Another reason is that Egypt had its own problem with extremists and accused Hamas of backing them. A third reason which we really shouldn’t overlook is that Egypt and Israel want to improve their economic relationship and increase bilateral trade to $700 million a year. Fourth, Egypt also brings up the concepts of displacement and right of return but that’s a level way beyond my understanding so I’ll insert it as a fact but cannot speak to it in any way.
International law is such that Israel would have a lot of difficulty keeping Rafah Rafah (for lack of a better word to describe that clusterfuck of a border) if Egypt was interested in fighting for its integrity. They’re not. Jordan has also always refused Palestinian refugees.
Finally, Israel has made many overtures for peace. Those overtures have destroyed political careers and resulted in at least one assassination. Despite the overtures, the attacks still continued.
I’m not willing to engage unless you can tell me about some of these Israeli attempts at peace. Show me that you have some understanding of the other side and we can talk. But otherwise, I get very bored without balance.
Why did control of the border turn into Egypt refuses to have a completely open border? We've already established that Israel controls what goes in and out of Egypts border, as you need permission from Israel to enter Gaza through Rafah. I'll paste the wiki sentence in case you missed it and leave this discussion there's no point in saying anything else.
"Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval."
Every overture of peace from Israel has contained poisoned pills. Lasting peace cannot be made in this manner, see Treaty of Versailles. Everyone except Israel has now accepted the 1967 borders, even Hamas. The two state solution is impossible unless Israel gives up what it has taken in the West Bank, just look at the pockmarks on a map.
Did you really bring up the assassination that the current right wing government in Israel called for publicly and don't think there's a problem with Israels leadership?
I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
Egypt determines it's own borders. Nobody is forcing Egypt to signs deals with Israel. Egypt does what it wants because Egypt is a sovereign state. The comment you're replying to has explained this very clearly and patiently.
> I'm afraid to say that I missed the latest Hasbara episodes so I guess you won't respond.
The sad thing is the parent got flagged and you're the one breaking the HN guidelines.
The question was if Israel can control how much food can enter Gaza no? You said that they have a border with Egypt, as if Israel does not control what goes in and out there and they do not have an effective blockade. It clearly does not matter if Egypt allows them to do this or not.
In response to someone that basically said "say something nice about Israel or I wont talk to you".
Israel controls the Rafah border crossing via treaties with Egypt. Egypt does not have autonomous control over that crossing, unless they break treaties.
Western media often aligns with Israeli perspectives due to strategic alliances, lobbying influence, and media ownership dynamics, framing Israel’s actions as defensive while sidelining broader Arab or Palestinian views.
Online, pro-Israel narratives are reinforced by organized digital campaigns and moderation practices that shape public discourse. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian voices lack comparable resources and organization in Western spaces, limiting their visibility. This creates a media and digital environment where Western audiences are exposed to narratives that don’t fully represent the global spectrum of perspectives.