Israel cracks down on internal critics of its Gaza war
Israel cracks down on internal critics of its Gaza war
Palestinians, as well as some left-wing Jews, are being suspended from studies, fired from jobs, or arrested at night — all because of social media posts.
Palestinians, as well as some left-wing Jews, are being suspended from studies, fired from jobs, or arrested at night — all because of social media posts.
You're viewing a single thread.
This article is important highlighting the repressive actions being done in Israel right now.
I want to highlight two things from the article:
cases of students who published words of praise for terrorism
people being summoned to police investigations or questioning simply for “liking” posts on social media — including an Arab teacher working in Tiberias who was suspended because she liked a post shared by the Instagram page Eye on Palestine
I wish the article would put some more emphasis in distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel's actions on the one hand (which should be considerd protected speech), and incitement to violence and terrorism on the other (which should rightfully be persecuted and banned)
Israel is at war right now, and this causes Israeli instituations to drastically overextend their definition of what constitutes "incitement to violence" and "supporting terrorism".
We must be able understand the nuances and hold Israel accountable for quashing legitimate speech, while still understanding their duty to prevent incitement to violence, which inevitably leads to real violence.
These same criticisms and nuances should also be directed at Palestinian institutions.
Differntiate legitimate speech from incitement to violence
Toldry, I have spent the past week doing serious research into the Israel/Palestine conflict. I have looked at pro Palestine arguments as well as pro Israel arguments along with third party sources and cross referenced timelines of events and quotes from key players from the 1800s til now. I can safely say both sides are terrible and there’s a lot more than meets the eye going on right now. Thank you for providing nuance and level headedness in a time when people are increasingly feeling pressured to pick a side. Remember people, you can condemn both hamas and Israel. Both have done dirty things to each other from the beginning and both have engaged in deception so often that I feel there is truly no good guy in this situation.
Is anyone suggesting Israel should ignore outright calls for violence against Israel by people in Israel? Because as far as I can tell that's not a thing that's happening, so I'm not sure why you're making such a big deal of saying it shouldn't be tolerated.
It is a thing that's happening.
I don't have an Englrsh source, but here is an article about some of students in Haifa university that expressed support and cheered on the October 7th attack. They were suspended from the university.
Keep in mind they did this even before the Israeli army responded in any way and did anything in Gaza.
Cheering on the terrorist attach in October 7th that killed thousands of innocents is a call for violence against Israel.
That article isn't very specific about how exactly they "expressed support" so it's really hard to say if they were expressing a gross political view or actively inciting violence. I certainly don't think saying "I support Hamas" should be illegal any more illegal than saying "I support Russia" or even "I support Israel", but it crosses a line if they tell people to commit acts of terrorism or give material support to Hamas.
I suspect they were removed based on a violation of a student code of conduct, which I think is the right way to deal with high-profile assholes at universities, just as employment agreements are an appropriate way for employers to deal with conduct that's obnoxious but not illegal.
At any rate, I'm certain Israel already has laws against incitement to violence that were written at a time when people were a bit more level headed. I can't see an attempt to further criminalize speech as anything but an attempt to stifle political speech that specifically does not incite violence.
First of all, I'm an Israeli, so take everything I say with a grain of salt, and I'll try to be as unbiased as I can. Hamas, as opposed to Russia (I don't say Israel because a lot will disagree), is an internationaly recognized terrorist group, which was elected* by the people of Gaza after Israel pulled all civilians and military from the Gaza strip, Hamas has made it very clear that their sole mission was to eradicate all the jews (not Israelis or zionists) from Palestine (and I'm not sure about that - also the world). So an Israeli supporting Hamas would be very problematic, Imagine an american supporting Al qaeda right after 9/11. And I just want to emphasize, supporting Hamas is not necessarily supporting Palestine and vice versa, myself I think that any hamas operative deserve to die, but I really hope and dream for the day that the Palestinians would be our peaceful neighbours. *elected technically, as they drove fatah, their main competitor and more moderate towards israel.
I think we may just have a different idea of what counts as incitement. I'm an American and I can tell you that openly expressing support for Al Qaeda would have made you very, very unpopular here, but it would not be illegal. There are cases where I think the American version of free speech goes too far (in that it protects things like dangerous misinformation and foreign propaganda), but I don't think this is one of those cases. The social consequences of supporting terrorists are already harsh enough to keep those views mostly suppressed. People can, of course, find like-minded people and express their opinions in private without fear, but even then, if the conversation goes beyond expressing opinions and moves on to making plans to commit a crime, that's considered a conspiracy, which is illegal. We have counter-terrorism units that actively try to infiltrate extremist groups specifically so they can shut down conspiracies.
I don't think Israel (or any country) should allow speech that directly puts anyone in danger, but given the right-wing nature of Israel's government and the tendency of right-wing governments in general to suppress speech they disapprove of, I strongly suspect that any new law will inevitably be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government.
I try to keep my ideas and opinions out of this conversation to keep it unbiased, but the reality I see, living in Israel my whole life is that support for a terrorist organization is directly related to terrorist activity, for example we've seen it in 95 when support for a radical right wing Jewish terrorist group quickly ended in the assassination of the prime minister Itzhak Rabin, and Hezbolla supporters are easily recruited by Hezbolla to report where Hezbolla missile hits so Hezbolla can correct they're aiming. As much as I understand,just supporting hamas' actions, as vile and horrible as it is is free speech, but the road from there to actively take action in aiding Hamas is extremely short.
I'm prepared to accept that things are different in Israel for a reason. Especially because my opinion on that topic makes even less difference than my opinions on American politics.
Human Rights Watch has a good report about free speech, protest, and journalism under Israeli military orders: Born Without Civil Rights
It also mentions where there is overlap between civil rights abuses from Israel and from the Palestinian Authority, although there is a separate report on the PA: Two Authorities, One Way, Zero Dissent
I also recommend reading the three case studies under section VI. The first one is a doozy, and parts of it are mentioned in the summary below. The third one, a guy gets kicked around by Israel and then also the PA.
Relevant highlights from the summary:
The regulations empower authorities, among other things, to declare as an “unlawful association” groups that advocate for “bringing into hatred or contempt, or the exciting of disaffection against” authorities, and criminalize membership in or possession of material belonging to or affiliated, even indirectly, with these groups.
Military Order 101, which criminalizes participation in a gathering of more than ten people without a permit on an issue “that could be construed as political,” punishable by a sentence of up to ten years. It further prohibits publishing material “having a political significance” or displaying “flags or political symbols” without army approval.
Military Order 1651, which replaced 20 prior orders and imposes a 10-year sentence on anyone who “attempts, orally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area [the West Bank] in a manner which may harm public peace or public order” or “publishes words of praise, sympathy or support for a hostile organization, its actions or objectives,” which it defines as “incitement.” It further outlines vaguely worded “offenses against authorities” whose penalties include potential life imprisonment for an “act or omission which entails harm, damage, disturbance to the security of the Area or the security of the IDF” or entering an area in close “proximity” to property belonging to the army or state.
The Israeli army also regularly cites the broad definition of incitement in its military laws, defined to include “praise, sympathy or support for a hostile organization” and “attempts, orally or otherwise, to influence public opinion in the Area in a manner which may harm public peace or public order,” to criminalize speech merely opposing its occupation.
Military prosecutors, for example, in early 2018 claimed in an indictment against activist Nariman Tamimi that she “attempted to influence public opinion in the Area in a manner that may harm public order and safety” and “called for violence” over a livestream she posted to her Facebook account of a confrontation between her then-16-year-old daughter Ahed and Israeli soldiers in her front yard in December 2017. Her indictment notes a series of charges under Military Order 1651 based primarily on the livestream, including “incitement,” noting that the video was “viewed by thousands of users, shared by dozens of users, received dozens of responses and many dozens of likes.” Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and case file, and nowhere in the video or case file does Nariman call for violence. Nariman told Human Rights Watch that she pled guilty to incitement and two other charges—"aiding assault of a soldier” and “interference with a soldier”— to avoid a longer sentence if convicted by a military justice system that, as human rights organizations have shown, fail to give Palestinians fair trials. Based on the plea deal, Nariman served eight months in jail.