I think it is hugely underappreciated that in most of "the west" we can have public media content that is critical of army/politicians/administration and just makes the nation look bad abroad.
I'm talking less about "free speech" as a concept and more about how the majority still thinks its worthwhile to have and allow such things even if they hurt.
This is not something to take for granted, and I often find people oblivious to this privilege. There were lots of voices arguing along similar lines during the Snowden leaks ("should be punished/swept under the rug because it makes America look bad"), but I think this is truly a cornerstone of a free society, and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
> ..and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
>Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed his defence minister's words on Sunday, saying that the incident at Sde Teiman was "perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the State of Israel has experienced since its establishment".
>Defense Minister Israel Katz welcomed Tomer-Yerushalmi's resignation, stating that anyone who spreads "blood libels against IDF troops is unfit to wear the army's uniform".
> suspects in a violent assault on a Palestinian from Gaza, including anal rape. The victim was hospitalised with injuries including broken ribs, a punctured lung and rectal damage, according to the indictment
... then...
> “The [investigation] in Sde Teiman caused immense damage to the image of the state of Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],” the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a statement on Sunday. “This is perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the state of Israel has experienced since its establishment.”
... then unsurprisingly...
> a far-right mob gathered outside Sde Teiman calling for the investigation to be dropped.
... and so...
> said in a resignation letter last week that she had authorised publication of the video to defuse attacks on military investigators and prosecutors working on the case.
Either the soldiers weren’t doing anything wrong and the video didn’t need to be secret or they were then why are you more worried about the exposure of the wrongdoing than the wrongdoing?
Imagine thinking it’s narcissistic to put your career and life at risk to protect your fellow military prosecutors. You need an education on what narcissism is.
Seems like a moment of moral clarity for someone who had an opportunity to do the right thing. I suppose the organization in question here needs to screen more aggressively for individuals with zero moral compass.
I think thats slightly unfair; people just tend to flag polarizing political topics because it often leads to inflamed repetitive arguments without the HN effect (which would be the Israeli lawyer chiming in, here).
I see barely any Israel discussions on this site, so if it is not symmetrical the main reason for that has to be that the submissions favoring one side or the other are very uneven, which is nobody's fault and not a problem. Especially since even being very generous, those discussions are not a good fit for this site. It's not like you don't have enough places to go if you really want to have one, it really does not have to be a heavily tech-focused site.
If you classify this as "critical of Israel (?)" then I can guarantee you pretty confidently that an article critical of the PA (or Hamas or whatever) would get flagged at a pretty similar rate here.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
And regarding comments about whether it's on- or off-topic:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
This article is about the political culture in a country that supplies a lot of technology and software to other countries, including the one where I live, that they have developed through occupation, apartheid and genocide.
If I lived in the US I'd care whether the people designing cop drones are ruled by genocidal rape maniacs or puppy loving nerds.
I think it is hugely underappreciated that in most of "the west" we can have public media content that is critical of army/politicians/administration and just makes the nation look bad abroad.
I'm talking less about "free speech" as a concept and more about how the majority still thinks its worthwhile to have and allow such things even if they hurt.
This is not something to take for granted, and I often find people oblivious to this privilege. There were lots of voices arguing along similar lines during the Snowden leaks ("should be punished/swept under the rug because it makes America look bad"), but I think this is truly a cornerstone of a free society, and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
> ..and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
Nothing changed, they have always been this way..
>Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed his defence minister's words on Sunday, saying that the incident at Sde Teiman was "perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the State of Israel has experienced since its establishment".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0kpd97qqko
This is all very inconvenient that people know the truth I guess ...
>Defense Minister Israel Katz welcomed Tomer-Yerushalmi's resignation, stating that anyone who spreads "blood libels against IDF troops is unfit to wear the army's uniform".
the truth is antisemitic.
> suspects in a violent assault on a Palestinian from Gaza, including anal rape. The victim was hospitalised with injuries including broken ribs, a punctured lung and rectal damage, according to the indictment
... then...
> “The [investigation] in Sde Teiman caused immense damage to the image of the state of Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],” the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a statement on Sunday. “This is perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the state of Israel has experienced since its establishment.”
... then unsurprisingly...
> a far-right mob gathered outside Sde Teiman calling for the investigation to be dropped.
... and so...
> said in a resignation letter last week that she had authorised publication of the video to defuse attacks on military investigators and prosecutors working on the case.
[dead]
[flagged]
Either the soldiers weren’t doing anything wrong and the video didn’t need to be secret or they were then why are you more worried about the exposure of the wrongdoing than the wrongdoing?
Imagine thinking it’s narcissistic to put your career and life at risk to protect your fellow military prosecutors. You need an education on what narcissism is.
Sooo, what do you think about Edward Snowden?
Seems like a moment of moral clarity for someone who had an opportunity to do the right thing. I suppose the organization in question here needs to screen more aggressively for individuals with zero moral compass.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I think thats slightly unfair; people just tend to flag polarizing political topics because it often leads to inflamed repetitive arguments without the HN effect (which would be the Israeli lawyer chiming in, here).
The flagging is not symmetrical.
I see barely any Israel discussions on this site, so if it is not symmetrical the main reason for that has to be that the submissions favoring one side or the other are very uneven, which is nobody's fault and not a problem. Especially since even being very generous, those discussions are not a good fit for this site. It's not like you don't have enough places to go if you really want to have one, it really does not have to be a heavily tech-focused site.
Did you try to search? There are many, but they typically don't stay on the front page
What would be the symmetry axis?
If you classify this as "critical of Israel (?)" then I can guarantee you pretty confidently that an article critical of the PA (or Hamas or whatever) would get flagged at a pretty similar rate here.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Hey, not super familiar with HN norms.
You can learn more about the intended norms through the Guidelines and FAQ, at the bottom of almost every page but here are the links:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Regarding relevance to the community:
> What to Submit
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
And regarding comments about whether it's on- or off-topic:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
"All information should be free"
"Mistrust authority—promote decentralization"
("A hackers ethic" in Levy, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, 1984)
I think it fits.
Indeed. Discussion of this abounds. Here's one in which I participated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45676472
This article is about the political culture in a country that supplies a lot of technology and software to other countries, including the one where I live, that they have developed through occupation, apartheid and genocide.
If I lived in the US I'd care whether the people designing cop drones are ruled by genocidal rape maniacs or puppy loving nerds.