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".
I'm not versed enough in the full history of Israel, but perhaps attacking several of your neighbours, buying anti-citizen and anti-journalism spyware, raping prisoners, keeping a de facto dictator in power… well, I think Israel has done plenty to smear its own image.
Am I in a bubble? Because for more than a year I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in my country that would still be pro-Israel as a whole. Some nuanced support, surely, but also widespread condemnation.
>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 IDF was formed from the merger of 3 terrorist organizations responsible for bombings and murders of Palestinian, British and even Jewish civilians. Not much has changed.
But you can't get away with anything if people keep reporting the truth. And the IDF is used to getting away with everything. Therefore the reporting is the problem.
> 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.
HN allows political news only if it is against Israel.
Multiple times the news published here have been refuted, or missed crucial info - but the follow ups are never allowed.
25 years back when the political news about tech companies was related to intra/industry lobbying and monopoly questions that may have been a possibility.
Tech companies are doing direct dealing with nation-states and being active participants in military policy. This is no longer possible.
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..
The absence of all ugly is the real ugly.
>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 ...
I'm not versed enough in the full history of Israel, but perhaps attacking several of your neighbours, buying anti-citizen and anti-journalism spyware, raping prisoners, keeping a de facto dictator in power… well, I think Israel has done plenty to smear its own image.
Am I in a bubble? Because for more than a year I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in my country that would still be pro-Israel as a whole. Some nuanced support, surely, but also widespread condemnation.
Quick correction: they are the main exporter, not purchaser, of the spyware people see named in famous cases against journalists, politicians, et al.
>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.
The IDF was formed from the merger of 3 terrorist organizations responsible for bombings and murders of Palestinian, British and even Jewish civilians. Not much has changed.
Don't forget: It was the raping that caused the damage to the IDF and the global standing of Israel, not the leaking.
But nowadays it seems to be en vogue again to shoot the messenger.
But you can't get away with anything if people keep reporting the truth. And the IDF is used to getting away with everything. Therefore the reporting is the problem.
> 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.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinia...
Here is a member of the Knesset explicitly endorsing the anal rape of Palestinian prisoners
HN allows political news only if it is against Israel. Multiple times the news published here have been refuted, or missed crucial info - but the follow ups are never allowed.
Someone at HN is very biased.
i was explained by moderator that it falls under "new phenomenon" part of guidelines and of interest to community
Let's keep the political news out of HN. Way too much of this news is covered
You can keep the politics out of tech. But can you keep the tech out of government overreach, politics, and terror?
25 years back when the political news about tech companies was related to intra/industry lobbying and monopoly questions that may have been a possibility.
Tech companies are doing direct dealing with nation-states and being active participants in military policy. This is no longer possible.