Internet Safe Harbors, Antisemitism, And Online Jewish Activity

from the getting-it-backwards dept

In early December 2022, a former Israeli Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, three other retired Israeli generals, a former Commissioner of the Israeli Police, and a former head of the Mossad’s Intelligence Directorate filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google arguing that Internet platforms should be civilly liable for third party content that encourages terrorist activity. In their filing, they claimed that the wave of terror in Israel in 2015–2016 “became known as the ‘Facebook intifada’ and the #stab! Campaign due to the essential role social media played in inciting the perpetrators to attack civilians.” The Anti-Defamation League also filed a brief in the case, similarly arguing that Internet platforms should have legal accountability for violence against Jewish Americans and other vulnerable communities encouraged by these platforms’ recommendation engines. So, too, the Zionist Organization of America asserted that Internet platforms should not be immune from liability “when they target specific users and recommend and direct them to new content that helps fan the flames of hatred and violence against the Jewish community.”

There is no doubt that Internet platforms are used to disseminate antisemitic content. But these briefs fail to recognize that these same platforms greatly foster Jewish community and religious activity in the United States and throughout the Diaspora; and that the legal interpretations these briefs advocate could drastically diminish this activity.

In Gonzalez, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider for the first time the scope of the safe harbor provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which limits the liability of an Internet platform for content uploaded by third parties. Since Section 230’s enactment in 1996, the lower courts have interpreted it broadly. Some politicians and interest groups argue that these interpretations are overly broad and have disincentivized Internet companies from eliminating hate speech and disinformation from their sites. Free speech advocates, on the other hand, contend that the courts have correctly applied Section 230 in a manner that enables platforms to allow any speaker to reach a global audience at no, or minimal, cost, without prior vetting or filtering. In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court could uphold the broad interpretation upon which Internet companies have relied for the past quarter century, or it instead could narrow the scope of the safe harbor and disrupt the existing business models of the Open Internet.

Increasing the liability of the platforms for the third-party content would force the platforms to act as gatekeepers; to reduce their exposure to ruinous damages, many platforms would permit dissemination only of paid or pre-approved content. This could adversely affect a wide range of online activity, including the rich Jewish life facilitated by the Internet.

Worship. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, Jewish congregations had begun to experiment with the live streaming of religious services. Live streaming and video conferencing of services increased dramatically with the onset of the pandemic, and many congregations now use hybrid models. While Orthodox congregations will not stream their services on the Sabbath and the holidays, they will stream the daily morning, afternoon, and evening services. Less strict denominations not concerned about the use of electricity will also stream services on the Sabbath and holidays. (For example, this past Rosh HaShanah, I witnessed the blowing of the shofar at B’nai Jeshuran Congregation in New York from my hotel room in Geneva, Switzerland.) Indeed, the use of video conferencing and streaming technologies have led to extensive rabbinic debate whether people participating in a service via Zoom counted towards the “minyan” or quorum of ten participants. The Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative Movement issued a 50-page legal opinion on the subject.

The availability of remote attendance has led to growing participation in daily services and the strengthening of ties to Judaism. One now can routinely join shiva minyans at the houses of mourners via Zoom or other video-conferencing platforms, enabling mourners to be joined by family and around the world. The same is true with other life-cycle events, such as brises (ritual circumcisions) and weddings.

Education. Internet platforms provide myriad channels for formal and informal Jewish education. During the pandemic, Jewish institutions of learning at all levels migrated online using platforms such as Zoom or Webex. Adult education programs on Jewish topics by synagogues, universities, and other organizations are now offered online. Lectures are live streamed and archived on YouTube. Hundreds of rabbis from around the world offer “daf yomi” or the daily study of a page of Talmud via Internet platforms.

Culture and Community-Engagement. Social media platforms such as YouTube host vast quantities of Jewish cultural material, including videos of performances of songs and dances. Around holidays, groups such as Six13 and the Maccabeats release their latest holiday-themed recordings. Synagogues and other Jewish organizations use platforms like Facebook and Zoom for cultural events, book groups and professional discussion forums for rabbis, cantors, and teachers. Hadassah Magazine in an article entitled A (Facebook) Group for Every Jewish Interest reviewed some of the over 1,000 Facebook groups with “Jewish” or “Jews” in their names.

In short, Internet platforms allow Jews in the Diaspora to practice their faith and strengthen their identity. Moreover, U.S.-based platforms heavily support all aspects of political, economic, cultural, and personal life in Israel. Indeed, Israelis are the world leaders in social media use, with 77 percent of adults using social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Imposing greater liability on U.S. platforms for third party content could endanger these positive uses by increasing their cost and reducing their spontaneity.

Proponents of narrowing the Section 230 safe harbor, including the generals and organizations mentioned above, may contend that rather than wholesale changes to the application of Section 230, they merely want increased liability for the use of algorithms recommending content. But virtually all social media sites use recommendation algorithms; the amount of content available on the Internet is so enormous that all search engines and sites hosting content use algorithms to determine what content to offer users.

The Solicitor General of the United States in its brief in the Gonzalez case tried to draw a distinction between the use of algorithms by search engines to select content in response to a user’s query and the use of algorithms by a social media platform to supply a user with content by an automatically generated feed. This is a distinction without a difference. The search engine algorithm considers searches the user has previously conducted in determining what search results to present the user in response to the particular query he is now making; the platform considers the user’s prior activity in determining what content to present the user in her feed. In both cases, the user’s prior activity influences the algorithm.

Furthermore, even if there were a difference between search engine results and feeds, feeds are extremely beneficial to the user and society at large in most cases. The feed provides the user with more of the content she wants to see, and usually that content is not problematic in any way. To be sure, a social media platform might feed additional antisemitic content to a user who spends some time on the platform viewing antisemitic content. By the same token, the platform would feed Jewish educational material to a user who spends time on the platform viewing Jewish educational material. Platforms should not be forced to abandon feeds, with all the resulting user benefits, because on occasion the feeds may have harmful impacts.

Finally, three quick responses to the suggestion that platforms could easily remove access to antisemitic content without changing their business models in a manner that ultimately restricts access to legitimate content. First, display of antisemitic symbols and content might be necessary for educational purposes, such as to teach about the Holocaust — but Internet companies have difficulty accurately making such content moderation distinctions, particularly at scale. Second, there is profound disagreement about when criticism of Israeli government policies towards the West Bank and Gaza Strip constitutes antisemitism. Here, too, Internet companies have trouble getting the nuance right. Third, even if the social media platforms could draw appropriate lines with respect to antisemitic material, changes to Section 230 would still lead to liability for other problematic content, and the platforms would still need to change their business models, to the detriment of Jewish activity online.

A decision in the Gonzalez case is expected by the end of June 2023.

Jonathan Band is a copyright and internet lawyer based in Maryland. This article was reposted with permission.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Internet Safe Harbors, Antisemitism, And Online Jewish Activity”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Christenson says:

Context makes the problem nearly impossible

This is a very jewish article, but consider for a minute that the effect of a lot of “bad” stuff depends very much on both context and the reader.

What’s that jewish song about “all because of the little kid my father bought with two souzous”?

Examples:
Palestinian posts ‘Ima gonna murder me a Jew tomorrow’

This gets removed, but, not investigated because cops are busy. (Surely you don’t expect them to investigate, that’s a lot of work!)

or it doesn’t get removed and someone, say, in Bellingcat investigates, and quote posts it, saying “this guy’s serious!” (and now he gets arrested, because he actually was serious)

Then it shows up again, on Yeshiva University’s social media, as part of a study in social media and terrorism…

And then a respected rabbi uses it for his sermon about how to deal with such a person at temple…without violence.

Backpage.com — which was a sex work site, including ads and forums.
Kamala Harris: Shut that down!
Professional cops: Why did you just destroy my best resource for finding and shutting down sex trafficking operations???

Nobody has figured out a principled way to reliably decide, in the face of context and audience effects, whether a piece of content is good or bad, because context and audience can be changed so easily!

Anonymous Coward says:

This isn’t a utopia.

Without Section 230, things would go south really quickly. It’ll be miserable for people on both sides of the political aisle (just in case someone is content to think it will only hit the “other side”).

230 is perhaps the worst model of intermediary liability, except literally every other proposed model of intermediary liability.

Without 230, you would get less nuance in moderation. This means more of those vexing and seemingly out of touch decisions, not less. And more erratic behavior from tech companies. That might be the best way to describe it.

You also have to be wary of creating an environment so hostile that you can no longer do something casual and organic like running your own chat or a comments section on a blog.

In the long run, corroding the web might undermine what makes it special. Being able to run your own site is a big part of the culture.

The same applies to having a passion for advancing security, rather than also being tasked with being your own worst enemy.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Second, there is profound disagreement about when criticism of Israeli government policies towards the West Bank and Gaza Strip constitutes antisemitism.

How curious. I feel no constraint against calling the Israeli government a “fuckwit fascist organization that does a lot of actual harm in the world” without impuning the character of any specific Jew or the Jewish people as a whole.

The government is not the people, no matter how much some people would wish to conflate the two. Another case in point, Iran…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

WhatAboutIsm

Would this law equally apply to Israelis who produce and disseminate such content against Palestinians?

The Israeli government was not a party to this amicus curiae brief. Residents of the Weest Bank of the Jordan River and their counterparts in the Gaza strip weren’t either.

So, first, there is no “this law” because it isn’t a law. It’s an argument before SCOTUS. Secondly producing content is something we call “protected speech.” Finally, the whataboutism isn’t a thing.

Christenson makes great comments including the Backpage/Harris discussion. It hurt “sex workers” (camgirls? strippers?) and law enforcement efforts… and was just a sound bite on the great screen. Also mistrial in 2021 and nothing since.

Finally, YAAC writes:

How curious. I feel no constraint against calling the Israeli government a “fuckwit fascist organization that does a lot of actual harm in the world” without impuning the character of any specific Jew or the Jewish people as a whole.

The self-professed lack of feeling by a coward issuing insults pretty much speaks for itself.

Ehud

AnonOps says:

Re:

“a former Israeli Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, three other retired Israeli generals, a former Commissioner of the Israeli Police, and a former head of the Mossad’s Intelligence Directorate filed an amicus brief ”

Did you just gloss over the mere fact that those individuals took an oath to uphold and defend Israel at all costs both foreign and domestic? What makes you think they’re still not agent of the state today?

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Who does represent a country?

This post may be long-ish, and addresses comments by various people. The first part addresses the Online Jewish Activity™, and the latter part the Backpage/§230 safe harbor vs censorship.

Do the people speak for the State or does the Government elected by those people speak for the State?

AnonOps wrote:

“a former Israeli Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, three other retired Israeli generals, a former Commissioner of the Israeli Police, and a former head of the Mossad’s Intelligence Directorate filed an amicus brief ”

I’m a former lots of things, a retired other things, and I don’t represent any of the entities for whom I served or worked. Neither do former ministers, former military officers, former police commissioners nor former heads of intelligence agencies. Once you’re no longer part of the organization (in this case the government) you no longer represent it or whom it represents.

Depending on your perspective, either the government of Israel represents Israel, or the people of Israel represent Israel. In either case the latter don’t have the right to speak for Israel. One can substitute any other country here and see that only the current government of a country can speak for and represent that country.

And then the snarky question:

Did you just gloss over the mere fact that those individuals took an oath to uphold and defend Israel at all costs both foreign and domestic?

None of them did any such thing. That’s the United States oath of office, not Israel’s (or any other country I know of.)
UGC Source at Wikipedia.
Original source from the Israeli government.

Then the summation:

What makes you think they’re still not agent of the state today?

The best way to know what I think is to read what I wrote. I very clearly stated:

The Israeli government was not a party to this amicus curiae brief.

and I’ve supplemented that here by indicating that former anyone doesn’t represent the country. I hope that helps clarify my thinking, not that my thinking is relevant outside my own head.

And then YAAC says:

Court rulings ARE law

No, US court rulings are not law. They may set precedent, may provide interpretation, may invalidate laws, and they even may appear to be law until otherwise changed by the legislative branch of the US government. Laws are created by legislative action, and in the US that’s passage by both chambers and a presidential signature.
Learn about the legislative process with respect to the judicial process in the US.

Other countries have different structures. For example, the Supreme Court of Russia has interpretive powers, but in no way creates an additive change in a law.

YAYAAC writes:

I read about backpage back before it was shut down, and read the resulting caselaw years ago as it was internet related and big news at the time; I don’t recall the mistrial but perhaps that is simply due to not remembering that part.

I happened to run a datacenter and ISP that provided services to Backpage. The FBI raided it, and took away servers in large black SUVs. I’m not prohibited from speaking about it, and one day I may. In the meantime please allow me to fill in the blanks. (Yours is a great summary btw!!)

The various local weekly pre-Craigslist style advertisement “magazines” were available for free at gasoline stations and supermarkets. The back page was usually home to the cheapest advertsiements. Typically 1″x1″ (2.54cm x 2.54cm) was a double ad, and have of that (either vertically or horizontally) was a single. It was all text and in the beginning they didn’t support ASCII art… so no smilies, no shrugs, just text. If you paid extra you could do bold.

There were ads there from A to Z and that does include S for Strippers.

Prostitution in the form backpage facilitated is in most locations in the US illegal as far as my very limited knowledge on the subject extends

Prostitution is a crime in many areas, but Internet advertising spans the globe. What is a crime in Oklahoma City may not be a crime in The Mustang Ranch, Nevada. Advertising a service from The Mustang Ranch that takes place in The Mustang Ranch but that reaches people in Oklahoma City is not interstate crime.

The same is true of freedom of speech, censorship in China, and the long arm of foreign governments telling Apple, Google, etc. what to censor. Those who want to remove §230 protections are only looking to support more censorious behavior. TechDirt has covered this to death.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that regulation, even well intentioned like this example, if not carefully and well crafted can disrupt legal users as well as those utilizing a platform for illegal purposes.

That point has been made well many times, but our legislators and judiciary have no desire to hear or listen. The same old tropes about saving the children or protecting the sex workers… always end up hurting the rest of everyone.

“Legal” or “illegal” purposes is not a thing. Actions may be lawful or unlawful. Thoughts or purposes are not. Neither are objects like file downloads. Plans can be if they are used in a conspiracy to do the acts that are unlawful. Enough on that.

The team that set up backpage.com took that concept to the Internet — pre craiglist. They did allow emoticons and ASCII art. This did not “cause” nor “contribute” to any measured increase in ANY crimes, including sex-trafficking (a “catchall term” so politicians can lump a stripper into the same box as a prostitute), drug sales, firearm proliferation, etc. None. Government-provided statistics and their lack of ability to show evidence in court (see, e.g. Mistrial 1) shows that.
UCG link

Kamala Harris, whom I personally respect but professionally despise for lying to the American people… but again, Mike put it best:
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/kamala-harris/

My wishlist for 2023’s congresscritters:
1. Stop pretending anything about §230 is in any way enabling unlawful behavior.
2. Stop pretending that placing liability on 3rd parties does anything other than destroy the Internet.
3. Work together to do good things for the people of this country. No, not “defund the IRS.” More like if we can spend over $100B to help out Ukraine (Yes!) do the same for the homeless and the poor.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch is a scrub for today, so best weekend wishes to all of you — I’m out.

AnonOps says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not sure what you meant? As they are foreign agents of Israel. As such, I do not see them having standing since there is no Corpus Delecti associated with them as state actors. I think that they are acting as an illegal lobbying body much like AIPAC in this regard. In my opinion, the SCOTUS will see through this facade and toss them out on their ear and tell them to go kick rocks.

“According to the May 31 ordinance, every soldier and officer would “take an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel, its laws, and its lawful authorities.” Ben-Gurion had pushed for the swearing-in of the most senior commanders right through June, and finally convened them at the general staff headquarters in Ramat Gan on June 27.

Ben-Gurion personally administered the carefully formulated oath. This same oath has been taken over the last seventy-two years by millions of Israeli soldiers assembled across the land, from dusty basic training bases to the Western Wall plaza:

I swear and commit to maintain allegiance to the State of Israel, its laws, and its authorities, to accept​ upon myself unconditionally the discipline of the Israel Defense Forces, to obey all the orders and instructions given by authorized commanders, and to devote all my energies, and even sacrifice my life, for the protection of the homeland and the liberty of Israel."

https://martinkramer.org/2020/02/06/swearing-allegiance-to-israel/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I saw the two above posters use backpage for an example, so my post is about that instead of the thread subject, my apologies. It makes for a suitable example.

I read about backpage back before it was shut down, and read the resulting caselaw years ago as it was internet related and big news at the time; I don’t recall the mistrial but perhaps that is simply due to not remembering that part.

Backpage was named after a page in a newspaper somewhere, which had a well known back page which was a sort of adult personals page that was apparently well known at some point in the city it was published in for printing ads for prostitution. It was a site that facilitated prostitution, though there may have been camgirls too, I’m not sure from what I recall reading. Prostitution in the form backpage facilitated is in most locations in the US illegal as far as my very limited knowledge on the subject extends. Section 230 shielded backpage from liability until there was a specific carveout for sites that facilitate prostitution, or in my opinion the far more troubling underage prostitution specifically, I can’t recall how broad the carveout is but most of the public discussion was about the latter at the time.

However, the impact was a bit broader than just backpage and caused other anonymous post adult personals/dating/hookup sites that had been previously used by criminals to shutter rather than to risk failing to moderate at the scale necessary to keep criminal postings off their platform, as this would potentially expose the owners or operators to criminal penalties for what is posted on their site. The most notable closing I’ve read about seemed to be the craigslist casual encounters section, which was apparently spammed to hell by bots, likely adding to the owner’s concerns about moderation difficulty, but was still reportedly semi-functional for consenting adults to meet up with each other for legal purposes if they picked through enough spam postings to find the “real” ones. I am unsure if there is a new incarnation of this sort of email correspondence “anonymous” accountless posting website for people to use to meet up for legal reasons, but from what little I know the legal userbase of that craigslist section were fragmented and dispersed to other sites, such as streaming sites example pornhub which require an account to communicate in order to meet people. However the dispersal of the userbase to various other sites was deemed a big hindrance to the carnal but legal objectives of the prior users of the casual encounters section according to some article I read somewhere that asked prior legal users of that section about the impact on them shortly after the section was closed.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that regulation, even well intentioned like this example, if not carefully and well crafted can disrupt legal users as well as those utilizing a platform for illegal purposes.

Such sites can function as a “honey pot” for criminal activity that makes law enforcement’s job a little easier; however that also can mess with a legal userbase to see such awful postings present on the site they use whether the honey or the pot has posted it if I may attempt and fail to be clever. I mention it only in accordance with a post above mine as I digress from most of my posting’s train of thought, and as I’m also failing to explain it well, I’ll leave it at a simple acknowledgement that the poster above was correct in that regard.

A good question to ask may be how could this have been achieved in a way that caused the intended disruption or disintegration of illegal postings i.e. backpage postings in areas prostitution is not legal or that involve abuse that is not legal anywhere; while not effecting the legal userbase of websites i.e. the assumably vast majority of craigslist casual encounters users; while finally also interdicting illegal prostitution postings on sites that while perhaps distasteful to many who would choose never to use them yet are not specifically for illegal postings but still vulnerable to them when such does occur?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“precedent sets the limits of interpretation”

I was unaware of any limits. Seems there are none.

Legislating from the bench versus legislating from the congress seems to a huge grey area. Interpreting what was intended by said legislation is even more foggy as the years go on and language changes. Arguing that intent hinges upon the definition of a single word implies the law was not written very well and/or shenanigans are in play.

I have heard arguments claiming that precedence is no good and legislature is required in order to have a valid law .. or something to that effect. Seems to be rational for ignoring the law or over turning the precedence.

Arijirija says:

Let’s dispose of the “anti-Zionism is antisemitism” argument first. It’s a category error. Policies aren’t People, no matter who says what when. Otherwise we might find in dating sites requests to meet a state policy with cute arse and nice legs, at least a thousand pages tall, with view to long-term relationships. Do we?

Then, are online platforms liable for everything that appears on them? I would be arguing there’s a distinction between permission and partisanship. If I permit such-and-such to post on my platform, but at the same time deny others equally well-or-badly qualified, the same right, because of differences of opinion, I am working from a basis of partisanship. If on the other hand, I refuse such-and-such the right to post based on a certainty that they have no rights to spout their hatred, I am working on the basis that keeping the peace is the necessity here.

(Oh, and in relation to the specific individuals filing those amicus, I think letting an avowed Kahanist into the Israel govt marks the Israel govt as an antisemitic terror organization intent on destroying the tolerance gains that have been achieved since 1945, that should – according to the briefs so filed – should be prevented from having any access to the Internet whatever.)

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: "Letting people into government..."

Arijirija wrote:

I think letting an avowed Kahanist into the Israel govt marks the Israel govt as an antisemitic terror organization intent on destroying the tolerance gains that have been achieved since 1945, that should – according to the briefs so filed – should be prevented from having any access to the Internet whatever.

In a democratic country we enjoy the freedom to elect those we wish will represent us in government. There’s no “letting someone into government” other than the vote of the people.

I’m going to personally say that I think it’s despicable that he was elected, that his party got enough votes, and that the other parties wouldn’t (couldn’t?) form a coalition so his party joined in. It doesn’t “mark” the rest of the government. 1945 is not the year you’re thinking of. UN resolution 181 was agreed upon at the end of November 1947. Arab countries almost immediately attacked “signalling” their “respect for international law” and “not hurting civilians.” I’d say that’s a different take on antisemitic terrorism than allowing a freely-elected asshole to join the government, but then I didn’t vote for Trump either…

When I said I personally agree… I want to emphasize that I disagree with his “politics” or “style”, but I do believe if people elect him into office he gets to be in that office — unless he does something so vile he’s removed. I haven’t seen ANYONE do that since Al Franken was told to resign. Looking at that through the rear view mirror of the last six years makes me appalled. But then it’s what-aboutism if we say “But look at what they did to Al Franken, but not that other guy (previously mentioned).” It’s also what-aboutism in the other direction if we say “look how many times they’ve tried to impeach or hurt him in court or financially, and Al Franken got to resign and keep a lifetime pension.” Either way, we have a set of standards we DO NOT HOLD the politicians to, and we do not “mark” an entire country or its government by their inclusivity of an asshole. (Or many assholes if you count the current litigation-subject prime-minister.)

But… in the spirit of finding a common ground. I ask you right back: How do you provide the limited power the People have to elect representatives, and YET there is some other 3rd party (“the UN”, “world opinion”, “made up peoples that claim all the land”, tribes of natives”, “any aggrieved party ever”, including “the most picked-on President ever”) that gets to JUDGE who can and can not be elected? If you have an answer to that that still maintain the rights of free USicans to vote for whomever we please… I’m all ears.

Picking on the last guy is too easy so I’ll end with this. Jimmy Carter was a horrible President. He was one hell of an ex-President. People the world over detested us during his time in office, and yet, he builds houses for homeless people and contributes many many bundles of money… and if he ran again, he would be eligible for office. I’d vote for him over the 2016 options.

Ehud (not a prime-minister up on charges)

Arijirija says:

Re: Re:

I’ll first clear a misunderstanding – I’m referring to 1945, the international council in San Francisco which turned the United Nations from a war-time alliance into a replacement for the Eurocentric League of Nations. And its concurrent issuing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That’s when tolerance was “baked” into the international order, one might say.

And then – there is a link between antisemitism and Islamophobia. Mainz, for example. Allowing Islamophobia to surface has also allowed antisemitism to surface.

And that’s why I regard this current set of fools in the Israel govt., to be “antisemitic”. “terrorist” – B’Tselem’s West Bank reports are useful getting to know. “Birds of a feather” do mark the rest of the govt I’m afraid – as far as I can make out, the less extreme such as Yair Lapid, etc, didn’t want to be tainted with someone as deeply corrupt as Netanyahu.

As far as the two allegedly conflicting requirements of We the People versus some External Force – I think the answer can be found in my first post – is said candidate for office going to be destructive? Or is said candidate going to be constructive? (I should also mention that nobody seems to question that Israel has quite consistently applied such a standard to Palestinians and only a very few – such as Uri Avnery – have ever questioned the utility or even sense of doing that; while Israel and supporters beat their chests loudly and complain when anyone questions destructive policies such as “transfer” aka “ethnic cleansing”.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA (profile) says:

REALITY OF THE WORLD

Being able to see what others THINK isnt easy.
Being able to think Isnt easy.

No mater what you say, do, think, Want to happen, there is Always the opposite, differences, changes to be made.

What is ODDest, and complained about the MOST. Tends to be other peoples Laundry. Opening the book, and seeing things that May not be what you interpreted in the first place. Its like a Manic/depressive person.
Its like the Thief. He puts up a false front, to hide his intentions, but is looking at everything you got.

The real difficulty tends to be, WHOM to listen to. Where are your opinions created?
Some of us were around long ago, and got to watch allot of this stuff happening. Go look up the history of the area, go Lookup what 1 side did to the other, why 1 group removed themself from the other. US used to have good news papers, and News channels.
Listening to 200 year old BS, Anti this/that, go look WHY it was created, WHO created it. Even Shakespeare.

In the end.
WE get Jealous. A group that Helps its own group, educates it. Tries to get on top. And does their best. And the individuals, that THINK something is taken from them, will rear its head and group up, for once, and BURN it down. Any way they can. A rowdy groups is easy to control.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...