Israel’s government approved on Sunday a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that mandates any government-funded body refrain from communicating with Haaretz or placing advertisements in the paper. The proposal was approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The decision, according to the government’s explanation, is a reaction to “many articles that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self defense, and particularly the remarks made in London by Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken, that support terrorism and call for imposing sanctions on the government.”

The proposal did not appear on the government’s agenda published ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting. The Attorney General’s office, unaware of the intention to bring the proposal to a vote, did not review it at all and did not present its opinion, as customary. The resolution was presented to ministers during the discussion without any legal opinion.

In a speech at the Haaretz conference in London last month, Schocken said “the Netanyahu government doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.”

  • Doorbook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 day ago

    Say it as many time as you want, history will call them freedom fighter.

    When you live in area with no freedom of movement, no freedom of food options, no freedom of trades, and you fight, that it is a freedom fighter.

    Your people called movement in South Africa terrorist, called Irish terrorists, called Indian terrorists, called natives terrorists. Called everyone challenge you or support them terrorists.

    But at the end history called them freedom fighter.

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Respectfully, I disagree. Hamas hasn’t allowed elections in the region since 2007. They are authoritarian, autocratic, Islamist statists with the sole goal of the elimination of Israel. They are not focused on improving the economy of Gaza, or granting freedom to the Gazan people.

      That’s exactly why it’s been explicitly stated Likud policy to support them — conservative leadership in Israel wants to see the people of Gaza violently oppressed and stirred against Israel. An enemy on the border serves the conservative agenda.

      A peaceful government dedicated to increasing Gazan freedom & independence would not serve Israeli interests, which is why Netanyahu has worked so hard to keep Hamas in charge in Gaza.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Why should they? Israel showed they’re going to materially interfere in the elections anyways.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        A peaceful government dedicated to increasing Gazan freedom & independence would not serve Israeli interests,

        Not defending Hamas tyranny in Gaza, but this is a contradiction right there. A government dedicated to increasing Gazan freedom and independence would not be peaceful, because the only time an Israeli leader attempted to bring peace to the region they fucking killed him.

        • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Gazan independence does not demand violence; it only demands a government that is willing to put down the sword and negotiate, so that Netanyahu and Likud are not emboldened to continually tighten the noose. At least, that’s what Netanyahu believes – that a violent oppressor in Gaza is crucial to the success of Likud.

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister

          Prime minister for most of the last 15 years, Netanyahu has been an enabler of Hamas, building up the organisation, letting it rule Gaza unhindered – save for brief, periodic military operations against it – and allowing funds from its Gulf patrons to keep it flush. Netanyahu liked the idea of the Palestinians as a house divided – Fatah in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza – because it allowed him to insist that there was no Palestinian partner he could do business with. That meant no peace process, no prospect of a Palestinian state, and no demand for Israeli territorial concessions.

          None of this was a secret. In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Gazan independence does not demand violence; it only demands a government that is willing to put down the sword and negotiate,

            Like the PA did until 2000 (and since 2006, but you get the idea)? Like Hamas tried to do in 2008 and 2012? Both generally and in this conflict, that’s just not how that works. Again, there was only one guy who tried to seriously negotiate and they fucking killed him.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Ah yes, if we just let the authoritarian do whatever he wants he will stop killing us. How very Chamberlain of you. How very Appeasement.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I 100% support Palestinian statehood but to deny that Hamas are terrorists is absurd. A true “freedom fighter” would attack only government and military targets and would never condone killing 500+ civilians at a music festival. Do you believe that’s acceptable?

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        To get out of this whole mess, this is a textbook no true Scotsman argument. The IRA were freedom fighters and also notorious for killing civilians (car bombs anyone?).

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Hamas targets were military targets. More than 33% killed were active IDF soldiers.

        The music festival next to a military base was not even supposed to be there. And there were many armed IDF soldiers at the festival (human shields anyone?)

        If Hamas wanted civilian casualties they would have pushed into Israeli cities instead of raiding the heavily guarded military bases around the Gaza envelope.

        For a more detailed explanation, an Israeli person made this great video https://youtu.be/Pt_1k7nSv1M

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Hamas targets were military targets. More than 33% killed were active IDF soldiers.

          “Only two-thirds of the people killed were civilians!” is quite the defense. Impressive.

          • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            The US had a civilian casualty rate of 12/13 in Iraq.

            The IDF with 70% women and children killed would have a higher civilian casualty rate than Hamas even if literally every single man they killed was an active duty Hamas fighter.

            • cygnus@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              OK, and? You’re seriously trying to defend 66% civilian casualties because 70%+ is worse?

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Now compare that to the IDF…

            • cygnus@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              I am. Killing civilians is bad, and I don’t care who does it. Only on Lemmy do we see galaxy-brains decrying Palestinian deaths while brushing off 66% civilian casualties on the Israeli side.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          All that may be true, but when the plan went to shit, they still attacked, killed, and took hostage many civilians.

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The Anc in south Africa was responsible of killing civilians, same with many resistance groups like the mau mau in kanya, the fln in algeria and Nana Sahib soldiers in India. Nate Turner also killed women and children’s of slave owners. Commiting some act of terror doesn’t strip those groups and people from being freedom fighters. You support a state for Palestinians while opposing the people who are currently fighting the IDF because the West is doing nothing to stop it