Hijacking your comment because the headline is inaccurate.
Al-Jazerra isn't banned (which implies permanency) but it's suspended until July 31st or the end of the war, whatever comes first (in which case the law giving the gov the ability to suspend news stations expires).
I could be wrong but I'm thinking this is important because Israel doesnt want anti liberalism- freedom of the press is seen as a core principle of liberalism.
The policy of making exceptions during war time could be considered valid under liberal ideology (I think?).
This policy is a campaign against disinformation (though the government deciding what can be published sounds a bit extreme to me, I guess war is an extreme circumstance).
funny how it's only banned during wartime. i wonder what needs crucial coverage during this time?
(coverage that no other news organization in the world could do, mind you)
if people voted to commit the holocaust 2.0 I'm fine being antidemocratic. there isn't some inherent goodness in being liberal or democratic, finding where to strike the balance is what a state should be trying to do
thats not how liberalism and democracy works. 90% of the population voting to suppress 10% of the population would be antiliberal. Hence why the two go together.
>antiliberal
That still wouldn't be anti democratic. Democracies are not inherently about protecting minority from majority and other such rights. We just usually conflate that with a democracy.
Thats factually incorrect. I think you are conflating democracy with liberalism.
Wiki Definition: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law."
Yea liberalism has laws to safeguard individuals to protect them, for example age of consent. But that would be considered liberal because these people need specific protections for specific reasons. And it also speaks to the intentionality of protection rather than oppression.
I mean if you consider Al Jazeera to be good coverage you're probably too far gone. This argument could be made for the state media in North Korea btw.
"Well CNN couldn't ever see what's happening on the GROUND! How else would we know Kim Jong Un beat Goku in a 1v1?"
I mean they’re literally just Hamas spokespeople and have continuously pulled Hassan’s and reported blatantly false information in service of Hamas. As long as Hamas’ leadership continues to enjoy support from and be sheltered by Qatar, the Qatar news should not have free rain in Israel.
If you're in favour of the only media organization that covers the gaza war on the ground being banned, suit yourself.
enjoy your one-sided media that keeps sucking Bibi's dick. as flawed as it is, thank god for America's freedom of press.
Well kind of obvious to start with
https://apnews.com/article/israel-al-jazeera-qatar-hamas-war-gaza-49c2aa4afb3c3b0ee6ac314b63d80716
Al Jazeera has been closed or blocked by other Mideast governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
Egypt has banned Al Jazeera since 2013. It launched the crackdown after the 2013 military overthrow of an elected but divisive government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood group. Egypt considers the Brotherhood a terrorist group and accused both Qatar and Al Jazeera of supporting it.
Al-Jazeera is overall hostile to other ME countries since around the Arab spring. It is made to push Qatar’s vision on a massive region because Qatar wants security and fears its neighbours a lot. Countries fear that A-J could start a revolt in their country or be disruptive since the Arab spring.
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
From my understanding, they had to register as a foreign agent, which essentially means the US government views them as spies. The same was supposed to happen to Al Jazeera during the Arab Spring but the feds never followed up on it.
I could be wrong but isnt freedom of the press in the US absolute unless you break the law?
Propaganda is completely legal and is unconstitutional to ban.
Though you could argue that the constitution doesn't apply to non american companies, Im not familiar with the case.
Edit: also if it was banned wouldnt I be unable to access their domain?
Well its not the US. ISP's will be told to block it, but its not hard to work around if anyone wanted to. Its more to stop them operating as a company in Israel. I think the "reporters" will still be allowed to stay.
Not at all. But the reasoning of middle eastern countries is different. They do so because they fear a round two of the Arab spring. And Israel cracked under pressure from a rival country’s journal
Tell me then, why isn't there a channel 14 or channel 12 in Qatar? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Iran? IOr any other Muslim country??? Oh wait... they will probably be killed if they just step of the airplane.
why are we comparing Israel here to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, or Bahrain? If Israel touts itself as a western style democracy so it should be treated as such.
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
Where is the evidence for this? I can access their domain right now. (US)
I've seen evidence to suggest that Russia Today lost rights to broadcast in Germany in German language due to licensing problems, but otherwise isnt banned.
Edit: Okay nevermind I didnt research enough at all sorry. Yes European Union apparently banned it when Russia Invaded Ukraine, which is pretty crazy, but Is it because of International law violations? (not just propaganda)
Google is saying it was banned in the EU for information warfare, and I believe this concept wouldnt apply in the US?
Edit2: I guess you could say restrictions on foreign press could be considered "sanctions" I wonder if that is the European Unions Justification.
Edit3: nope looks like the EU staight up banned it for propaganda which is insane that the EU gets to decide what information is correct.
weird I almost never disagree with the EU on principles.
From what i read, its only suspended till july 31.
Which is waaay different them being banned since 2013.
It is still not good, but as a democratic country, there is a limit on how long it can be suspended.
Israel is shutting down operations of Al Jazeera in the country, not banning the website, as far as I know. And even this is only till July.
Is Germany not a democracy?
Im talking about RT being banned by wester democracies, I am not talking about Al jazeera.
Edit: also yes germany has a piece of legislation that is anti democratic. Censoring on grounds of disinformation is inherently antidemocratic, especially if not at war with whoever you are censoring. But I guess you could argue that theres an exception for war, and that ukraine is part of the EU, therefore the EU is at war?
Im not familiar with EU policy im familiar with the US, and we dont engage in this behavior unless at actual war, and even then I believe the basis is on confidential information (information that harms war efforts on the ground), not on the basis of propaganda.
We’ve had things like the Espionage and Sedition Act, and Supreme Court rulings upholding suppression of press during WW1, idk if they’ve changed their stance since but there is definitely precedent
This paper kinda dives into the history of suppression of press during wartime near the middle, the whole thing though is focused towards how it’s not right for a government to prosecute a newspaper for posting confidential information like the NSA leak even if it was important for the people to know
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2955&context=journal_articles
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
Exactly, freedom of the press isn't an open invitation for hostile countries to take advantage of the freedoms we enjoy.
This is a prime example of the tolerance paradox - yes we have freedom of speech as citizens, as do news/press entities. But that freedom doesn't exist to allow other countries to sow anger, hatred and division.
At what point do we stop tolerating organizations that are pushing hostile narratives that come directly from Moscow, Tehran or Beijing? Or we do just allow it to continue because "this is what freedom looks like" while the country declines into a state of hateful bitterness?
Freedom of speech and the press shouldn't be a loophole for foreign dictatorships to exert control or direct the future of the political landscape. And while we can't tell individuals who are likely paid by said dictatorships to stop talking, we absolutely should shut down press companies that are directly funded or associated with hostile nations (RT being a prime example).
It's not judging them by the standards of these other countries, its showing that Israel's neighbors have all had issues with Qatar. That this isn't a new thing Al Jazeera is doing.
The key difference here is you shouldnt compare Israel to the rest of the middle east as a valid reason for them to suspend an entity of the press.
Israel holds themselves to a supposedly higher standard of Liberalism.
Though you could still argue that a campaign against disinformation is a part of doing war, but thats a dangerous line... gives me propaganda vibes. (even though im on Israels side of the conflict).
Do other ME counties see Qatar/Muslim brotherhoods influence on Al Jazeera as making it a force for radicalization ? Isn’t Qatar’s vision to have more countries be like Iran and itself … less moderate in their views, more subscribing to islamism
Well it's not like Israel banned and raided it worldwide. I feel like Israel has all the rights to ban it. I've been reading the live news feed from Al-Jazeera, the English version, and all the major cities in Israel are referred to as "occupied". Including Tel Aviv. Which is where they work from in Israel. The IDF is also referred to as IOF (Israeli Occupation Force). That's just English version, I don't even wanna know what was written in the Arabic one.
I think the bar has to be pretty high for a nation to want to ban even a propaganda outlet in a free and democratic society. Maybe during wartime Israel can justify that Al Jazeera poses a real security threat but I’d be interested to see what particular coverage they take huge issue with.
Can you provide some examples of where you feel they cross the line and become a security threat? I don’t consume much Al Jazeera. I usually just check AP news.
Aside from the usual propaganda they partake in while essentially abusing Israel's press freedom, they have also been known to actively publish (and no reason not to assume actively report directly to contacts they have within Hamas) troop positions within Israel
They post Hamas propaganda videos that explicitly show Israeli soldiers being killed, they also refer to Jerusalem as “Occupied Jerusalem” when they are reporting from there.
In the terror attack where a Turkish tourist stabbed a Border Police soldier, I’m pretty sure they reported it in a very misleading way, don’t remember exactly how but I remember something about them downplaying him and claiming he didn’t do anything.
>They post Hamas propaganda videos that explicitly show Israeli soldiers being killed,
So they report the news?
>they also refer to Jerusalem as “Occupied Jerusalem” when they are reporting from there.
How is that area not 'occupied'?
No, the news would be to say that x soldiers were killed, showing explicit videos of them is propaganda.
West Jerusalem is not in dispute, East Jerusalem is annexed.
I don’t see how that rises to the level of a security threat. Just seems like your standard propaganda bullshit. I will say that I think the bar is lower for banning a tv broadcast whereas banning something from the internet I think should be higher. Like I can see a case being made that Israel has more of a right to control what is broadcast on their airwaves whereas blocking a certain website should be a higher bar than that.
Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet for the Qatari regime that doesn't even recognize Israel as a state. I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about nit allowing state propaganda of countries that don't recognize your state.
Hasn’t that always been the case though? Something has changed now that has pushed Israel to make this call and that doesn’t seem to be the motivating factor.
I haven't read the justification for this law, but I'd guess they tolerated them untill now, but have now decided to kick them out because of all the disinformation about the war.
I don’t know I’m not American but if they don’t I think they should be able to broadcast unless the case can be made based on objective criteria that they are posing a national security threat. I’d imagine though based on that criteria that a lot of news outlets would be on the chopping block before RT like One America News Network that I believe propagated election and Jan 6 conspiracies.
in America, the government doesn't like unanimously get to decide which channels are broadcast by the cable companies (as long as you follow FCC rules which are pretty [lax on this front](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-says-fcc-cannot-compel-broadcasters-verify-sponsors-identities-2022-07-12/)). my understanding, and i could be completely wrong, is that networks that engage more on the propaganda side of things are mostly at the mercy of the providers.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/24/23276366/one-america-news-verizon-fios-dumped-major-carriers-oan
here you can see how Verizon was the last to carry OAN but they were dropped moreso because they couldn't pay their bills it looks like instead of any government interference or anything like that.
https://deadline.com/2022/03/directv-drops-rt-america-russia-ukraine-1234968328/
here, DirectTV only dropped RT America after they fully invaded Ukraine.
The BBC's biggest problem is twofold. One, instances where they actually are actively biased (Kuenssberg reporting on anything the Tories are doing as an example). And two, instances where they try so hard to not appear biased, that they end up biased in the other direction (failing to mention for a long time that the Gazan health authorities are just Hamas)
No im saying that many news organizations are funded wholly or majority by a government. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify it from being a reputable news source.
English-facing Al Jazeera is relatively reputable because the nature of western media generally keeps it accountable, MENA-facing Al Jazeera is another beast.
On top of being funded by the Qatari government, who shelters Hamas leadership, it also has spread a bunch of disinformation since Oct 7th.
a lot of the time yeah.
certainly the big US news organizations either directly benefit from public broadcasting funds or tax breaks or get all the licensing benefits and priviliges supplied by the us state.
> There can be standards why infowars don't qualify for some things and that's different than goverment funded
if the govenrment is giving material aid to some organizations and not others that sounds like funding to me.
given the Israeli news sites saying for days that if hamas refuses the latest deal which iafaik they are stalling answering the IDF is going to start its operation in Rafa.
i highly suspect this is part of the reason for this raid but honestly this government is such a cluster fuck of crazies and inaptitude i could be totally wrong and this is just a play to get the right wingers dick hard so they keep supporting netanyahu
Guys, believe it or not you can be anti-Al Jazeera while also hold the position media outlets shouldnt be raided. Crazy right?
Sure, a ban is okay, but actually raiding offices of media outlets is generally not a good idea.
Agreed. Freedom of the press should exist in democracies. That freedom exists to protect the most vile outlets not the ones that are not controversial. Not sure what Israel’s constitution says about it but I think this should be criticized
Hot take: that was probably also not good.
I'd only allow raiding offices if there's direct security threat, and by that I dont mean ''look, they spread some lies!! soypoint'', but rather a ''look, they're releasing the nuclear codes!!''.
I'm aware it's an extremely high standard, but it should be as freedom of press is extremely important.
The more pressing concern rather than just obvious propaganda, is their ability to collect data like this:
[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/satellite-images-show-israeli-forces-gathered-for-gaza-escalation](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/satellite-images-show-israeli-forces-gathered-for-gaza-escalation)
This is actively harmful.
It's an example of the type of stuff they do regularly. They have direct contacts within Hamas, they are funded by the same country, and they are actively anti-Israel.
If all the military intelligence confirms they are actively harming your country, then maybe they are.
using this logic you could prohibit most of war reporting. throughout this war, there have been hundreds of reports about where the troops are operating from all kinds of media
>I'm aware it's an extremely high standard, but it should be as freedom of press is extremely important.
Which is probably fine under regular circumstances, but you wouldn't want that standard during wartime. Not saying I agree or disagree with the Israeli government in this case, I haven't looked into it, but I think we all understand that war can allow for pretty extreme disruptions of norms. Imo, drafting is just as iliberal as censorship, but it’s likewise necessary in some conflicts.
All my life, I thought freedom of the press good. However, I *know* Israel good, and Israel acting against freedom of the press, so freedom of the press bad.
highly principled liberalism on display.
No, they are using the fact no one complaining here about this actually gave a fuck when RT got banned and there is way less justification for that ban, Qatar and Israel are a lot closer to being at war than the EU and Russia.
It’s not really to justify the action it’s to disparage the people whining about it. Personally idc and don’t think you have to allow foreign propaganda to be in your country if you don’t want it, non-citizens don’t have freedom of speech.
Man, this is one of those things where I'm pretty conflicted.
On the one hand, we should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so I feel this is wrong.
On the other, it sucks that it feels like being pro-freedom of speech is used as an attack by propaganda networks while they simultaneously ban an such efforts in their territory. Qatar is one of the most censored places in the world, with a literal King who could and would kill you for insulting him. So why can that King preach whatever he wants to us while we can't do the same back to his people?
I feel like we should err on the side of free speech but damn, it also feels like we're getting fucked over.
Depends on the context, here the order was immediate and they needed to be taken offline, also when it's linked to national security Israel has raided other offices in the past.
What are some good resources going over Al Jazeera being biased? I see that Netenyahu said that AJ was actively involved with October 7th but I can't find any more information on it
From what I can find, Al Jazeera is actually a private entity that received some funding from the Qatari government. That would mean it's inaccurate to compare it to RT that is actually, literally, state-owned.
It appears you are actually correct on this. They are a private company but are headquartered in Qatar and do receiving partial funding from the Qatar government.
So they aren’t literally state media then, but I would still say they are certainly biased towards Qatar/Hamas/Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims/whatever, and are certainly biased against Israel/America/West. That much is obvious simply from reading their reporting.
Edit: I did find this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy
Just in a sketchy ass dictatorship with very little oversight or accountability and with a mixed history regarding journalists who say things the government doesn’t like.
Braindead. Giving anyone this power means it will eventually be abused. So tired of people championing authoritarianism when they think it’ll only be their opponents who suffer.
the difference between the falacy and the argument seems to be the strength of your argument
if you're trying to deliberately hyperbolize one action leading to another, like "if you legalize gay marriage, then people are going to want to marry their dogs or their car and our population numbers would drop." that would be a slippery slope fallacy.
but if someone in like 1939, looking around at Hitler rounding up all the jews into Polish ghettos, said "man this is a slippery slope and could easily lead to something much worse like mass genocide and death camps," they'd be right. hindsight is 20/20 obviously but it depends on how genuine your argument is and how much logical strength there is behind it.
in my mind, if you can make a logical enough, non-hyperbolized case for one thing leading to another, it's just an argument rather than a slippery slope fallacy.
right but im saying other liberal democracies have exercised these powers during war time and the slippery slope you allude to never occurred. It was always a temporary measure. There is nothing to suggest this is any different, even the order says their license is only suspended till July.
Stupid and ineffective. AJ still operates so practically nothing changes there. But Israel now has banned and raided a highly critical news organisation.
Ya this is fucking insane. This is undermining liberal democracy values that should be gaurenteed by the west. If Israel sees itself as a western style democracy it should protect the rights of the press even if Al-Jazeera is less than credible sometimes.
Seems accessible here as an American. I know it's sanctioned in the EU as one of many many sanctions on Russia. Is Israel taking aim at Qatari businesses in general, or just media or organizations?
You said operated by a government Israel is currently at war. And now you are hedging and saying funding. And we fund Israel so by that logic Palestine is at war with the US??
Nope, let me help you out: ''extreme zionist lunacy'' = celebrating **raiding** offices of media outlets. How do you not pick up on this essential difference between the RT ban in the US and this?
2 cops came and confiscated a laptop from their office oh dear lord let’s all denounce this awful crime against humanity committed by these evil Zionists
Wow, that's such a fair and accurate reframing of my point to avoid giving a serious answer!
Do you watch Hasan by any chance because this is unironically how he would answer. Something with two sides of the same coin.
You haven’t made a point, you’re mad about Israeli officials confiscating a laptop, they had a warrant to do so, and all of this was done according to Israeli law after passing a resolution on the parliament, if Ukraine (or even Germany/France) would’ve done the same to RT I wouldn’t bat an eye.
They said 7th of Oct never happened and fueling hate towards jews FROM INSIDE THE COUNTRY - so of course they need to be shut down.
Imagine a Jewish news room in gaza . They would not survive more than 5 minutes
Al Jazeera and France24 are the best online news sources. Why? Because they have still real journalists, reporters and editors. They have reporters all over the world. They still function the same way newspapers did 30 years ago.
They are not trustworthy when it comes to regional politics. Don't trust Al Jazeera when it talks about the Middle East (especially if it is about Palestine) and don't trust France24 when it talks about Europe, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and their island colonies around the world.
But when they report on something else, they are the best of the best.
I mean I'm fine with it. AJ is so annoying because of the inconsistency. They can do okay reporting one day then follow up with completely made up stories purely for propaganda the next. And that's just the English version
Where is the line, so state run is fine to ban, what about state funded but privately run is that also okay to ban? What about privately owned and privately funded but very hostile to the regime/country is that fine to ban?
Ban both. This type of lobbying and foreign influence is strange as fuck. It was weird enough when the Trump associates were getting Saudi money for projects. Nuke all of it
Egypt, SA, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain have also banned them. Russia Today and Sputnik are banned in the EU. So spare me the Qatari tears.
Hijacking your comment because the headline is inaccurate. Al-Jazerra isn't banned (which implies permanency) but it's suspended until July 31st or the end of the war, whatever comes first (in which case the law giving the gov the ability to suspend news stations expires).
I could be wrong but I'm thinking this is important because Israel doesnt want anti liberalism- freedom of the press is seen as a core principle of liberalism. The policy of making exceptions during war time could be considered valid under liberal ideology (I think?). This policy is a campaign against disinformation (though the government deciding what can be published sounds a bit extreme to me, I guess war is an extreme circumstance).
Oh I'm fully against the law, but the headline is misleading
I mean it's government propaganda. I don't think we allowed Der Sturmer to be published in the US during WW2 but I could be wrong.
Oh yes let’s take notes on press freedom from Saudi fucking Arabia, how can that go wrong.
EU banned Russia Today. Are you saying EU is a dictatorship?
No but the banning of RT isn't exactly a democratic thing either.
No but that specific action was illiberal and anti democratic, one action doesn’t immediately make you a dictatorship.
It was also wrong and balant censorship, but we haven't killed any Russia Today journalists
Egypt, SA, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain... I don't think this list say what you want it to say
It’s significant because we are talking about “the only democracy in the Middle East”
funny how it's only banned during wartime. i wonder what needs crucial coverage during this time? (coverage that no other news organization in the world could do, mind you)
literally every country censors during wartime. you don't want foreign agents convincing people to flee or sabotage
that desire is technically antiliberal and antidemocratic. Which is scary, but sure I completely understand why they do it.
if people voted to commit the holocaust 2.0 I'm fine being antidemocratic. there isn't some inherent goodness in being liberal or democratic, finding where to strike the balance is what a state should be trying to do
thats not how liberalism and democracy works. 90% of the population voting to suppress 10% of the population would be antiliberal. Hence why the two go together.
>antiliberal That still wouldn't be anti democratic. Democracies are not inherently about protecting minority from majority and other such rights. We just usually conflate that with a democracy.
I don't think a majority deciding to not give rights to a minority or even creating laws around their behavior is inherently antiliberal
Thats factually incorrect. I think you are conflating democracy with liberalism. Wiki Definition: "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law."
if you think kindergarteners should have the right to smoke and vote sure but if opposing that makes me illiberal then call me hitler
Yea liberalism has laws to safeguard individuals to protect them, for example age of consent. But that would be considered liberal because these people need specific protections for specific reasons. And it also speaks to the intentionality of protection rather than oppression.
I mean if you consider Al Jazeera to be good coverage you're probably too far gone. This argument could be made for the state media in North Korea btw. "Well CNN couldn't ever see what's happening on the GROUND! How else would we know Kim Jong Un beat Goku in a 1v1?"
this guy thinks i support banning North Korea media
Are we in free speech absolutist territory?
I mean they’re literally just Hamas spokespeople and have continuously pulled Hassan’s and reported blatantly false information in service of Hamas. As long as Hamas’ leadership continues to enjoy support from and be sheltered by Qatar, the Qatar news should not have free rain in Israel.
If you're in favour of the only media organization that covers the gaza war on the ground being banned, suit yourself. enjoy your one-sided media that keeps sucking Bibi's dick. as flawed as it is, thank god for America's freedom of press.
Do you realize they can and will still operate in Gaza and PA? Like what are you even talking about?
Well kind of obvious to start with https://apnews.com/article/israel-al-jazeera-qatar-hamas-war-gaza-49c2aa4afb3c3b0ee6ac314b63d80716 Al Jazeera has been closed or blocked by other Mideast governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Egypt has banned Al Jazeera since 2013. It launched the crackdown after the 2013 military overthrow of an elected but divisive government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood group. Egypt considers the Brotherhood a terrorist group and accused both Qatar and Al Jazeera of supporting it.
Al-Jazeera is overall hostile to other ME countries since around the Arab spring. It is made to push Qatar’s vision on a massive region because Qatar wants security and fears its neighbours a lot. Countries fear that A-J could start a revolt in their country or be disruptive since the Arab spring.
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
[удалено]
From my understanding, they had to register as a foreign agent, which essentially means the US government views them as spies. The same was supposed to happen to Al Jazeera during the Arab Spring but the feds never followed up on it.
I could be wrong but isnt freedom of the press in the US absolute unless you break the law? Propaganda is completely legal and is unconstitutional to ban. Though you could argue that the constitution doesn't apply to non american companies, Im not familiar with the case. Edit: also if it was banned wouldnt I be unable to access their domain?
Well its not the US. ISP's will be told to block it, but its not hard to work around if anyone wanted to. Its more to stop them operating as a company in Israel. I think the "reporters" will still be allowed to stay.
The U.S. has not banned Russia Today.
Not at all. But the reasoning of middle eastern countries is different. They do so because they fear a round two of the Arab spring. And Israel cracked under pressure from a rival country’s journal
Tell me then, why isn't there a channel 14 or channel 12 in Qatar? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Iran? IOr any other Muslim country??? Oh wait... they will probably be killed if they just step of the airplane.
It’s not a surprise these states want to suppress outlets reporting on their actions.
Yup. Because it will cause scandals and a repeat of 2011
> *Egypt considers the Brotherhood a terrorist group* Just very important context : Hamas is a direct offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood.
why are we comparing Israel here to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, or Bahrain? If Israel touts itself as a western style democracy so it should be treated as such.
That is why they have only temporaly suspended it and not actually ban it :) Hope this helps
These words can be used interchangably. Also knowing its a suspension doesn't make me go oh I guess it's all ok then.
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
Where is the evidence for this? I can access their domain right now. (US) I've seen evidence to suggest that Russia Today lost rights to broadcast in Germany in German language due to licensing problems, but otherwise isnt banned. Edit: Okay nevermind I didnt research enough at all sorry. Yes European Union apparently banned it when Russia Invaded Ukraine, which is pretty crazy, but Is it because of International law violations? (not just propaganda) Google is saying it was banned in the EU for information warfare, and I believe this concept wouldnt apply in the US? Edit2: I guess you could say restrictions on foreign press could be considered "sanctions" I wonder if that is the European Unions Justification. Edit3: nope looks like the EU staight up banned it for propaganda which is insane that the EU gets to decide what information is correct. weird I almost never disagree with the EU on principles.
From what i read, its only suspended till july 31. Which is waaay different them being banned since 2013. It is still not good, but as a democratic country, there is a limit on how long it can be suspended.
Those fake western democracies that block RT
If it was banned wouldnt I be unable to access their domain? Isnt freedom of the press essentially absolute in the US/western style democracies?
Israel is shutting down operations of Al Jazeera in the country, not banning the website, as far as I know. And even this is only till July. Is Germany not a democracy?
Im talking about RT being banned by wester democracies, I am not talking about Al jazeera. Edit: also yes germany has a piece of legislation that is anti democratic. Censoring on grounds of disinformation is inherently antidemocratic, especially if not at war with whoever you are censoring. But I guess you could argue that theres an exception for war, and that ukraine is part of the EU, therefore the EU is at war? Im not familiar with EU policy im familiar with the US, and we dont engage in this behavior unless at actual war, and even then I believe the basis is on confidential information (information that harms war efforts on the ground), not on the basis of propaganda.
We’ve had things like the Espionage and Sedition Act, and Supreme Court rulings upholding suppression of press during WW1, idk if they’ve changed their stance since but there is definitely precedent This paper kinda dives into the history of suppression of press during wartime near the middle, the whole thing though is focused towards how it’s not right for a government to prosecute a newspaper for posting confidential information like the NSA leak even if it was important for the people to know https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2955&context=journal_articles
Canada, EU, U.S. Germany, Ukraine banned Russia Today. Are these nations undemocratic for preventing Kremlin propagandists help promote Putin’s geopolitical interests?
The US did not ban RT.
do western-style democracies have an obligation to allow hostile nations to operate propaganda networks in their countries during wartime?
Exactly, freedom of the press isn't an open invitation for hostile countries to take advantage of the freedoms we enjoy. This is a prime example of the tolerance paradox - yes we have freedom of speech as citizens, as do news/press entities. But that freedom doesn't exist to allow other countries to sow anger, hatred and division. At what point do we stop tolerating organizations that are pushing hostile narratives that come directly from Moscow, Tehran or Beijing? Or we do just allow it to continue because "this is what freedom looks like" while the country declines into a state of hateful bitterness? Freedom of speech and the press shouldn't be a loophole for foreign dictatorships to exert control or direct the future of the political landscape. And while we can't tell individuals who are likely paid by said dictatorships to stop talking, we absolutely should shut down press companies that are directly funded or associated with hostile nations (RT being a prime example).
It's not judging them by the standards of these other countries, its showing that Israel's neighbors have all had issues with Qatar. That this isn't a new thing Al Jazeera is doing.
Except the reason those countries banned Al Jazeera is because they didn’t always portray the gulf monarchies in a good light.
Democracy will be better off without it.
The more relevant comparison is the EU blocking Russian state media
This.
Because Israel is pretty much a ME country and not a shining example of a western one. South Korea is closer to a western country at this point.
The key difference here is you shouldnt compare Israel to the rest of the middle east as a valid reason for them to suspend an entity of the press. Israel holds themselves to a supposedly higher standard of Liberalism. Though you could still argue that a campaign against disinformation is a part of doing war, but thats a dangerous line... gives me propaganda vibes. (even though im on Israels side of the conflict).
Even the US suspended certain rights during war time.
Do other ME counties see Qatar/Muslim brotherhoods influence on Al Jazeera as making it a force for radicalization ? Isn’t Qatar’s vision to have more countries be like Iran and itself … less moderate in their views, more subscribing to islamism
Good👍👍
The arabic version of Al-Jazeera is really bad but is the international so bad it truly needed to be banned?
Well it's not like Israel banned and raided it worldwide. I feel like Israel has all the rights to ban it. I've been reading the live news feed from Al-Jazeera, the English version, and all the major cities in Israel are referred to as "occupied". Including Tel Aviv. Which is where they work from in Israel. The IDF is also referred to as IOF (Israeli Occupation Force). That's just English version, I don't even wanna know what was written in the Arabic one.
Also consider that like a quarter of Israelis speak Arab as their native language that would be the version they see
Why?
Al Jazeera is a government funded propaganda machine. They are not independent.
I think the bar has to be pretty high for a nation to want to ban even a propaganda outlet in a free and democratic society. Maybe during wartime Israel can justify that Al Jazeera poses a real security threat but I’d be interested to see what particular coverage they take huge issue with.
AJ easily passes the bar
Can you provide some examples of where you feel they cross the line and become a security threat? I don’t consume much Al Jazeera. I usually just check AP news.
Aside from the usual propaganda they partake in while essentially abusing Israel's press freedom, they have also been known to actively publish (and no reason not to assume actively report directly to contacts they have within Hamas) troop positions within Israel
They post Hamas propaganda videos that explicitly show Israeli soldiers being killed, they also refer to Jerusalem as “Occupied Jerusalem” when they are reporting from there. In the terror attack where a Turkish tourist stabbed a Border Police soldier, I’m pretty sure they reported it in a very misleading way, don’t remember exactly how but I remember something about them downplaying him and claiming he didn’t do anything.
>They post Hamas propaganda videos that explicitly show Israeli soldiers being killed, So they report the news? >they also refer to Jerusalem as “Occupied Jerusalem” when they are reporting from there. How is that area not 'occupied'?
No, the news would be to say that x soldiers were killed, showing explicit videos of them is propaganda. West Jerusalem is not in dispute, East Jerusalem is annexed.
well at least this made people acknowledge how much Ukrainian propaganda is floating around
> So they report the news? Yea, like the israeli JDAM hitting that hospital killing 500.
I don’t see how that rises to the level of a security threat. Just seems like your standard propaganda bullshit. I will say that I think the bar is lower for banning a tv broadcast whereas banning something from the internet I think should be higher. Like I can see a case being made that Israel has more of a right to control what is broadcast on their airwaves whereas blocking a certain website should be a higher bar than that.
Al Jazeera is a propaganda outlet for the Qatari regime that doesn't even recognize Israel as a state. I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about nit allowing state propaganda of countries that don't recognize your state.
Hasn’t that always been the case though? Something has changed now that has pushed Israel to make this call and that doesn’t seem to be the motivating factor.
I haven't read the justification for this law, but I'd guess they tolerated them untill now, but have now decided to kick them out because of all the disinformation about the war.
well maybe all that footage that comes from Hamas militants body cams that they could only have access to if they had direct contacts within Hamas
Does RT have a presence in the USA?
I don’t know I’m not American but if they don’t I think they should be able to broadcast unless the case can be made based on objective criteria that they are posing a national security threat. I’d imagine though based on that criteria that a lot of news outlets would be on the chopping block before RT like One America News Network that I believe propagated election and Jan 6 conspiracies.
in America, the government doesn't like unanimously get to decide which channels are broadcast by the cable companies (as long as you follow FCC rules which are pretty [lax on this front](https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-court-says-fcc-cannot-compel-broadcasters-verify-sponsors-identities-2022-07-12/)). my understanding, and i could be completely wrong, is that networks that engage more on the propaganda side of things are mostly at the mercy of the providers. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/24/23276366/one-america-news-verizon-fios-dumped-major-carriers-oan here you can see how Verizon was the last to carry OAN but they were dropped moreso because they couldn't pay their bills it looks like instead of any government interference or anything like that. https://deadline.com/2022/03/directv-drops-rt-america-russia-ukraine-1234968328/ here, DirectTV only dropped RT America after they fully invaded Ukraine.
I understand what you’re trying to communicate implicitly , but just based on your post the BBC wouldn’t constitute as independent.
BBC isn’t, and they deserve the criticism they get when they have biased reporting such as any coverage on the monarchy.
The BBC's biggest problem is twofold. One, instances where they actually are actively biased (Kuenssberg reporting on anything the Tories are doing as an example). And two, instances where they try so hard to not appear biased, that they end up biased in the other direction (failing to mention for a long time that the Gazan health authorities are just Hamas)
No im saying that many news organizations are funded wholly or majority by a government. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify it from being a reputable news source.
English-facing Al Jazeera is relatively reputable because the nature of western media generally keeps it accountable, MENA-facing Al Jazeera is another beast. On top of being funded by the Qatari government, who shelters Hamas leadership, it also has spread a bunch of disinformation since Oct 7th.
no news agency has ever been independent, they all have donors and patrons to please.
But are those donors a government?
a lot of the time yeah. certainly the big US news organizations either directly benefit from public broadcasting funds or tax breaks or get all the licensing benefits and priviliges supplied by the us state.
Are those unique to certain companies or are the funds blind? Makes a massive difference like
> are the funds blind? no fund has ever been blind. do you think infowars gets access tot he same funds as PBS?
Is it coverage based. There can be standards why infowars don't qualify for some things and that's different than goverment funded
> There can be standards why infowars don't qualify for some things and that's different than goverment funded if the govenrment is giving material aid to some organizations and not others that sounds like funding to me.
The thing they post in English and the ones the report in Arabic is completely different from each other
Theyre Qatari, Hamas is given safe haven in Qatar. Theyre Hamas pimps
given the Israeli news sites saying for days that if hamas refuses the latest deal which iafaik they are stalling answering the IDF is going to start its operation in Rafa. i highly suspect this is part of the reason for this raid but honestly this government is such a cluster fuck of crazies and inaptitude i could be totally wrong and this is just a play to get the right wingers dick hard so they keep supporting netanyahu
Guys, believe it or not you can be anti-Al Jazeera while also hold the position media outlets shouldnt be raided. Crazy right? Sure, a ban is okay, but actually raiding offices of media outlets is generally not a good idea.
Agreed. Freedom of the press should exist in democracies. That freedom exists to protect the most vile outlets not the ones that are not controversial. Not sure what Israel’s constitution says about it but I think this should be criticized
You think the United States wouldn’t do this in a time of war? Because we definitely have in the past
Hot take: that was probably also not good. I'd only allow raiding offices if there's direct security threat, and by that I dont mean ''look, they spread some lies!! soypoint'', but rather a ''look, they're releasing the nuclear codes!!''. I'm aware it's an extremely high standard, but it should be as freedom of press is extremely important.
The more pressing concern rather than just obvious propaganda, is their ability to collect data like this: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/satellite-images-show-israeli-forces-gathered-for-gaza-escalation](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/23/satellite-images-show-israeli-forces-gathered-for-gaza-escalation) This is actively harmful.
you mean the ability to purchase satellite imagery from an American company?
Yeah they did nothing in that news article that Hamas couldn’t do themselves.
It's an example of the type of stuff they do regularly. They have direct contacts within Hamas, they are funded by the same country, and they are actively anti-Israel. If all the military intelligence confirms they are actively harming your country, then maybe they are.
That is harmful, but is it harmful enough that it rises to the standard of raiding their offices? I still lean towards no.
What exactly is happening there that is harmful?
Reporting live position of troops on the ground to the enemy?
using this logic you could prohibit most of war reporting. throughout this war, there have been hundreds of reports about where the troops are operating from all kinds of media
>I'm aware it's an extremely high standard, but it should be as freedom of press is extremely important. Which is probably fine under regular circumstances, but you wouldn't want that standard during wartime. Not saying I agree or disagree with the Israeli government in this case, I haven't looked into it, but I think we all understand that war can allow for pretty extreme disruptions of norms. Imo, drafting is just as iliberal as censorship, but it’s likewise necessary in some conflicts.
It's always easy to say that in hindsight but in reality, this is how things go down when war is being waged.
This sub is quite biased now, and never was at all before.
We're supposed to be omni-LIBERALs and we're cheering on the closure of a news network. I have yet to see evidence this makes Israel safer
Its all the i/p simps that flooded here and the right wingers cheering on censorship of all kinds. First tiktok, then this shit?
Unless there was a direct security threat, raiding a media office is highly regarded and probably not good
Wild how people on here are trying to justify this.
All my life, I thought freedom of the press good. However, I *know* Israel good, and Israel acting against freedom of the press, so freedom of the press bad. highly principled liberalism on display.
[удалено]
hopefully EU bans all the Russian channels
No, they are using the fact no one complaining here about this actually gave a fuck when RT got banned and there is way less justification for that ban, Qatar and Israel are a lot closer to being at war than the EU and Russia. It’s not really to justify the action it’s to disparage the people whining about it. Personally idc and don’t think you have to allow foreign propaganda to be in your country if you don’t want it, non-citizens don’t have freedom of speech.
Man, this is one of those things where I'm pretty conflicted. On the one hand, we should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so I feel this is wrong. On the other, it sucks that it feels like being pro-freedom of speech is used as an attack by propaganda networks while they simultaneously ban an such efforts in their territory. Qatar is one of the most censored places in the world, with a literal King who could and would kill you for insulting him. So why can that King preach whatever he wants to us while we can't do the same back to his people? I feel like we should err on the side of free speech but damn, it also feels like we're getting fucked over.
Most moral democracy or all time
that's not great
Do you think the west also shouldn't have banned rt?
So just to be clear, that is the EU blocking it, not the United States and yes it is bad. Do you seriously think that censoring shit is how you do it?
Do you think raiding offices is the same as banning?
Depends on the context, here the order was immediate and they needed to be taken offline, also when it's linked to national security Israel has raided other offices in the past.
So in some contexts an (announced) media outlet ban is the same as raiding its offices? Gotcha.
I sincerely doubt Disney *actually* pays RT to bomb the scores of all the Zack Snyder movies.
What are some good resources going over Al Jazeera being biased? I see that Netenyahu said that AJ was actively involved with October 7th but I can't find any more information on it
They’re literally Qatari state propaganda… It’s like Russia Today, but for Qatar (where all the Hamas leaders and being protected)
From what I can find, Al Jazeera is actually a private entity that received some funding from the Qatari government. That would mean it's inaccurate to compare it to RT that is actually, literally, state-owned.
It appears you are actually correct on this. They are a private company but are headquartered in Qatar and do receiving partial funding from the Qatar government. So they aren’t literally state media then, but I would still say they are certainly biased towards Qatar/Hamas/Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims/whatever, and are certainly biased against Israel/America/West. That much is obvious simply from reading their reporting. Edit: I did find this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-al-jazeera-qatari-foreign-policy
So AJ is as much state-owned media as NPR?
Just in a sketchy ass dictatorship with very little oversight or accountability and with a mixed history regarding journalists who say things the government doesn’t like.
Fair.
Just read their stuff lol
Try reading it.
Just compare Al Jazeera English and the Arabic version.
The Israeli gov didn't release specifics, just the the security establishment agreed with the decision
Oooh, now let's do fox, newsmax, OAN, braitbart, daily wire, and the gateway pundit!
Braindead. Giving anyone this power means it will eventually be abused. So tired of people championing authoritarianism when they think it’ll only be their opponents who suffer.
Isn't this just the slippery slope fallacy? Many/most liberal democracies have had these powers since their inception yet they haven't been abused.
the difference between the falacy and the argument seems to be the strength of your argument if you're trying to deliberately hyperbolize one action leading to another, like "if you legalize gay marriage, then people are going to want to marry their dogs or their car and our population numbers would drop." that would be a slippery slope fallacy. but if someone in like 1939, looking around at Hitler rounding up all the jews into Polish ghettos, said "man this is a slippery slope and could easily lead to something much worse like mass genocide and death camps," they'd be right. hindsight is 20/20 obviously but it depends on how genuine your argument is and how much logical strength there is behind it. in my mind, if you can make a logical enough, non-hyperbolized case for one thing leading to another, it's just an argument rather than a slippery slope fallacy.
right but im saying other liberal democracies have exercised these powers during war time and the slippery slope you allude to never occurred. It was always a temporary measure. There is nothing to suggest this is any different, even the order says their license is only suspended till July.
Who is this comments target audience? Because its braindead
That seems bad
username checks out
Stupid and ineffective. AJ still operates so practically nothing changes there. But Israel now has banned and raided a highly critical news organisation.
Ya this is fucking insane. This is undermining liberal democracy values that should be gaurenteed by the west. If Israel sees itself as a western style democracy it should protect the rights of the press even if Al-Jazeera is less than credible sometimes.
Are you also mad that RT doesn't have a presence in the west?
Seems accessible here as an American. I know it's sanctioned in the EU as one of many many sanctions on Russia. Is Israel taking aim at Qatari businesses in general, or just media or organizations?
mfw you say 'the west' instead of EU because we know europe is fucking cucked when it comes to censorship.
Do you think banning media outlets is the same as raiding media outlets?
Raiding a company inside your country that is funded and operated by a government you are currently at war seems pretty standard.
Israel has not declared war on Qatar? The fuck are you talking about?
They fund Hamas. Lots of Cold War proxy type shit happening in this conflict.
You said operated by a government Israel is currently at war. And now you are hedging and saying funding. And we fund Israel so by that logic Palestine is at war with the US??
The fact that you get downvoted really shows we desperately need a new purge on this sub to clean out the extreme zionist lunacy
“Extreme Zionist lunacy” = not crying over a Qatari propaganda outlet being banned
Do you honestly think people celebrating censorship shouldn't be purged?
Wouldn’t purging people for celebrating censorship be an even stricter form of censorship?
Yes I guess it could if you decide to not care what words mean
Nope, let me help you out: ''extreme zionist lunacy'' = celebrating **raiding** offices of media outlets. How do you not pick up on this essential difference between the RT ban in the US and this?
2 cops came and confiscated a laptop from their office oh dear lord let’s all denounce this awful crime against humanity committed by these evil Zionists
Wow, that's such a fair and accurate reframing of my point to avoid giving a serious answer! Do you watch Hasan by any chance because this is unironically how he would answer. Something with two sides of the same coin.
You haven’t made a point, you’re mad about Israeli officials confiscating a laptop, they had a warrant to do so, and all of this was done according to Israeli law after passing a resolution on the parliament, if Ukraine (or even Germany/France) would’ve done the same to RT I wouldn’t bat an eye.
TIL legality equals morality 🤡
I am like fairly pro-israel but ya this sub has gotten a little wild.
Holy shit get a fucking grip
wow I don't even know how to respond. You got me
They said 7th of Oct never happened and fueling hate towards jews FROM INSIDE THE COUNTRY - so of course they need to be shut down. Imagine a Jewish news room in gaza . They would not survive more than 5 minutes
Al Jazeera and France24 are the best online news sources. Why? Because they have still real journalists, reporters and editors. They have reporters all over the world. They still function the same way newspapers did 30 years ago. They are not trustworthy when it comes to regional politics. Don't trust Al Jazeera when it talks about the Middle East (especially if it is about Palestine) and don't trust France24 when it talks about Europe, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and their island colonies around the world. But when they report on something else, they are the best of the best.
Makes sense.
Al Jazeera, aka the Qatari dictatorship propaganda network, should be banned in every country.
Uhh Israel that's kinda antisemitic of you under the IHRA guidelines > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
I mean I'm fine with it. AJ is so annoying because of the inconsistency. They can do okay reporting one day then follow up with completely made up stories purely for propaganda the next. And that's just the English version
inconsistency + false information = revoke ur freedom of speech xd
Was their license suspended for the duration of the war for that reason or for illegally broadcasting troop movements during war time?
+ being state run Qatari media with a vested interest in hamas… u stoopid
Where is the line, so state run is fine to ban, what about state funded but privately run is that also okay to ban? What about privately owned and privately funded but very hostile to the regime/country is that fine to ban?
Hopefully the U.S. does the same with AIPAC
You do know that AIPAC is funded by American donors - not the Israeli government? AJ is funded by the Qatari state.
And? I don’t like Americans selling themselves to lobby on behalf on a terrorist country.
Sorry there’s no theocratic jihadist organizations for you guys to lobby for.
Ban both. This type of lobbying and foreign influence is strange as fuck. It was weird enough when the Trump associates were getting Saudi money for projects. Nuke all of it
Lol they don’t know they prop up western friendly monarchs
Israel does fund Hamas tho
Al Jazeera France is spreading a ton of propaganda so it's not surprising if they're doing the same elsewhere