The New York Times reports the tech has mistakenly identified people as connected to Hamas.

Israel has deployed a mass facial recognition program in the Gaza Strip, creating a database of Palestinians without their knowledge or consent, The New York Times reports. The program, which was created after the October 7th attacks, uses technology from Google Photos as well as a custom tool built by the Tel Aviv-based company Corsight to identify people affiliated with Hamas.

  • S_204@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Zuheir Mohsen said it best in '77, and all that followed is simply taqiyya. This has nothing to do with land, land which is clearly and obviously the homeland of the Jewish people, it’s got everything to do with bigotry and the failure of the Arab conquest.

    “The Palestinian people do not exist. There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese… It is only for political reasons that we carefully endorse our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians in the face of Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unit”

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      That’s insane and completely ahistorical. Even the leaders of Zionism didn’t hide their intentions of Settler Colonialism. Herzl was very open about it being a colonist project. You’re at odds with every New Historian who actually have researched this history.

      “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” - David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

      “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. … Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice.” — David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan’s “Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

      There is no justification for ethnic cleansing and stealing people’s homes. Justifying it with a history 2000 years removed makes zero sense. Palestinians also did have a cultural identity. It was never nationalized before Zionism because none of the regime changes before displaced Palestinians and put them under permanent occupation.

      • S_204@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        You’re claiming one of the founders of the PLOs words are inaccurate and ahistorical? C’mon man, that’s just silly.

        Herzl used the common language of the time, that’s not debated and obviously expected. The fact of the matter is that Jews were already present, had a majority of population in numerous centers within the Land and the European refugees were a minority when the UN partitioned the land. It’s also not disputed that Israel granted citizenship to the Arabs who didn’t flee during the war in '48, and there’s millions of them living in Israel currently as a result. Is Israel expected to grant citizenship to the people who took up arms against them and refused to acknowledge their existence? You can’t seriously believe that. That’s the definition of fucking around and finding out, those people left under the promise of Israel’s destruction, it’s not Israel’s fault for not letting the Arab League uphold their promises. The Arabs were offered to partition the land, they really should have taken the offer, it was initially more generous than what was offered to the Jews. It’s been the same crying ever since.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          No the quote is a valid quote, but it doesn’t represent what you said at all. It’s stating that Palestinian nationalism only began in response to Settler Colonialism.

          You’re wrong about how the war started, the founding of Israel, and what happened to the Palestinians that survived the ethnic cleansing campaign. I’ve already provided links for all of those above.

          • S_204@lemm.eeEnglish
            0·
            7 months ago

            You’ve almost got it right. The Palestinian identity was developed (by the KGB if we’re being real here), as an anti-semitic response to the establishment of the state of Israel.

            This is pretty well documented too, I’m assuming you’re familiar with it. You’re just leaving it out of the story because it doesn’t fit your narrative…

            Your claims of ethnic cleansing are also not backed up by the history as plenty of Arabs remained in Israel upon its formation. Of course they were under marital law, the newly forming nation was figuring out who it’s enemies were and guess what? They were pretty much all the Arabs surrounding them. Those Arabs now serve in the IDF, sit in the Knesset and serve in the judiciary among being pretty well integrated into Israeli society. You’re completely neglecting the fact that more Jews were displaced from the surrounding Arab countries. Then Arabs were displaced within the newly formed state of Israel. Many of those were violently removed from their homes in a similar fashion to what happened within Israel. Although what happened in Iraq etc was on a much grander scale as well as being much more violent. But that’s again a different story. The UN has a pretty detailed report on that up on their website if you wanted to go take a look. This isn’t to say that Arabs weren’t displaced within the new borders of Israel. Many left voluntarily and some took up arms. There was a war happening. Unfortunately people die in wars. Going back to the twenties. The Arabs were attacking Jews then then the Hebron massacre being one of the more prominent. But there’s dozens and dozens of examples in history too.

            All of this is pretty easily summarized with the fact that the Arabs turned down multiple offers to develop their own state alongside the state of Israel going back to the 1930s. They refuse to this day to acknowledge the existence of the state of Israel. This has always been about hate not land. That hate has led to far too many dead Arabs but hopefully one day soon they will love their children more than they hate the Jews. I remain hopeful, but I also remain confident that Israel is not going anywhere and will not run out of ammunition if the Arabs continue to want to martyr their children.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              You have a very revisionist understanding of the history of Israel-palestine. None of the New Historians that have thoroughly researched the history agree with you, not even Benny Morris. Many of the links I provided already debunk most of this, but I can go into more detail.

              Prior to Mandate

              The origins of Palestinian as an ethnicity goes back very far, as far as the 7th or 4th century. Palestinian Nationality developed largely during the British Mandate, but has roots back to the 16th century under the Ottoman Empire, and has always included Palestinian Jews and Christians. Rashid Khalidi stresses that Palestinian identity has never been an exclusive one, with “Arabism, religion, and local loyalties” playing an important role. He (Khalidi) acknowledges that Zionism played a role in shaping this identity, though “it is a serious mistake to suggest that Palestinian identity emerged mainly as a response to Zionism.”

              A thorough and comprehensive study of how Palestinian nationalism arose before the arrival of Zionism can be found in the works of Palestinian historians such as Muhammad Muslih and Rashid Khalidi.5 They show clearly that both elite and non-elite sections of Palestinian society were involved in developing a national movement and sentiment before 1882. Khalidi in particular shows how patriotic feelings, local loyalties, Arabism, religious sentiments, and higher levels of education and literacy were the main constituents of the new nationalism, and how it was only later that resistance to Zionism played an additional crucial role in defining Palestinian nationalism.

              • Ilan Pappe

              If you have read any of the works by New Historians you would find the development of Palestinian Nationalism began before Zionism entered the scene. You would also find that it was/is then about the opposition to the settler colonialism of Zionism. Your insistence that its antisemitism is untrue, ahistorical, and revisionist.

              Zionists Leadership (including the Ben-Gurion quotes you ignored), the Shaw and Peel Commission, and Palestinian Leadership have all understood that the issue was with Settler Colonialism and not from antisemitism. If it was antisemitism, Palestinians wouldn’t have advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades during the British Mandate, which they did. It was partition that was a deliberate tactic of the Zionist Leadership to expand its Settler Colonialism and Expulsions of Palestinians. This is extensively documented.

              Origin of the Palestinians Palestinian Nationalism Antisemitism in Islam, the Arab World, and Europe

              Zionism as Settler Colonialism

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                7 months ago
                British Mandate Period:

                The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948

                It should not be imagined that the concept of transfer was held only by maximalists or extremists within the Zion­ist movement. On the contrary, it was embraced by almost all shades of opinion, from the Revisionist right to the Labor left. Virtually every member of the Zionist pantheon of founding fathers and important leaders supported it and advocated it in one form or another, from Chaim Weizmann and Vladimir Jabotinsky to David Ben-Gurion and Menahem Ussishkin. Supporters of transfer included such moderates as the “Arab appeaser" Moshe Shertok and the socialist Arthur Ruppin, founder of Brit Shalom, a movement advo­cating equal rights for Arabs and Jews. More importantly, transfer proposals were put forward by the Jewish Agency itself, in effect the government of the Yishuv.

                The Zionists were tireless in their efforts to shape the Commission’s proposals, meeting not only with the Com­ mission members themselves, but with statesmen, cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and senior officials at the Foreign and Colonial Office with whom the Commission members were likely to consult before formulating their recommendations.15 At these meetings the idea of a popu­ lation transfer was promoted in conjunction with the parti­ tion of the country, the partition idea apparently was first suggested by a member of the Commission itself. Professor Reginald Coupland, during a private meeting with Weizmann in Palestine. The prospect of official British recognition- hitherto steadfastly denied-of Jewish sovereignty and state­ hood, even in only part of Palestine, represented a tremen­ dous, and at that stage unhoped for, advance for the Zionist movement.

                Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928

                Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.

                1929 Riots: Forward and 972Mag

                Shaw Commission

                Peel Commission Report

                Memorandum of the Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937

                Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession; it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original], would this satisfy our feelings? What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me–if it were Arab… My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.

                • Ben-Gurion 1937

                The Peel Commission, a British inquiry launched following the breakout of the Palestinian strike, officially called for the first time in 1937 for a partition of Palestine into two states. Palestinians widely rejected the plan, as it would involve the transfer of more land, and entail the forcible displacement of some 225,000 Palestinians, compared to 1,250 Jews. Meanwhile, Zionist leadership was split, with some arguing that all of historic Palestine should become the state of Israel.

                1936-1939 Revolt: JVL, Britannica, MEE

                In 1933 Ghazi took control of Iraq and promoted Nazi Propaganda, leading to targeted attacks against Jewish people and the killing of hundreds of Jewish people in 1941.

                Irgun and Lehi terrorist activities against Palestinians and Jewish people in Arab countries.

                The Grand Mufti connection to Nazi Propaganda: Time, Haaretz, WaPo

                12,000 Palestinians fight against Nazi Germany WWII: Haaretz, JPost

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  7 months ago

                  1948 to 1967:

                  Officially adopted on March 10, 1948, Plan Dalet specified which Palestinian cities and towns would be targeted and gave instructions for how to drive out their inhabitants and destroy their communities. It called for:

                  >>“Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously

>>“Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

                  Three quarters of all Palestinians, about 750,000 people, were forced from their homes and made refugees during Israel’s establishment. Their homes, land, and other belongings were systematically destroyed or taken over by Israelis, while they were denied the right to return or any sort of compensation. More than 400 Palestinian towns and villages, including vibrant urban centers, were destroyed or repopulated with Jewish Israelis

                  Plan Dalet

                  Declassified Massacres 1948

                  Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948)

                  The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.

                  Arab League advocating for Unified Binational State 1948

                  The IDF’s meticulous preparations to conquer the territories had already begun early in the 1960s. They were, in part, the product of the short and bitter Israeli experience in the conquest — and subsequent evacuation — of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip in the Sinai War of 1956.

                  It’s against this background that we should understand the document titled “Proposal to Organize the Military Government,” written by IDF head of operations, Col. Elad Peled, in June 1961, and presented to Chief of Staff Tzvi Tzur. Six years before the Six-Day War, the proposal consisted of detailed initial planning for the forces that would be needed to rule in what would become the occupied territories.

                  1967 war: Haaretz, Forward

                  Military administrative government was in effect from 1949 to 1966 over some geographical areas of Israel having large Arab populations, primarily the Negev, Galilee, and the Triangle. The residents of these areas were subject to martial law. The Israel Defense Forces enforced strict residency rules. Any Arab not registered in a census taken during November 1948 was deported. Permits from the military governor had to be procured to travel more than a given distance from a person’s registered place of residence, and curfew, administrative detentions, and expulsions were common. Although the military administration was officially for geographical areas, and not people, its restrictions were seldom enforced on the Jewish residents of these areas. In the early 1950s, martial law ceased to be in effect for those Arab citizens living in predominantly Jewish cities of Jaffa, Ramla, and Lod, constituting a total of approximately 15% of the Arab population of Israel. But military rule remained in place on the remaining Arab population elsewhere within Israel until 1966.

                  This period is remembered for its extreme crackdown on political rights, as well as unaccountable military brutality. Most political and civil organization was prohibited. Flying of Palestinian flag, as well as other expressions of Palestinian patriotism were prohibited. Furthermore, despite theoretical guarantee of full political rights, military government personnel frequently made threats against Arabs citizens if they did not vote in elections for the candidates favored by the authorities. Perhaps the most commemorated incidence of military brutality in this time period was the Kafr Qasim massacre in 1956, in which the Israel Border Police killed 48 people (19 men, 6 women and 23 children aged 8–17) as they were returning home from work in the evening. The Israeli army had ordered that all Arab villages in the proximity of the Green Line be placed under curfew. However, this order came into effect before the residents of these localities, including residents of Kafr Qasim, were notified.

                  Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967