Israel Derangement Syndrome

Julie Hartman, a 24-year-old woman with whom I do a weekly podcast (“Dennis & Julie”), described the anti-Israel world perfectly: A vast number of people suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome.

The description is, of course, based on the widely cited “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party deride as nonsense. Though I voted for former President Donald Trump and thought he was a very good, at times excellent, president, I never used that term during the four years of the Trump presidency. I did not regard opposition to Trump as necessarily an expression of psychological pathology.

Eventually, however, I changed my mind. I came to believe that much Trump hatred was rooted in psychology, not moral reasoning. This was particularly so regarding conservatives who became “Never Trumpers.” Given that the Left had taken over the once largely liberal Democratic Party, and given that the Left is the greatest threat to freedom and the entire American experiment since the Civil War, the only explanation for why a conservative would vote for a leftist rather than for Trump had to be a psychological one.

Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of a Trump Derangement Syndrome, “derangement syndrome” perfectly explains support for Hamas and the Palestinians (at this time, the two are largely the same, just as “Nazis” and “Germans” were largely the same, and therefore used interchangeably, during World War II).

On Sept. 21, The New York Times provided a perfect example of Israel Derangement Syndrome in a column written by Michael Walzer, a professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, titled “Israel’s Pager Bombs Have No Place in a Just War.”

As is well known, last week, pagers used by Hezbollah terrorists exploded, killing a handful of them and wounding hundreds more. Amazingly accurate, the exploding pagers killed very few noncombatants.

Hezbollah is the Shiite and Lebanese equivalent of the Gaza-based Sunni Hamas. Like Hamas, Hezbollah has one purpose: to kill as many Israelis as possible and eradicate the Jewish state. Hezbollah has fired more than 8,000 rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. Tens of thousands of Israelis have fled their homes in northern Israel and have not returned in nearly a year.

That Israel is being attacked for killing Hezbollah terrorists is proof that, according to the vast array of Israel-haters—the political, media and academic left, and Muslims in the Western world—Israel is not allowed to defend itself. It should now be obvious that the current hatred of Israel is not a result of Israel’s bombing of Gaza. When Israel targets Hezbollah terrorists—and only Hezbollah terrorists—it is equally condemned.

Which brings me to the Times column by Walzer.

Walzer writes: “The explosions on Tuesday and Wednesday were very likely war crimes—terrorist attacks by a state that has consistently condemned terrorist attacks on its own citizens.

“Yes, the devices most probably were being used by Hezbollah operatives for military purposes. This might make them a legitimate target in the continuous cross-border battles between Israel and Hezbollah. But the attacks … came when the operatives were not operating; they had not been mobilized and they were not militarily engaged. … It is important for friends of Israel to say: This was not right.”

According to Walzer, terrorists can only be killed when they are “operating,” “mobilized,” or “militarily engaged.” If they are not doing so, it is a “war crime” to kill them. Furthermore, the mere fact that these members of Hezbollah had those pagers—devices the professor admits “probably were being used by Hezbollah operatives for military purposes”—means these terrorists were “operating.” That’s why they had them: to plan and carry out operations against Israel.

That, dear reader, is derangement.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/24/israel-derangement-syndrome/

********************************************

Following Texas, Newsom signs bill requiring social media age verification

Like how?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial new bill requiring social media companies to verify the age of users, and preventing non-verified users from accessing algorithm-driven social media feeds. While described as a bill to combat youth social media addiction, tech and free speech groups argue the bill could worsen cyberbullying and infringe on First Amendment rights. Other states' similar bans have been struck down in court, with a challenge to Texas' age verification law to be heard by the United States Supreme Court in the coming term.

SB 976 bans social media notifications to California minors during school hours and between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent, require chronological, not algorithmic social media feed presented to minors without parental consent, and only allow these features if a social media company has "reasonably determined" the user is not a minor, or if a parent has consented. The California Attorney General is empowered to define what the “reasonably determined” standard actually means, and the whole law goes into effect on January 1, 2027.

Tech groups argue barring access to algorithm-generated feeds will make products less useful and enjoyable for users — and could even increase the impact of cyber-bullying that current algorithms seek to limit, while First Amendment advocates say requiring individuals to verify their age by surrendering personal information — likely to be government identification — would have a chilling effect on online speech.

Pro-technology lobbying group Chamber of Progress filed several letters of opposition against the bill and focused its arguments on the loss of editorial control for social media companies with the mandate to not show weighted algorithmic content to non-verified users, and the security risks of what they believe will be government ID-based age verification systems.

“There’s no way to verify the age of minors without verifying the age of all users,” said Chamber of Progress technology policy director Todd O’Boyle in an interview with The Center Square. “Whether you ask individuals to manually verify government ID, or you say all right, online services are allowed to use a third-party verifier, you’ve got a huge cybersecurity concern.”

Earlier this year, lack of encryption by a third-party background check provider allowed hackers to steal a data package with the name, Social Security number, and phone number of every American. The file was first listed for $3.5 million then later leaked for free.

“However well-intentioned, it’s going to result in a world where the algorithmic tools the platforms use to make the internet safer for young people by downranking and removing content that is harassing or otherwise abusive — if platforms don’t have those algorithmic tools at their disposal, teens are going to be at risk of dogpiling,” continued O’Boyle.

With regards to taking away algorithmic feeds, called “addictive” by the bill, O’Boyle said, “From a First Amendment perspective, the courts have been quite clear you can’t regulate design without running into serious First Amendment issues, because ultimately, this is trying to regulate the core curatorial and editorial functions of social media platforms.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a pro-free speech legal nonprofit, also took issue with the bill’s restriction on access to legally protected First Amendment content.

“It … basically says that people have to show their papers at the door before they can get access to constitutionally protected speech,” said FIRE chief counsel Robert Corn-Revere in an interview with The Center Square. “It is worth noting that other states attempting similar things have found that efforts to restrict access to this medium are being scrutinized very carefully by the courts. We’re still in the process of going through that same scrutiny in California, so for the legislature to move forward with potential legislation that doubles down on unconstitutional violations strikes me as unwise.”

Arkansas and Utah have seen similar rules struck down in court, but a final ruling on Texas’ age verification law being heard in the United States Supreme Court could soon set national precedent on the matter.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_fc977136-7ac6-11ef-866b-6b8a4e0e6e2a.html

********************************************************

German weakness against Vladimir Putin and Russia during the Ukraine war and the rise of AfD is dangerous for Europe, NATO, and the free world

By Niall Ferguson

It felt a little strange for a British historian to fly to Berlin to tell the Germans, of all people, to rearm. That’s not a role I ever imagined I’d play when I was a graduate student in the divided Berlin of the 1980s, where the buildings in the Soviet sector still bore the scars of World War II.

But times change. And so I recently found myself in the German capital addressing a hall full of conservative parliamentarians urging them to double their defense budget.

Urging Germans to rearm might seem a rather counterintuitive thing to do—and not just because of Germany’s past. This year, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland has achieved a string of successes in regional elections, coming first in Thuringia and second in Saxony and Brandenburg.

Deutschland den deutschen, Ausländer raus!—“Germany for the Germans, foreigners out!”—is a popular chant in Germany these days, and not only amongst the disgruntled, underachieving inhabitants of the formerly East German states that are the AfD’s electoral strongholds. German media briefly went berserk back in May, when a viral video captured preppy partygoers at a club on the North Sea resort island of Sylt gleefully chanting the taboo five words. The young man leading the chorus even gave a mock Nazi salute, his left hand supplying a virtual Hitler mustache.

What would the American equivalent be? The members of a Harvard final club donning Ku Klux Klan hoods on Martha’s Vineyard, perhaps.

You may insist, “But it was ironic! They were chanting Deutschland den deutschen over the Italian DJ Gigi D’Agostino’s track ‘L’amour Toujours’!” Still, I can see why the average American might be mildly freaked out by my arguing for German rearmament at a time like this. But, as I said, times change. Back in the ’80s, I didn’t expect to witness a Russian invasion of an independent Ukraine either.

https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-germany-rearm-ukraine-russia-nato

**************************************************

Dr Nick Coatsworth issues an urgent warning over Australian government's proposed speech law

One of Australia's most high-profile doctors has urged Australians to actively oppose the Albanese government's proposed misinformation laws saying they would have been potentially harmful during the pandemic.

Dr Nick Coatsworth, who was the nation's deputy chief medical officer during the pandemic period, feared the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill would be 'weaponised' to shut down debate.

He noted the legislation was in part aimed at stopping the spread of 'misinformation' that caused 'harm to public health in Australia, including to the efficacy of preventative health measures'.

However, he said this was 'astonishing' after the Covid pandemic because the medical fraternity and general public became 'acutely aware' the 'facts' changed as the virus became better understood.

This means the new laws could brand 'legitimate concerns' about about public health policy as 'misinformation', according to the government of 'scientific orthodoxy of the moment'.

'Misinformation causes harm,' Dr Coatsworth said. This bill should be rejected in its entirety.

'The weaponisation of misinformation as a term to shut down debate causes even greater harm.

Dr Coatsworth said 'he shares the government's deep concern about the harms of social media to community trust and cohesion'.

'But misinformation is such a widely used accusation these days that I can't see how the law could work practically',' he said.

Dr Coatsworth said that while some things online are 'verifiably false' the 'only solution is to equip the community from a young age to recognise what they (falsehoods) are and to understand how social media works to manipulate debate'.

'Let's teach our kids critical thought and how to question and debate, not how to dismiss or reject other's opinions or ideas with random accusations of misinformation,' he explained.

'I'd strongly encourage Australians to do something they may never have done before and submit to the Senate Inquiry.

'Even if it's a short paragraph expressing deep concern about what this Bill represents.'

Dr Coatsworth has previously admitted Australian governments and health officials lost the trust and goodwill of the public over the pandemic.

He told Sydney radio station 2GB in February said draconian measures to contain the virus dragged on too long and caused people to tune out and grow resentful.

In a 10-page submission made in February to a special inquiry, Dr Coatsworth admitted imposing mandates was wrong.

Under the new laws beefed up watchdog Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be able to order social media companies to crack down on repeated misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.

Should the companies fail to do so they face a range of penalties and whopping fines, which could include forfeiting five per cent of their global revenue.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has denied the laws would curb freedom of expression.

'We've been very clear as a government to take strong advice around this and to consult widely and to ensure that it aligns precisely with what we have under international law so as not to curb freedom of speech,' she told the ABC earlier this month.

Shadow communications minister David Coleman has accused the government of trying to shotgun the laws through parliament after an earlier version of them was withdrawn last year following substantial public opposition.

'How are people supposed to respond to this complicated law in just a week?,' Ms Coleman told The Daily Telegraph.

'Labor wants to ram this legislation through and is trying to stop the massive backlash we saw last time.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13887877/Dr-Nick-Coatsworth-warning-misinformation.html

**************************************************

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************