Israeli Podcasters Call to Kill All Gazans: Free Speech or Hate Speech?
Controversial recent comments made by one of the hosts of the Israeli ‘Two Nice Jewish Boys’ podcast, Eytan Weinstein,, who publicly declared that he wants to genocide Palestinians in Gaz, have elicited violent reactions the world over. In an episode, Weinstein said if hewweres asked to wipe off Gaza and its entire inhabitants, he would not even think twice. His co-host, Naor Meningher, echoed this, and Weinstein insisted that ‘most of the Israelis’ would have this attitude.
The comment section has caused heated controversy, given the issue of the difference between freedom of speech and expressing prejudice. Some justify freedom of speech, which would allow people to have those ideas, while others claim that genocidal ideas are far too extreme to be permitted.
This episode became rather popular very soon, and people began to worry that there were skeptics in Israeli society who considered themselves superior to Palestinian Arabs. These statements are reminiscent of charges often leveled against Palestinians, of wanting to ‘throw Israel into the sea,’ or the more recent claim of ‘ISNA wanting to wipe Israel off the map,’ the type of charges that critics say embody the genocidal tendencies projected by Israeli figures onto Palestinians to justify the most aggressive of policies.
READ ALSO: Malaysia and New Zealand Prime Ministers call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
It was only in reaction to that podcast that the Largest Muslim civil rights organization in the USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), urged other platforms like Apple and YouTube to remove the show. CAIR’s National Deputy Director was al Edward Ahmed Mitchell, who was very clear in stating that while people have the right to free speech, advocating for genocide is not acceptable. Mitchell said that ‘Apple and YouTube would undoubtedly drop this podcast if it were a Palestinian edition that encouraged the extermination of any other ethnic group.’
This brings forth the general discussion about the conduct of social media sites concerning hate speech. On the one hand, tech companies presented themselves as the defenders of free speech. On the other hand, they are obligated to delete posts that incite hatred and violence. Sites such as YouTube, Apple, and others have been criticized for the inconsistency of their policy toward Palestinian advocacy while sometimes removing the videos that advocate for Palestinians, at the same time allowing haters speech, such as the one presented in *Two Nice Jewish Boys*.
The second argument Mitchell makes is regarding the fact that there should be no exception made for free speech and announcing genocidal intentions against Palestinians. He said such social media sites constantly block content that is deemed politically incorrect or could cause harm to ethnic or religious groups. If such statements were made about other communities, these companies would quickly act on them. Here, too, critics have claimed that there is no policy or willingness to hold account of anti-Palestinian hate speech.
This incident also pointed to the increased influence of podcasts and online media on the public. Given that individuals create podcasts and?”; “Podcasts as platforms that provide voices to independent creators can afford to be a lot less restrictive in terms of the content than mainstream media while at the same time serving as the breeding ground for dangerous ideas. When everyone from autocratic leaders to online trolls can/comment on millions of people within seconds, the stakes for content creators and the platforms they inhabit are higher than ever.
The fallout from this podcast episode raises essential questions: When is one allowed to post whatever one wants, and when does it turn into spreading hate? What are media platforms supposed to do about it? They are issues that will only become louder as the discussion of the Israel-Palestine situation goes on.
