YouTube Enhances Hatred of Israel and Extinguishes Hate for Palestinians

Try this yourself (you don’t really need to as I just did it). Type in “I hate Israel” and “I hate Palestine” in the YouTube search bar and be amazed by the results.

The search results for “I hate Palestine,” yielded only ONE of the first twenty entries with something negative about Palestinians; the balance were about how Israel harms Palestinians. However, in searching for “I hate Israel,” SEVENTEEN of the top twenty results were negative about the Israeli government and people. Five videos appeared in both searches, three of which could generously be called “neutral” and two anti-Israel.

Does YouTube have algorithms that promote anti-Zionism or have the anti-Zionists effectively gamed YouTube’s algorithm to promote a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel commentary on the largest online platform?

“I Hate Israel” Top 20 results

  1. Muslim-Americans discuss attitudes toward Israel CBSN (419k views)
  2. Rebel Rabbis: Anti-Zionist Jews Against Israel Vice (2325k)
  3. Jews and Arabs react to Israel’s nation-state law TRT World (10k)
  4. Youtube series explores what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict PBS NewsHour (65k)
  5. UK: London Orthodox Jews burn Israeli flag on Purim RT (488k)
  6. The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history Vox (7381k)
  7. USA: Anti-Zionist Jews stage Gaza funeral at NY’s Israel embassy Ruptly (11k)
  8. PM Netanyahu: Dear Arab citizens of Israel–take part in our society in droves IsraelPM (53k)
  9. Why Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem Vox (1224k)
  10. Why Antisemites Love Israel AJ+ (71k)
  11. Do Israelis Hate Ultra-Orthodox Jews? NowThis World (326k)
  12. Christians in Israel face rise in hate crimes Al Jazeera (219k)
  13. Jerusalem Jewish group’s anti-Arab patrol BBC (26k)
  14. Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians Euronews (24k)
  15. Palestinian Christians under Israeli occupation speak out TRT (174k)
  16. Germans in Israel. Israelis in Germany DW Documentary (82k)
  17. Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state France24 (12k)
  18. Muslim-Jewish wedding in Israel draws furious response AFP News (257k)
  19. Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem describe life under Israeli occupation TRT (144k)
  20. When does criticism of Israel cross into anti-Semitism? Washington Post (222k)

Only number 8, with a mere 53,000 views, showed Israel in a favorable manner.

“I Hate Palestine” Top 20 results

  1. Youtube series explores what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict PBS News Hour (65k)
  2. Why Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem Vox (1224k)
  3. The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history Vox (7381k)
  4. Conflict in Israel and Palestine: Crash Course World History 223 Crashcourse (7364k)
  5. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explained Washington Post (55k)
  6. Young Palestinians see no end to the Israeli Occupation CBC News (18k)
  7. Palestinian Christians under Israeli occupation speak out TRT World (174k)
  8. Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border Euronews (7164k)
  9. Netanyahu Says Palestinians Should “Abandon The Fantasy That They Will Conquer Jerusalem” (HBO) Vice News (748k)
  10. Anti-Palestine hate posted every 71 seconds TRT World (1k)
  11. Trump recognises Israel but not Palestine TRT World (176k)
  12. Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state France24 (12k)
  13. Culture of Hate – the Palestinian Incitement Kills Israel Foreign Ministry (43k)
  14. What Happened On The Israeli Side Of The Border During U.S. Embassy Protests (HBO) Vice News (560k)
  15. The Israel and Gaza Conflict From A Celebrities’ Perspective AJ+ (200k)
  16. Why Are Israel and Palestine Fighting? NowThisWorld (1029k)
  17. Obama to Israelis: Put yourselves in Palestinians’ shoes CBS News (11k)
  18. Author: I am Jewish and Palestinian CNN (30k)
  19. Elderly Palestinian man confronts armed Israeli soldiers before collapsing OnDemandNews (2275k)
  20. At least 25 Palestinians killed in Gaza-Israel border clashes BBC (458k)

Videos and Viewership

TRT World from Turkey is effective at promoting the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian narrative as is the Qatari-run Al Jazeera/ AJ+. Of the top 40 slots, nine are taken by the major Muslim media companies. Only a single slot is held by Israel’s video.

Online media companies Vox and Vice have seven videos of the top 40, an impressive showing relative to the major European outlets BBC, Euronews and France24 with a total of six videos, all highly critical of Israel.

A left-wing channel NowThis had two videos, averaging 678,000 views. While the online-oriented channels Vox and Vice average 2.27 million views, the traditional media companies like the Washington Post averaged just 139,000 for its two videos and CNN had only 30,000 for its sole top 40 showing. The media from Turkey averaged 113,000 views for its six videos and from Qatar 163,000 for three videos.

Anti-Semitic Clickbate

The European news outlets featured the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish headlines.

BBC and Euronews featured hatred and killings in their video titles including “Jerusalem Jewish group’s anti-Arab patrol”, “Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians”, “Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border” and “Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border.” The headlines made Jews haters and killers.

There was no equivalent for Arabs or Muslims. France24 ran with “Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state,” making the case for an Arab state, in a search result about hating Palestine. This result was an inversion of what the viewer requested.

Euronews video entitled “Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians”


The search results on YouTube for “I hate Israel” and “I hate Palestinians” come from different sources, with the greatest number being produced in the Muslim world and the greatest viewership coming from the online world. The European countries pushed the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish headlines, and overall, YouTube pushed a very lopsided anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian narrative.

Online, the conflict isn’t complex; it is clear that the Jews are the problem.

It is unclear if this disturbing situation stems from YouTube algorithms, viewer choice / bots to promote certain videos, or the quantity of videos being produced by media outlets with an anti-Israel bias. What is certain is the need for a change.


Related First One Through videos:

The Media Splits on Showing “Islamic Terrorism” and its Presence in Israel

The Media Finds Religion in Matters of Security. Sometimes.

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

Review of Media Headlines on Palestinian Arab Terror Spree

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Opinions on Facebook

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 217A, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The backdrop behind its passage was the Holocaust of European Jewry, in which an entire people was dehumanized, hunted and slaughtered, and the consequent global goal of making sure that it never happens again.

The first two stances in the resolution’s preamble make this clear:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,”

All people inherently deserve “freedom, justice and peace” and the common goal of humanity is the enjoyment of “freedom of speech and belief” as well as “freedom from fear and want.”

The resolution goes on to enumerate many ways to achieve such goals, such as banning slavery (Article 4) and torture (Article 5), the ability to marry and divorce (Article 16) and change one’s religion (Article 18). While these seem fundamental rights in the western world, they are unfortunately not present in much of the Middle East and Africa.

But the western world has its own challenges with other items published in the UDHR, that of freedom of speech in the world of social media. Article 19 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The notion that people have the right to “impart information… through any media… regardless of frontiers” is specifically being called out in the western world today.

The CEO of Facebook has been called before Congress and people have argued that Facebook must fact-check items before posting them as well as ban political ads.


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress

At a speech before the Anti-Defamation League, the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen argued that Facebook, Twitter and Google have created “the greatest propaganda machine in history,” one that would have allowed Hitler to run 30 second ads contributing to fringe ideas “going mainstream.”

But such condemnation should be addressed towards the individual or group posting the vile viewpoints, not the platform itself. Facebook is a megaphone / modern soapbox for ideas. It is not a newspaper with a staff which writes opinions of its own.

We have become enamored with attacking the large social media giants by adopting false progressive notions that: 1) social media is media; 2) any kind of “fear” is real and should be considered; and 3) simply being large and powerful is inherently evil.

Social Media versus Media

Social media enables millions and billions of people to connect with each other. The platforms enable third parties to share ideas and pictures with both friends and family as well as people they’ve never met. The interactions may be cordial or hostile; the content, funny or sad.

The social media companies are distribution companies. This is vastly different than a media company which either writes and produces its own content or pays people to write content for them. As companies like Google begin to hire professionals to produce content on platforms like YouTube, it is only at that point that they become media companies themselves.

These distribution companies decide for themselves whether they wish to publish particular content. If Twitter opts to not publish political ads, that is its choice. If Facebook does not want to be a platform for nudity, it has full discretion to do so.

But it is the content itself which should be the focus of attention and possible derision.

Freedom from Fear

While Article 19 of the UDHR clearly articulates that all opinions should be available on any media, the preamble to the resolution makes clear that people should be able to live with “freedom from fear.” As such, any content which calls for violence against any person or group should be banned from all platforms. No ifs, ands or buts.

But what constitutes “fear?” A perceived insult or slight might trigger “microaggressions” such as using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person. But that cannot truly be the benchmark of what the UDHR had in mind.

Many videos by the conservative Prager U have been banned by YouTube, despite the videos not advocating any violence. Dennis Prager testified before Congress in July 2019 that the social media platforms have been banning conservative voices because the media outlets are run by “coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks,” as President Obama called them. Prager said that “liberals and conservatives differ on many issues but they have always agreed free speech must be preserved. While the left has never supported free speech, liberals always have.

Prager considered that “the left” has become overly sensitive about a wide range of issues and have used that as an excuse to shut down free speech with which they disagree. The notion of “freedom from fear” is being abused to shut down free speech.

The Powerful Institutions versus the Common Man

These same alt-left progressives have taken to the notion that large institutions like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Goldman Sachs and Walmart are inherently evil. The socialists in Congress have been looking to pass numerous laws to punish them, tax them and break them apart. While Prager sees the social media companies as liberal outlets, the left sees them as corporate thieves who helped defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

As such, the left-wing socialists have waved the banner of support for the failing media companies who have peddled their half truths for years, arguing that they are on the front lines of democracy. (If only it were true.) But these media outlets can still write their pieces – and use the social media companies as outlets for distribution.


The big social media companies should NOT be in the fact checking business. However, they can improve upon their core distribution business by allowing people to see the source of the content placed before them and have greater control of the algorithms which tailor the content they see.

Allow people to have “freedom from fear” but not freedom from opinions of which they disagree.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Uncomfortable vs. Dangerous Free Speech

The Noose and the Nipple

Students for Justice in Palestine’s Dick Pics

The Press Are Not Guardians of the Galaxy

New York Times: “Throw the Jew Down the Well”

Ban Ki Moon Defecates on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Elie Wiesel on Words

Apostasy

Selective Speech

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Can YouTube Understand Hatred?

In March 2017, YouTube was criticized for placing advertisements next to videos that were considered disturbing expressions of hate, including racist and anti-Semitic videos. Large brands like AT&T, HSBC, Starbucks, Volkswagen and Walmart, pulled their ad campaigns from the media giant as they did not want to be associated with such ugly videos.

The Internet is rife with extremist videos, but Google has had a difficult time using algorithms to flag them.

Consider the channel FirstOneThrough, which posted over a dozen videos to COMBAT the hatred of Israel. The titles of its video series was deliberately called “I hate Israel” to counter the arguments against Israel:

The videos were headed with “I hate Israel” to CONFRONT hatred and push the videos with actual evil bias off of the front search pages. But YouTube has a hard time discerning the content of the videos and has labeled each video as “Not advertiser-friendly.

FirstOneThrough does not seek profit from any of its videos, so the removal of advertisements is not a source of concern. However, the action underscores the difficulty of algorithms to distinguish between a simple phrase and the broader discussion in the videos.

In the meantime, supporters of Israel should continue to watch and share the videos in the series to not only become further educated about the incredible democracy, but to push anti-Israel videos off of the first page of the YouTube search screen.


FirstOneThrough’s Series “I hate Israel”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Take Names in the Propaganda War

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Noose and the Nipple

I am confused about society’s and social media’s decisions on censorship. In particular, why do forums like Facebook and YouTube permit showing brutal murders while they block nudity?

On Facebook today, I had a video pop up of a mob killing a woman in Afghanistan because she supposedly burned a Quran. Over the past weeks, YouTube has shown videos of the Islamic State beheading people and setting others on fire. Boko Haram is shown executing people and throwing them off bridges.

Yet a nipple is considered nasty.

According to Facebook: ““We restrict the display of nudity because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content – particularly because of their cultural background or age.” Excuse me? At what age is viewing a beheading OK?

Facebook continues on its community standards page: “We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple, but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring.” Oh, Thank goodness Facebook- I guess breastfeeding is somehow more natural than an unaccompanied breast. And I’m sure youngsters will be less traumatized seeing a breast with post-mastectomy scarring than pre-mastectomy.

Our laws prohibit a woman in Utah from showing her tatas, but permit enormous billboards with guns and violence for all to see.

What censorship calculation shows a gay man hanging in a noose in Tehran, but won’t show a woman’s nipple in Times Square?