By Haaretz correspondent Gila Dabney | 02/12/2015 05:30:26It’s an image that has been shared thousands of times on Facebook, and which many Jews have been debating ever since the publication of a controversial article by Israel’s Channel 10 on Wednesday.
The article, titled “The most influential Jew in Israel”, was written by Gila Darvas, the journalist who became one of the country’s most prominent media figures after the assassination of journalist Raoul Wallenberg.
It was published by Ha’aretz and described Wallenberg’s murder as a “massacre”.
In it, Darvas described Wallenburg as an “unrepentant” Nazi and accused him of being the “founder of the anti-Semitic movement” and a “terrorist” and said that Wallenberg had “betrayed” Israel by “hiding his real intention” for fighting against the Jewish state.
Dabrosse said in the article that Wallenburg had been a “totalitarian” and that he had been “unhappy” about his death, adding that he was “a hero for the Jewish people”.
She continued: “The reason he died was that he betrayed the Jewish nation, he betrayed his people and betrayed the whole world.
It was his crime.”
It was Darvas’ article that triggered the controversy, and the subsequent Facebook comments.
It’s a widely shared opinion in Israel and the Jewish community is divided over whether it was appropriate to publish the article in the first place.
But some Jews have also shared the article on social media, and Darvas herself has said it was not intended as a criticism of Wallenberg but as a commentary on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
“It is not my intention to insult Wallenberg, he is a great hero,” Darvas wrote in a Facebook post on Wednesday, according to Ha’ead.
Terrifying’ but not a ‘hate crime’The controversy over the article has brought up issues around the right to freedom of expression, and has also sparked a debate over whether Darvas had violated the rules of free speech.”
The anti-Zionist movement has done the same.”‘
Terrifying’ but not a ‘hate crime’The controversy over the article has brought up issues around the right to freedom of expression, and has also sparked a debate over whether Darvas had violated the rules of free speech.
The controversy comes amid the ongoing unrest in Israel over a government decision to remove the word “Palestine” from government websites, which has led to a wave of protests against the move.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that the move was necessary to counter “hatred, incitement, and hatred” against the state, according the Associated Press news agency.
But a number of Israeli politicians, including the right-wing Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, have said that it was necessary because of the rise of anti-Semitism.
Darvas, who was born in Israel but raised in Brooklyn, New York, said she was not a Nazi.
“I’m not a racist.
I’m not anti-Semite,” Darva said in a statement released by the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute (IDI).”
I was raised Jewish, and I’m proud to be Jewish.
I am proud to call myself a Jew.
The Nazis did not kill anyone, the anti–Semites did.
I have no problem with a person of any nationality. “
I am not against anyone.
I have no problem with a person of any nationality.
I don’t think of myself as a traitor.”
She added: “I never intended to offend anyone.”
But some Palestinians on social networks are angry at the article.
“This is a racist, hate crime against Jews, and this is not a hate crime,” one Palestinian Facebook user wrote on Wednesday afternoon.
“There is no place in the world for this kind of racism.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Another user, who goes by the name ‘Sufiyya’, wrote: “If you’re a Jew, I am not going to publish this.
I can’t stand your racist propaganda.
We’re all equal.
It is your responsibility to write what you want to.””
This is what the Jewish State wants you to be afraid of,” she added.
But the response was overwhelmingly negative on social platforms.
“That’s the problem with Facebook: You cannot control people’s actions,” wrote one user.
“There are millions of Jewish people around the world.
I believe you have to be willing to publish what you feel.”
But others on Facebook said they were not bothered by the article’s content.
“If people want to debate whether or not I think the article is racist, I’m fine with that,” wrote a user who goes as “Sarai”.
“It’s a very simple and clear-cut debate,” she wrote.
“Are we going to ban ‘Palestine’?
Are we going as far as we want to ban it?
Is there going to be boycotts of certain companies and brands?
That’s the simple and obvious question.
I think most people would