[jrapdx3]

IMO this comment exemplifies a fairly common logical/factual error, and is therefore misleading.

While the enterprises named were founded or headed by individuals with Jewish ancestry, there is not much else of significance being said. The statement implies that "Jewish control" is a meaningful idea, but it is not.

First of all, Jews are a very heterogeneous group and vary considerably ethnically, religiously and politically. There is absolutely no central Jewish "authority", and Jews hold very diverse views on all topics. Secondly, imagining there's communication among the 5/7 CEO's to coordinate their corporate policies on the basis of any "Jewish agenda" is in tinfoil territory, and absurd in the extreme. Finally if the commenter is implying there's some kind of built-in, genetic "Jewish worldview" that predisposes to disfavored corporate policies, that's obviously fallacious.

The motivation for making such assertions is unclear, indeed what the writer hoped to communicate is equally foggy. However, the comment emits an aura of antisemitism, as if attempting to attribute undesirable corporate behavior to the mere fact of CEO's presumed Jewish origins. I believe that represents troublesome prejudice that needs to be discouraged.

[Animats]

There's a central "support Israel" authority in the US - AIPAC.

It's Randi Zuckerberg, Mark's sister, who's the "super Jew" (her words). [1] She organizes trips to Israel for tech executives and supports AIPAC. She heads Zuckerberg Media.

The Facebook censorship seems to be a response to pressure from Israel.[1]

[1] [http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/randi_zuckerb...]

[2] http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...

[CommanderData]

Interesting. But how does it mean Facebook will align itself to Israels interests? Just because Zuckerberg's sister supports AIPAC doesn't mean Facebook is.

While a relationship between Facebook and Israel seems strong. How does it affect posts that are critical to Israeli policy? For example, if I post something that highlights activity that is illegal according to the UN how is Facebook to justify the removal of that post?

[jrapdx3]

AIPAC is a lobbying organization with ~100K members, which may include non-Jews therefore supported by <5% of American Jews. AIPAC is hardly a "Jewish authority" in the same sense the Pope is for Catholics.

Facebook's interests in Israel are independent of religious considerations, that is, if FB wants to do business there, it needs to be responsive to government requirements. I assume that applies to any similar business operating in that environment ownership notwithstanding.

I imagine Randi Zuckerberg's attachment to Israel might increase FB's desire to be in that market, but that's a side issue. I can't see how that affects the business relationship with the government at all. Seems quite clear the government's priority is security, religion or censorship are not the motivation for the actions taken.