> Public opinion is a strategic asset. Imagine if the electorate of their arms dealer turned against them.

I'm not saying there aren't other possible motivations. Indeed, i'm sure Israel would love all its PR problems to go away.

My point is, that if we assume for the sake of argument that Israel isn't doing anything sketchy, i would still expect the stuff in the article to be true. Therefor it is very bad evidence of Israel doing sketchy stuff, since the article contents would probably be true either way. My argument is not that Israel is pure of heart or anything, only that we should judge based on publicly available evidence, and the evidence in this article is extremely weak.

Presumably, every country in the world can ask US companies nicely to imprint their foreign policy on domestic moderation. Even I could ask; but why would Meta agree to do it?

Presumably because violent content really does decrease the value of their site, and meta is in this to make $$$. Broadly speaking people don't like content inciting violence, and will go elsewhere if there is too much of it. Just look at what happened to twitter.

>of 1,050 posts HRW documented as taken-down or suppressed on Facebook or Instagram, 1,049 involved peaceful content

The issue is that we are not talking about posts which would normally be taken down by Facebook.

Israel has an extensive defense industry, in some sense it has absorbed most of that country's economy. The role of the US is as a guarantor against the rest of the world.