Anti-Israel Activism Criminalized in the Land of Charlie Hebdo and “Free Speech”
Where are all the newfound free speech activists who insisted that a defense of free expression was so vital to all that is good and just in the Western world? Why isn’t the #JeSuisBDS hashtag trending in defense of these activists who have been persecuted — prosecuted — by France for their political views?
The post-Charlie Hebdo “free speech” march in Paris was a fraud for multiple reasons, as I wrote at the time. It was led by dozens of world leaders, many of whom imprison or even kill people for expressing prohibited views. It was cheered by many Westerners who feign upset only when free speech abridgments are perpetrated by Muslims, but not — as is far more common — by their own governments against Muslims.
Worst of all, the march took place in a country that is one of the most hostile to free speech rights in the West, as France quickly demonstrated in the days after the march by rounding up and prosecuting Muslims and other anti-Israel activists for the political views they expressed. A great, best-selling book by French philosopher Emmanuel Todd released this year argues that these “free speech” marches were a “sham,” driven by many political sentiments — nativism, nationalism, anti-Muslim bigotry — that had nothing to do with free speech.
The absurdity of France’s celebrating itself for free expression was vividly highlighted by this week’s decision from that nation’s highest court, one that is a direct assault on basic free speech rights. The French high court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 political activists for the “crime” of advocating sanctions and a boycott against Israel as a means of ending the decadeslong military occupation of Palestine. What did these French criminals do? This:
The individuals arrived at the supermarket wearing shirts emblazoned with the words: “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” They also handed out fliers that said that “buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza.”
An Egyptian wears a T-shirt with a logo of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions), a campaign started by Palestinian activists to boycott Israel and Israeli-made goods, April 20, 2015.
Photo: Amr Nabil/AP
The French court ruling is part of a worldwide trend. As more and more people around the world recognize the criminal and brutal nature of the Israeli government, its loyalists have been increasingly trying literally to criminalize activism against the Israeli occupation. For that reason, “pro-Israel” activists this week celebrated this French assault on basic free speech rights.
Pascal Markowicz, chief lawyer of the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jewish communities, published this celebratory decree (emphasis in original): “BDS is ILLEGAL in France.” Statements advocating a boycott or sanctions, he added, “are completely illegal. If [BDS activists] say their freedom of expression has been violated, now France’s highest legal instance ruled otherwise.”
Joel Rubinfeld, co-chair of the European Jewish Parliament and president of the Belgian League Against Anti-Semitism, told Haaretz last February that he wanted other countries to follow the French model of criminalizing anti-Israeli-occupation activism. After a French lower court convicted the BDS activists, Rubinfeld gushed: “The French government and judiciary’s determination in fighting discrimination, and the Lellouche law especially, are exemplary for Belgium and other nations where discriminatory BDS is happening.”
As Haaretz detailed in that February article, the “Lellouche law” held up by Rubinfeld is “named for the Jewish parliamentarian [in France] who introduced it in 2003,” and “the law is among the world’s most potent legislative tools to fight the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, and has catapulted France to the forefront of efforts to counter the movement through legal means.” Prior to this latest criminal case, there have been “approximately 20 anti-Israel activists who have been convicted under France’s so-called Lellouche law.”
The odious campaign to outlaw activism against the Israeli occupation extends well beyond France. In May, CBC reported that Canadian officials threatened to prosecute BDS activists there under “hate speech” laws, and after those officials denied doing so, we obtained and published the emails proving they did just that. The February Haaretz article described this troubling event in the U.K.: “In 2007, the British University and College Union said it would drop plans to boycott Israeli institutions after legal advisers said doing so would violate anti-discrimination laws.” In 2013, New York City officials joined an (ultimately failed) Alan Dershowitz-led campaign to threaten the funding of Brooklyn College for the crime of hosting pro-BDS speakers.
Indeed, an outstanding Washington Post op-ed this week by a former IDF soldier, Assaf Gavron, documents how such attacks on Israel critics now extend to Israeli citizens themselves. Gavron describes how “the internal discussion in Israel is more militant, threatening and intolerant than it has ever been,” and “those few dissenters who attempt to contradict it — to ask questions, to protest, to represent a different color from this artificial consensus — are ridiculed and patronized at best, threatened, vilified and physically attacked at worst.”
Israel defenders love to equate “criticism of Israel” with “anti-Semitism” and then sanctimoniously deny that anyone does that. But criminalizing BDS advocacy — threatening people with large fines and prison terms for protesting the polices of the Israel government — is as clear of a case as it gets. As Haaretz put it, “The dragnet has also swept up BDS protesters whose actions have targeted Israel, not Jews.”
Ponder how pernicious this is. It is perfectly legal to advocate sanctions against Iran, or Russia, or Sudan, or virtually any other country. Indeed, sanctions and boycotts against those countries are not only frequently advocated in the West but are official policy. But it is illegal — criminal — to advocate boycotts and sanctions against one country: Israel. It requires sky-high levels of authoritarianism, even fascism, to abuse the criminal law to outlaw advocacy of policies and activism when it involves one country, and one country only. In response to the celebrations over this ruling from one popular-on-Twitter Israeli extremist, Avi Mayer, I repeatedly asked this question but never received an answer:
@AviMayer You believe the law should allow a person to advocate boycott/sanctions for Iran & Russia, but make it illegal for Israel?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 26, 2015
@AviMayer Why can't you answer what I asked? Should it be legal to advocate boycott/sanctions for Iran & Russia but not Israel?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 26, 2015
@AviMayer 1) Should it be legal for me to advocate a boycott or sanctions on Israel? 2) Legal to do so for Iran and/or Russia? Answer that.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 26, 2015
It should go without saying that one’s opinions on the desirability or validity of BDS as a policy are totally irrelevant to this discussion. It’s self-evident that a belief in “free speech” compels one to defend with equal vigor the right to express views with which one agrees and those with which one vehemently disagrees. The issue here, obviously, is not whether BDS is a persuasive policy but whether people should be criminalized for advocating it. As extremist and oppressive as it is, the criminalization of BDS activism is increasing in multiple places around the world.
Where are all the newfound free speech activists who insisted after the Charlie Hebdo murders that a defense of free expression was so vital to all that is good and just in the Western world? Why isn’t the #JeSuisBDS hashtag trending in defense of these activists who have been persecuted — prosecuted — by France for their political views? The answer is clear: Many who reveled in wrapping themselves in the “free speech” banner earlier this year — beginning with France itself and extending throughout the West — have no genuine belief in that right. That’s why these countries not only stand silent in the face of such a fundamental assault on free speech, but aggressively perpetrate those abuses.
Congratulation Glenn Greenwald!
jews4rael.org
I have this saying of sorts about Germany and the wider world post-WW2, in that: Where does everyone think all those fascists went?
And I say they went NOWHERE, they are still here.
And people look at me like I am some sort of crazy man, like I see fascist everywhere, in the closets and under the beds. And I do, but they are not hallucinations or a rampaging attack of my neurosyphilis, no.
Because they are missing the point. The point I mean is that the fascist mindset is in everyone, everywhere. Black, white, yellow, red, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist.
It is in elitism, ethnocentric racism, nationalism, prejudices and phobias, fears and warmongering, in thinking your way of doing things are better than others and that your needs are more important. That your morals are stronger and your motives more righteous.
That’s why I hate Sam Harris – and I am a total atheist and think Islam is totally wrong – there is no God and definitely no Heaven or Hell. I’ve died. I know.
I like the Germans I meet, I think they are among the freshest and most honest and friendly people around. But, like many people, they are still a bit superior and look down on certain peoples, but no worse than Brits.
And certainly not as bad as the French, the Americans, the Israelis, the Australians, and the Saudi Arabians. Those peoples tend to be, I think, the most arrogant, fascist, pompous and imperialistic peoples I have met.
Welcome to the jolly face of the 21st Century. It’s gonna be fun!
It is time to stop it all, people, we are accelerating towards another hateful war with our chests puffed up and our heads so full of shit it is unbelievable.
I just spent 4 years reading about the world and looking at it on Google Earth because I was too ill to do anything else. It is a real eye-opener – all the photos people take of sunsets, all the things they think are worth capturing near their homes and on their holidays. All the facts and stories they tell in all their different languages.
Go read and look at them like I did and learn. Before you go and kill them and exploit them and destroy it all.
Some of the most beautiful pictures and sweetest thoughts are from the people who’ve posted on Google Earth in Iran.
Go look at the place on Google Earth and see the pictures in Panoramio before America bombs it into the Stone Age.
It is not evil, it isn’t even unpleasant. But the liars who tell you it is ARE.
Very well written as always, Glenn. No one could have said it better.
How someone can see hate speech in BDS advocacy and not see it in the Charlie Hebdo magazine is incomprehensible. Maybe now Charlie Hebdo needs to do a pro-BDS issue complete with the stereotypical hook-nosed Jew for effect to show the hypocrisy for what it is.
I feel the world owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Glenn Greenwald, and Wikileaks – but there needs to be a resolute policy of building bridges of support around to the world to finally enforce the 1948 convention on genocide. BDS is counter productive to this purpose. It is by definition divisive, and a far more facilitative approach needs to be started between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. There needs to be a bringing together – not trying to find ways of undermining the history of Israel – this is in no way conducive to better relations. The PA and Israel would be well served by becoming leading national participants in building the World Movement for the Culture of Peace for the Children of the World – which is the 80+ million signatory base of the Manifesto 2000 Six Principles for the building of a culture of peace and non-violence. cpnn-world.org
There needs to be a bringing together – not trying to find ways of undermining the history of Israelthe history of Israel involves Israelis pointing a gun barrel at all of her neighbors since her inception. Israelis were stringing up British soldiers in 1946. that is the same British soldiers who liberated many camps just one year prior.
Israel is not a friend of anyone. such xenophobic behavior will only bring more hatred for Israel. BDS is the only solution.
We must remember that although Netanyahu recently took the blame for the Holocaust off of Hitler so he could place it on the shoulders of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Stern Gang which included many of the beloved founders of Israel offered to form an alliance with Hitler against the British.
The first thing one must remember is that Israel was born as a result of ethnic cleansing and massacres of indigenous Arabs. For years people believed the Israeli myths that Arabs were told by their leaders to evacuate the area but recently a few honest Israeli historians from both sides of the political spectrum told the world the truth: The Nakba was real and it was planned ethnic cleansing and massacres. Benny Morris, a committed zionist who says it was bad but necessary while Schlomo Sand rejects the zionist defense and calls the actions war crimes.
Perhaps you have been sleeping for the past decade or two, but the Palestinian Authority has bent over backwards to accommodate Israel, only to see more settlements on Palestinian lands, more confiscations of houses and land and evermore demands. The prior demand was that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist,” but it has now been amended to “right to exist as a Jewish state.” This demand is demographically ridiculous. If more Jews live in Israel it will be “Jewish” but if the population shifts and there are more Christians & Muslims, how could Israel remain a “Jewish state?” Israel will be whatever type of state its demographics and politics lead it to be. The threat of recognizing Israel’s “Jewishness” is that such would justify even more discriminatory actions than now exist to maintain it.
Under previous agreements, Israel agreed to withdraw from, I believe, 90% of Palestine, then it reneged. Without outside pressure, Israel is determined to maintain the occupation until the end times.
Because substantive political pressure from the U.S. to force Israel to withdraw is not possible, it is necessary for grassroots efforts like BDS. Saying BDS is hate speech besmirches the legacies of MLK, Rosa Parks, John Lewis and all the other heroes of the civil rights movement who used boycotts, divestment, sanctions and protests to force change that would not have come but for those actions. My eyes tear up when I see Rep. Lewis and realize how much courage it took for him to risk his life and suffer assaults to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the rights that were once reserved for whites only.
Atrocities similar to the devaluing of life and human worth that took place in Mississippi 50 years ago happen every day in Palestine. White Mississippians didn’t give up the stranglehold they had on power without outside pressure and Israel won’t either.
The ruling party Likud’s is commitment to never allow establishment of Palestinian state in the West Bank & Gaza is the centerpiece of its platform. Netanyahu has repeatedly said he will never allow a Palestinian state, and Israel’s Justice Minister has called for extermination of little Arab snakes and their mothers.
In summary, no matter how hard Palestinians want an end to the occupation and are willing to submit to degrading concessions to achieve it, Israel will not end the occupation or continued settlement building, land confiscations, collective punishments and other war crimes until they see no other alternative.
South Africa, Rhodesia and many other apartheid and discriminatory regimes eventually dismantled their policies, and Israel will too. And just like most of those other regimes, the effective push for change will come from without rather than within.
I (half) come from Galicia-Halych in eastern Poland, western Ukraine. I don’t know if I am Jewish or not – my grandfather gave my mother a Jewish name and he never hung out with Catholic Poles, but he never said either way.
Halych used to be the biggest community of Jews in the WORLD until Uncles Joe and Adolf murdered them ALL, excpet a few that escape along with my grandpa.
The Jews of Israel are not the same as these people, partly because those people were poverty-stricken and undefended by America and had no nuclear weapons, but mostly because they are all DEAD.
There needs to a Peoples’ Charter and we need to kick out our elitist, imperialistic woudl-be masters once and for all.
We are their ultimate target once foreign scapegoats are all consumed. It is a power elite that wants us to work and generate wealth for them. It is an insane and unsustainable model fantasised by Eton schoolboys and Havard graduates and practiced on the military training fields and perfected in third-world bombed out hell holes.
We need to piss on it from a great height and bring to heel those who expound it and give us its name to go overseas and wage war and forment trouble everywhere.
You know what this means, everybody–BDS harder (and BDS France).
In France, High Court Confirms: Promoting Boycott Against Israel is Illegal ‘Inciting to Hate’
France’s Supreme Court has confirmed a ruling that promoting a boycott against Israel is tantamount to ”inciting hate or discrimination,” upholding the convictions and fines on twelve anti-Israel activists. In 2009 and 2010, the twelve activists from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) attempted to boycott Israeli products in Carrefour supermarkets, one in 2009 and one in 2010. The boycotters were wearing shirts with the slogan “Long Live Palestine, Boycott Israel,” handed out pamphlets stating that the sale of Israeli goods supports “war crimes” in Gaza, and yelled slogans such as, “Israel assassinates, Carrefour is complicit.”
Maher did open with one of the better Halloween costume jokes of the season, “Got myself a handful of Xanax, you can either take them and go as Ben Carson or put them in someone’s drink and go as Bill Cosby.”
had to clean my desk after reading that.
Glenn gets many things right, but also many things wrong. In my eyes it’s absurd to accuse people of hypocrisy because they don’t hashtag JesuisBDS. The fact of hitting the street one day does not oblige oneself to hit the street every day that follows to denounce other things. And there is a difference between a court ruling that imposes a minor fine and a killing spree. The more so since the BDS activists still have a judicial venue: the European Court of Justice.
France’s constitutional court in its ruling regresses to the bad old days of politicized justice. In France the independence of the judiciary was always much weaker than in the US or the UK; but there has been progress, as Chirac’s condemnation showed. But in this case the judiciary seems to have bowed to the wishes of the executive branch, personified by Manuel Valls. The latter, following the Charlie Hebdo shootings, tried to reassure the French Jewish community in exactly the wrong way: not by making a clear distinction between them and Israel, but on the contrary by blurring the line… and prosecuting those who criticize Israel in the name of the fight against antisemitism. But then, what else to expect from a guy who bandies the word “republican values” while continuing and amplifying Sarkozy’s stigmatization of the Roma.
That being said, I don’t see anyone being intimidated by this ruling. Activists will boycot and promote boycotting anyway. But most people in France don’t care one way or another.
Emmanuel Todd is one of the few French intellectuals who deserve the title, but his book has it all wrong. And I don’t say that only because he wasn’t in the marches after Charlie, and I was. His book is based on a dubious theory: that demonstrations in areas where the Front National is strong will necessarily be xenophobic. In my eyes it’s the other way round. If one were to apply Todd’s reasoning to the US, one would reach the conclusion that the demonstrations in Ferguson must have been racist. Because there is more racism in Ferguson than in Vermont, and people in Vermont didn’t demonstrate. Todd overlooks the fact that people demonstrate precisely because they feel concerned. In any case in the marches I was in the FN was not welcome, there was no anti-immigrant language whatsoever, and I recognized many people I had seen 13 years earlier, namely in the marches protesting the Front National’s ascension to the second round of the presidential election.
The problem with Todd’s book is that he didn’t meet the people who marched; he just looked at a political map and drew a theoretical conclusion.
The fact that world leaders marched in one of the Charlie demonstrations does not in any way reflect on the marchers. The first demonstrations were entirely spontaneous. The one in Paris was just the finale. The idea that the demonstrators were marching in support of Netanyahu and the other human rights abusers who invited themselves to the party is ridiculous.
The most important issue that mention of Charlie Hebdo brings into the argument is that the magazine made its name with highly offensive hate speech. Now it is held up as a benchmark of free speech when in reality it is the print version of yelling “nigger” on a crowded street.
Under American constitutional law there is no hate speech acceptation. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) the Supreme court ruled that singling out bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech otherwise fits within a First Amendment exception. It is currently inconceivable that an anti-BDS law similar to France’s could withstand a constitutional test in the U.S.
France is currently a ‘through the looking glass’ place. French Jewish Defense League thugs can openly attack journalists for writing mean things about Israel, but BDS’s non-violent methods are prosecuted as hate-crimes.
Glenn beat me to the punch: When are we going to see France start indicting people (French or foreign) who have in France advocated boycotting and sanctioning Russia?
Note to France’s global capitalists: Why not use the Lellouche law to target TTIP opponents? After all, the initiative comes from the US, and opposing it clearly evinces hatred of Americans by reason of their nationality, right? Hey, and it could come in handy for taking down opponents of GMOs. Most GMOs come from the US and Switzerland, right? And it’s important to nip hatred of American and Swiss nationals in the bud, right? What a great tool in the global capitalist’s arsenal! Opposing a foreign country’s social, economic, or political policies = fomenting hatred of that country’s nationals (or of their ethnicity or religion)! If the French judiciary were truly independent of the executive, someone would need to check the judges who decided this case for lobotomy scars, or at least check their financials.
I am French and very embarrassed with the whole French take and hypocrisy . I say ‘Long live Palestine, boycott Israel’ and i say it loud!
You say it because you are ignorant of the history and perpetuation of antisemitism by Muslims via Islam.
It isn’t Israeli that has refused everything except cease fires for 65 years.
It isn’t Israel that started and lost 4-5 wars.
It isn’t Israel that refused the ’48 Partition that was sanction for the Pals supporting Hitler and the Nazis.
It isn’t Israel that supported Grand Mufti Al Husseini and his effort to build extermination camps in “Palestine” prior to 1943.
It isn’t Israel that worships a creed that promotes antisemitism and death for “Kufirs”.
It’s TRUE that Israel stole Palestinian land, murdered Palestinian women, children, old men and the infirm, brutally suppressed any and all possible freedoms of the population of historic Palestine, stole homes, destroyed homes, schools, critical infrastructure, arrested and tortured untold number of Palestinians, mainly youth that had the balls to throw stones at Israeli tanks, terrorized and false-flagged their way thru 6 decades of illegal occupation and expansionary illegal war.
You idiot Jews that believe that the wind will blow only one way will reap a whirlwind that will choke you and the Devil that protects you one day.
I’am french and i want to say that Glenne Greenwald is completly right!
You have to inform you about wath’s happening to Alain soral (his website)
http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/
And Dieudonné (the greatest humoriste in France)
http://quenelplus.com/
They are persecuted since 10 years in France because they denonce the power of he jewish lobbies in our contry ans his consequences to political issues like foreign policy and freedom of speech.
A good article in english here from Diana Johnstone:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/01/the-bete-noire-of-the-french-establishment/
And this one too: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/20/france-under-the-influence/
Many many thanks to Glenn Greenwald for his couragous work!!!
Nicolas
Nicolas, I rejoin you for big thanks and also congratulations to Glenn Greenwald for his couragous work which depict it is a “free man” which is what we all should be!
Agree with you Nicolas. I moved to Paris a few years ago and was astounded by not only the lack of freedom of speech there, but by open hatred of Muslims. The things I heard and saw people doing to Muslims was absolutely shocking. Muslims are openly discriminated against every day; pig heads are thrown into mosques; Muslim women are harassed for wearing hijab, yet it was the Jewish schools that were given armed guards and Jewish groups going on about the ‘horrible’ anti-Semitism (in all my years there, I never witnessed any of that–and I am Jewish!) Meanwhile, it’s a fact that Jewish people occupy top jobs in Paris in banking, fashion, media, law (including me!), academia and entertainment despite being around 1% of the population. Virtually zero Muslims are in such positions, though they are around 15% of the population….I am considering moving because I cannot stand living in such a racist society.
My friends and I will no longer be buying French produced products of any kind.
Hi Winston,
you’ve got to continiue buying french products because the poeple and the political / Law elite are two very different things, like the american poeple and the white house. It would be better to do something against the elite, not against the producers wo try to fight against our own elite in our country.
Of all the peoples of Europe, the French are still the best at unionising and stuffing one up their political elite on a regular basis.
It is, after all, the country of La Revolution! Go look at the Statue of Liberty and remember your history and how far you have drifted from its ideals.
It’s just astounding to me how Glenn Greenwald operates. He really isn’t interested in dialogue or an open exchange of ideas. I happened to follow his twitter exchange with Avi Mayer and it provides a textbook example of how Glenn will distort facts and misrepresent a story in order to validate some preconceived narrative. In this particular case, Glenn sought to expose Avi’s supposed hypocrisy in an attempt to discredit Avi’s support for the French court’s decision. Glenn has failed miserably. Let me explain
If you visit Avi or Glenn’s twitter page, you will see that Avi did not evade Glenn’s question. The next day Avi responded to Glenn’s question: “Realize I never answered this. Yes and yes, provided you don’t incite legally-defined hate or discrimination – as BDS does”. Now many of you will view Avi’s qualifying statement about hate speech as a cop-out or an outright deflection. It is not. It is a pointed, direct answer to Glenn’s specific question. However, Glenn fails to make any mention of Avi’s reply. In fairness to Glenn, he published his column before Avi replied, yet he has made no effort to update the article. Of course, I do not expect Glenn to update his article because that would run counter to his preferred narrative. Glenn’s representation of his exchange with Avi paints the picture of a slippery Israel propagandist who puts an end to the conversation the moment he is confronted with a tough question. This was not the case. Avi handled himself with class and complete intellectual honesty. The same cannot be said for Glenn.
Now I realize some of you are still holding on to the position that Avi evaded Glenn’s question by inserting that little caveat at the end. He did not. What’s important to understand is that Glenn and Avi have different conceptions of free speech. Glenn Greenwald is a free speech absolutist, while Avi appears to believe there should be restrictions on speech which promote hatred and discrimination. For what it’s worth, I believe Glenn’s position on free speech is the superior one. I’m also a free speech absolutist. However, Glenn’s principal point only holds any water if Avi doesn’t support the criminalization of other discriminatory boycotts. Glenn can provide no evidence that Avi has ever opposed the criminalization of other discriminatory boycotts. Glenn knows this so he pivots and asks Avi why BDS is discriminatory towards Jews/Israelis but sanctions against Russia and Iran are not discriminatory towards Russians and Persians. Admittedly, that is an interesting question, even though the answer seems intuitively obvious. It probably is a question that should undergo further examination, but Avi’s failure to provide an answer does not in any way expose him as a hypocrite. It is not Avi’s job to answer that question. The French judiciary, on the other hand, is in excellent position to arbitrate on what amounts to hate speech. French courts deal with these matters all the time. There is no reason to question its legitimacy or independence. If the claim brought against BDS activists was frivolous, the case would have been thrown out. But it wasn’t. There’s are reasons as to why a French High Court held BDS advocacy to be discriminatory but has yet to extend the stigma to other boycotts. Glenn does not explore this in further detail. I doubt he has actually even read the decision. Instead Glenn chooses to advance his narrative by relying on a series of red herrings, seeking to paint the French High Court’s decision as emblematic of some growing global trend, rather than the product of a fair and reasonable interpretation of French law by experienced and independent French jurists. He cannot impugn the decision itself, so he for some reason he proceeds to mention Canadian politics and the religious affiliation of a French Parliamentarian.
If you go back and review Glenn and Avi’s complete conversation, you’ll see that Avi may not necessarily be celebrating the criminalization of BDS advocacy; rather he may simply be welcoming the identification of BDS advocacy as discriminatory by an authority like the French High Court. This chain of tweets may illustrate my point. In response to the decision, Avis tweets, “a very interesting precedent. A French High Court finds anti-Israel BDS activists guilty of discrimination”. Subsequently, Glenn embeds Avi’s tweet and tweets out the following: “How do you know when one-side is abjectly losing a debate? They start trying to criminalize their critics and opponents”. What is Glenn talking about? There’s nothing in Avi’s tweet that could lead anyone to infer that Avi had some kind of influence on the decision. Avi is simply noting how interesting it is that a legitimate, independent judiciary has reached the conclusion that the BDS advocacy is discriminatory. That is all. Glenn doubles down on the strawman that Avi is seeking to criminalize all advocacy he disagrees with by tweeting the following: “a society which prosecutes those who don’t comply with Avi Mayer’s dictates in how they advocate political ideas is a dark tyranny”. What?? At no point did Avi ever express a desire to impose his own views on the rest of society. All Avi ever did was endorse the findings of a French High Court. The same way any liberal would endorse a finding by a court that bans against gay marriage are discriminatory. Yet that is irrelevant to Glenn. He is a raving narcissist who rushed to print a sloppily written opinion piece because he desperately wanted to brag about his conquest over “a popular-on-Twitter Israeli extremist” to his adoring fans. He smeared Avi, misrepresented his exchange with an Israel advocate, glossed over really salient points and, once again, injected misinformation into public discourse. Weak and lame.
As a “free speech absolutist”, how do you view the court’s decision? How do you view the “incitement to hatred” (not violence) laws that are present in European countries?
On a side note, I rarely see anyone bring up the “incitement to hatred” sorts of laws when people are bashing some University student group for disinviting a speaker [1]. For American commentators who are barely familiar with U.S. law (I say this as an American) and presume that every country except some middle eastern countries have unfettered free speech (barring incitement to violence), this is understandable. For the UK commentators who f’ing know better, like Sargon of Akkad, why do they get away with such omissions? Why aren’t they called out on this sort of sh*t by people who are familiar with these laws?
1. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/26/student-union-blocks-speech-activist-maryam-namazie-warwick
I welcome the findings but I am deeply disturbed by the outcome. Advocacy of any sort should never be criminalized. There is something unsettling about the BDS movement and I’m glad to see they are being called out, but they should be free to advocate anything they like.
Dear god you are a bonehead.
Israel has dug her own grave and the dirt is falling in.
I encourage any and all to pitch a spadeful of earth at the butchers of Palestine.
Which part of “Avi’s qualifying statement ” is a “pointed, direct answer”?
Bwahahahaha!
“Avi is simply noting “. Bullshit. He is playing Hasbara with his claim that Israel is a Jewish state therefore any criticism must be hate speech.
An accurate description of your arguments. Really weak and lame.
What is your name? Why are you anonymous? If your views are correct, why must you conceal your identity? You’re not that important. Nobody cares what you have to say. State your name
Haha, Jonah is destroyed, so he tells him no one cares about him. Classic man-child technique.
The Internet used handles long before dipsh*ts like you started using their real name thinking it adds any substance to their argument. I’m afraid all it does is find what other stupid things you’ve said. But not much else, Padickzky.
my argument is unassailable. Your puns are shitty. Attack my argument. You have nothing
Why do you expect an answer but refuse to answer questions that “attack your argument”?
Your argument is assailed but all you do is act like a bully who is holding his ass in a hat.
We can see what happened. Why do you refuse to acknowledge it?
.
Your arrogance and stupidity are showing.
Which part of “Avi’s qualifying statement ” is a “pointed, direct answer”?
Answer that, my dear hasbarat. You puke all over yourself twice and instead of just disappearing you double-down with some of the stupidest questions I’ve ever seen posted (and that puts you in some sorry-assed company).
Dude, I am truly laughing my ass off.
Is that nerve raw or really, really raw …
You have used text-book hasbara:
Your knickers are a tattered sight for all to see; such is the life of the Hasbarist.
Take your pestilent side-show elsewhere.
The part where he says’Yes’. Also, why are you calling me a “hasbarat”? Where in my message did I defend Israel? The whole point of my message was to illustrate that Glenn misrepresented his exchange with Avi. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Do you believe Glenn honestly depicted his exchange with Avi?
You defend a guy who claims BDS is not a boycott in the real sense because it is rooted in hate for Jews.
The exchange speaks for itself. Avi Mayer gave a qualified answer to a yes/no question. You continue the narrative that BDS is unfairly unique as an attempt to validate the claim Avi gave a direct response.
Yes; again read the exchange – it could not be more clear.
I still laugh at your priceless outburst. If your views are correct … Only a frustrated hasbarat would demand answers to meaningless questions and then spew pathetic insults. Textbook. Jewish. Propaganda.
I’m sure that the owners of the Montgomery bus company considered MLK’s boycott hate-speech because it was against the rightful owners of the South, the whites. South African whites considered the antiapartheid movement hateful against them. There is nothing to distinguish BDS from those earlier movements except that the other groups never experienced the Holocaust, and they weren’t as connected and adept politically as the Israelis are.
“Textbook. Jewish. Propaganda”. Please continue explaining to me why BDS is not uniquely discriminatory.
You are practicing propaganda by asserting the BDS movement is targeting Jews for being Jewish.
You are practicing propaganda by attacking the messenger.
Israel is UNIQUE in practicing apartheid so they are unique in the sense that they are targeted for boycott. THAT is the entire premise of a boycott; pressure upon a perpetrator.
hasbarat.
I have lists! I will report you to the authorities. Jonah, maybe some of us like to keep our online discussions private because many of us have real jobs and real public personas that require anonymity. Don’t like it? Tough. Nener nener.
Je suis un free speech absolutist.
The Craig..
re:
Evening, pops. I delved into the definition in question and found this:
Now, I’m no Vermin Supremo, but wouldn’t the fact the Israeli government is forcing the Palestinians to live separately in the W. Bank (.. sans any ‘Freedom of Movement’) make what they’re doing, similar to this definition?
the dong
A Right Said Fred Production
And in Gaza. The Palestinian refugees have no right of return to their homeland — may not live in Israel proper and become citizens — for only one reason: they are not Jews. #apartheid
Howdy suave Donger
The Jews are (probably) illegally building and living in settlements in the West Bank. The reason many if not most people believe Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank is because the Palestine is a separate (future) “country” which holds elections of their own. Hamas officials were elected in one of those very elections by Palestinians. Jews do not vote in Palestinian elections – and that is why Hamas came to power. Palestinians are separate because they are not Israeli citizens. Since they are not Israeli citizens, they don’t have the same rights as Israelis including Israeli Arabs which do vote in elections, serve in the Knesset, attend the same universities, eat at the same restaurants and are patients in the same hospitals (as well as doctors).
The refugees can return to Gaza any time they want. Do Gazans even want them? There would have been no refugees if the Arabs had not decided to attack the nascent Jewish state. Simple.
Well, no. Ethnically cleansing Palestinians had long been integral to Zionism, and that’s just what the Zionists did:
And now, Zionists maintain an apartheid state; segregating the refugees they ethnically cleansed.
I like how this site has no ads. How does The Intercept intercept money? I give it 12 months.
It is an arm of First Look Media, which in turn is funded by billionaire eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar.
wow.
so many butthurt morons in the comments section, as expected.
Excelente!!!! sempre do lado certo e com bons argumentos :)
The natural born extortionists have the dirty goods on every politician and government employee from dog catcher to Prime Minister.
Why is there anti-Semitism?
http://ihr.org/other/anti-semitism-why-does-it-exist-dec-2013
I clicked on the link, but unfortunately my employer-provided computer informed me that access to “intolerance and hate sites” is blocked. Guess I’ll never know why anti-semitism exists. It’s too bad, too, because I’ve often wondered…
It links to that Holocaust denial, neo-Nazi outfit, the so-called “Institute for Historical Review.”
I visit the “Institute for Historical Review” often. That’s where I found out that all the stories about Hitler were all lies and it was really the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his minions who made the Holocaust. God bless Adolph Hitler for helping Israel’s founders in creating the greatest apartheid state in the history of the world. Paid for by the Likud Party.
Is your inability to even gain access to that site not basically what this entire article is about?
Owen Crump: Tell the Truth. Are there any historical or factual inaccuracies whatsoever on the page you linked?
I checked a few of the quotations and they were correctly attributed. Did I intensively research every assertion in the article? No.
Owen Crump, if you are right about that, then who could object to the factual contents of the page you linked, except maybe someone who hates the truth, or is deeply, deeply afraid of it?
Er, no. The article has nothing to do with private employers, who are, and should be, free to restrict how their computers are used. Indeed, without such restrictions, the global economy would collapse due to lost productivity from porn-surfing.
Very interesting reading Owen Crump.
Elie Wiesel and Abe Foxman feel that antisemitism is irrational and liken it to a disease or virus. Charles Krauthammer calls antisemitism a mystery.
But Theodore Herzl, OTOH, saw it as a logical consequence of the fact that “Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.”
The author, Mark Weber, then goes on to make this controversial claim:
That IHR stuff is a bunch of bait and switch. Sure, the Jews are a group and people resent groups. But they resent all groups – Freemasons, nerds, Vampire Goths, whites, gays, etc. Especially, whenever we perceive that people in a group might be favoring their own in hiring. That isn’t actually because of prejudice or the perception that others are prejudiced at all, but because the entire “labor market” is completely fucked up. I mean, if it were a “market” at all, then any person generally qualified for a job (sensu lato) would expect to get a salary quote when he applies, and then it would be a matter of the company starting low and gradually sending out higher offers to all the applicants until one bites. But instead it’s not really a market but a power ritual meant to elevate social castes and show that those on the bottom are worthless and ought to be ground up for high-end pet food. But I digress.
So, Jews are a community. Big whoop. _Wikipedia_ is a community. Both have their own silly little laws, their own sense of goodness, their own sense of correctness. Should Wikipedia be a separate country?
Censorship is the best thing that could happen to anti-Semites, because censorship and falsehood and ignorance all go together, and when one prospers the others do also.
“Censorship is the best thing that could happen to anti-Semites, …” – Should censorship also happen to racists of all skin colors, misogynists, homophobes, people who don’t like politicians or the police or drug users or prostitutes or the homeless or priests or the Pope or Lutherans or surfers, etc., ? Just askin’.
yes censorship might be appropriate for antisemitism, but censorship is facism when people are merely expressing their views and pointing out truths that need to be told. it is not antisemitism to say that the country of israel is persecuting the palestinian people, its just a fact of modern history.
Thanks so much for standing up for what is right. You’re an American hero.
Sweet Musty Shorts
re:
Statement referenced:
Some of us here in Realityville would contend that the Israeli Government’s allocation of ‘100,000,000 shekels’ to counter the efforts of BDS, to be a legitimate success.
Now, if you have evidence to disprove this conveyed fact, I would humbly request that you do so now.
If not, then I’d politely ask you to chutda..
dong
That is the whole point big dummy!!
If you evaluate BDS success solely on how Israel responds to it while you completely disregard Palestinian lives, then it is legitimate to conclude that BDS goal is to hurt Israel, not to improve Palestinian lives. Palestinians lives got worse, yet you claim BDS is a success. Why? Because success for you is the degree to which you make Israel suffer, not the degree to which you make Palestinians lives better. So, it could be a reasonable argument to describe BDS as an anti Semite organization whose goal is to harm the Jewish state. The more harm they cause to the Jewish state, the more successful they claim to be.
Now feel free to call me a Zionist because I disagree with you.
Of course the point of BDS is to make Israel suffer — until it changes its ways. What do you suppose a boycott is? (Jeez, you’d think someone who gets off on calling people dummies would be a little clearer on basic concepts…)
Because the goal of BDS is to change Israel’s behavior, it is not yet a success. But the concern expressed by the Israelis, who for all their flaws are not dummies, is evidence of progress.
Jeez you’d think someone who wants to lecture others would understand basic concepts!
The ultimate goal of a valid boycott is to improve the lives of the victims. If the lives of the victims got worse, then your boycott is not efficient unless your boycott has nothing to do with those you consider victims. If you claim your boycott is “progressing” or “succeeding” because Israelis are concerned about it while Palestinians lives keep getting worse, then your goal is to hurt the Israelis, not to help the Palestinians. In that case, it is reasonable to state that your boycott is just an anti Semite movement.
I think you have misunderstood the whole point of sanctions and boycott’s. The world boycotting South African products made life difficult for white Afrikaans and continued to make lives of black worse. It did not directly improve the lives of black citizens. What it did was to put enough pressure on the aprathied government to change its behaviour.
This is exactly what is being done by BDS. It just so happens that Israel is Jewish and hence the inaccurate calls of anti semitism.
Going by your logic, the Iranians can also complain of anti Persian discrimination.
Do you think that the Montgomery bus boycott made the lives of black people better in the short run? That was the only means of transpiration for many participants. The goal is always to hurt your target economically. Because boycotts are blunt objects, it is understood that the poorest & weakest will feel the damage the worst, and those people are often the people you want to help. This was true in the Southern U.S., South Africa, Iran, etc.
It’s similar to a labor strike. When workers go on strike, they suffer greatly, but they accept that suffering as the price of better wages & working conditions later. Anti-boycott rhetoric always makes this argument and it is always incorrect.
i was going to point out how foolish your statement is but then i realized you did a fine job all on your own.
I will try to lower my choice of words to fit your below average intellect next time.
Sweet Mastalay; You do not know of what it is you are trying to speak.
Mr. Greenwald misses the point. Countries like Iran, and anti Semites around the world, are furious that holocaust denial is a crime in many countries. Why isn’t it similarly a crime to deny the massacres of the killing fields of Cambodia, or the deaths of the Ukraine Holodomor, or the Armenian genocide? Because nobody ever bothers to do so. And the courts have held , quite correctly, that Holocaust denial is just another anti Semitic hate crime, cloaked in the respectability of historical “research”.
The same applies to BDS. As soon as Mr. Greenwald, and others like him, start boycotting, Russia, China, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Iran, – the list is endless – then he has a point about BDS in Israel Until then, its just anti Semitism trying to cloak itself in respectability.
The only people who are really worried about all this are anti Semites and die hard Israel haters. As for closing down debates there are literally dozens of “open minded” University student organizations who won’t even permit a debate about abortion…to them the matter is closed, and decided. Why doesn’t this bother you in defense of free speech?
Its time to stop playing silly beggars, Mr. Greenwald. Stop being so pompous and self indignant. You don’t walk on any higher moral plane than anyone else.
So the bona fide Semites are angry with the pseudo-Semites.
Can you blame them?
Of course you can.
Indeed. It amazes me that even the application of the term “anti-Semitism” is so blatantly apartheid, it only protects the rights and safety of white people from Europe.
> Why isn’t it similarly a crime to deny the massacres of the killing fields of Cambodia, or the deaths of the Ukraine Holodomor, or the Armenian genocide?
All of those are denied by different groups, especially the Armenian genocide by Turkey and America by proxy. Hell Obama has still yet to acknowledge it after promising to do so because he doesn’t want to hurt relations with Turkey.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/politics/armenia-genocide-obama-broken-promise-jake-tapper/index.html
It is a crime to commemorate the Nakba in Israel. Do you think that that is because the Israelis have respect for the Nakba victims? No. Of course not. It is because Israel will never admit to any wrongdoing crimes against humanity or war crimes whatsoever. The concept of free speech requires that the speech that is most offensive and outrageous must be protected speech. If only acceptable speech were permitted there would be no point in a First Amendment.
I am tired of right-wingers attempting to equate antisemitism with the lefts activism and criticism of the current fascist Israeli government. Hijacking issues that affect the Jewry and twisting them to support right wing ideology is pathetic at best. Offenders should be exposed every time.
What’s really funny about the anti-zionism = anti-Semitism meme is that Jews make up the majority of public critics of Israel in the U.S. The same conservatives calling Israel’s critics anti-Semites will then call critics of Ben Carson, for instance, reverse racists because he doesn’t walk the black line on race issues and he’s criticized for his opinions. So using that logic can we call critics of Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Philip Weiss, et al. reverse anti-Semites?
We are all born Charlie Hebdo but some are more Charlie Hebdo than others.
“The issue here, obviously, is not whether BDS is a persuasive policy but whether people should be criminalized for advocating it.” Greenwald
The issue here, obviously, is not whether NAZISM is a persuasive policy but whether people should be criminalized for advocating it.
The issue here, obviously, is not whether ISIS JIHADISM is a persuasive policy but whether people should be criminalized for advocating it.
The issue here, obviously, is not whether DEFAMING a public figure is a persuasive policy but whether people should be criminalized for advocating it.
Greenwald, if you want no limits on free speech, then I want no limits on the US Second Amendment and drug dealers should demand no limits on the Fourth Amendment.
I don’t think Glenn said he wanted absolutely no limits on free speech, he was pointing out France’s unbelievable hypocrisy. In any case I think promotion of nazism and ISIL style jihad could easily be covered by incitement to commit violence. BDS seems a different case don’t you think?
What about South Africa in the 80s? should people have been prosecuted for suggesting we boycott that apartheid state?
“…….What about South Africa in the 80s? should people have been prosecuted for suggesting we boycott that apartheid state?…..”
Falsely claiming that Israel is comparable to apartheid South Africa. It’s not, and no amount of left wing lies can change that fact.
Israel is apartheid South Africa x 1000. The racist whites of South Africa didn’t treat the black majority anywhere near as brutally as Israel treats Palestinians.
“…….The racist whites of South Africa didn’t treat the black majority anywhere near as brutally as Israel treats Palestinians……”
Even if that were true, that is not what defines apartheid. Read up on the laws enacted in South Africa. Arab Israelis are treated equal under the law in Israel. Of course, I’m not denying that there is racism in Israel. There are racists Jews in Israel as well as racists Arabs in Palestine, but with the exception of laws enacted for immigration and land because Jews are a small minority world-wide, the laws in Israel don’t support apartheid.
That’s just not true. Adalah is an NGO operating within Israel that documents well over 50 laws that explicitly discriminate against non-Jewish Israelis, predominantly discriminating against Arabs and Africans. There’s nothing Democratic about Israel.
The laws in Israel don’t support apartheid? You’re right, for once! The IDF’s laws in Palestine make Israel apartheid. When you extend Israeli civil law to Israeli settlers living in (illegal) West Bank settlements but hold the indigenous Arabic population under MILITARY law, then that is the literal definition of Apartheid.
“…….The IDF’s laws in Palestine make Israel apartheid. When you extend Israeli civil law to Israeli settlers living in (illegal) West Bank settlements but hold the indigenous Arabic population under MILITARY law, then that is the literal definition of Apartheid……”
It’s not. How did Hamas get elected? Their settlements are wrong and probably illegal. In addition, they are preventing the self determination of the Palestinians, but this has nothing to do with apartheid except for political reasons.
No one system of any political arrangement is ever identical to the others. But the African National Congress — which knows apartheid very personally — says apartheid is in place in Israel vis-a-vis Palestinians. For some analysis of this reality, see the Israel entry in this apartheid article.
Mona
You and all of the far left wing anti-Israel posters always throw out the same garbage. The ANC is politically motivated because Israel supported the white South African government. The ANC has no credibility on this issue. You know that but you keep repeating the same argument which does not hold water.
HAHAHAHA. From Craig:
Let’s just let that sit there, shall we? In Craigworld the African fucking National Congress has no credibility as to what constitutes apartheid. Why? Craig says so because the plucky little democracy of Israel did, in fact, support the white apartheid regime in South Africa. It did that, but would not itself implement apartheid — so the ANC is wrong because reasons. I see.
So, comparing a regime that was established by first ethnically cleansing part of a territory, then declaring those cleansed from that part were actually foreign to it, then encouraging those of the ‘right’ ethnicity to move into the cleansed area, with a regime that was established by first ethnically cleansing part of a territory, then declaring those cleansed from that part were actually foreign to it, then encouraging those of the ‘right’ ethnicity to move into the cleansed area and finding equivalencies between them is an outrageous notion, in your opinion. I bet you think that the McDonalds Big Mac, and Burger Kings Whopper are so different that anyone seeing similarities between them is mentally unbalanced.
“…….So, comparing a regime that was established by first ethnically cleansing part of a territory…..”
Your first sentence is false. Israel accepted the proposal by the UN. The Palestinians (and Arab countries) rejected the proposal with violence. Palestinians were ethnically cleansed after Israel declared independence and the Arab armies were threatening to invade. This was a defensive military measure 4-5 months after the UN made the proposal – and 4-5 months after Palestinian and Arab militias began fighting Israel.
“…….I bet you think that the McDonalds Big Mac, and Burger Kings Whopper are so different that anyone seeing similarities between them is mentally unbalanced…..”
The problem that you fail to understand is the political motivation behind calling Israel an apartheid state, or that Zionism equals racism, or Israel is an ethno-supremacist state, or the use of Nazi comparisons to Israel.
That’s hysterical Craig. The UN proposal was an attempt to end the Zionist terrorism in Palestine that had succeeded in making the British want to pull out. Zionist terrorism, Craig. The Zionists got their way through terrorism. Of course the Palestinians didn’t agree to cave into this terrorism and lose half of their land. Who would?
Voted on fair and square just like Pakistan and India at about the same time.
Yes, the UN voted to recommend partitioning Palestine and giving away land that was not their’s to give. Their mediator was assassinated by Zionist terrorists; Zionist terrorists had been assassinating British officials for years, as well as slaughtering Arabs civilians and politically wrong Jews. Britain was therefore abandoning the Mandate — terrorism got the Zionists what they wanted.
Just because a truth is spoken by someone whom you find personally distasteful does NOT make it any less true. Israel IS an apartheid state, Zionism IS racist, and Israel IS an ethno-supremacist state.
You’re correct. Israel is not comparable to South Africa. It is far, far worse.
“I don’t think Glenn said he wanted absolutely no limits on free speech, he was pointing out France’s unbelievable hypocrisy.”
Greenwald has never stated the limits he wants on free speech. He has consistently blames countries such as France, and the UK for punishing those who incite violence although those laws against incitement to violence have been used in France, Germany, UK …to convict those who use anti Muslim rhetoric as well. Of course, he will not bring those cases here because his intent is to bash Israel, the US or other Western countries. He relies on provocative reporting, and lack of context to stay popular among his disciples.
“BDS seems a different case don’t you think?
What about South Africa in the 80s? should people have been prosecuted for suggesting we boycott that apartheid state?”
Make sure you read the case completely before you support Greenwald’s typical distorted reporting. The French Republic does not recognize Israel occupation of Palestinian Territories and French officials even promoted the idea of economic sanctions against the settlement policy of Israel. The BDS activists were punished because they make a distinction on the basis of nationality. Greenwald failed to mention those activists described Israeli producers and distributors as “assassins” linking them directly to the “bullets” used against Palestinians. Targeting individuals because of their ethnicity and nationality has been illegal under French Law for years. Targeting South African, Iranian, North Korean…. products on the basis of the policies of those countries is not illegal in France. BDS has failed to draw the line between targeting Israeli policies (many of which the French government opposes) and targeting Israelis as individuals.
In the U.S. they’re not, and should not be.
In the U.S. they’re not, and should not be.
In the U.S. they’re not, and should not be.
Why, what limits do you endorse?
What’s your point dumb ass? Are you aware that the United States and France are two different countries?
Why do I insist at calling you a dumb ass?
Because in the US defaming a private figure and a PUBLIC figure is a crime.
Since you are always presenting your so called lawyer card, then I dare you to make me look stupid by proving that this statement is false.
Not really. A handful of states have criminal defamation statutes, and those almost never use them.No federal criminal defamation statute exists. Moreover, the minute number of state-level criminal prosecutions virtually never happen with regard to defaming a public figure. (The First Amendment precludes it.)
France has never been good on free speech, and now it is even worse. But what limits on speech do you endorse?
“Not really”
First you stated that was not the case in the US, then now, “not really”. Which one is it? Has courts in the US sent people to jail for defamation? What does the court say about defaming public figure?
Answer those questions to yourself and then please, use your so called lawyer card to make me look stupid. Dumb Ass!!
Did you not read my entire comment? It said: “Moreover, the minute number of state-level criminal prosecutions virtually never happen with regard to defaming a public figure. (The First Amendment precludes it.)” In a very small number of cases, in a few states, criminal defamation charges (misdemeanor) have lain for non-public figures. So, you were simply wrong; even at civil law defamation is more protected when it is leveled at public figures.
No, I’m done with you. You are a waste of time.
Sweety. In the “US defaming a private figure and a PUBLIC figure is [not] a crime” whatsoever. One may bring a civil claim of defamation and for a PUBLIC figure it is nearly impossible to win such a case (see, New York Times v. Sullivan). The only recent case was Jesse Ventura v. Chris Kyle.
There are no criminal laws either federal or state, on the books that outlaw defamation in the United States. ” In the U.S., “[d]efamation is not a crime, but it is a ‘tort.'” http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html So here is my lawyer card, I accepted your dare, I proved that your statement was false. Yes, you look stupid.
First, Second, Fourth Amendments all respected at the same time? That’s radical stuff but I’m OK with it!
BDS is the only nonviolent tactic available to combat the rising fascism and declining democracy within Israel. Avi Mayer proves himself to be a bald-faced liar when he claims it promotes violence. If anything, it provides a path to avoid violence in the wake of Israel’s repression and illegal occupation of the West Bank. The whole point of a boycott–any boycott–is to get the target of the boycott to change its behavior through non-violent means.
And free speech itself provides a safety valve that relieves pressure to commit violence. This was recognized by our Founding Fathers when they passed the First Amendment.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis wrote the following in Whitney v. California:
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”
John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
I am not endorsing violence, and I hope violence does not happen, but if the French find themselves targets of violence at the hands of those who have been silenced in the wake of repression then they have no one but themselves to blame.
The Supreme Court of the US has absolutely no jurisdiction over France. Australia, France, UK, Finland, South Africa, Germany, Chile and many other democratic countries have limits on free speech. Those countries also have strong limits on the rights of citizens to carry weapons as opposed to the US. Not all US laws would be efficient in maintaining order and an acceptable level of fairness when applied in other societies.
Admittedly, I am new to this situation, but my brief understanding is that this group, BDS, is employing the same tactics used by blacks in America against racist businesses, laws and similar tactics that were used against Apartheid by South Africa in the 1980’s.
Not really sure what the fuss is all about. A group promotes a message that aims at a country and its tactics in war and decides to protest those decisions by encouraging others to distance and withdraw investment in those countries.
This is now equated to being virulently racist towards same country? So apparently the 21st century justification for silencing of free speech is to call it racist. Is that right?
I read Feinstein’s attempt to encourage Cal’s university to take stronger stands against Israeli criticism, lest she use her power to impact their funding.
Not publicly of course, a master weasel does their damage behind the seasons so they can lie publicly and say “What Happened?”
Not sure where Israel thinks it is going with this idea, using its ridiculously out-sized influence to start dictating to the world that under no circumstance are Israeli government decisions to be questioned or criticized, no matter how egregious, or you will be jailed under hate crimes laws.
France has a long and terrible anti-Semitic history. Since becoming a secular state, in 1905, largely after public revulsion at the railroading of Alfred Dreyfus. This followed the public exposure of organize Catholic resistance to justice in Dreyfus’ case on the basis of Christian bigotry against a blameless Jewish officer. The resulting hard line of separation of Church and State is the cherished principle of “laïcité.”
Obviously, laïcité was not sufficiently cherished to keep many of the French from jumping into bed with the Vichy fascists, who removed Marianne from every class room wall in France and replaced it with a Madonna; then outlawed both divorce and abortion. The people who did that were considered traitors to France and thousands of them where shot after the war.
Pardon the history lesson, i don’t mean to be condescending but as an American Jew who has lived in France for most of the last 10 years (and on and off long before that), it is imperative for me to do my best to understand French History.
I am also an American Jew with a personal history as a free speech absolutist, to the point that I publicly supported ACLU when they defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie (a community with a large minority or survivors of the camps); in other words, as the price of free speech, I accepted one of the most despicable acts imaginable.
I am studying this issue. I don’t have a final opinion.
I despise government restrictions on free speech, I have resisted them all my life.
But I do not like that fact that this approach attacks “Israel” ( a complex culture with a higher percentage of citizens opposed to Israeli outrages than these anti-Israel activists represent among EU residents).
If it was a boycott targeted at those who profit from the occupation, and not also those who oppose it, I’d be more inclined to accept it.
For what it’s worth, that’s where I am on this…
Thank you Joey, for your measured and thoughtful response. I appreciate that you’re weighing all perspectives here and trying to process the issues, and are not afraid to say you haven’t got it all figured out. It’s courageous to uphold a principal even when the result is something you find distasteful.
I am a Canadian of Lebanese descent who also vehemently opposes restrictions on free speech, and I have been very vocal about my government’s stance on the BDS movement. Our outgoing prime minister, Stephen Harper, last year indicated his intention to use hate crime laws to prosecute those who support and promote BDS – an unacceptable response for those of us who hold fast to our democratically-guaranteed right to conscientious dissent. I am hoping for better things from our prime minister designate, though I am not sure his perspective on Israel will be much different from our last PM.
Another remnant of the outgoing government is a “spy bill” called Bill C-51 which allows governmental bodies from the highest to lowest levels to snoop through your private communications and electronic data, if they believe you are involved in subversive or terrorist activities. I post a lot about Palestine and BDS, so just waiting for the knock on my door some day! Until then (and probably after), I will continue to defend my right to criticize morally objectionable policies.
Losing our democratic rights is a slippery and insidious thing.
“But I do not like that fact that this approach attacks “Israel” ( a complex culture with a higher percentage of citizens opposed to Israeli outrages than these anti-Israel activists represent among EU residents).”
I might agree with you if we were talking about Iran or Saddam’s Iraq, both of which the U.S. & Europe boycotted & sanctioned, because the Iraqi people had no way whatsoever to change their country’s policies and the Iranian people have no way to effect real change even when they do elect moderates as their leaders.
However, the Israeli people hold the reins of change in their hands. All the Israelis need to do is elect a government committed to ending the occupation and settlements. Instead, one government after another has built more and more settlements and made the occupation more unbearable for the Palestinians. Boycotts are most effective when a government is a democracy, so holding the Israeli people’s feet to the fire is completely justified.
Glen is argument is tough, consistent, and persistent. Thank you!
WHAT FAKES THIS FRENCH GOVERMENT. BDS EVERY DAY, ALL DAY.
My first thought on this matter was that a little creativity by BDS activists can effectively make an end-run around this ruling… euphemisms, tweaked logos, satire, etc.
I mean, are there going to be prosecutions for Boring Damn School t-shirts?
(sorry… obviously not in a very creative mood at the moment, but you get the idea)
My second thought was an ever so brief moment of empathy for the Zionists who will now have to allocate funding for French governments that will maintain the legislation and a judiciary to uphold this ruling.
And then I thought about how clever the French Establishment was for developing a donor base using an easily circumvented law that will undoubtedly create a backlash and cause a surge in support for BDS.
And then I thought that maybe they’re just stupid.
And then I got bored and wished Benito would rescue me from the doldrums of undisciplined random thought on serious topics.
Thomas Friedman never fails to be wrong:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/telling-mideast-negotiators-have-a-nice-life.html
Seriously? A one state solution looks like kitchen knives and masked vigilantes? Yes because after desegregation in the US, and after the end of white rule in South Africa…life for whites is nothing but kitchen knives and masked vigilantes???
Friedman is scared of a one state solutions? What does he think America is? Does Friedman look out his window and long for the days of segregation?
Opposition to a one state solution, for bigots, rests on the assumption that ethnic war continues after a political settlement. But it doesn’t. That’s what “political settlement” means.
For the Zionist bigots, no longer being allowed to lord it over the Palestinians isn’t an acceptable settlement.
Maybe Orwell is playing a little joke on the living. This is all consistent with France’s history of being a great champion of speech protection for speech that it likes. In this respect it emulates the great Nazi propagandists. As I think I’ve heard Chomsky say before, it’s an odd way to remember the victims of the greatest mass murderers in history…. by adopting a major principle of their murderers.
JLocke
“Why does this story sound familiar?……”Exclusive: Saudi Arabia Admits Bombing MSF Hospital in Yemen — But Faults MSF”…..”
According to Sam Charles Hamad at the Daily Beast:
“……While today’s left is more than willing to speak about perceived Western crimes, it is all too often caught up in a type of politics that not only makes a virtue out of not condemning crimes committed by powerful non-Western actors, namely Russia, China, and Iran, but that often explicitly or implicitly supports such crimes……There is a gruesomely perfect example of this hypocrisy that has been visible this month…….Since Russia decided to directly intervene on behalf of the Assad regime primarily against not ISIS, as it had stated, but rather the moderate rebel forces that fight both the Assad regime and ISIS, it has carried out no less than four confirmed attacks on medical facilities, while it has also deliberately targeted ambulances. The reaction of the left to Kunduz [US bombing] was one of near apoplectic outrage, but among none of the major organizations or individuals of the left will you find even a quotidian acknowledgement of the continued attacks by Russia on medical facilities in Syria…….the news came through of yet another bombing attack by Russia on a medical facility in Syria. This time it was a field hospital run by the Syrian-American Medical Society in rebel-held Sarmin in northern Syria, a place that has already endured an ungodly barrage of barrel bombs and chemical weapons from the Assad regime. At least 12 people were killed in the attack and, as with many of these attacks on hospitals, it appears to have been a so-called “double tap,” wherein the first responders to the initial bombing are then targeted by a second bombing……This almost sums up how the left and alternative media have reacted not just to the hospital bombings, but the entire Syrian revolution and subsequent civil war. Not with solidarity or any sense of meaningful internationalism towards those facing the combined forces of the Assad regime, Iran, and Russia, but with a deep conservative suspicion, willful ignorance, sudden attacks of apolitical irreverence or, once again, that deafening silence……”
Sound familiar? There is no more of a hypocritical political group than the extreme left. As I have mentioned time and time again, the far left is not driven by humanitarian concerns. Of course, they couch their anti-westernism/anti-Americanism in human rights, but as has been shown time and time again, their selective concern for human rights is strictly politically motivated.
For a really good essay on the foundationss of the radical left, read Jon Schwarz’s important article: “COLUMBUS DAY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DAY OF EVERY YEAR”. If you are interested in understanding what drives the extreme left, this article is as good as it gets.
By the way, you will never read about Russia or Syria bombing hospitals and downing civilian airliners in the Intercept.
For fuck’s sake, the whataboutery never ends with Craig:
Let’s say that that and everything your source said is true (it’s not), how does that redeem the hospital bombings by the U.S. and Syria?
Calling DocHollywood…….
Craig translated: “My comment does not and cannot redeem the hospital bombings by the U.S. and Syria. As usual for me, the whole thing was an exercise in whataboutery.”
You are lying and at the same time changing the subject which indicts you and the Intercept and most of the below the line posters as hypocrites. My comment (nor any comment) in the past has tried to redeem the US hospital bombing. Bet you and the intercept “journalists” had no clue or interest in the Russian hospital bombings. Still don’t I assume.
Craig translated: “Not only do I defend my whataboutery, I’m gonna double down and do it again!”
These radical neolibcons supporting al Qaida “moderate rebels” so soon after 9/11 never cease to amaze.
The tyranny of 1000 years of the Assad regime would not come close to matching the tyrannies the four year US/Saudi regime change effort in Syria has unleashed.
All who believe in justice are still waiting for that apology for the false accusations against Assad for the murder of Hariri too… coincidentally by almost all of the same righteous folks who started the war in Syria and are responsible for all the death, destruction and the refugee crisis.
I can see the pride dripping from your lips while you deny responsibility and provide propagandistic cover spewing falsehoods and trollery about the “left” while ignoring all those on the right and in the center who have seen through the lies as well.
Of course, the extreme neolibcons continue to insist the “most effective rebel fighters in Syria… al Qaida” aren’t being supported by the US or our allies and that they are living off of the bountiful harvests of the desert and whittling their weapons and ammunition out of Lebanese cedars.
It’s almost believable.
“…….All who believe in justice are still waiting for that apology for the false accusations against Assad for the murder of Hariri too… coincidentally by almost all of the same righteous folks who started the war in Syria and are responsible for all the death, destruction and the refugee crisis……”
I refer you to what Mr. Hamad said in my first post above:
“……While today’s left is more than willing to speak about perceived Western crimes, it is all too often caught up in a type of politics that not only makes a virtue out of not condemning crimes committed by powerful non-Western actors, namely Russia, China, and Iran, but that often explicitly or implicitly supports such crimes…..”
Amazingly accurate confirmation of what you said in your reply above. Rrheard called Assad the legitimate ruler of Syria. Thanks for that altohone.
Mr. Hamad’s entire shtick is one extended piece of whataboutery with a dash of glittering generality and no specific examples. Which is why you like it. Unblinkered others do not traffic in fallacies.
Wow.
The painful ignorance you display is shocking.
You seem not to know that false accusations by definition mean that the crime was not committed by Assad.
As others have now been (also likely falsely) accused, the recognition that the accusations were false is simply fact.
Furthermore, the false accusations actually do constitute a crime… a Western one no less.
Your whole comment is therefore a denial of reality to reinforce an ideological fantasy, and you are exposed as either a liar or moron.
Which is it?
Or should I include the possibility it is both?
False attribution of a quote suggests the latter.
Not sure why you are thanking me for exposing you’re failed efforts.
Sheesh. You can’t even keep above and below straight.
neocon + neolib = two burrs on a Zio-jackal’s tail.
Once again Craiggy – drifting off topic, and at the same time, unwittingly proving greenwald’s point.
No problem with JLocke “drifting” off topic, Bif?
The free expression of ideas and opinions is a natural human right. The only people who have anything to fear from an open marketplace of ideas are those who wish to hide the truth and/or propagate lies. This certainly applies to the Zionists, who have successfully constructed a worldwide propaganda (“hasbara”) machine to whitewash Israeli atrocities. In some countries this propaganda is reinforced by law, which should send a clear message as to its ability to stand up to scrutiny.
There is NO right to never be offended. ALL nontrivial speech is capable of offending someone. Any attempt to protect a hypothetical right to never be offended would require the legal prohibition of nearly all speech. But some of us would find that more offensive than anything anyone could say!
When they try to outlaw criticism of Israel or other “hatespeech” in the US — and they will, sooner or later — then some of us won’t comply. I’m prepared to die to defend my rights. We’ll see if anyone is prepared to risk death to take my rights from me.
So, if you’re going to Paris, it’s best to leave the ‘Black Lives Matter’ t-shirts at home – you might get busted as a cop-hater.
This is a brilliant blog post on the debate with Fair. And I was wondering what that jibe against Mehdi Hasan was about. I never heard of Fair before this, I found that she worked(works?) for the RAND corporation, the privatized side of the US government.
Wikipedia – “RAND was created after individuals in the War Department, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and industry therefore began to discuss the need for a private organization to connect military planning with research and development decisions.”
http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-those-pakistanis-learned-to-stop.html
It really is terrific. As I tweeted, Eisler wraps astute analysis in superb wordsmithing.
Just now read it. Wow, that might leave even Christine Fair speechless. No?
Great interview with Larry Lessig on Young Turks, I learned a lot from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jWaya95iZs
Lessig’s a great guy. Good interview.
provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion …
BDS – a hate-driven movement that openly targets Jews and often promotes violence
BDS is being targeted for promoting hate and discrimination
Hang on. Did Avi Mayer ever explain how those things are in any way true of BDS? I must have missed that. Did he just forget? It seems rather important.
– “Hang on. Did Avi Mayer ever explain how those things are in any way true of BDS?”
It looks like Mayer makes a career out of not explaining that.
Avi Mayer on Twitter:
So to Mayer, BDS is racist…at least the same way the South African anti-apartheid movement was racist (as he puts it, it sought to deny whites alone the right to self determination)
But we know that no sensible person would say the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was racist. It was the pro-apartheid supporters that were racist, does that even need to be said? But apparently Mayer thinks that a peaceful democratic movement to pressure an end to apartheid in Israel and the occupied territories is “racist” because it means that by giving all citizens the same rights Jews now enjoy, Jews somehow lose their self determination.
CraigSummers below claims that BDS is a “failing movement.” Craig, of course, is usually divorced from reality and this instance is no exception. First, see my comment here.
Moreover:
The FIFA sanctions proposal will be back. And:
Craig, you best be writing Tel Aviv and tell them to calm down and save their time, energy and money: BDS is failing!
How smart of you to evaluate the success of BDS on the statements of Israeli officials but not on whether Palestinians lives have improved. Why don’t you tell us? Have Palestinian lives improved thanks to BDS? About their human rights? Better?
Dumb Ass!!
Yes, that’s me. You can urge him to ban me now while you are on your knees swallowing whatever he gives you!
Hello lenk. As crude and repulsive as always I see.
Palestinians are delighted the BDS movement is causing such unhappiness for Israel that it must pay attention to the issue. They see it as progress, just as blacks in apartheid-era South Africa were enthused by the spread of “Don’t play Sun City” and sanctions on their oppressor. With that international effort apartheid ended in South Africa; so it also will in Israel.
Crude? Thanks, dumb asses should be addressed crudely.
“Palestinians are delighted”.
Really? You went to the West Bank and Gaza and you saw Palestinians in happiness. What a dumb ass!!
The South African boycott was working because it helped blacks
1) Moved progressively to the world stage to spread their message
2) Pushed the government in passing laws and policies allowing blacks to stop apartheid
That boycott’s clear goal was not to hurt South Africa, but to help the majority. They did not evaluate their success on whether or not the government got upset, but on whether the situation for blacks was progressively improving. Indeed, the life of the majority gradually improved as the boycott intensifies.
What is the goal of your boycott? Whatever it is it is clearly not working for the Palestinians. As opposed to the South Africans, Palestinians lives have gradually worsened.
Yes! Newsweek has got an even better article, – ‘Israel does not illegally occupy “Palestinian land,” ‘
http://europe.newsweek.com/academics-boycotting-israel-are-misguided-335562
So we’ve gone from “the anti-apartheid argument is being made by fake Zionists who don’t really love Israel to….”illegal occupation? What illegal occupation?” impressive.
I do see a recurring theme in these rebuttals, claims that the end of Israeli apartheid will lead to Armageddon. I’m thinking, South Africa still seems to be standing. Maybe it’s because we have more in common with each other than there are differences. South Africans may not all share the same ethnic heritage, or religion, but they still manage to live together without apartheid.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s any solution but for Israel to send all the Palestinians somewhere else. It’s ugly … but we’ve eminent domained whole neighborhoods in Chicago, and that was Americans doing it to each other. Bottom line is that some resolution is needed.
The thing is, to do it successfully, there has to be compensation, there has to be a range of countries for the Palestinians to choose from who will give them equal full citizenship. (I won’t even get into the idea with Isaiah and the Red Sea Dam; it’s an elaboration) The money will come, because the Palestinian neighborhoods are worth a fortune once sold as Israeli real estate. The Palestinians – even the ones displaced out of country since 1947 – should emerge as relatively wealthy citizens of countries better than the PA to live in.
But Israel won’t get there by shelling refugee camps and shooting at farmers because they declared a “buffer zone” over half the Gaza Strip. They won’t get there by their usual extreme excess of force and ballsy insistence that “there was a terrorist on that ambulance”. They need to pursue the current two-state solution fairly enough that the Palestinians themselves get to see it’s never going to work, so that the other thing becomes open for consideration.
– “Honestly, I don’t think there’s any solution but for Israel to send all the Palestinians somewhere else.”
Been there, done that. The apartheid government in South Africa tried the “send them somewhere else” policy:
http://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-6
America also attempted that solution which is both romantic and cowardly. It resulted in the establishment of Liberia, populated by the exportation of American slaves to Africa. Of course, it did not truly address the shamefully unjust situation that slavery had made of America.
Well yeah, but that wasn’t out of South Africa. And it lacks the little details of compensation and citizenship I described. And the opposite strategy is extreme, as in, extremely unsuccessful. I mean, presently the UNRWA has the reputation for trying to keep Palestinians in place in three generations whereas any other UN refugee effort tries to resettle people. No, it’s not pretty, but when was the last time you read about the plight of the East Prussians?
This crypto shtick is nauseating. Own your fascism, bright eyes.
I am still too naive. I was stunned to find this in a US State Department document today. I cut and paste it below.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156684.pdf
What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?
EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:
DEMONIZE ISRAEL:
? Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to
characterize Israel or Israelis
? Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
? Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
? Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or
demanded of any other democratic nation
? Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights
investigations
DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:
? Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying
Israel the right to exist
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Yes, State adopted that from the EU’s working definition of antisemitism, a working definition the EU has since repealed. It’s bullshit.
Ah, normal service has been restored at the WashPost, It’s time to shoot the messenger, Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl don’t “love” israel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/boycotting-israel-would-mean-going-backward/2015/10/27/7b8a35ee-7bf0-11e5-bfb6-65300a5ff562_story.html
So you see, Levitsky and Weyl aren’t real Jews, they don’t love apartheid Israel, and additionally they didn’t make the pro-apartheid assertions this guy wanted mentioned. So there!!!
Mr. Greenwald, a flaw in your argument, from my perspective, is that you take an ideal, that of free expression without limit, and strip it of social and historical contexts as something that should be absolute.
Ideally, one might want free expression to apply in all cases–in the world of particular historical contexts freedom of expression is not absolute.
The context here is the history of Jewish people in Europe, and society in the recently formed state of Isreal.
Context frames this matter–in fact it is a meta-frame, a level that requires analyzing, coming to conclusions.
Without considering the ideal values, through which we define and differentiate, in the larger historical contexts of what “should be” allowed to be expressed, then I argue that the ideal of freedom to express is rendered moot, meaningless.
No jurisprudence is engaged outside of any historical moment and context.
So, I would caution you consider this situation without a priori separation.
Such framing does not lend toward establishing legal precedent that defines boundaries and clarifies the rules of a society.
Beneficial legal rules are developed , ideally, to promote peace among a people.
But divorcing context from your primary argument will not lend toward a stable resolution of contradictory and particular situations that become festering sores.
Addendum and revision of last sentence: “become and maintain as festering sores.”
And, I curious, Esquire Greewald—why would you want to santon Russia and Iran?
I know it would be popular with your boss, Obama’s close buddy, but e tu?
You are a Putin hater too?
I would have guessed as much with your framing of the situation in Syria, and your endorsement of Masha Gessen’s dripping invective and slander toward the people of Donbass fighting fascists funded by the US to bomb Donesk.
Alas,
Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute. I’ll defend Charlie Hebdo, I’ll defend BDS, I’ll defend Dieudonne… it’s all the same thing for me. I can and have argued for legalization of child porn (Not merely to put a terrible and supposedly multibillion dollar black market industry out of business, but in protest against things like the BAE-funded “Internet Watch Foundation”‘s successful scheme that resulted in BAE black boxes monitoring the Internet habits of everyone in Britain). I can and have argued for the end of copyright, and its replacement with a system where people have the choice to direct a percentage of their income tax to funding organizations instead. There may be a lot of fake free speech believers out there but there are some real ones too.
MMMMMMMMMM…huh…. Steve, do you plan on making any substantive point or choose to bombard debate readers with your cut and paste prose for no apparent reason.
Please write back when you are able to articulate a point that has a beginning, middle and end.
Sincerely,
The Management
Your error of analysis is that you fail to recognize that BDS is not advocating violence against Jews as people or even the state of Israel. It seeks non-violent resolution of the conflict and occupation, but even that is hate speech for Israel. Israel has consistently used the never ending rounds of negotiations to expand settlements and take more Palestinian land by building fences, dispossessing inhabitants or annexation. The only thing Israel wants is more conferences as its bulldozers destroy more olive groves and it’s construction crews build more fences. Israel’s goal is to herd all Palestinians into small unsustainable reservations, then let some out so they can work for slave wages with no rights whatsoever.
That my friend is the context that you conveniently avoid.
Speech that seeks a non-violent alternative to the violence perpetrated by the Israeli government and its privileged and protected settlers on the one hand and Palestinian civilians and Hamas on the other should be encouraged, not made a crime.
Why does this story sound familiar?
https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-saudi-arabia-admits-bombing-msf-hospital-in-yemen-but-faults-msf
I shudder to think where America would be in terms of its free speech rights if the anti-federalists hadn’t insisted on including a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Most likely we would be living under the same kind of odious restrictions that characterize other western-European societies.
Thank goodness for Madison and Mason or we’d all be in big trouble.
Islamofacist :
What you become after you read the Koran , especially all those parts about killing the Infidel , and realize you are an Infidel.
Well done Glen. Why is it okay for us to criticize POTUS or for me to criticize my prime minister Stephen Harper but anytime you criticize Israel’s behavior is anti-semitism. I’m not playing your game anymore
Censorship is always wrong, always vague, always abused by those enforcing it for goals that are not the stated goals. And it never works for its stated goals, in part for that reason. France has long allowed more censorship in the area of “preventing hate” than most, and so, it suffers an escalation of hatred. But, BDS could have done better to protect itself and to pursue its best goals. I will not blame them for not doing so, but I regret it.
When people say to boycott Israel, they are buying into the lie that Israel and its crimes are inseparable. They are not. Just as America’s “conservatives” who want to blow up every country on Earth are opposed by more sensible voices, so Israel’s crueler factions face genuine domestic opposition. I would urge people to be aware of http://www.btselem.org/ – B’Tselem is better than most of the critics here at criticizing Israeli policy. Israel had a peace-minded government, until a right-wing assassin won the election. They’re still up to underhanded tactics. Republicans understood that they were inviting Netanyahu to make a political stump speech that Israeli election laws prohibited him from making in order to win his election. It’s a pity none of the liberals get it!
So as much as I want to knee-jerk support BDS … no. It’s making it too easy for those who oppose it, and it’s failing in its job. Don’t tell me to boycott Israel. Tell me to boycott Israeli companies that assist indiscriminate attacks on “buffer zones” with their products, or otherwise have given us a reason to be mad. Lay out a road map by which these companies can end the boycott against them, so that they are actually under pressure as individuals, rather than under some society-wide collective punishment like the Israelis like to do, which is just as ineffective as theirs! This will help you evade the French censorship but more importantly it is just a better way to think about it.
South Africa?
Popular efforts to boycott South Africa may have helped some people in Western countries feel good about themselves … not much else. Bear in mind that the UN declared an arms embargo in 1963, and the ANC and others were very actively fighting for their rights there. If 10% of Americans decided they wouldn’t buy SA products … if they knew they were … what difference does it make? Others would snap up the goods in their place if the price was right. And of course, what difference does it make if you’re boycotting an Israeli bottle of wine while your government is making sure their air force is in tiptop shape? It’s a nonsense! Now in some cases you have to boycott for morality or legality’s sake, like foreign sports teams who couldn’t legally play in a segregated country and wouldn’t accept the reverse under those terms. And I’m not saying that having the whole world tell them they’re wrong didn’t count for something. But it’s not enough.
Hey WNT, I think your post is somewhat reasonable, and maybe I understand where you’re coming from.
But BDS is not going to be successful at implementing sanctions right. And as you say, even boycott may not be completely successful if people who don’t know about it buy the products anyway.
However, just take a look at the stock price of sodastream. That was powerful. Making their product high profile with Johansson, only killed it. Divestments are also being successful. At best, then maybe BDS can raise awareness, and that could put pressure on the political leadership.
What is your alternative to BDS, in the face of daily settlement building and removal of people from their properties? You say that BDS improperly paints Jews in a negative light. I think Israel does a far better job of doing that by calling itself a Jewish State.
@AtheistInChief: You make a good point about sodastream. In particular I looked it up on Wikipedia and found In January 2014 a Paris court ruled that Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS), a group campaigning to remove SodaStream from stores, must compensate SodaStream €6500 because the group falsely claimed the products are sold “illegally and fraudulently” due to their use of the “Made in Israel” label while being partly manufactured in the West Bank.[107] So I guess BDS wouldn’t be all that safe from the censors after all even if they did target specific companies.
Still, I suspect that EU finding that it doesn’t receive trade advantages due to its location in Palestine might have more pull than any BDS protest. Of course, the same politics is involved but that’s not actually part of the boycott. And ultimately, well… I think they’re going to have acceptance issues because of their proprietary model. Everyone expects them to drop the other shoe once enough people have bought into their equipment. There aren’t that many people nowadays naive enough to think that proprietary equipment doesn’t become worthless, so I think they were going to hit a limit anyway.
… oh God, then I remembered iPhones. People who will let some app store decide whether it’s “appropriate” for them to be allowed to access the pressure sensor on their phone to weigh stuff ( https://medium.com/swlh/turning-the-iphone-6s-into-a-digital-scale-f2197dc2b6e7#.i39u0pbdx ). Maybe you should buy stock in Sodastream after all.
I’m not sure you know the sodastream story. I only heard about them because BDS made a big hullabaloo over Scarlet Johanson’s endorsement. The stock fell off a cliff after that (way over 60%) and hasn’t recovered since.
I suppose I shouldn’t dispute your point about sodastream … at some point this was actually what I was proposing, though I’m contrarian enough to end up arguing with myself at times. The thing with sodastream is that it was directly boycotted — not merely because it’s an Israeli company, but because it is situated in Palestine.
Is that what happened? That is not what I remember. I think it had a real impact on SA white’s self perception. I think this is one of few cases where such a thing has worked. I believe that Israel another. Look at how strong the responses from Israelis are, even when there is as yet very little actual effect. It is very much only talk, yet the response is to make intense efforts to make even that talk illegal. I think this has struck an important nerve and has a real chance of achieving change.
This isn’t how political economy works, at all. As Bromley said, to believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles.
Western sanction is a force multiplier. BDS is genuine threat to that sanction. Hence the illiberal criminalization.
“It’s not enough.” A just so argument.
That is unrelated to the point of the article, but it is reasonable to oppose sanctions on principle. They typically affect people who have nothing to do with policy decisions.
Of course, those who are usually OK with sanctions generally cannot advance that argument with a straight face.
This is a lie. Zionism is a colonial project. From its founding.
Westerners have trouble reconciling this reality with their performative value system, so we’re offered revisionist histories to explain away the discord. ie, “the liberal zionist”.
You can say the same and much worse about Andrew Jackson. Does that mean there are no liberals in the U.S.? I don’t imagine Rabin was perfect, but he was good enough to be worth shooting.
The labour conditions by which any product arrives on the market is a material consideration in any purchasing decision, and unrestricted public discourse around this seems entirely necessary and desirable.
However, French custom and law in relation to consumer boycotts is interestingly and longstandingly different, so I’d question whether the court’s decision is evidence for the “worldwide trend” you identify; rather it’s another “exception française.”
The French legal website I consulted stated that the law around “concurrence déloyale” is complex and its effects unpredictable, and that there is a regrettable reliance on precedent rather than legislation in the area.
France has also pursued the questionable path of legislating against the expression of discriminatory ideas themselves (rather than their material effects, such as incitement to violence, or in employment or the provision of services).
I suspect that if the campaigners had restricted themselves to wearing t-shirts and handing out flyers outside the supermarket, and refrained from attaching stickers to Israeli products on the shelves (which would be criminal damage anywhere, no?), we would not be in this sorry pass.
Douglas, you could be valuable as a legal research specialist.
Without too much trouble you located information that points up some important, and nuanced differences than the foundations of jurisprudence that we have been inculcated.
Indeed, if Glenn Greenwald had engaged some due diligence, he would have invested half an hour toward appraising himself of this root information.
He would have spared his readership the faux outrage–this is much different I quality from anger that wells up from knee-jerk click-bait theatrics and hypocritical grandstanding.
But, alas, the majority of the readers he has cultivated would not have been entertained and satiated by more depth in reason and intricacies.
The zombified, low attention, fan-base that attends services at The Intercept appear to sustain their intellect by becoming indignant and shouting treason.
Well, Douglas, good fellow, very edifying contribution.
Now, I am a bit perplexed with the rationale Greenwald engaged to promote santons against Russia and Iran.
Me thinks that our dear esquire has imbibed too much Masha Gessen.
But that’s just me guess’n.
Oh Steven, you are so high brow and esoteric.
Literarily crude as well, taking too many words to say absolutely nothing of substance while simultaneously thinking your awesome with your online internet synonym machine delaying the opportunity to realize earlier in the paragraph that you are an intellectual empty suit.
Belletristic popinjay!
Stevie, baby.
You are accusing Greenwald of not engaging in due-diligence because he didn’t consider other charges, such as criminal trespass or damaging property. Even if the government could have pursued those charges, it does not change the fact that criminally charging someone for advocating a boycott violates the universal concept that free speech rights are not to protect popular speech, but instead it protects the speech others disagree with or even find repugnant. BDS is not incitement for violence, but it is instead an attempt to end the occupation and the war crimes (that are, by definition, violent) without more violence.
Greenwald’s asking Mayer if he supports sanctions (or as you call them “santons”) against Iran & Russia does not in any way suggest that Greenwald has expressed an opinion either way on the correctness of those sanctions.
But don’t mind me, I’m just another one of those “esquires” who consider moral logic and application of broad concepts to specific instances for a living.
Oh my, how drab.
Where did you see that they attached stickers to Israeli products? You realize that there’s a reason they were charged with inciting hate and not criminal trespass, right?
The Israeli government and its Zionist supporters worldwide have conducted a remarkably successful disinformation campaign, that has resulted in acceptance of the proposition that any criticism of any act by that government or its agents, or indeed any criticism of any Jewish person, regardless of the justification therefore, marks the critic as an antisemite. Thus one can never say aloud or in print anything critical of the Netanyahu regime, or even make mention of the fact that the amazing Jewish culture has also produced some quite extraordinary criminals such as Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel or Meyer Lansky. So successful is this program that even the courts accept it without question.
On the other hand, there is nothing any court can do to compel us as individuals from buying Israeli goods or voting for their lackeys (including, by the way, Bernie Sanders).
Oh, and where can I get one of those BDS patches? At http://www.bdsmovement.net?
24b4Jeff
“…….The Israeli government and its Zionist supporters worldwide have conducted a remarkably successful disinformation campaign, that has resulted in acceptance of the proposition that any criticism of any act by that government or its agents, or indeed any criticism of any Jewish person, regardless of the justification therefore, marks the critic as an antisemite…….”
This is a disinformation campaign in its own right – along with Israel is an apartheid state, Zionism is racism and Israel is an ethno-supremacist state. Disinformation, or outright lies are a strategy of the extreme “left”.
CraigSummers Care to qualify your position?
I think disinformation is a technique used by all unscrupulous people pushing a cause, and not more typical of any particular part of the political spectrum. But perhaps you think that statement is itself disinformation.
Currently Israel is a leading user. It no longer enjoys a special status in as many countries as it once did, and what we see is a reaction to that. You can deny it all you want, but that will have no effect in the long run.
“It no longer enjoys a special status in as many countries as it once did…”
Why have they ever deserved “special status”? I am uncertain of any other country on the globe trying to outlaw criticism and dissent of their government’s decisions on a worldwide basis, except for Israel.
And attempting to equate dissent against government policies as hate speech??!!!
But they aren’t asking for anything special classification huh?
One distinction Craig, which I’m sure you’ve ‘calculated’ in the dim recesses of your feeble hypothalamus (i.e. whether you know it, or not.), you know perfe ctly well neither Glenn or anybody here in the bastion of ‘extreme left’ (whatever that is) is going to prosecute or put you in jail for saying so … as tempting as the thought might be.
*it has come to my attention The Intercept is ‘moderating’ comments beyond the limits of Glenn’s old standard of ‘excessive volume’ (which was barely tolerable to me.) … and I don’t care for that neither.
I’m sorry Craig, but I can’t help myself… has your son picked out his Halloween costume yet? Here’s a good one:
http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Soldier-Costume-for-Kids/dp/B00WIR5B84/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
Look at the questions and comments! LOL
I’m just teasing you, if it isn’t obvious :-)
That were funny. Thanks for the laugh.
haha. that was some good reading.
It was mean and I shouldn’t have said it. Craig, I’m sorry and I take it back!
You lie all the time, “Summers”. This thread is full of your hateful fabrications. You are typical of the Israeli propagandists. You all shame humanity.
Desmond Tutu, the ANC, the founder of Black Lives Matter, all hold that Israel is an apartheid state. And Israel is an ethno-religious supremacist state, by definition. That’s what it means by maintaining it’s “Jewish character.” Both demographically (not “too many” non-Jews can be allowed in) and in policy, such as an official religion; Orthodox Judaism is the family law of the state, it’s rabbis paid by the state.
These are facts. Denying them constitutes the disinformation campaign.
It is certainly not anti-semitic to criticize the Israeli government, or to criticize a particular Jew for wrongdoing. Few people, including this Jewish American, will deny that. What troubles me is when people condemn the “Jews” rather than the Israelis for misdeeds in the Middle East. Many, many Jews are disgusted with Netanyahu and his Likud government.
Re your reference to “Israeli occupation”
The following claims are made:
• In 1967 Israel conquered Judea and Samaria and part of Jerusalem from the Kingdom of Jordan, which held legal jurisdiction over the territory.
• This was/and is “Palestinian Arab” territory.
• The Laws of Occupation apply to Israeli presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).
• The settlements are illegal.
Each of these assumptions is incorrect:
Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are part of the area designated by the Mandate for Palestine for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish People only. That status of the land has not changed.
The Mandate – enacted in international law by the League of Nations and assigned to Great Britain – was preceded by the San Remo Conference’s resolutions.
Article 80 of the UN charter, 1945, assured that the rights inherent in the Mandate were not abrogated or altered because of the demise of the League of Nations and its succession by the UN.
Contrary to popular opinion, there was no legal decision made in 1947 to ‘partition’ the land called Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. There was merely a recommendation by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 181). The Arabs refused to accept this and Judea and Samaria then remained, without change, part of the territory that the Mandate for Palestine had established for a Jewish homeland.
Jordan’s entry into Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948 as part of an offensive military action was illegal. Jordan’s annexation of this land was in contravention of international law.
Israel took this land (back) from Jordan in 1967 during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal. The areas that Israel took control of during the Six Day War in 1967 were not part of any other legal sovereignty. They were stateless areas that had in any case been designated for the Jewish People by the Mandate for Palestine.
The Laws of Occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken from another state. Since Israel did not take land from a sovereign state, the laws do not apply to Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. The injunctions and restrictions that lawfully might be placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem.
The claim that Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is frequently used to bolster the argument that Israel is an occupier. However, there is a very solid body of legal opinion – including that of the International Red Cross – that concludes that the Convention was drafted to address situations of coercive transfer of population, such as that practiced by the Nazis. This is not remotely connected to Israel’s settlement policy.
The charge is made frequently that Israel must “return” to its legitimate “pre-1967 border.” The line – often called the Green Line – was not a border, however: It was an armistice line. The 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan defined this ceasefire line as temporary, saying that a final border would be established via negotiations. Those negotiations were never held.
Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, did not require Israel to return behind the Green Line, but instead recognized Israel’s need for secure borders. No pullback by Israel was called for until after negotiations had determined the final border. Those negotiations, which would have been with Jordan, were never held. (Note: Jordan officially relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988.)
There was no mention of a “Palestinian People” or a “Palestinian State” in Resolution 242. There has never been a Palestinian State and Judea and Samaria in no sense belong to the Palestinian Arabs.
The claim that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to a state is purely a political and not a legal argument.
Therefore:
The settlements are not illegal.
Israel is not an occupier in Judea-Samaria or Jerusalem.
It sounds like you are advocating a one state solution. However, claiming Judea-Samaria means accepting the people currently living there as full citizens. But that would irrevocably alter the Jewish nature of Israel. So your proposal is anti-Semitic and therefore probably illegal under French law. You are fortunate if you live in a country where such statements are legal.
Interesting comment there Brother I notice you don’t provide any links for your assertions ……
Here’s a link to 242 from um …… the UN’s website
http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/gapal1067.doc.htm
Doesn’t really marry up with your interpretation of 242 …
No, that is a link to a 2007 statement on the 40th anniversary of 242. Not the same thing at all.
But you not need the resolution to notice that someone who justifies the treatment of people on the basis of a claim that the group they say to belong to does not exist cannot really make a real case for much of anything.
Has the resolution at the bottom …….;)
For anyone interested this is an excellent 4 part doco on Israel/Palestine …
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/05/20135612348774619.html
So it does. Let’s give Ron a chance to look at it and further comment by quoting it here:
If Israel is not an occupier of the lands known to the world as the “occupied territories,” then what is it, exactly? What is its position relative to the Arab people who live on those lands? I think the answer rhymes with “depart tide.” What do you think?
The argument proffered above by Mr. Barak seems to be the latest attempt at massaging the messaging:
http://europe.newsweek.com/academics-boycotting-israel-are-misguided-335562
Just ran across this article via twitter. The language is slightly different, but the content was close enough to make me wonder why Mr. Barak chose not to cite it as his source. Or, perhaps, Mr. Barak and Mr. Navon have a source in common.
The thing Ron Barak and all the other war crime apologists want to ignore is that regardless of Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank, the prior existence or non-existence of a Palestinian people, etc., the Palestinians are real living, breathing and bleeding people who were ethnically cleansed from Israel proper, had their property stolen from them and have the universal right to self-determination over their homeland. If Israel wants to annex the whole area and declare them Israeli citizens, let it proceed, but if Israel doesn’t want the Palestinians to be citizens, let it end the occupation. The people and the land go together as one package. The apartheid system of one set of roads, laws & judicial system for Israeli citizens & another for Palestinians is an unjust system that all Israelis know in their souls is wrong.
You’ll never see this happening to anti-white activists like Barbara Spectre. You’ll never see this happening to anti-asian activists. You’ll ONLY ever see this happen when someone’s talking about Jews.
Hitler, come back, we need you.
Palestinians are Islamofascists, the same as all other mind twisted Radical Islam followers. BDS is the Islamofascistic movement. The only people without the understanding of history and the realization what exactly Fascism is could support BDS. Of course, if they are not Muslims themselves. So, if you are not a Muslim, you are seriously confused.
What about the Christian Palestinians? Are they Islamofascists also? I also suggest having a bit of a read on what fascism is, because it apparently doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Of course sensible, sane, reasonable supporters of Israel will comment soon in order to disassociate themselves from this racist hateful nonsense from TT, and to state that it is harmful to the case they want to make in their legitimate opposition to the goals loosely lumped under the term BDS. No?
Do sensible, sane, reasonable people who read this page (assuming that such people indeed read this page) have an obligation to disassociate themselves from racist hateful nonsense? I’ve seen any number of blatantly anti-semitic statements made here, with few if any people taking the trouble to criticize or repudiate them. Mona does, but most others choose to let the hateful nonsense stand unchallenged. Should I draw any conclusions from that?
hateful nonsense about race? That the Jews are a race unto themselves is the definition of hateful nonsense and little different from the Aryan blue eyes/blond hair model. Your claim of being different from Christians and Muslims is ludicrous; racist even.
You really need to sharpen your pencil before you draw any conclusions.
Gator,
Almost every one of my comments here has been to try and distinguish between the nation of Israel and the Jewish people as an ethnic group. My problem with what Israel is doing to the Palestinians has nothing to do with how I feel about the Jewish people in general. I don’t hate any Jewish person, and I have no problem with Jewish people who aren’t involved in directing the nation of Israel.
If I don’t hate Jews in general, but can’t stand the current policies of Israel, I don’t feel that to be anti-Semitic.
I agree with you.
When I say “blatantly anti-semitic statements,” I mean the real thing, stuff like Hitler should have finished the job, Jews deserve to be persecuted, etc.
No!! Don’t draw any conclusions from that. Be like Glenn. Don’t let your race/religion/whatever define you. Those are just our tribal instincts. People are going to say stupid things. Don’t take it personally when it happens to you. Take it personally when it happens to others. There’s real freedom in that.
And I’ll do a better job of responding to those when I come across them.
Cheers.
This is just hateful excrement. The BDS movement exists to promote the ultimate destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. By undermining the economy and political power of Israel is movement has nothing to do with actually helping Arabs in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, it is all about making Israel unstable so it will be vulnerable to military attack and acts of terror.
I have no problem with the Jewish people as an ethnic group. I have a huge problem with the nation of Israel and how it’s treating the Palestinian people. That’s why I support BDS.
I can keep my contempt for Israel separate from my feelings for Jewish people. Why can’t you separate the two in your mind?
Tsk tsk, France, the U.S. has outdone you on this front. WE have a brand new Thought Police Czar.
There is an excellent October 22 article about this at fightgangstalking.com.
Gator: This might especially interest you: We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel. It’s on op-ed in The Washington Post by Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and Glen Weyl , an assistant professor of economics and law at the University of Chicago. Excerpt:
The authors fear that this is irreversible. That Israel is destroying itself, and that it cannot survive either the internal security problems it is causing, or becoming an international pariah.
It’s a sad read — in part because these two men have not yet been able to make that final, hard decision that you have made — yet one feels it haunting them. They are not yet ready to give up the dream of Zionism as they want it to be, instead of what it is. But in every line one knows they see the moral necessity of rejecting the entire enterprise of political Zionism looming.
Oh dear. Not only has this op-ed already been posted, but Gator already commented on it. My bad for not reading through the comments I had not yet gotten to.
Mona,
How many times have we told you to read the comments thoroughly and not post something that has already been posted!?
Now, go to your room and think about what you’ve done!
And, no Internet for a week for you!
:-)
Thanks for thinking of me, though. The good professors are doing the hard work of determining, in the words of the great Mark Braverman, how sad they are willing to be. (Thank you for introducing me to Braverman, by the way.)
Braverman is great. BTW, in my discussions of Zionism I ran into a Jabotibnsky quote that blew me away. It’s horrifying and so bad that for a time I didn’t want to publicly post it. But I think it is noteworthy that the father of violent political Zionism said this (I’ve verified it’s authenticity):
WTF? Now that’s a self-hating Jew.
When the hoopla about Charlie Hebdo was at high water, I published this column, “Je Suis Hypocrite,” on ZNet: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/e-suis-hypocrite/
I wrote then about the hypocrisy of those who cheered for “free speech” against Muslims but saw nothing wrong with the silencing of critics of Israel (among other things). I don’t claim any great insight for having recognized this, but obviously nothing has changed. Thanks, Glenn, for keeping your eye on the ball.
Why did Muhammad Ali oppose the Vietnam War? Simple reason: “No Viet Cong ever called me a Nigger.” Why do I support Israel? Simple reason: “No IDF Solider ever decapitated a Christian.”
But they have shot plenty of them over the last few decades.
What if Israel was allied to a group that decapitated Christians? Just hypothetically.
They just support Al Nusra Front, which HAS killed and decapitated Christians. They just drop two ton bombs on civilian homes, decapitating and practically vaporizing entire families. But no biggie, they’re just brown people, right?
Criminalising telling the truth about Israel?
Wow this desperation by Zionist controlled governments is really pathetic. We can see that boycotting businesses that feed Israel is hurting them the most…those Jew jokes about money must hold some truth then, ha ha.
BDS all the way!!!!
Is it a crime to read about BDS policies and bring traffic to their site? Seems like that could be defined as support for “…legally-defined hate or discrimination – as BDS does”.
Why should the court stop at prosecuting activists? They should be rounding people up who use these websites and get them into interrogation cells. That will silence the BDS movement, no doubt, because using authoritarian rule to silence freedom of speech has such a great track record of success in the West so far.
Good luck Israel, with yet another policy fail intended to silence a low threat group, but instead give them a platform to unite, as you just did in Gaza with the world watching on social media. Public relations is a pretty basic concept, I think it’s time you learn to pick better battles…for the sake of the long term.
Obama is adventuring overseas, sending his troops off around the world to provoke China, Russia, arm dictatorships in the Middle east, assassinate people around the world, meanwhile back at home…remember that beautiful speech he gave on racism in America some years ago? Obama is good at speeches.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9618246/spring-valley-high-school-police-video
I guess I’m lucky I grew up in a place that invested in education, not foreign wars and “school police” or whatever that guy in uniform, who is beating up the girl, is supposed to be.
” those visible in the videos calmly watch the situation unfold or turn away.”
Because what are they going to do about it. There is another portion of the story where a 2nd girl was arrested for screaming at him to get his hands off of her.
Why is this clown on desk duty and not fired and indicted immediately? What needs to be investigated exactly? Or are those the new code words for “let this calm down for a few days until we find this reprehensible action justified yet again because we never prosecute our own for felonious action.”
I’m betting its the second and saying right now that they find his actions lawful and perfectly justified. Becoming more and more like a corrupt banana republic every single day.
Good for France. BDS are thugs. Hope the UK follows suit.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sainsburys-branch-removes-kosher-products-from-shelves-over-anti-israeli-protest-outside-9675278.html
http://koshernexus.org/general-topics/bds-crowd-changes-labels-on-kosher-products-a-federal-offense/
http://5tjt.com/south-african-bds-activists-target-woolworths-kosher-food-section-with-severed-pigs-head/
http://honestreporting.com/bds-may-regret-getting-matisyahu-banned-from-festival/
Amadeo, I can’t decide what should get the award, Kevin’s conclusion that Greenwald is arguing for all atheists to be executed:
Or your ever so convincing links to places such as the pro-Israel site “honestreporting.com” (I must admit it does sound honest!!!)
I guess this article must be illegal in France. It not only defends advocacy of BDS, but it’s also very critical of French policy, which apparently is “discriminatory” of the French.
Not really:
Voltaire is crying.
Apparently some people are unaware that there is a sliding scale, with free speach on one end, and hate literature on the other.
“Go kill these guys because I don’t like their religion” is definately hate literature. Hate Crime even.
“The criminal Israeli state … ” who’s only crime is it exists, despite the best of muslim efforts to kill them all , is Hate Literature.
Wake up , Glenn Greenwald. By your definition , apparently it’s a-ok for people to demand all atheists to be executed. And I’m pretty sure that’s not a result you intended.
Israel has committed quite a few crimes against Palestinians, thereby invalidating your argument.
Technically a country can’t commit crimes, so you’re right about Israel having committed no crime.
But the annexation of land by military conquest is absolutely illegal, and so everyone who’s taken part of the process of moving Israeli’s into the West Bank over the last fifty years has committed criminal offenses.
The use of white phosphorous during Cast Lead was also illegal and caused significant direct and indirect harm to the civilians of Gaza.
Boarding the Mavi Marmara in international waters was illegal as well. So all those soldiers and sailors who participated are criminals, as are the officers and politicians who planned and ordered the operation.
To say nothing of the burning of Palestinian homes, churches and mosques.
So, yeah, Israel hasn’t committed any crimes but plenty of crimes have been committed in its name. Crimes that actually should be illegal, not advocating nonviolently that people should give their business to people who don’t profit from criminal enterprises.
Israel is a Zionist State not a Jewish State. They say Jewish so they can use the Holocaust as an excuse to commit a holocaust and steal the Palestinian land. The Jews never had a problem before the Zionazis got there. Israel is a rogue terrorist state as the US is.
Indeed
Excellent article, Glenn! My thoughts exactly!
Mr. Greenwald
“……The post-Charlie Hebdo “free speech” march in Paris was a fraud for multiple reasons, as I wrote at the time. It was led by dozens of world leaders, many of whom imprison or even kill people for expressing prohibited views. It was cheered by many Westerners who feign upset only when free speech abridgments are perpetrated by Muslims, but not — as is far more common — by their own governments against Muslims…..”
The Charlie Hebdo massacre was much more than an attack against free speech. Jews were also targeted and murdered at a Jewish market in Paris – something you have yet to acknowledge in an article. These kinds of attacks have occurred all over the world by Islamic extremist including the Mumbai terrorist attack which left over 160 people dead including a Rabbi and his wife who were specifically targeted because they were Jews. According to Time Magazine:
“…….The Jewish community in France, numbering more than 400,000, had already been on guard after an uptick in anti-Semitic violence in recent years, including the shooting of four people at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in May 2014, allegedly by a French Muslim man…..”
Violence against Jews has been on the upswing in Europe. The anti-free speech measure while misguided addresses that growing concern. According to the Guardian (August 2014):
“……In the space of just one week last month, according to Crif, the umbrella group for France’s Jewish organisations, eight synagogues were attacked. One, in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles, was firebombed by a 400-strong mob. A kosher supermarket and pharmacy were smashed and looted; the crowd’s chants and banners included “Death to Jews” and “Slit Jews’ throats”. That same weekend, in the Barbes neighbourhood of the capital, stone-throwing protesters burned Israeli flags: “Israhell”, read one banner……”
The ruling is simply meant to address the threat of violence directed at Jews in Europe principally by Islamic terrorists.
This is absolute rubbish – even if the Hebdo attacks were NOT actually directed by Netanyahu et al {not beyond his capacity for false flag evil}…
boycotting products from a foreign state because of its brutal occupation of another people has nothing to do with incitements to violence against any group on an entirely different continent.
Israel’s apologists have absolutely zero respect for honesty or the truth.
THAT is what we all must realize – that the *truth* is “anti-Semitic” for these people.
“The crowd’s chants and banners included “Death to Jews” and “Slit Jews’ throats” – that’s an absolute pack of lies,and provably so. I challenge you to provide a single video recording or a single photograph to back up your garbage….It is so typical of Zionism. Dishonest ‘journalists’ such as Vanity Fair’s Marie Brenner make all this stuff up and – in the age of instant video and pictures – simply expect the world to believe it, like it’s still 1975. Given your proven lies, I don’t believe anything you write, and can’t take your post seriously. Learn about truth, and try and teach all the other Habara merchants what it is too. You are all as outdated as you are pathetic.
Challenge the Guardian. They published it.
No they didn’t – you pathetic liar.
Um,no. Glenn well-stated what this ruling means, emphasis his:
One country only. It is a crime to advocate for BDS in France.
One. Country. Only.
“…….Um,no. Glenn well-stated what this ruling means, emphasis his:
“…….But it is illegal — criminal — to advocate boycotts and sanctions against one country: Israel. It requires sky-high levels of authoritarianism, even fascism, to abuse the criminal law to outlaw advocacy of policies and activism when it involves one country, and one country only…..”
As I said in my first post, the ruling is “misguided”, but the law addresses (or is a reaction to) the obvious upswing in violence against Jews world-wide principally by extreme right wing Islamic terrorists. Of course, anti Jewish bigots come in all sizes and all political affiliations including very dangerous extreme right wingers of European decent (white guys).
I agree with one comment on this thread which suggested that the law could backfire, and in my opinion, could give much needed advertisement for the failing BDS movement.
I’m not an extreme right wing Islamic terrorist, and I’m a white guy, and I’m not anti-Jew – I’m anti-Israel. And I will continue to be anti-Israel for as long as Israel continues on this depraved path of brutalizing Palestinians simply because they dare to continue claiming that the lines drawn in 1967 remain in effect.
And FYI, calling for BDS against Israel is not violent, and it is not directed against Jews as an ethnic group, only against the state. Anyone instigating violence against Jews not part of the state of Israel should be decried as bigots.
I’m OK with what you say, but you have to understand that the BDS is ALL about ending the Jewish majority state. That is an unacceptable condition for a boycott. An economic boycott against goods made and sold by Israelis living in the West Bank would be far more fair and supportable by more people (although Israel has a great deal of supporters in the west).
“BDS is ALL about ending the Jewish majority state. ” Wrong. Below are the official goals of the BDS movement as stated on BDSMovement.net:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
Nothing in there about ending the Jewish majority state. The only entity with a demographic goal is Israel. That’s what that whole “recognize Israel as a Jewish state” thing is all about. As if saying Israel must remain Jewish will change the demographic patterns.
The reason an “economic boycott against goods made and sold by Israelis living in the West Bank” is unworkable is because the two entities are indistinguishable. That was the whole point of the Sodastream “made in Israel” labeling controversy. If a bank is based in Tel Aviv but one of its subsidiaries provides mortgages to settlers, shouldn’t the whole bank be targeted?
Having recently been to France, this ruling is, at best, only irsksome. You can’t tell the French what to do you have to lead them to believe it. Just because a court said it’s now to be a certain way, means %$#@ all in France.
I think in a way this ruling works for the BDS, so well done!
Didn’t some mass media institutions, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, republish some of the offending material as part a campaign of solidarity with free speech? It seems to me that in order to be consistent on this principle, the same media ought to be publishing pro-BDS material in protest of this latest state attack on speech, no?
excellent idea!
Not pro BDS material which fundamentally is designed to end the Jewish state, but pro Palestinian material designed to support Palestinian self-determination.
You really don’t get it do you? No ones advocating ending Israel, just their illegal occupation. #LongLiveBDS
He doesn’t want to ‘get it’….He’s a proven Hasbara liar.
The BDS movement is about ending the Jewish majority state because it calls for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
craig, i’d be thrilled if these media promoted any part of the BDS movement. but my point about the single standard requires that they promote what the leafletters were punished for, whatever it happened to be.
Some 4 million Palestinians will continue to live under apartheid if Israel remains a “Jewish state.” Israel can retain it’s “Jewish character,” or be a true Western democracy.
It cannot do both.
“……Israel can retain it’s “Jewish character,” or be a true Western democracy.
It cannot do both…..”
Fair enough Mona. Israel will never be a true western democracy simply because to retain its Jewish character, land and immigration laws must favor Jews because – and you are well aware of this – Jewsih people are a small minority world-wide.
I have little sympathy for any theocracy or anybody trying to preserve a theocracy.
Yes, in your Zionist view, Israel “must be” an ethno-religious supremacist state.
Doesn’t this:
“French republic’s law on Freedom of the Press, which prescribes imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000 for parties that ‘provoke discrimination, hatred or violence toward a person or group of people on grounds of their origin, their belonging or their not belonging to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a certain religion.’”
Essentially mean that France can no longer advocate, support, declare, or otherwise engage in war or military action or economic sanction of any kind against any nation on the planet?
After all, if they “provoke . . . violence . . . toward a group of people . . . on the grounds of their . . . nation” they would be in violation of this law. They might not care about the $50,000 fine, but if the leaders of France did advocate against a country, they would be subject to imprisonment.
Yes, I know they would never enforce the law against themselves as a practical matter, but logically they would be subject to this in as much as war or military actions are, by definition, violent and would be targeted at a group of people. Discriminatory is the least of what that would be.
By the way, remember when Obama ended the Iraq and Afghan wars? No? Now he’s getting ready to “end” the Syria war…by sending in US troops, (that are actually already there and getting killed in combat).
But don’t worry, it won’t be long term or anything like the Afghan war Obama ended years ago before continuing it indefinitely.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131
It’s times like this that I’m the most amused by memories of the “lesser of two evils” arguments in favour of voting for Democrats and Republicans.
The BDS is not about ending the occupation or other activities. They are calling for the distruction of Israel as the only Jewish state. They agenda is about 3 things(according to thier website):
1. Ending the “occupation” of all Arab land, meaning the entire Israel and not just the land got from 1967.
2. Getting the fence out forgetting that is was built after more than 1000 Israelis were murdered in suicide bombing and the fence is what stopped this killings.
3. The return of all “Palestinian refugees. This means that Israel will become an Arab country and the democracy will be like the in Syria, Egypt and the rest.
Calling for things against Israel might be acceptable but calling for the destruction of another country is actually calling for violence and for the murder of Jews. This is not acceptable by freedom of speech.
Even people who advocate against Iran and Russia don’t call for thier destruction or to kill the Iranians or Russions.
– “They are calling for the distruction of Israel as the only Jewish state.”
I hate to break it to you but I was in favour of the destruction of apartheid South Africa as the only African white ruled state.
South Africa is still there, it wasn’t destroyed, the whites are still there, long after the end of apartheid. So it will be for Palestine/Israel (whatever it will be called). Human rights are your friend. Democracy is your friend.
Those are some creative interpretations you’ve got there.
1. Most Palestinian groups have stated they are willing to cede the land held by Israel prior to 1967 in exchange for an end to the occupation. Despite your use of scare quotes the West Bank, and previously Gaza, is under occupation by standards of International Law. Israel had signed the international treaties that made that distinction before 1967 and has done nothing to end their formal acceptance of them.
2. The separation barrier is illegal under international law, as ruled by the ICJ. Israel isn’t obliged to accept that ruling because the never accepted it’s jurisdiction, but that doesn’t mean that the rest of us should repudiate our understandings of international and legal norms.
3. Once again International Law requires that Israel take responsibility for the Palestinian refugees. Unlike with the ICJ Israel actually has signed on to the international treaties obliging this, which means their refusal to behave in accordance to International Law is criminal .
The BDS movement does not call for the destruction of Israel, and it does not call for the murder of Jews. You’ve extrapolated that from your own imagination to serve your own political values.
It is an explicitly non-violent means of applying pressure to Israel to behave in a manner consistent with standard accepted definitions of morality and legality. Coming to terms with the Palestinians, whether through a two-state or a one-state agreement will end the movement, as the growing condemnation of the ongoing occupation and the injustices it engenders will cease to be relevant.
This is one of the best columns recently:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-zionist-case-for-boycotting-israel/2015/10/23/ac4dab80-735c-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
It shouldn’t be any surprise that the people who once supported the idea of a democratic Israel, that they saw as a human rights response to Europe’s holocaust, are dismayed at the apartheid state Israel has become.
“Can [American Jews] continue to embrace a state that permanently denies basic rights to another people?”
Many American Jews think we don’t have to choose between human decency and tribal loyalty. But the choice becomes a little more stark each day.
In other news, today the UN held a GA vote on lifting the ongoing embargo of Cuba. By 191 votes to 2, the UN delivered a resounding rejection of the embargo. The 2 votes against the resolution were from the US and — you guessed it — Israel.
As I’ve read Cuba and Israel have had a long economic history,I bet the Israeli ambassador said to the Cubans,”Don’t worry,it’s all a show”.
Why are we still hostile to Cuba?Who’s in charge there in Washington anyway?
Why Cuba would want to be friends with US,in our current insane belligerent form,is a very interesting ?I don’t get it.
Had Harper still been in power in Canada, it is likely there would have been 3 votes against.
The CRIF, which represents a minority of French Jewish citizens, is rejoicing over this verdict but, since the launch of the BDS France campaign in 2009, it has always carefully avoided writing about the numerous other trials when activists have been acquitted or when the case against them has simply been thrown out of court. Up until now, the only BDS France activist criminalized was a member of the League of Human Rights, sentenced in 2010 to a fine for having placed a boycott sticker on a bottle of orange juice produced in Israel.
The LICRA (League against Racism and Antisemitism), having failed for five years to get BDS activists condemned for antisemitism, now has a new tactic.
On 9 December 2015, four activists in Toulouse will face trial on charges of “hindering the exercise of normal economic activity” (an offence under the French penal code). This, when they had distributed tracts outside four different stores and when none of them had even entered the said stores. As the French say: Incroyable mais vrai! Incredible but true.
While I agree with much of this, I do think a distinction should be made between hate speech and BDS. Saying you want to boycott a nation because of its actions against Palestinians is clearly different from wanting to terrorize a targeted community through incitement and demagoguery based on race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation/etc. That is most often what happens to Palestinians, as well as to Arabs and Muslims. It happens to Jews as well, but that is explicitly not what is happening with BDS, as the many Jews engaged in the movement will tell you.
Regardless of one’s views about whether hate speech should be sanctioned at all, it is important to make this distinction.
Agreed. I see no difference between calling for BDS against Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians and calling for BDS against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya. Both cases are despicable, and in no way could either action be perceived as hate speech. In fact, it would be the opposite.
I should probably clarify that calls for BDS against either Israel or Myanmar should not be perceived as hate speech.
Power to you Glen.
as an Israeli Jew, it has been clear for me for quite some time that external pressure (BDS will do…) is the only chance for change here.
Free speech at the Intercept?
A number of comments have been taken off articles here at the Intercept lately.
Practice what you preach, hypocrites.
STFU!!
@AviMayer 1) Should it be legal for me to advocate a boycott or sanctions on Israel? 2) Legal to do so for Iran and/or Russia? Answer that.
Glenn, Avi responded to you on twitter and said ‘yes’ to both questions. You need to make a few corrections to your column
He said yes to both out of both sides of his mouth.
shorter Avi, “boycotts are fine but BDS in not a boycott – it’s illegal!!!!!”
Better hasbarats, please.
Great work.
Reply of Avi Mayer: Iran, Russia = Hitler, how dare you asking this question!
Excellent commentary as usual, Glen. And I’m really enjoying the hysterical rants from the Zionist commentators here. They have no qualms whatsoever about suppressing pro-Palestinian activism, just as they have no qualms about cheer-leading for Israel’s horrendous oppression of the Palestinians. But the tide is turning, French hypocrisy and Zionist bullying notwithstanding.
https://twitter.com/JohninJerusalem/status/659048431118364672
And no one has been arrested for incinerating that Palestinian family. Or for so many of the daily acts of wanton violence Israelis, the settlers, and the Israeli government mete out to Palestinians every day. Israel Firsters like you only think Jewish lives matter.
Would have liked to have seen Marie Le Pen’s case mentioned.
I disagree with the ruling, but as for the hypocrisy, doesn’t the often invoked logic of “not punching down” apply here. That is, the Jews in France are a small vulnerable minority harassed and often attacked by the much larger and rapidly growing Muslim population who don’t seem to want Jews in Europe or the ME. Shouldn’t Jews, as minorities be spared any sort of criticism even if its ostensibly directed at targets abroad?
Your understanding is that Muslims are not a minority in Europe, but a majority? As evidenced by all the Muslim heads of state in Europe, for instance?
The Muslim population in France is about 10x bigger than Jewish population and growing fast, while the Jewish population is shrinking. If it’s bad taste to criticize the doctrine of Islam in Western nations, your position roughly, then why shouldn’t we spare the tiny Jewish populations of Europe from aggressive criticism of the only Jewish state? Bear in mind this isn’t really my position, I’m just using it to interrogate your allegation of hypocrisy among CH supporters
Who’s criticizing the European Jewish population? I thought the idea is to boycott Israeli products, you know, the country.
But the European Jews could say that criticism of Israel is contributing to hostile environment there in Europe. And since all the governments of the ME are objectionable human-rights violators, why single out Israel? I don’t think anyone could say they’re the worst violators of all.
The people who are in favour of criminalizing activism against Israeli policies are generally not in favour of criminalizing activism against Islam or the policies of Islamic Nations. That’s hypocrisy.
If it’s okay to advocate for sanctions against Iran and Russia for their policies, it requires an explanation of why Israel must be rendered immune from such treatment.
Israel’s supporters often falsely equate a condemnation of Israeli policy – eg. the occupation, the preemptive military actions and boarding a foreign vessel in international waters – with a condemnation of Judaism.
I’m opposed to laws that would outlaw the criticism of Muslims – I’ve written against such attempts several times before – and I’m also opposed to laws that would outlaw criticisms of Jews & Israel.
We are in agreement about that, by all means criticize them both. What I’m addressing is the charge of hypocrisy and the criticism that CH through its occasional Islamic themed cartoons was responsible for creating a hostile environment for Muslims in France, while BDS, which is a coordinated campaign to isolate a small Jewish state isn’t legitimizing hostility towards a much smaller minority group.
And we should be opposed to to laws that would outlaw criticisms of Christians and any Christian sect. Arguable the U.S. would look very different now had certain early American Christian sects not been de-fanged.
Israel is a nation-state. It is properly subjected to boycott and criticism as would be any other Western democracy engaging in the same behavior.
Moreover, the position of Muslims in France is of less influence and status than almost all Jews, or most French. Some have said Arabs are the “niggers” of France.
But Israel isn’t a “Western” democracy. It’s a Middle Eastern democracy and therefor comparing its human rights record with say Denmark’s record seems inherently unfair.
Of course the Jews have been in France for some 2000 years now, though their future in France seems… uncertain. The Arabs of course have only been in a France for a few generations, though they are already 10% of the population, given a few more generations…
Iranians in the US are a small vulnerable minority harassed and often attacked by the much larger American population who don’t seem to want Iranians in the US or the ME. Shouldn’t Iranians, as minorities be spared any sort of criticism even if its ostensibly directed at targets abroad?
Do you agree that the courts should rule that any talk of sanctions against Iran should be punishable by imprisonment?
If not, then your argument is so much hot air.
If “harassed and … attacked,” application of ordinary criminal laws on assault and battery are the remedy. Should minorities [Jews or anyone else] be spared any sort of criticism”? No.
GKJames
“Should minorities [Jews or anyone else] be spared any sort of criticism”? No.”
That’s my position as well.
“Shouldn’t Jews, as minorities be spared any sort of criticism even if its ostensibly directed at targets abroad?”
Short answer – no. No group should be given legal immunization from criticism. Protections from violence and discrimination, definitely. But legally identifying some groups as being above criticism is not a solution.
There’s so much wrong with this statement. For one, criticism of the policies of a country is not the same as criticism of a population/culture/ethnicity. But even if that were the case, it doesn’t mean the government should use its power to enforce speech codes, even desirable ones.
It really does seem that a lot of people can’t (or don’t want to) grasp the idea that Israel as a nation is not the exact same thing as the Jewish ethnic group. When people criticize the policies of Israel, particularly its treatment of the Palestinian ethnic group, they are not simultaneously slurring against the Jewish ethnic group.
But boy, the Zionists sure try to capitalize on this misunderstanding… “Speaking out against Israel means you’re speaking out against all Jews, which means you’re anti-Semitic!” Pathetic propaganda pandering.
Keep up the good work, BDS participants!
It is entirely likely
based on the long history of euro-vanities and thieveries
that the french and the other NATOmics
want Israel to take more jews out of Europe.
The BDS movement might cause jews to migrate back to Europe
and reduce the tensions which the NATOmics helped create
and are trying to exacerbate into a bloodier mess
for private profits.
The Natomics,that’s a good one.
Your statement is so Israeli centric, rabbis are making holidays for you.
Divide and conquer!And rule!
You got the French spinning.
I honestly do not understand your comment.
Perhaps I also was not clear.
My point is that the NATOmics want Israel to continue to grow
as an irritant in the Middle East and as a way to increase their profits from
war and corporate takeover of resources in the region.
I see Israel as being a vicious vanity which was artificially created
by and for the NATOmics sadistic delights with the help of delusional
jews who were sick of living with the nasty christians in Europe and the
USA.
Religious political economics will be the ruination of this planet whether
jewish, hindu, christian, muslim,….or free-market capitalist.
My condolences to French citizens on their current existential crisis. Seems there has always been some swirling confusion about this – much touted – liberté, égalité, fraternité. Not much liberty, equality, or fraternity for anyone who might want to oppose Israel’s apartheid regime. Sad to see them bounce around permutations of The Nation, The Law, The King – or, Union, Strength, Virtue – or, Strength, Equality, Justice – or, Liberty, Security, Property… Or, liberty, unity, equality – or, liberty, equality, justice – or, liberty, reason, equality – or, equality, liberty, safety, property… I mean they’ve really had a terrible time of it. No wonder they can sort Zionism from Judaism. Or, Israel from those who practice the Jewish faith. It’s just an unholy pile of bloomin’, buzzin’, confusion, and this recent court decision lays bare the schism between rationality and affect-run-amuck. So much for the Siècle des Lumières. A bit of history gone by.
I’m of the opinion, and the hope, that this period of repressive speech is just one indication of the death throes Israel must go through – and, as she tries to take the rest of us with her – on her way to a single state where those of Palestinian descent are afforded all of the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship. I don’t expect than transition to be easy or bloodless. And, I do expect an ultimately successful BDS movement to be a part of that transition. In the meantime, it’s unfortunate to witness the pitiful and pitiable declarations of victimhood from those currently wielding the club of oppression. One really is left wondering how to respond to a country whose ostensible leader needs to be corrected on the origins of the shoah by Germany. I think a successful BDS movement might be the last hope to actually save Israel from herself. And, even if she doesn’t want to be saved, I imagine the rest of us might appreciate having our political priorities saved from her.
Great read, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of France in criminalizing free speech.
Here’s some more free speech for you to enjoy, dear:
https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/658730973702594560
That video was translated by MEMRI. MEMRI translations are notoriously unreliable. MEMRI poses as a research institute but its actually a Likud propaganda organ.
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/friedmans-mirror
“notoriously unreliable”
LOL.
Sure thing, because as we all know Palestinian “preachers”, and Palestinians in general, are in fact all peacemakers without exception, and the vile Zionist Occupation with their Photoshopped images and faked “translations” is simply trying to smear these poor darlings :)
So this is a lie,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/12/cut-them-into-body-parts-islamic-preacher-waves-knife-during-sermon-to-urge-palestinians-to-stab-jews/
and this,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/watch-i-want-to-stab-a-jew-young-girl-tells-her-teacher-father/
and this,
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/mother-of-killed-palestinian-terrorist-pulls-out-knife-during-interview/2015/10/26/
Nothing but peaceful people, engaging in traditional peace-making activities prescribed by the good Doctor himself:
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/[email protected]
Verily, their dreamed-of Jew-free “Palestine” from the river to the sea is just a peaceful stab away :)
The only Palestinian’s site that I go to is the Angry Arab,and he’s far from a preacher.We see right through your BS despite your army of BSers,because its all BS.
I don’t need anyone’s words to see the truth of Zion and its terrible history.And how could these people now coexist with all the absolute hatred expressed by the Zionists by their actions the last decade and especially now with lynchings or variants happening every day?Who would want to live near these cretins?
It aint up to me of course.
Wow! Talk about propaganda! Not a single mention that “Charlie Hebdo” wasn’t an assault on free speech, nor was it even “Charlie Hebdo”. It was an assault on BOTH free speech AND JEWS!!!!!!!! How does this article NOT mention the 2nd target of a two target attack?!? Pure propaganda to write this story without mentioning the Charlie Hebdo attack was about killing Jews in France!
Welcome to Greenwaldistan – where every piece of news about some mangy fleabag getting even slightly mistreated somewhere in the world invariably leads to laughable fits of twitter rage, while a dozen cartoonists and Jews getting slaughtered in Paris is, of course, simply a case of they-had-it-coming business as usual.
Enjoy your stay :)
“We are deeply disturbed —
343 British academics vow to boycott Israeli universities” @
http://www.rt.com/uk/319837-British-boycott-Israel-universities/
“We are deeply disturbed”
At least they are self-aware, poor darlings. Hope they get help soon.
Thanks darling for this glib, facile, and utterly, utterly Oxonian response,
which says everything about who you really are.
Um, the article is about free speech in France. If you want an article about the Charlie Hebdo attacks per se, this one is not about that. But the article you do want is everywhere online. Happy googling.
Oh and, whataboutery is an informal fallacy.
“cheered by many westerners who feign upset only when free speech abridgments are perpetrated by Muslims”
Haha, this is *pure* Greenwald.
Only someone as irrational as this ghastly fellow jihadi traveler could label the *murder* of journalists, cartoonists, policemen and Jews perpetrated in Paris by murderous Muslim terrorist thugs – murder perpetrated in defense of the so-called “honor” of their so-called “prophet”, and in pursuit of their ultimate goal of subjugating every single non-Muslim to their insane internal Islamic blasphemy codes under pain of death – a “free speech abridgment”.
And on topic: aww, you poor, poor BDS morons. What is happening to you in France, and more broadly the utter defeat that your campaign of anti-Semitic hatred has suffered all across civilized world, is indeed yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. Will you poor darlings survive?
More delusions from “Louise.” BDS is working, so well that Netanyhau and others in the Israeli govt have been forced >/e> to deal with it. Ignoring it (so it would go away!) didn’t work, at all.
Israel is becoming a pariah; it’s status as that increases daily. So, now Israel is calling it an “existential threat.”
Many factors have compelled this jerk to attention. Among them that the obscene carnage Israel inflicted on Gaza during the summer of 2014 went viral online and the world stood appalled; though BDS was working before that, Israel’s farmers now demanded something be done:
Well, they’re doing something about it now. This authoritarian move in France is part of that.
I have more Louise, if you want it.
leave this guy’s conversation, his name is a synonym for – lucifer – he’s already told us ‘hey I’m gonna be evil’.. in that I bet he’s not even a real zionist jew but likes to stir the pot to pull out everyones argument.
He reminds me of a similar troll on truthdig called dubinsky
Thanks Mona for putting her straight.
Forgot to link to this – bookmark it and spread it far and wide:
canarymission.org/individuals/
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”
In your case, about $2.75/hour to troll here…
I wonder what would happen if a large institution of some sort in France, vital to the economic well-being there, were to advocate and participate in the BDS movement. How would the government respond?
Speaking of absurd. I’m sure it was just an “accident” though.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/yemen-hospital-hit-by-saudi-led-airstrikes
Two almost identical “accidents” within a month? It is well known and widely reported that the US is providing “targeting” assistance to the Saudis. I could provide 10 links but will provide just one so as not to clog the thread.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/saudi-arabia-yemen-civilian-casualties
MSF must be doing something America and its allies in the Afghanistan and Saudi governments don’t like–you know like acting like moral human beings and making all three look bad in the process.
probably their outspokenness against the TPP is costing them…someone should probably look into that
MSF will treat any wounded person, including a Taliban, and they do. Neither the US nor the Afghan government approve of that.
This ruling and similar movements (like in the California university system) are the best evidence that BDS can and will be successful in ending Israeli apartheid (yes, “apartheid”). The Israelis themselves are the most effective BDS advocates around. “If you can’t beat them, kill them off or throw them in jail,” says Israel. Netanyahoo’s silent stare at his U.N. speech is a great example — alienating, misguided, and transparently propagandistic theater that really just says: “I have nothing to say in support of my position.” Zionists must resort to intimidation, which may work on the oppressed, but it will not work on people that can afford to ignore Israel and its products. That Sodastream water sure is bubbly, but I personally don’t like drinking Palestinian tears, and Israel can’t make me do so. And they can’t stop me from doing this: “End Israeli Apartheid, support the BDS movement!”
Wow Macroman, that is beautiful piece of prose. I thought we were on the opposite sides of the spectrum, but I now realise we’re on the same side. I shake your hand !!
Thanks, glad to meet you as well.
Methinks Nuttyahoo misunderstands the concept of laser eye surgery.
They reserve the right to protest only under the influence of nations being subjugated by independent activists who want nothing more than to withdraw all forces of power on either side.
Here’s an article not threatened by the French hate crime laws. Activists, according to the Jpost article, use dishonest rhetoric about “human rights”:
(the quotes around “human rights” may indicate that the writer is unfamiliar with the term, or that the term simply sounds dishonest…at least to StandWithUs, the American based Israeli lobby firm penning the article)
http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/StandWithUs-Israel-Advocacy-Developments-in-the-Law/Primer-for-Businesses-How-Corporate-Participation-in-BDS-Risks-Legal-Liability-430133
@ Mona & Glenn
First I want to ask for sake of clarity because I want to be clear what happened from the link and what ruling was upheld on appeal. Were the 12 BDS activists who wore the t-shirts and handed out flyers at supermarkets in 2009 and 2010 only fined $14,500 plus court costs (between the 12 of them), or was one or more convicted and incarcerated? If so for how long, and what is the nature of such a crime (i.e. either equivalent to misdemeanor or felony)?
Here’s my problem, I’ve argued in the past that speech advocating specific violence against an individual or group should be a civil penalty of some kind even in America. I’ve since rethought that and think that America law gets it right that only speech advocating imminent violence against a specific target should be subject to penalty or prosecution.
But none of that has anything to do with this pernicious law in France. It is not “violence” or “discrimination” to refuse to do business with one person or another, or even an entire nation–even if that nation is Israel based on opposition to the policies of that state. And any law that seeks to proscribe such speech in the long run, I hope, will be come to be seen as absurd. And that those who are fined or prosecuted and imprisoned will be come to be seen as martyrs for the the cause underlying that speech and that the cause will grow as “banned causes” usually do historically. I simply can’t imagine that there isn’t at least a large minority of the French people who don’t see the very problematic nature of this sort of prohibition on speech.
Maybe activism for the BDS movement, at least until such time as it is illegal in America (and even then I’d argue), must be expanded to include France. Just to demonstrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of such laws. And against every nation that has a law against the simple “speechcrime/thoughtcrime” of simply stating opposition in word or speech to the policies of another nation. Or the ones that criminalize the criticisms of the policies actions of their own nation–say Saudi Arabia for example and I’m sure there are many others from Thailand to China.
Either it is “discriminatory” to advocate the policy of “sanctions” against any nation by anybody (individual or government alike), or it is hypocrisy and injustice of the highest order to single out one nation or place of origin for special treatment and protection.
All academics should be boycotting France and Israel (and any nation with similar laws) in my humble opinion for the simple reason of not knowing which subjects they may choose to discuss or advocate for that will wind up with them being arrested and prosecuted for prohibited “activism” on behalf of one “cause” or another.
I personally don’t think France or the French people outlawing the BDS movement is going to make or break it one way or the other. But if the American people and all others where such activism isn’t illegal join together to boycott and refuse to do business with France or Israel, then maybe it will have an effect on the policies of both. Israel in regard to Palestsinians and France with regard to its absurd “speechcrime/thoughtcrime” laws.
It would also be informative to know the fate of the 54 people arrested in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders. Particularly the timeline and court outcomes of those “several already had been convicted under ‘special measures’ for immediate sentencing.” I mean what the hell are “special measures” and “immediate sentencing” in France. And what happened to Dieudonne M’bala M’bala?
All France is going to do is make free speech martyrs of the good guys. It’s nice to have the good guys in that position for once, even if the overall enterprise is repugnant.
Let me be clear about the above before I get hammered for it because I was unclear. It should be discrimination to refuse to do business with an individual or individuals based on an immutable trait.
Clearly there is one immutable trait that causes logical coherence problems i.e. “place of origin”. And that’s because it can be used as a proxy for the immutable trait of “race”. As an American, I should not be free to discriminate or refuse to do business with a fellow American or visitor to America simply by virtue of his/her being born in Israel. But that does not also mean I am or should be obligated as a consumer or seller to do business with Israeli nationals or Israeli corporations. But I can concede there is a logical hurdle to overcome there.
The other “trait” that is problematic, though not immutable, is religion. It is discrimination to refuse to do business as an American with another American or visitor to America on American soil simply on the basis of their religious affiliation. As it should be. Although I think there are compelling arguments why religion should not be treated quite the same as “immutable trait” discrimination under the law.
But I thought I should clarify the above.
I don’t think we want establishments not serving individuals because of their skin or their religion or their sex.
But if I learn that a corporation, a university, a ballet troop is acting on behalf of apartheid, then I reserve the right to not do business with them, and to organize such action collectively.
I’m pretty sure the whole Charlie Hebdo thing was a false flag anyway. There’s lots of evidence–just google it. The fact that this legislation was pushed through so quickly afterwards (with a supporting made for TV documentary aired in the UK and France) screams that there was an agenda in the first place…
Mr. Greenwald,
“….. I … um…. er… well,I just got carried away by my anticipation of Craig’s essay on your underhanded attempt at … whatever it is you’re doing.
@AviMayer…Please explain to me how BDS promotes hate and discrimination. As opposed to sanctions against Russia or Iran. Or the past sanctions against Iraq which resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. How many Israelis have starved to death as a result of BDS?
Policies?
Europe and its most notable spawn, the USA,
have a long history of distrust toward jews by
the majority of christians (a jewish concept)
who only pretend to be accepting of anything outside of their beliefs.
So, it is hardly surprising that they would attack any
movement – such as the BDS movement – against Israel
after they have invested so much of their energy and resourses
into removing the jews from their neighborhoods.
The real anti-semitism includes jews and muslims
as it did during the “crusades” beginning approximately 1000 years ago.
I am not defending judaism, islam, or any religion in this comment.
ALL organized religions are based upon a desire for domination and
thievery in the name of some vain god.
The most bizarre aspect of all of this is that all of these religions are
now merely covers for capitalistic corruption and they all murder for
their economic manifestation of god.
All of them are frauds and the BDS movement is a challenge to their
sadistic economic delights.
Sanctions are needed world wide. Defending the indefensible is ridiculous.
Free speech only matters when people agree with it. It was pretty obvious that #JeSuisCharlie was just Islamophobia hidden under the veil of “free speech”…
#JeSuisCharlie was sold as free speech but really what it was about was the freedom to blaspheme Mohammad without consequence. It was a show of force to the Muslim world that they have to come to terms with the fact that non-believers are going to blaspheme and not be punished for it.
But back to the point of the article, Glenn is right that the French don’t respect pure free speech and should stop pretending that they do. But he and I are Americans and we are used to the radical protections of the 1st Amendment so it comes easier to us.
False. Hebdo sought to further demonize Muslims. Ruling classes in peril always need scapegoats. See: Germany, 1930s.
Germany Dindu Nuffin, it was all those evil Palestinians!
t. Bibi
It’s time the vial of silence was lifted that has enabled Israel. Everyone knows Israel’s evil agenda. It’s time to demand sanctions. They have too much arrogance, bigotry, to do the right thing. It is up to the world to help them. They have created the problems they now face. Benny specifically, he is the ruin of Israel.
SANCTIONS ARE NEEDED! TO HOPEFULLY SEE GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS INSTEAD OF THE BS, THAT BENNY SPOUTS.
Unfortunately the “peaceful protests are illegal” memo didn’t reach the UK in time.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/uk-academics-boycott-universities-in-israel-to-fight-for-palestinians-rights
Peaceful protest is illegal? Tell it to the people South Africa put in maximum security for distributing pamphlets against apartheid:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/pretoria-prison-break-amazing-story-1840579
For further documentation of the Kafkaesque state off free speech — and of liberty in general — in France, do watch Je ne suis pas Charlie, an outstanding documentary recently filmed in France by James Kleinfeld and Max Blumenthal. The fact of pervasive anti-Muslim bigotry while simultaneously allowing the Jewish Defense League (banned as terrorists in the U.S. and even in Israel!) to commit violence and menacing in France, is sickening. Also breathtaking are those French citizens who –often in the same sentence –celebrate free speech except for X, Y and Z ideas that they don’t like.
Glenn, this film deserves to be highlighted in your main text.
Thanks for the link Mona. Nice work. I watched an interview with Max about the film. I hadn’t seen the film itself.
I especially like your Lovely Little tittle.
I had a brain contusion or something I thought the title mentioned March. Is there a change in direction here?