THE U.K. GOVERNMENT today announced that it is will be illegal for “local [city] councils, public bodies, and even some university student unions … to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products, or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.” Thus, any entities that support or participate in the global boycott of Israeli settlements will face “severe penalties.”
This may sound like an extreme infringement of free speech and political activism — and, of course, it is — but it is far from unusual in the West. The opposite is now true. There is a very coordinated and well-financed campaign led by Israel and its supporters literally to criminalize political activism against Israeli occupation, based on the particular fear that the worldwide campaign of Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment, or BDS — modeled after the 1980s campaign that brought down the Israel-allied apartheid regime in South Africa — is succeeding.
The Israeli website +972 reported last year about a pending bill that “would ban entry to foreigners who promote the [BDS] movement that aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights.” In 2011, a law passed in Israel that “effectively ban[ned] any public call for a boycott — economic, cultural, or academic — against Israel or its West Bank settlements, making such action a punishable offense.”
But the current censorship goal is to make such activism a crime not only in Israel, but in Western countries generally. And it is succeeding.
THIS TREND TO outlaw activism against the decades-long Israeli occupation — particularly though not only through boycotts against Israel — has permeated multiple Western nations and countless institutions within them. In October, we reported on the criminal convictions in France of 12 activists “for the ‘crime’ of advocating sanctions and a boycott against Israel as a means of ending the decadeslong military occupation of Palestine,” convictions upheld by France’s highest court. They were literally arrested and prosecuted for “wearing shirts emblazoned with the words ‘Long live Palestine, boycott Israel’” and because “they also handed out fliers that said that ‘buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza.’”
As we noted, 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.” In Canada last year, officials threatened criminal prosecution against anyone supporting boycotts against Israel.
In the U.S., unbeknownst to many, there are similar legislative proscriptions on such activism, and a pending bill would strengthen the outlawing of BDS. As the Washington Post reported last June, “A wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S.” Numerous bills in Congress encourage or require state action to combat BDS.
Eyal Press warned in a must-read New York Times op-ed last month that under a Customs Bill passed by both houses of Congress and headed to the White House, “American officials will be obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations,” a provision specifically designed “to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, a grass-roots campaign.” But as Press notes, under existing law — which is almost never discussed — “Washington already forbids American companies to cooperate with state-led boycotts of Israel.”
The real purpose of this new law, as Press explains it, is to force American companies to treat settlements in the West Bank — which virtually the entire world views as illegal — as a valid part of Israel, by outlawing any behavior that would be deemed cooperative with a boycott of companies occupying the West Bank. U.S. companies would be forced to pretend that products produced in the occupied territories are actually produced in “Israel.” The White House announced that it will sign the bill despite its opposition to the AIPAC-backed pro-settlement provision.
Rahul Saksena of Palestine Legal said that “the BDS provision in the federal customs bill, and the dozens of anti-BDS bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures across the U.S., are examples of the lengths that Israel’s fiercest advocates and the lawmakers who bend over backward to accommodate them will go to shut down any conversation critical of Israeli policies and supportive of Palestinian freedom.” Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs for J Street (which opposes BDS), told The Intercept: “The references in the Customs Act to ‘Israeli-controlled territories’ are just one instance of a larger effort to sneak Green Line-blurring language into legislation at both the state and national level.”
Under the existing laws, American companies have been fined for actions deemed supportive of boycotts aimed at Israel. For decades, U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries, for instance, have been required by law to refuse to comply with the Arab League boycott of Israel. Penalties for violators include up to 10 years of imprisonment.
In 2010, G M Daewoo Auto & Technology Company, a Korean firm owned by General Motors, was fined $88,500 by the Office of Antiboycott Compliance for 59 anti-boycott violations, including the “crime” of declaring on a customs form: “We hereby state that the carrying vessel … is allowed to enter the Libya ports [sic].” At the time, Libyan law did not allow Israeli goods or ships that had previously stopped in Israel to enter Libyan ports, and the company’s seemingly banal declaration that it was complying with Libyan law was deemed by the U.S. government to constitute support for a boycott of Israel, and it was thus fined.
THE SUPPRESSION OF anti-occupation activism is particularly acute on American college campuses. Among other things, that is deeply ironic. In the U.S. over the past year, there has been a widespread media debate over censorship on college campuses. Notably, the pundits who have most vocally condemned this censorship and held themselves out as free speech crusaders — such as New York’s Jonathan Chait — have completely ignored what is far and away the most widespread form of campus censorship: namely, punishment of those who engage in activism against Israeli actions.
This campus censorship on behalf of Israel was comprehensively documented in a report last year by Palestine Legal titled “The Palestine Exception to Free Speech.” The nationwide censorship effort has seen pro-Palestinian professors fired, anti-occupation student activists suspended and threatened with expulsion, pro-Palestinian groups de-funded, and even discipline for students for the “crime” of flying a Palestinian flag. The report documents how pro-Israel campus groups and alumni “have intensified their efforts to stifle criticism of Israeli government policies.” The report explains: “Rather than engage such criticism on its merits, these groups leverage their significant resources and lobbying power to pressure universities, government actors, and other institutions to censor or punish advocacy in support of Palestinian rights.”
Notably, the students and administrators justifying the campus censorship of anti-Israel views invoke the very same “PC” rhetoric of “safe spaces” and “hate speech” denounced by ostensibly free-speech pundits. The University of Illinois student who led the campaign to fire Steven Salaita for his pro-Gaza tweets, himself a former AIPAC intern, told the New York Times: “Hate speech is never acceptable for those applying for a tenured position; incitement to violence is never acceptable. … There must be a relationship between free speech and civility.” Another “pro-Israel” student demanding Salaita’s firing said, “It’s about feeling safe on campus.”
This was a classic and extreme case of oppressive censorship on campus — the University of Illinois ended up paying Salaita close to $1 million to settle the resulting lawsuit — yet very few of the pundits who turned “college censorship” into a nationwide cause uttered a peep about this case or the countless other instances of suppression of anti-Israel criticism.
It is now routine for students advocating BDS or otherwise working against Israeli occupation to be disciplined or endure other forms of sanctions. As the Palestine Legal report documents:
These heavy-handed tactics often have their desired effect, driving institutions to enact a variety of punitive measures against human rights activists, such as administrative sanctions, censorship, intrusive investigations, viewpoint-based restriction of advocacy, and even criminal prosecutions. Such efforts intimidate activists for Palestinian human rights, chill criticism of Israeli government practices, and impede a fair-minded dialogue on the pressing question of Palestinian rights.
This report, the first of its kind, documents the suppression of Palestine advocacy in the United States. In 2014, Palestine Legal — a nonprofit legal and advocacy organization supporting Palestine activism — responded to 152 incidents of censorship, punishment, or other burdening of advocacy for Palestinian rights and received 68 additional requests for legal assistance in anticipation of such actions. In the first six months of 2015 alone, Palestine Legal responded to 140 incidents and 33 requests for assistance in anticipation of potential suppression. These numbers understate the phenomenon, as many advocates who are unaware of their rights or afraid of attracting further scrutiny stay silent and do not report incidents of suppression. The overwhelming majority of these incidents — 89 percent in 2014 and 80 percent in the first half of 2015 — targeted students and scholars, a reaction to the increasingly central role universities play in the movement for Palestinian rights.
As we reported in September, the University of California — the largest academic system in the country — has been debating proposals to literally outlaw BDS activism by formally equating it with “anti-semitism”: as though opposition to Israeli government oppression (opposition shared by many Jews) is somehow the equivalent of, or is inherently driven by, animosity toward Jews. If anything, what is actually “anti-Semitic” is to conflate the Israeli government with Jews generally (an ugly anti-semitic trope with a long history). Yet that is the Orwellian tactic being used to justify the criminalization of anti-occupation activism, as it converts that activism into “anti-semitism” or “hate speech” and then bans it on that basis.
This attempt to formalize suppression of anti-occupation advocacy on college campuses is long-standing and widespread. The New York state legislature actually passed “a bill that would suspend funding to educational institutions which fund groups that boycott Israel.” Such legislation is becoming commonplace, as the group United With Israel boasted just last month:
Florida became the fifth state in the U.S. to introduce a resolution to confront the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement when it passed a law on December 21, similar to the first anti-BDS legislation introduced in Tennessee last April.
By doing so, Florida has joined Tennessee, New York, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. Another 35 states are reportedly considering similar legislation.
The commendably consistent pro-campus-speech group FIRE, while expressing some criticisms of the BDS movement, has repeatedly documented and denounced attempts to suppress BDS advocacy on campus:
FIRE’s position on the Israel-focused BDS movement is driven by our concern for academic freedom — for students and professors, and for its continuing importance as a meaningful concept in and of itself. Students and professors must be perfectly free to support boycott, divestment, and/or sanctions against Israel or any other country they wish, and they must not face punishment for this support. As you might expect, FIRE has opposed attempts to punish organizations for supporting BDS, and we have certainly defended professors’ rights to be highly critical of Israel — or, frankly, any other country, person, or idea.
YET THIS CENSORSHIP effort to ban BDS and other forms of Israel criticism continues to grow, in multiple countries around the world. It’s not hard to understand why. The Israeli government and its most powerful supporters have invested vast sums of money and considerable political capital into the campaign to institutionalize this censorship.
Last year, GOP billionaire Sheldon Adelson and Democratic billionaire Haim Saban donated tens of millions of dollars to a new fund to combat BDS on college campuses. Also last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “decided to implement a 2014 resolution to establish a special task force to fight the anti-Israeli sanctions”; that task force has funding of “some 100 million Israeli shekels (roughly $25.5 million).” BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray reported in 2014 that anti-BDS legislation has become a major goal of AIPAC. As part of the controversy at the University of California, Richard Blum, the mega-rich investment banker and husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, threatened the university that his wife would take adverse action against the university if it did not adopt the harsh anti-BDS measures he was demanding.
None of this is to say, obviously, that suppression of anti-occupation activism is the only strain of free speech threats in the West. The prosecution of Western Muslims for core free speech expression under “terrorism” laws, the distortion of “hate speech” legislation as a means of punishing unpopular ideas, threats and violence against those who publish cartoons deemed “blasphemous,” and pressure on social media companies to ban ideas disliked by governments are all serious menaces to this core liberty.
But in terms of systematic, state-sponsored, formalized punishments for speech and activism, nothing compares to the growing multi-nation effort to criminalize activism against Israeli occupation. Rafeef Ziadah, a Palestinian a member of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, told The Intercept: “Israel is increasingly unable to defend its regime of apartheid and settler colonialism over the Palestinian people and its regular massacres of Palestinians in Gaza so is resorting to asking supportive governments in the U.S. and Europe to undermine free speech as a way of shielding it from criticism and measures aimed at holding it to account.”
It is, needless to say, perfectly legitimate to argue against BDS and to engage in activism to defeat it. But only advocates of tyranny could support the literal outlawing of the same type of activism that ended apartheid in South Africa merely on the grounds that this time it is aimed at Israeli occupation (some of Israel’s own leaders have compared its occupation to apartheid). And whatever else is true, commentators and activists who prance around as defenders of campus free speech and free expression generally — yet who completely ignore this most pernicious trend of free speech erosion — are likely many things, but an authentic believer in free speech is not among them.
Correction: The first paragraph has been edited to reflect that the ban on boycotts will be illegal under the UK Government’s new plan, not that it already is illegal, as well as to clarify that the penalties imposed on local entities violating the boycott ban are statutory, not criminal, in nature.
Israel kills Palestinian families and children with American attack jets and white phosphorous. Israel jails Palestinians and Palestinian children cruelly and indefinitely. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and, by supremacist apartheid enforcement, validates that definition. We Americans resist believing, or even comprehending, the horror. This June 18, 2012 excerpt from Times of India facilitates understanding of the Jewish state’s behavior.
Israel kills Palestinian families and children with American attack jets and white phosphorous. Israel jails Palestinians and Palestinian children cruelly and indefinitely. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state and, by supremacist apartheid enforcement, validates that definition. We Americans resist believing, or even comprehending, the horror. This June 18, 2012 excerpt from Times of India facilitates understanding of the Jewish state’s behavior.
RABBI OVADIA Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is the former Chief Rabbi of Israel and the spiritual leader of the Shas party, Israels “kingmaker” party. In a sermon given on Saturday on laws concerning what non-Jews are permitted to do on Shabbat, Yosef said: “Goyim” [non-Jews] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.” According to Yosef, death has “no dominion” over non-Jews in Israel. “With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”
MENACHEM BEGIN “Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
Glenn,
Excellent piece. I think it is crucial to distinguish between advocacy (which should ALWAYS be unconstrained in any way) and actions. And within the category of actions, to distinguish between private and public actions. Any control over private choices of goods and services (which otherwise meeting legal standards such as freshness, labeling, etc.) is entirely illegitimate, but control over commerce by governmental entities is clearly within the purview of government itself. And Congress has plenary power in this field:
“Congress shall have Power […] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
By definition and routine behavior, Israel is a cruel apartheid Jewish country that routinely incarcerates, maims and kills gentile men, women and children. Ask any Palestinian. Our United States of America should in no way support or collaborate with Israel. Dating back to Imperial Rome, it happened again and again. The Jews enraged their host countries and repeatedly suffered disastrous pogroms. Excesses of Wiemar Germany’s monied Jewish minority led to the most recent which Israel promotes, actually advertises, as justification for its racist malevolence and wreaking horror upon occupied Palestine.
To learn who RULES OVER YOU, first find out WHO YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE. – Voltaire
Criminalizing non-violent resistance to racism, colonialism and mass murder.
So much for the non-violent approach.
To conflate Judaism and Israel is to make Netanyahu the face of Judaism. Is that really a good idea?
Aren’t the Palestinians Semitic People? I find it ridiculous when someone criticizes or points out the actions of the Israelis government against the Palestinian People they are considered to be “anti-Semitic”. Aren’t they in fact being pro-Semitic? Aren’t these critics; like the Boycott, Divest, Sanction movement; actually being pro-non-Jewish Semitic, but still pro-Semitic nevertheless? This is because supporters of the Israelis government, the nation-state, are supporters and defenders of a form of religious nationalism, Zionism, and they are NOT supporter and defenders of ALL Semitic Peoples, whether Arab, Jewish, Christian, agonistic, atheist…The attacks against freedom of speech of critics of the Israelis government, and activists in the BDS movement are reminiscent of point 23; “that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press”; of the 25 points of Hitler’s 1920 Nazi party platform, as well as, point 25 (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/party.htm#25points).
Your anti-Israel diatribe is disturbing – this has NOTHING to do with free speech. In every western country people are allowed to be critical of Israel, not buy Israeli goods and ask others not to buy Israeli goods. You also criticize Israel for banning BDS activists from entering the country. Israel is a sovereign state – Israel and only Israel decides who crosses her borders and who can enter the country. They certainly have no obligation to allow anti-Israel zealots (like yourself) to enter the country. The US, Canada and every other country on earth decides who can enter and who cannot – why do you hold Israel to a different standard.
You are truly frightening.Israel bombs schools, bombs hospitals and we are asked to say this is okay and yet someone puts up a link showing that Israel has taken a page from the Nazi playbook you scream anti-israeli and scream the canned response “why do you hold Israel to a different standard” Really mainstream media were screaming just the other day that Russia bombed schools and bombed hospital the evil evil Russians.Please tell me how that works.
Perhaps you’d like to join me in my personal and direct form of BDS. About this time of the year avocados from Israel show up in the markets around town. There is nothing more satisfying than surreptuously punching your thumbs into as many as possible. No doubt the Israeli government is subsidizing avocados as well as tourist flights to Eilat — but Peruvian avocados have also shown up as of late.
That had never occurred to me! Trader Joe’s carries (apartheid) feta cheese. Unfortunately. Although TJ’s recently pledged to only sell eggs from cage free chickens.
Time to make peace and accommodate the two-state solution to a long-festering problem. Playing ostrich no longer is viable, for both Israel’s and Palestine’s sake. Racism as practiced by both parties has no place in the solution. That – and not curtailing free speech and expression or boycott for that matter – solves the “non-equation”. Who cares what nationality you are?
Israel must have complete control of US politicians as non of them will call Israel a terrorist state and boycott them immediately I for one will not buy any thing that even smells of made in Israel.
Thank you for supporting this Russell; we WILL win in the long run.
The controversial and unamerican policy of criminalizing legitimate activism is nothing short of naked and violent aggression. Remember this: It was your humanity and respect for dignity and human rights that got you into this mess in the first place; where is theirs? You are too polite.
Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”
I think Isreal is the tool used to soften us up to what is to come.The one world order that will not allow any criticism .
There was a recent episode of “The Good Wife” touching on the BDS movement and campus free speech that really infuriated me. In the episode, a university was enacting BDS policies and the free speech violation was their attempt to defund the school newspaper for writing an op-ed against BDS. How can they make an episode implying that speech in support for Israel is what’s being violated when the exact opposite is happening in campuses across the US and nations throughout the West?
What shocked and surprised me too was the Taps cops ordering people on their knees before they were handcuffed.Is this the softening up to what is to be standard practice for the masses?
Glenn is right: conflating the Likud political claque with Jewish people everywhere, to claim critique of Likud political policies is by definition antisemitic hate speech, totally fails the test: “Is it good for the Jews?”
Of some note… Zionist Jews also opposed and thwarted the original (non-Zionist) Jewish worldwide call to boycott Nazi Germany in its infancy, before WW2 broke out in earnest and well before the institution of death camps.
One wonders if that’s where Israel is inevitably going as well.
When you have a moment, please provide us with some evidence for “the institution of death camps”.
By so doing, you will be providing the international community with data which it has thus far been entirely unable to come up with.
Holy crap, Tim. Do we have here a real, honest-to-goodness Holocaust denier? If you think there is no data, you are deliberately ignoring it.
That is you, Mona, calling for a post to be deleted and then, denying you made such a demand on a Greenwald piece.
I posted a quote from Joe Biden that was contained in the link you asked to be deleted. The link was to a written piece and you were not concerned with discussing the statement Biden made where he acknowledges the 85% Jewish control of the film-industry.
Apparently the cognitive dissonance is too much for you. You really should stick to back-and-forth with Lenk.
Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Fishman, Nuf said & Mona, NEXT STEP IN MEDIA What is called for is ‘DIALECTIC’ (‘dia’ = ‘two’ + ‘lectic’ = ‘reading’ or reading from ‘both-sides’) RIGHTS for all writers, readers, publishers & other media-stakeholders. The ‘Comment-Section’ of social-media & articles themselves need to have a formal ‘option’ for ‘Both-sides-now, Equal-time (or characters), Recorded & Published’ ‘Debate’ (French ‘de’ = ‘undo’ + ‘bate’ = ‘the-fight’). Never is censorship to be employed. Anyone who believes in their own truth is better off embarrassing their perceived opponent & public adherents, widely in the court of public opinion simply with the truth.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Voltaire
Under dialectic rights DR anyone can ask for a debate over issues to which they feel they are affected-by positively (eg. research) or negatively (eg. slander). Socrates & a number of other practitioners over millennia have outlined that once an issue is challenged, then typically the proponent is asked to debate this among his or her stakeholder group in order to find a collective spokesperson. Debate then happens with this spokesperson among the other stakeholder groups eventually making the issues case ‘up-the-ladder’ to the top echelon of decision-making if necessary.
TRANSPARENT PUBLIC PROCESSES FOR PEACE Whenever there’s conflict, at home or worldwide, we have 2 main choices to: 1) Believe the Finance-Media-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex in its demonization of ‘the-other’, armour ourselves against perceived enemies, launch preemptive war & create hell or 2) Engage the other in formal Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogues to ascertain the truth. Mohandas Gandhi developed ‘Satyagraha’ (Hindi ‘truth-search’) based on the simultaneous inquiry with both parties whether in dispute or in research, asking the question, “What are your best intentions? & How can we help you fulfill these?” Gandhi, “I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness.” We need transparency in all levels of human interaction including military, government, education, business institutions etc for listening to all sides. Arming hotheads or sending arms or boys & girls to murder for foreign government destabilization & easy-cheap resource plunder is shameful, but the norm today. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues ‘INDIGENOUS’ (Latin ‘self-generating’)
WELCOMING INCLUSIVE ECONOMY For peace there must be a clear open welcoming inclusive accessible & tangible ‘fractal’ (‘part-contains-the-whole’) process for economic inclusion for every individual & group. Humanity’s indigenous ancestors were clear on providing for & structuring inclusive welcoming economy for everyone & thus achieved millennia of peace & prosperity. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy
What I just cannot understand for the life of me is how Israel expects me to accept them doing the same to other people what was done to them.All I ever hear,read or see in movies is how horrible it was for them yet they do the same thing.It is just crazy they get to bomb schools and hospitals and it is okay what kind logic is that killing children is wrong.
It’s the same logic that convinces western soldiers to fight for corporate giants in the name of 9/11…they flash some victims in front of you and – without proving to you that they have anything to do with the present conflict – convince you to go to war for them
sounds like a good law to break
Mona, of course I am an anti-Semite as the currently accepted definition of anti-Semite is anyone who questions anything about the Jews or Israel, or makes a statement regardless of how true it may be, that casts Jews or Israel in even the dimmest negative light. So yes, according to today’s ever broadening definition, I am an anti-Semite.
Moving on, did you find anything factually incorrect in Mark Weber’s essay?
Furthermore, if I write, “The vast majority of NBA players are African American.”, or, “Scots make the best whiskey.”, or, “The Germans have always made the finest machine tools.”, or, “Indians are very good at anything involving biology and make excellent doctors.”, or, “The Inuit people are amazing at being able to live in harsh conditions.”, do those statements make me racist? Abraham Foxman would likely say that writing, “Jews own most of the major studios in Hollywood.”, or, “The Federal Reserve System has been headed by someone of the Jewish faith for the last three decades.”, or, “Jews are really good at business and control the diamond trade.”, also makes me anti-Semitic by the current definition. Why?
Mona yells antisemite. Its a badge of honor :)
we should create Mona’s Law; All internet conversations involving Israel will devolve to charging antisemitism.
I’m afraid you’re misrepresenting Mona.
She has labelled two here and the Godwin jab was snark.
She has said some very good things re Palestine/Israel.
If opposition to Israeli racism, terrorism, colonialism, mass murder and apartheid is “antisemitism” then opposition to segregation in the South was anti-White as was opposition to apartheid in South Africa. I must be anti-Aryan because I hate nazis.
There seems to be some popular delusion that zionists have a magic power to redefine words and terms in the English language.
@nuf said
You are a nazi and an anti-semite because you said this:
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/07/why-is-u-s-refusing-an-independent-investigation-if-its-so-clear-its-hospital-airstrike-was-an-accident/?comments=1#comment-170823
Yes, I didn’t take the time to unearth his more vile comments, so thanks for doing what I declined to do.
Bwahaha!
Louise Cypher is banned for his obnoxious posts.
I threw his shit in his face as you noted. It worked. He told me to fuck off! No one had every received such. My goal was to goad him into losing it and he did.
But back to the question(s) I posed to Mona:
Is Biden an anti-Semite for lavish praise of the 85% Jew-controlled film industry?
Those were Biden’s words and Mona attempted to have the link to his words deleted ON A GREENWALD piece.
No shit. Mona, an effin lawyer, called for the deletion of a link to words that were less than flattering for Israel. She could have reminded us that Weber is a clown who pals around with David Duke, as JLocke did. But no, she called for suppression.
Mona, I’ve been using you as a bowling pin; set it up and knock it down.
It’s getting too easy so I’ll back off.
With few exceptions, Jews have always opposed free speech and expression.
I just saw in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
“In recent weeks, state lawmakers have threatened a variety of actions against the University of Missouri, including bills to take athletic scholarships away from athletes who protest, to require a course on freedom of speech for all students, and to impose mandatory annual audits and even budget cuts.”
Our lawmakers are jumping on this like flies on shit. All kinds of ways to put an end to free speech. I wonder what in the hell the course on freedom of speech is about? The unreality of all of this is so scary.
“Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
? George Orwell, 1984
“Intellectually sophisticated” Mona called young Arabs in France as “deeply oppressed”. These are the rights of every citizen in France including the young Arabs.
1) The right to vote
2) The right to challenge authorities through demonstrations, strikes, elections…
3) Legal protection against discrimination through Article 225-1,2 of the Penal Code
4) Legal protection against hate speech (which does not exist in America and which she opposes)
5) Access to low cost primary, secondary and higher education
6) Access to low cost Universal Healthcare described as one of the best healthcare systems by the WHO
If individuals enjoying all these rights and advantages are so “deeply oppressed” that they will resort to violence against the French because of a court ruling against BDS, then I would like the “intellectually sophisticated” Mona to tell us one country on Earth where there is absolutely no violence against minority, no racism, no police brutality, no unemployment among immigrants. My bags are ready to go!
However, if the “intellectually sophisticated” Mona cannot provide that perfect society, then it would not be personal to describe her as an idiot who does not even understand what the word oppression means.
Isn’t what we are discussing, the fact that France, both the government, and the courts, have decided that citizens don’t have the right to demonstrate…against Israel?
I assume you did not read the whole story. I do not want to call you dishonest.
1) The ban was on a CASE BY CASE basis based on the city and the police district.
2) The ban was the result of violence between pro Palestinian and pro Israeli groups on the streets of Paris
3) The ban was against pro Palestinian groups AND against pro Israeli groups as a result of the violence between them. It is very similar to the ban placed on certain football fans due to their history of fighting between themselves and damaging public property.
Authorities in ALL modern democracies have banned public gathering when there is an obviously high probability that violence might happen. In that case violence did happen.
THERE ARE NO LAWS IN FRANCE THAT BAN PEACEFUL AND PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS.
Now you are petulantly persisting in your error because you are incapable of admitting it when you are shown to be wrong.
What error?
Reply to JLocke:
The Southern Poverty Law Center bills itself as a bastion of civil rights, but this “non-profit” organization has done little but smear people for exercising their right to free speech while making their founders very wealthy.
Some quotes from Wikipedia:
In 1994, the Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer Prize nominated series, which “exposed financial mismanagement at SPLC.”
“[SPLC co-founder Morris] Dees has faced criticism that he uses too much of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s fundraising intake as personal income – and even accusations that the SPLC exists mostly as a fundraising vehicle.
“A 2000 article by Ken Silverstein in Harper’s Magazine, titled “The Church of Morris Dees”, alleged that Dees kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the greater fundraising potential of the former. “
“In 2005, Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden called Dees “nothing more than a scam artist.”[24] “
“Stephen Bright, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney, wrote in 2007 that Dees was “a con man and fraud”, who “has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation.”[26]
WakeUpAmerica – “The Southern Poverty Law Center bills itself as a …”
I admire the ambition…”What am I going to do today?…I know, I’m going to try to impugn the credibility of The Southern Poverty Law Center by claiming they focus too much on the KKK and with a quote by a leader of a segregationist group!!!”
Ahem, the leader of the segregationist group was Wesley Pruden Sr. Not Wesley Pruden Jr., who is quoted in my post.
Instead of taking the FREE out of FREEDOM and FORCING democracy on other nations by bombing them or funding them to commit massacres. Why doesn’t London and France ask the question, “WHY such a movement is choking israel? ”
Here is what it is….surprising it seems the people that have elected those who sit in government position forgot that they, the people are the BOSS. When the people are being surpressed by stripping them of their freedom but forcing “freedom”,on other nations …makes you wonder who is really using “Shari Law”,we keep hearing about ….
No, Ali,the people are not the boss. Money is the boss. But the people are so brainwashed that they actually believe that they are the boss.
If you take the FREE out of FREEDOM then you just have DOM, aka DUMB. That about sums it up.
Mona
“……Craig, the one misrepresenting is you. While the 2005 founders of BDS do call for a one-state solution, many BDS supporters — such as J Street — do not sign on to the movement with that goal and still look for a 2-state solution. Moreover, campaigns to boycott settlement goods are also attacked by anti-BDS laws, as Greenwald and Fishman’s article properly states……”
Really Mona. I don’t care what J street supports and doesn’t support. That is completely irrelevant to what I have stated. The BDS campaign specifically compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and calls for the right of return of refugees. Additionally, they are calling for the end to land and immigration laws that favor Jews. Those are clear cut (even for you) calls for the end to the Jewish majority state. You cannot interpret that any other way – and YES – Greenwald and Fishburn misrepresent the BDS campaign by omitting the end goal of the campaign – for political reasons. At best, you are disingenuous Mona. At worst………..
“…….A “Jewish majority state” means ethno-religious nationalism in which Jews “must” constitute 70% of the citizenry, by any means necessary…..”
Interesting Mona how your concern for ethno-religious nationalism seems to be confined to the one Jewish state in the world. Your pen seems to be silent in other ethnic and ethno–religious states like Armenia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia – or the entire Middle East. I can still remember all the posts you have written in protests for the ethno-religious states in the Middle East and the oppressive laws and conditions imposed on minorities like the Kurds, the Baluchs and Hazaras in Pakistan, the Shiites in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the Yazidis, Jews and women (in general). If you are really concerned about religious and ethnic hatred, you show that with complete silence – except for Israel.
The radical left is fixated on Israel.
Does anyone have the impression that this article raises fears for reducing freedom of speech in the west, if you support the BDS movement? Im not insinuating that is the agenda here.
Reply to JLocke:
Just so ya know–the Southern Poverty Law Center is not the bastion of civil rights that most people think. This “non-profit” organization has done little but smear people for exercising their right to free speech while making their founders very wealthy.
Some quotes from Wikipedia:
“In 1994, the Montgomery Advertiser ran a Pulitzer Prize nominated series, which exposed financial mismanagement at SPLC.”
“[SPLC co-founder Morris] Dees has faced criticism that he uses too much of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s fundraising intake as personal income – and even accusations that the SPLC exists mostly as a fundraising vehicle.”
“A 2000 article by Ken Silverstein in Harper’s Magazine, titled “The Church of Morris Dees”, alleged that Dees kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the greater fundraising potential of the former. ”
“In 2005, Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden called Dees “nothing more than a scam artist.”[24]
“Stephen Bright, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney, wrote in 2007 that Dees was “a con man and fraud”, who “has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation.”[26]
The US population has no problems with condemning China for the pseudo-occupation and the pseudo-ethnic cleansing of Tibetans yet are too ignorant or cowardly or racially biased to condemn the real occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The later of which they are partially culpable in that their tax dollars and the politicians they voted in are obstructing justice on the international stage and endorsing the actions of that vicious Israeli apartheid regime. The message is clear.
How disgusting. It makes any human being throw up a little in the mouth.
The Harvard Law School’s Justice for Palestine student group has cost the school a $250,000 endowment, the “Milbank Tweed Student Conference Fund.” The group used $500 of fund money to purchase pizza for the group’s first campus event, oh-so-ironically a discussion titled “The Palestine Exception to Free Speech: A Movement Under Attack.” Milbank Tweed (a law firm) pulled the endowment.
Read about the whole thing here.
Is it illegal discrimination to boycott foreign products made with child labour? Is there anything Israel could do to it’s captive population, that would make a boycott not “anti-semitism”? Aren’t laws supposed to be comprehensible, consistent, and fair? Can I propose that we stop trading with companies abroad that use slave labour…without being accused of discriminating against people of that nation state?
Here is another quote which Mona said should be deleted.
Mona, is Biden an anti- Semite for declaring Jews control 85% of Hollywood?
I can see why you would rather have Biden’s statement deleted.
It’s so much easier for you to respond to Lenk clones.
Here is another quote which Mona said should be deleted.
Never happened. Moreover, it was not a quote I sought to be deleted; it was a link to a neo-Nazi web site. But Gator has good reason to declare you an antisemite, so perhaps you don’t have any objections to the IHR.
Oops, this should be blockquoted, as it is a quote of nuf:
Never happened.
By deleting the link you would be deleting Biden’s statement.
That is a fact. As I said, it’s easier for you to babble on with lenk.
And “Gator has good reason to declare you an anti-Semite.”
Is that because he’s Jewish? Meaning he has the bona fides for calling antisemitism when he sees it. I see.
Gator also believes he is part of a distinct race. He has said so. Fuck that.
You have not answered my questions:
Is Biden an anti-Semite?
Is Sam Harris an anti-Semite?
Why would Weber say something that is very similar to Harris’ statement?
I’m fine with people advocating for BDS, even though I don’t think its very effective, and in Europe it seems to contributing to environment that is driving Jews to Israel, but I do take issue with the false equivalence between BDS, and the PC hysteria affecting US college campus. Issues surround the legitimacy of a state and the ongoing conflict over it are serious issues that you expect people to become upset about… you want to know what isn’t a serious issue? Halloween costumes! And not even the actual wearing of a culturally appropriated Halloween costume, but the simple notion that maybe people shouldn’t get worked up about trivial was enough to generate a generate a shitstorm of anger among our most elite toddlers and cost people their jobs. That whole controversy was pure madness.
1. BDS is effective. If it were not Israel and its Western lobbies would not be dedicating millions of dollars to shut it down.
2. Your free speech analysis is entirely wrong. Your opinion of the relative importance of banning BDS speech v firing a university employee for comments about Halloween costumes is utterly ignorant. For purposes of protecting speech, the ideas in the speech are irrelevant.
1. Oh please, if boycotts by the entire Islamic world, including pretty much all of Israel’s neighbors aren’t pressuring them into changing their wicked ways. I doubt a few American and European universities are going to be the straw that breaks the Zionist’s back.
2. Whatever. Supporting free speech in principal, is very easy. You really think if a professor were fired for saying something truly controversial from a Right-wing perspective –lets say calling BLM terrorists or something along those lines– that the Intercept would champion their cause? Of course not, everyone picks their battles. What the Yale case news worthy was the hysteria.
Your hand-waving and misdirection merit no substantive response.
How can you be an advocate for free speech when you hijack (free) comments and call someone an anti semite, ignorant, chief Nazi…??? The original party title “Nazi” has been hijacked also and perverted into an abomination to elevate the Jewish identity that somehow deserves a throne to rule from. You create blowback when hypocrisy limits your activism and thus brings your credibility to nothing. How does that help anything? Hypocrisy = Tyranny
The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
@Mona
What was that lawsuit years ago that Glenn won … something to do with a particular group … who was it … in Illinois, I think …
what group wanted to march and others did not want them to march … what was that about …
Oh yeah, the Neo-Nazis were being denied their free speech rights. Distasteful as their message may be they have the right to share their message.
And what did Mona do? she reiterated “it was a link to a neo-Nazi web site.” she wanted deleted.
Mona, have you no shame?
No. You have the facts wrong. Your entire comment is bullshit, both in its factual errors and it’s “reasoning.”
Mona does not have strong arguments. She is not interested in the truth. She wants to feel that she wins an argument regardless of the facts. When others make her look stupid she calls them trolls, crapflooders, Lenk, Zionists and she uses the code words for TI “you should be banned”, “stop spamming” or in my case “you have been banned before” in order to tell TI moderators to block that commentator.
Check her response to Whendovescry. Whendovescry has very good and pertinent point. Everybody picks their battles. For instance, Greenwald presents himself here as the great defender of free speech who is outraged at the restrictions placed on BDS. This is the same Greenwald who describe Charlie Hebdo more as a racist anti Muslim newspaper than a press organization exercising and promoting free speech. Although, statistically Charlie Hebdo rarely targets Islam.
You’re just not gracious when shown to be wrong, something you keep giving me an opportunity to demonstrate — for you often flood comments with errors. And are never gracious when shown the truth.
Personal attacks is pretty much all you have in your quiver, along with bogus or irrelevant fact claims. Among Greenwald’s regulars — who tend to be at an advanced level of intellectual sophistication — you are never going to get very far if you continue in this vein.
As I stated you are an idiot. I asked you a very simple question. What part of the French ruling against BDS that remotely suggests that is illegal for you to personally bash Israel or to boycott Israel, Zimbabwe, Spain…? That is a very simple question that only requires you to read the ruling, which is available in the website I provided.
Since you have ” an advanced level of intellectual sophistication” your response was to provide press reports about what happened and personal opinions about the ruling. You must have a serious case of brain damage if you really think you proved anything.
There is nothing personal here. You are an idiot. Intellectually sophisticated individuals would read a ruling, understand the reasoning behind it and then challenge it. You have not done so. You are so intellectually sophisticated that you “do not even need to read” the laws used by the court. The opinions of others are sufficient.
More gobblity gook idiot talk.
WTF -Mona- is an “anti-Semite”?
You are again responding to a commenter with the message ‘nuf said’ is an anti-Semite. You do not attack the message but the messenger.
Pretty weak but then you are a woman, are you not? (That was a misogynous swipe in case you did not recognize it. )
It is little different than your swipe.
OT
BREAKING NEWS ON CNN
Boy, CNN has surely devalued the concept of breaking news! They have a few pieces of breaking news everyday.
The JFK assassination, the Challenger disaster, evil acts of 911, etc. used to be breaking news.
But now, Cruz, Trump Trading Blows in South Carolina, is considered breaking news.
Things that make you go Hmm!
@-Mona- to Ish Kabibble
No one on this site demands that others be banned more than -Mona- and she did it on a thread for “threats against free speech”.
Please, Mona, you spend countless paragraphs arguing with Lenk clones or CS but when someone posts a link with a statement painting Jews in an historic negative light you scream anti-Semite and demand they be deleted.
Here is everybody’s favorite Islamophobe, Sam Harris:
Tell us in what way this theme is so odious as to be banned.
It is the fault of Jews and their fucked-up interpretation of the world. Israel is the “Jewish state” and its actions are that of a Jewish state running amok.
That said, the Law of Large Numbers tells us that if someone identifies as a Jew, that person is exempt from the assumption that would paint Jews in general.
In short, Mona, that means Jews as a group are causing trouble for the world but an individual Jew cannot be assumed to be a trouble-maker.
That is what free speech is all about, honey.
Mona didn’t say “banned” she said the post should be “deleted”
probably because of this:
Catchy:
“There was no Holocaust, but they deserve one — and will get it.”
I’d never heard of IHR or Weber. Thanks for filtering through their trash and providing some context.
Yes, Mona did ask for a deletion and not a banishment (praise her restraint).
This is why deletions should only be for really over-the-top crap.
I re-posted Weber’s last paragraph as it surprisingly matches Sam Harris’ historical take on Jews. I am not a fan of Sam and neither are more than a few commentors here. He’s been labeled an Islamophobe and by Mona’s definition he’s an anti-Semite, too. Yet he is Jewish (secular) and he is not a holocaust denier.
That I have come to the conclusion reached by Harris and Weber of my own accord is worth discussion. I’ve never been to Stormfront yet I’ve read most of Der Sturmer. The majority of the latter is fairly course and certainly degrading but what I found most interesting was the kernel of truth which added legitimacy to an effective publication. Mona speaks highly of “truth” but she is quick to discard things she’s labelled false. Despite grand intentions, such censorship may indeed hide the truth along with the trash.
(I’d direct my comments to Mona but she’s already pronounced her disinclination to respond. If she intended to crush my spirit she’s succeeded …)
Nuf is also an antisemite — Gator refuses to reply to him any longer and I almost never do. Mark Weber, who runs the IHS, is this guy:
Most recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqJH1KXlPs It’s a Trick, We Always Use It says former Israel Minister
Sam Harris doesn’t seem to get that it’s possible to analyze socio-cultural phenomena without generalizing (“Jews do this or that”). Clearly, not all Jews are settlers. Not all agree with the Israeli government and so forth.
But ALL settlers are Jews. It’s the Law of Large Numbers. Yes, you are correct, not all Jews agree with the Israeli government.
It is not incorrect to say Jews occupy Palestinian land. Jews, yes, Jews!
Derision is a form of sanction and the sanctions will be lifted when Palestine has full nation rights. That Jews have a history of sanction is curious indeed. What possible cultural and/or religious acts would garner such a prize.
Thanks for quoting that. I always thought that was pretty weak sauce. Even back in the days when I sort of thought Sam Harris had it going on, what I could not understand, is that he would bash Christianity so hard, and Islam even harder, and the worst he could for Judaism, is the quote you quoted above. It’s like he barely even scratched the surface. He never even answered his own question.
Mona
“…….If Jews must put another people in apartheid, then they have no right to effect “self-determination” by that means…….”
What you want believe about a Jewish state is your own opinion. However, the goal of the BDS campaign is to eliminate the Jewish majority state.
Greenwald and Fishman are misrepresenting that position in this article. They are not unique in this manner. On a host of issues, the radical left is lying about Israel for political gain.
I will never knowingly buy any products from Israel or from any organization reselling/marketing any Israel products until that land consists of one state whereby all occupants of that area are considered citizens and have equal rights.
I do not belong to any organization, ei. BDS; but have urge friends and family to do the same. No laws can stop me and have been doing this since 1960.
Craig, the one misrepresenting is you. While the 2005 founders of BDS do call for a one-state solution, many BDS supporters — such as J Street — do not sign on to the movement with that goal and still look for a 2-state solution. Moreover, campaigns to boycott settlement goods are also attacked by anti-BDS laws, as Greenwald and Fishman’s article properly states.
I honestly don’t see a problem with the one-state solution, given that it’s the de facto state of affairs. No country in the world is entitled to dictate which ethnicity should be in the majority or in power. Countries that do are Apartheid states.
Netanyahu doesn’t want a 2-state solution, and Israel is, as you say, a de facto one state. The issue now is ending the apartheid.
Yes. Netanyahu et al have painted themselves into a corner. All that’s left now is to watch the inevitable ugliness play itself out. And it will.
Hate speech is philosophically and legally indefensible. It attempts to regulate the impact on the receiver without regard to motive by the initiator.
The judgement of “hate speech” is arrived at through the evaluation of the “damage” to the “dignity” or “emotions” of the target of the speech. The speaker’s motives play no role. As such, “hate speech” is an amorphous and arbitrary concept that is often abused in order to “shut the opponents up”! That “hate speech” is being used to shut down the opponents of Israel’s policies illustrates the point.
Hate speech can increase the danger to the people that are the focus of the hate speech. Examples might include the KKK, Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor – or Jews in Europe by BDS activists.
Surely you jest. Hate speech and a refusal to purchase are wholly different things. We’re white southafricans subjected to more violence because of the boycott of south African goods? Is Wal-Mart subjected to violence because of people that won’t shop there? Should burger king be forbidden from having customers because of its deleterious effects on McDonald s?
Your examples illustrate how hate speech can be abused! In essence, it can be applied to shut down just about anything that challenges the status quo.
Three completely different concerns under one convenient tent.
Or leftist people in Israel.
This is actually a better than usual debate/discussion of the one/two state solution:
“You may not legally wear a T shirt saying: “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” But I’ve taken this to a stand alone post, up above.” Mona
FALSE!!!
French laws do not prevent individuals to decide what products they want to use. Those producing and distributing those T shirt would be prosecuted under French laws. The writer on an anti Semitic book would be prosecuted in France, not the readers.
That means you did not read the legal reasoning of the Cour de Cassation. You just prove my point: you are a certified idiot. The ruling is available here:
https://www.courdecassation.fr/
Read it first before you make a fool of yourself.
You are simply wrong.
You are an idiot, an ignorant, and the most illiterate lawyer I have ever encountered. Again knucklehead, READ the ruling available at
http://www.courdecassation.fr
A press article reporting what the individuals were wearing does not constitute a court ruling that clarifies what is illegal or not. The judges apply Article 24, Section 8 of the Press Law 1881 considering Article 225-1 ,2 of the French Penal Code. The judges agreed with the State opinion that BDS speech proceeds through confusion with the intent of causing discriminatory reactions towards Israelis as a group, which is illegal under the French Penal Code.
Show everybody how silly I am by providing a single word in the ruling that remotely suggests that the court has a problem with your personal decision to hate, love or boycott Israel.
Here’s a French magistrate explaining the holding:
Now, do stop your misdirection and silliness.
This is in line with my argument, Mona. The French are using a law for “combatting discrimination against physical persons” to shield “a state whose politics is criticized”
It’s no shame on the law against actual discrimination against real people, that it is misused to support Israeli policy. The shame falls on unethical French politicians and lawyers. (who, to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps believe that the ends….twisting the law…serves the greater good , if not by combatting actual anti-semitism, then by creating an offsetting injustice that favours the Israeli government, which conflates itself with world Jewry)
In the UK, police and teachers are terrorizing young, grade-school boys:
The anti-terrorism cops went to the boy’s home:
Few things are more likely to cause a passionate young male to turn to violence than heavy-handed intimidation by the state when his peaceful speech rights to protest oppression are taken from him.
For decades, I’ve been warning European, Canadian, Australian supporters of “hate speech” laws– and some American supporters — that the noxious fruit of these laws would certainly be the prohibition of speech they support. To my French friends, this has happened:
If pro-Palestinian forces now take violently to the streets in France, the nation and supporters of these laws have no one to blame but themselves. Having robbed the citizenry of a peaceful means of opposing oppression, citizens now have little alternative if their opposition is to continue to be active.
This is one where we definitely see differently Mona.
is it noxious fruit? Or is it a misapplication of these laws?
The US goes after whistleblowers, journalists with espionage laws. Does this invalidate the need for laws against spying? Or is it that, Duh! Journalists and public interest whistleblowers are not agents of enemy governments?
I see it the same way with hate laws. Does the fact that courts misuse hate laws to ban criticism of certain countries, Israel, mean that those same class of laws are not valid when used against those who inciting hate, violence against individuals, Blacks, Jews, Roma?
Are hate laws any more prone to misuse, than any other law? To give one example, labelling requirements can be used as trade protectionism. But consumers still need good labels. If a government, if lawyers, judges are determined to use a law, for a purpose that it was not created to serve, using linguistic gymnastics, I would say the fault lies with those people, not the laws they are misusing.
The former, easily the former.
The first, highest speech needing protection is political speech. Politics is very impassioned and people often resort to slurs and ugly stereotypes when making their arguments. Some, moreover, are going to conclude that even well-supported fact claims facts (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews scoring a full standard deviation higher than blacks or whites on IQ tests, and even higher than U.S. blacks) constitute “hate speech.”
Politics is not a can of soup. There is no such thing in law as “political truth.” It’s a very odious and inherently illiberal position to argue otherwise.
Mona I can’t find anything in your reply that contradicts what I wrote. I’ll take that as agreement!
JLocke, if you think I was agreeing with you I did not make myself clear. You wrote:
The government is not “using the law for a purpose it was not created to serve, using linguistic gymnastics.” It has merely included Israel in the class of targets of hate speech. The list of potential classes is virtually unlimited.
Here’s the thing,
You (and I) see hate speech laws, being used inappropriately to shield Israel. I see hate speech laws also appropriately protecting vulnerable individuals and groups in society. So to me, it’s a “one of these things don’t belong” situation….(gender, race, religion, Israel)…..Can you spot which one I don’t think belongs?
So for me, would you have me erase all the laws that have been built up over the years, protecting, disabled people, black people, Jews….in order that such laws aren’t used to shield a middle east ally of the current governments in US, France, UK? I’m not sure that’s a good trade.
1. There will always be additional groups “protected” whom you think don’t belong, and 2. Facts and opinions about those whom you do think belong will be criminalized. It can literally be illegal to say, e.g., that in the aggregate Jews score higher on IQ tests than blacks do.
A plea from a terrorist sympathizer:
“If pro-Palestinian forces now take violently to the streets in France, the nation and supporters of these laws have no one to blame but themselves. Having robbed the citizenry of a peaceful means of opposing oppression, citizens now have little alternative if their opposition is to continue to be active.”
This is a list of violent acts committed by pro Palestinian forces in France BEFORE the court decision:
1) Attack on EI AI passengers in Paris killing a French policeman: 1978
2) Paris Synagogue Bombing 1980
3)Goldenberg restaurant attack: 6 killed. 1982
4) Mohammed Merah attacked and killed Jews including three children stating “The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine”. 2012
You are a certified idiot and a terrorist sympathizer. There are absolutely no laws in French that prevent citizens from criticizing Israel. Violent pro-Palestinian forces have used violence in France decades before that court decision.
Actually, an observation from one who comprehends human nature.
Yes, and now that a successful, peaceful means has been criminalized, you can expect to see yet more violence. It’s what happens in human culture.
“Yes, and now that a successful, peaceful means has been criminalized, you can expect to see yet more violence. It’s what happens in human culture.”
NO. That is what happens in a retarded, archaic and terrorist culture.
How many restaurants, schools…South African militants attacked in France while France ignored UN recommended arms embargo against Apartheid South Africa?
You love to compare Apartheid South Africa with the Israli/Palestinian conflict. So by any means, go ahead.
Great point. If we are expected to swallow these Apartheid comparisons, then the same applies to the Palestinians. Mona, how many members of the ANC ever strapped on a suicide vest? How about we juxtapose Mandela’s Reconstruction and Development Program with Hamas’ Charter? I can assure you that will not go well for you.
You are quite ignorant. The ANC committed great atrocities. Indeed, Winnie Mandela endorsed necklacing. Despite the Western media and political establishment’s fondness for highlighting this atrocity, the boycott of South Africa did prevail.
“You are quite ignorant. The ANC committed great atrocities”
Actually you are the ignorant and the certified idiot. A FACT that is recognized by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the ANC leadership attempt to avoid civilian casualties and what could constitute war crimes although its members did commit crimes. The ANC openly and publicly distanced itself from Winnie support for necklacing.
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/index.htm
Mona,
I mentioned suicide vests. I said nothing about atrocities. I accept they would have committed some atrocities. Frankly, I think you could draw some comparisons between the AMC and some of the Jewish militias that operated in Mandatory Palestine before the creation of Israel. Both groups committed some atrocities, but they did not go on to establish a culture that celebrates the death of innocents. They both have imperfect histories, they don’t take pride in their past moral failings, but they did what they thought was necessary at the time.
You have completely straw manned me. The apartheid comparison must go both ways. You have evaded my 2 central points : 1) suicide vests 2) political platforms. There are enormous differences between the AMC and the PLO/ Hamas. You have no idea what a game changer suicide bombs are. The psyche that threat has on a population is incalculable. Mona, it’s not always about winning the argument. You’re not litigating against me. Let’s have a dialogue. You may find I may make some compelling points and we can reach a common ground.
No. It’s what happens when young males in a deeply oppressed class are deprived legitimate means of battling the oppression. France has a large population of Algerian and other Arabs who closely identify with Palestinians. France oppresses these Arabs, and this latest — criminalizing their means of protesting — will pour fuel on the flames of their justified rage.
CERTIFIED IDIOT.
“France oppresses these Arabs, and this latest — criminalizing their means of protesting — will pour fuel on the flames of their justified rage.”
1) Every single Arab in France can boycott Israeli, US, Danish…products or services
2)There is not a single government that can guarantee a society free of racism and violence against minority. However, you can only be a certified idiot to describe the French government as an oppressor of those Arabs while it provides them with low cost education, low cost healthcare, the right to vote, the right to choose their leaders and the legal protection against discrimination under the Penal Code.
You are nothing but an idiot and a terrorist sympathizer. Terrorists and their sympathizers are typically ignorant, despicable and irrational. You illustrate those traits very well. Among all the alternatives available to Arabs in French (voting, demonstrations, strikes…) violence is the best one you can come up with. Your logic: laws should not be based on historical contexts, order, or protection of others. Legislators should pass laws that do not upset terrorists.
You are simply wrong, and perhaps you missed my earlier demonstration that you are.
You cannot be that stupid. Are you really that stupid or you are just playing a game?
Your link is an opinion not a court ruling. I sent you the site with the ruling.
OMG. What kind of dumb ass lawyer are you? So, you decide what is illegal based on opinions, not on laws and court rulings?
Again show me I am wrong, silly, stupid by providing ONE single word from the ruling that makes it illegal in France for you to take a personal decision to love, hate or boycott Israel.
You have not read the ruling, have you?
I’d hope that the Palestinians will still take the high road and act peacefully, for that would be the most courageous, though most difficult, thing to do.
I’m confident that peaceful means will eventually yield positive results.
Sufi Muslim,
How come Terror is committed in the name of Islam all over the world but when it occurs in Israel the world views it different? Wouldn’t the 27,000+ terror attacks since 9/11, spanning 5 continents, make it abundantly clear that Islam, not Zionism, is the source of the problem? Jews do not commit acts of terror outside Israel. Given the prevalence of this problem, how are you able to plausibly make the case that terror is a “response” to Israeli “occupation”? If Palestinian terror is truly a response to this, why have attacks occurred in England, France, Spain, America, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Kenya, Cameroon, Mali, Burko Fasino, Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Canada, India, Russia, Sudan, Tunisia,Egypt, Lebanon, Thailand, the Phillipines, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Denmark? That doesn’t include the numerous plots that have been thwarted in other European countries, namely Germany, Belgium and Sweden. I could be wrong, but it is possible that Israel isn’t the problem
Huh!?
Your reply to my previous post doesn’t match. I think you are responding to someone else.
Please re-read my previous comments.
I’m not responding to any specific post of yours. I’m just interested in hearing what you have to say about my specific question. Based on your posts, I’m comfortably inferring that you hold the view that Israel is the aggressor in this situation. I don’t want this to be confrontational. I’m interested in what you have to say. Can you please answer my question?
You’re asking me to comment on things I have not stated, rather, you are assuming that I would’ve said those things and are asking me to comment on what you assume I might have said.
It doesn’t seem reasonable.
I urged the Palestinians to act in a peaceful manner no matter what. Do you think it was wrong of me to do that?
As for your comments about Islam, Islam is a set of teachings based on the Quran. I find no justification in the Quran for harming non-combatants, even off-duty soldiers.
I consider violence against the non-combatants to be wrong.
I have also stated often that the world of Islam is not monolithic. There are currents within the world of Islam that are bad to evil, most are fair to good, and some, such as many firms of Sufism, are excellent.
That’s fantastic. I wish we had more people in the world like you, but your views on Islam are immaterial at the moment. Hundreds of Millions of your religious peers do not share your interpretation, namely those in the Palestinian territories.
I believe I have inferred your views on the conflict correctly because you urged the Palestinians to take the “high road”, a piece of advice which implies they are on the receiving end of an injustice, rather than the perpetrators of one.
I view the conflict differently. The purpose of my question is to see if you would re-think your position on the conflict in light of the facts I have provided for you.
My position is very simple:
We humans need to focus on self purification and development, which means moving away from the lower self (aka consciousness) whose qualities include selfishness, arrogance, anger, vengeance, self-ego and pride, hatred, lust for power, control and resources, doing unto others what one doesn’t want done unto oneself, seeing otherness, injustice, violence, etc., and towards the higher self, which reflects the qualities that are opposite to the negative qualities I have listed.
A lot of the problems in the world would go away if those in the position of power and control would reflect the higher consciousness.
It’s hard, but that’s our challenge in this realm of existence, whether one is an ordinary person or a leader.
There’s a lot of inner peace and joy that comes from selfless acts.
I remember vividly how the Second Intifada began.
Sharon went to the Al-Aqsa mosque. Had the Palestinians reacted with love and kindness, the whole thing would’ve been defused.
Regardless of the level of difficulty in trying to groom the self so that it reflects the higher, do you disagree with me on it in principle?
Jews are a much smaller population than the world’ Muslims. But, when Zionists were attempting to drive Arabs out of Palestine and meeting resistance from the West, they sent letter bombs to British politicians, and according to Margaret Truman, to her father, Harry.
Further, in the 1980s, the FBI declared the Jewish Defense League to be the #1 terrorist group in the United States. And again, Jews are a tiny fraction of the world’s population as compared with Muslims or Christians. Yet, they made #1.
lol!!! The Jewish Defense League. How many people have they killed? Boko Harem kills more people in a weekend than the JDL has killed in its entire existence. I do not care about Isolated examples of terror. That changes nothing. I’m concerned with global trends and patterns. Jihadists kill people all over the world. There are nearly as many Muslims as there are Jews in America, yet Muslims commit significantly more attacks than Jews. It’s silly to even make that comparison as an act of terror has not been committed in the name of Judaism in decades, and even that limp dick JDL example you provided for me was a total non-event.
But please address my central point, which Sufi has artfully evaded. Does the prevalence of Islamic Jihad all over the world make you second guess Israel’s culpability in this conflict? How are are you not able to logically infer that Israel’s actions are simply a response to this menacing ideology?
The problem always is aggrieved (legitimately or not) young males. Women do sometimes come along, but terrorism is almost always driven by young males.
From my perspective, these young people will gain more from following a path that helps them groom their inner self than resorting to violence when some of the peaceful ways have been criminalized.
I understand your argument about human nature, but I still feel that way — human beings are fully capable of controlling their anger, frustrations and disappointments and take the high road in the most difficult circumstance.
Sufi literature is full of stories of people who have managed to act kindly while being treated extremely unfairly and persecuted in the most violent ways.
I realize these ideals are very difficult to achieve, but sometimes all it takes is a noble leader, like Gandhi.
I still remember a scene at the Al-Aqsa mosque when Sharon visited it. There was a Palestinian leader, Faisal something, who was trying desperately to stop the Palestinians from throwing rocks.
Had they listened to him, the Second Intifada would not have started, and the whole situation would have been defused that day.
I believe some used to call him the Palestinian Gandhi.
Unfortunately Sufis don’t generally prevail, and neither do Gandhis. Zionism had it’s Gandhi, American-born Judah Magnes, the first Chancellor of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. But Jabotisnky’s warrior Zionism prevailed over Magnes’ spiritual version.
I fully acknowledge that a lot of people poo poo the idea, but most of the Palestinians are Muslims, many are Christians. So they believe in the Ultimate Justice, which is not going to happen in this realm of existence, where our primary objective is to groom our self so that it reflects the higher, and not ‘pevailing’ in terms of the transient benefits and objectives of this material world.
Violence begets violence. It did not help the Palestinians. And if one peaceful method is being criminalized, that shouldn’t lead to violence. It simply means that they need to act even more patiently and find other peaceful means.
It’s hard, but that’s what they need to do: turn the other cheek. Be like Christ who reflected the highest possible consciousness.
There’s also no use discussing which side has committed more violence. That kind of discussion leads to even more tribalism thereby seeing even more otherness.
We need to vie for good deeds with no expectations.
Need a chuckle, watch Dershowitz argue these points:
and this is a keeper:
Dershowitz is a great debater but, having to blame the lack of negotiations, on the recent BDS movement?, not his strongest point. ….and Israel’s actions are better than….British and French colonialism in Africa? Again, not something I’d expect someone to be arguing.
I have many Jewish friends and business associates and almost all are opposed to the fanatical right-wing takeover of Israel. This cannot end well for Israel, the Israel economy or its neighbors.
I’ve lived my life in the midst of Jews — friends, associates, family — and I hardly know any who aren’t absolutely horrified by the brutality and intransigence of the right-wing nutcases who have controlled Israeli politics and policy for so long, and outraged by the brazen audacity of the West Bank settler movement.
Even most who grew up in ardently Zionist families have turned away in dismay and embarrassment over the past decade or two.
Thanks for the great article, I had no idea there was a office of anti boycotting compliance. I would wager that many U.S. citizens don’t know that either. The government certainly learned its lesson from Rosa Parks.
When freedom to purchase conflicts with the consumer’s ability to know what is in a product and where it comes from, the big guns will always come out in force. We are seeing those fights now wrt food labels, whether the issue be GMOs, labeling of meat as being antibiotic-free, or country-of-origin labeling the corporations are determined that the consumers shall have no say in truly understanding that which they consume:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0613/Vermont-food-industry-begin-court-fight-over-GMO-label-law-video
“The State”, not the people who elected that state. And, in our current political climate, “federal regulatory” means “groups we have already bought and paid for” and, in many if not most cases, agencies also staffed by that “coalition of industry groups”.
We really are moving toward a society where all we get to know is what color of soylent we should be buying/consuming that day in order to maintain the health of the artificial economy that has been erected around us in support of those who care for nothing as long as the money continues to flow upward to them.
It’s not just about criminalizing your choices. It’s also about restricting your knowledge of those choices as well. In this case, the latter has failed or, at least, is in conflict with the advertising industry’s desire to reach those who will always support Israel in all things, so now they resort to the former to enforce consumption. I tend to line up with Macroman in thinking that these may be the last, desperate struggles of an unjust system. Of course, death throes can go on for some time, and the injuries caused by them will continue to be significant. But until each and every one of us can be monitored to the point where our fitbits administer a shock when our hands hesitate before selecting the olives produced by Israeli settlers over the ones produced by Palestinians (or others), they have no real way of enforcing this in sufficiently minute detail to defeat it.
Lets add that in the past three thousand years, Jerusalem has been desteoyed twice, besieged twenty-three times, attacked fifty-two, captured and recaptured forty-four times? Should not foreigners quit obsessing about israel–for whatever reasons–Saudi has the holy lands od Mecca and Medina, with ample space and gods petrowealth, so maybe it is time to take care of your own people, call them home from israel hell–why not?
Forgot 1st line: leave bds supporters alone! It is their choice to spend how they want.
“Should not foreigners quit obsessing about israel […] so maybe it is time to take care of your own people, call them home from israel hell–why not?”
Yes! Foreigners SHOULD quit obsessing about israel, and the jew foreigners should go back to Europe and leave Palestine to the Palestinian people.
Israel’s current and former military and spy agency officials have been allotted $26 million/per year to target and take covert action against activist through out America and Europe:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/covertly-israel-prepares-to-fight-boycott-activists-online/2016/02/17/bd3c9198-d579-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html
And then there’s this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/covertly-israel-prepares-to-fight-boycott-activists-online/2016/02/17/bd3c9198-d579-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html
This kind of spammer crusade might fail…. or it might be the harbinger of a post-reason world. We already have to deal with politicians who, instead of thinking and speaking to people who think, have speeches written according to the number of words with good associations. We already have people being robo-rejected for jobs by machines that scan for keywords. And now, even in the most remote internet forums, we’ll be seeing machines coming in and arguing with us. Is there a future for people saying things they believe? Or for believing things at all?
I love all Israelis, and Jews in general…I just hate their policies and practices.
Jesus lives!
Please sign petition:
http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ca6966f2db7aa619c20875634&id=dae21fbd8d&e=b95285623e
Emergency Call to Action: Imprisoned Palestinian Journalist Mohammed al-Qeeq 85 days of hunger strike threat of death…
Thank you and please share…
Individual politics is not at issue. The issue is, can local governments take ethics into account, or may only the central government do so. There’s a long tradition of cities, states, provinces, student unions, etc, all over the world deciding that, for example, they don’t want to participate in the destruction of the environment, or participate in nuclear arms, or participate in apartheid. The UK government is proposing to make such local democracy “illegal”, in respect to certain political issues, including the Israeli occupation of Palestine and Israeli discrimination against non-Jews under Israeli rule.
It is hard to differentiate between ethics and politics. I would expect councils to look after their environment as that is a local matter for the people involved. Ditto nuclear power. Not many councils procure nuclear arms. I would expect councils to respect sanctions whether against Israel, Iran or South Africa.
Central government needs to follow the same procurement rules and can’t make ethical decisions based on the whim of the individual in charge. That to me is fundamentally right in a democratic country.
Two examples of “ethical” spending that I think everyone would oppose would be a council not willing to procure work from a gay builder (although covered by separate legislation) or councils looking to have a “local face” do the work despite being more costly or less well qualified.
For what it is worth, I support a boycott of Israel.
And I thought Israel was saying BDS didn’t work, that it had no effect. You’d think that the leaders in Israel would be happy to see the critics of Israeli apartheid spin their wheels in this pointless effort.
For years anytime an Israeli challenges criticism of Israel’s human rights policies on-line I hear about how Israel gives equal rights to Arab citizens of Israel, and offers more human rights than their neighboring countries. One of the many documents to dispel that claim is Blumenthal’s Goliath.
Now they want to ban criticism in other “democracies”. What gives them such power? What is their role in the emergent global police state? Who can explain this international power?
Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Fishman
Nothing in your article even begins to tell the truth about the goals of the BDS campaign. You would think by reading your article that the BDS campaign was a harmless movement aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This – like comparing Israeli to apartheid South Africa – is part of the disinformation campaign promoted by the radical left. Make no mistake about it: BDS aims to end the Jewish majority state. Any suggestion that this is a campaign to force Israel to respect the Green Line is a blatant lie. That is why so much effort is being made to counter the campaign. According to Wikipedia:
“…….The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) is a global campaign targeting Israel,[1][2][3][4] attempting to increase economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with the stated goals of the movement: the end of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and colonization of Palestinian land, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and respect for the right of return of Palestinian refugees…….”
The right of return would probably end the Jewish majority state in itself, but ending the laws favoring Jewish immigration and land settlement would also ensure that the Jewish majority state would not survive. Jews are a small minority world-wide – and this particular reality forced Israel to implement land and immigration laws to ensure a majority Jewish population in the JEWISH state. For this simple fact, Israel is compared to apartheid South Africa. Jews have a right to self-determination under International law – and the primary driving force behind Zionism was a history of bigotry, persecution and murderous pogroms directed at Jews (primarily by Christians and Muslims). The BDS campaign should be opposed at all costs for obvious reasons. Wikipedia goes on to explain the underlying political goals of the BDS misinformation campaign:
“……..Citing a body of UN resolutions and specifically echoing the anti-apartheid campaigns against white minority rule in apartheid era South Africa,[8] the BDS campaign called for “various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law”.[9]…..”
Equating Israel to (white) apartheid South Africa and Zionism to colonialism has always been the political goal of the BDS campaign because the endgame has always been to end Jewish “occupation” in all of Palestine. By comparing Israel to the worst regimes of the twentieth century, the Palestinians behind the BDS campaign hoped to draw sympathetic support to end the Jewish majority state. In the anti-colonial extreme left, the Palestinians have found dishonest support for those very goals. Thus, quite often, the actions of Israel are compared to Nazi Germany as well. No one thinks for a moment, Glenn, that you picked the Goebbels out of thin air when you compared him to Netanyahu.
A more realistic goal by the BDS campaign would have focused on the Israeli settlements, but they decided to put all their money on creating two Palestinian states on one roll of the dice – and the clear opposition indicates the campaign will not work. Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish majority state.
You’re slowing down Craig. I waited all day yesterday for you to show up. But not a problem, someone pinch hit for you.
I know, right? I waited all night and there was no Craig!
“Make no mistake about it: BDS aims to end the Jewish majority state.”
And what’s wrong with that?
The ‘Jewish’ state will end some day but the Jewish state’s end may not be the relative soft landing South Africa’s ‘white’ Apartheid experienced.
If I was working for the Jewish state’s government, my daily obsession would be this: nuclear technology will soon be 100 year old and the Apartheid Jewish state is such a tiny territory. How many 100 year old technologies are unobtainable today? Steam engines? Automobiles? The wireless? And, to make it even scarier, soon enough ‘nukes’ will be a 150 year old technology and the greater the hatred and violence, the greater are the odds that of an unfortunate event.
It’s a very small area, it’s in nobody’s interest to set off nuclear bombs. I think rather, eventually, reality will set in. Apartheid Israel will more and more become something Jews will be ashamed to call Jewish. And it will become harder and harder to maintain the racial laws separating people living right next door to each other, working next to each other.
Craig, will you please get in touch with those leading this multi-national campaign to criminalize speech supporting BDS? These folks are acting hysterically as if they are watching a successful effort that must be stopped by any means necessary, when the truth is, as you say, BDS is going nowhere.
Thank, Craig.
Oh and Craig, where does any nation-state get a “right?” Including a “right” to maintain an ethnic majority?
Thanks again.
It is always nice to avoid the main point of the post which is that Fishburn and Greenwald are misrepresenting the goals of the BDS campaign. Until Greenwald can approach the BDS campaign with a level of honesty then what he says just adds to the lies which underpin the BDS promoters. There are numerous examples of misrepresenting the truth about the BDS campaign in the article – but Greenwald is a far better lawyer than journalist.
“…..Rahul Saksena of Palestine Legal said that “the BDS provision in the federal customs bill, and the dozens of anti-BDS bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures across the U.S., are examples of the lengths that Israel’s fiercest advocates and the lawmakers who bend over backward to accommodate them will go to shut down any conversation critical of Israeli policies and supportive of Palestinian freedom.”……..”
Israeli “policies” toward preventing Palestinian self determination deserve criticism, but the BDS campaign is all about ending the Jewish majority state. The only policy which really matters to the Palestinians behind the BDS campaign is the one which effectively ends Jewish self determination – i.e., Palestinian freedom.
A “Jewish majority state” means ethno-religious nationalism in which Jews “must” constitute 70% of the citizenry, by any means necessary. Israel has destroyed the 2-state solution and it is now a de facto one state — an apartheid state. This is “necessary” because enfranchising the Palestinians living in apartheid conditions would end the Jewish majority.
Again Craig, no state has “rights.” The State of Israel as currently constituted is grossly discriminating against almost 4 million Palestinians.
If Jews must put another people in apartheid, then they have no right to effect “self-determination” by that means.
It’s always nice (gak!) to predictably watch you project what you think the authors are speaking about, which in this case aren’t the goals of BDS at all, but instead this:
“Greatest Threat to Free Speech in the West: Criminalizing Activism Against Israeli Occupation”
That’s called the headline, which sets the premise for the argument that the authors are going to present.
So if you can find an explicit quote from the article that demonstrates that the authors are “misrepresenting the goals of the BDS campaign” please cite it.
But if you do continue on your tangent, at least have the balls to say that you’re changing the subject and therefore moving the goalpost – rather than blaming the authors or commenters here for not addressing your concerns.
– George Orwell, 1984
“Jewish majority state”
rolls off of the tongue in a slightly bigoted way… the Jewish people already have a self-determined home: it’s called the United States of America.
It always amazes me that a people who comprise about 3% of the global population are directly involved with a far greater percentage of the planet’s ongoing controversies. Perhaps this explains it: http://ihr.org/other/anti-semitism-why-does-it-exist-dec-2013
In my view, your post should be deleted. The IHR is a nest of antisemitic Holocaust deniers and Mark Weber is their chief Nazi. Your words suggest you are also an antisemite. Please stop.
UK procurement rules should be a matter of law not individual politics. Otherwise, we would have people working in government departments deciding how to spend money based purely on what they think should be law which could include race, religion, sex etc.
We have a fundamental right as individuals to boycott Israel and to advocate for a national boycott of Israel. We do not have a right to spend public money to further our own political views.
If and when a boycott of Israel becomes UK law, then it will be a criminal offence for UK procurement to break this boycott.
I am disappointment with the article and your view on this Glenn.
This is impossible; if corporations are people (supreme court), and money is speech (also the court) then how can they tell even companies who they must do business with. AS must be rolling in his grave.
@24b4Jeff:
Evil men and women commit evil acts because they succumb to their lower self/consciousness, which reflects negative qualities, such as irrational fear, hatred, anger, vengeance, arrogance, ignorance, lust for power, control and acquisition, doing unto others what one doesn’t want done unto oneself, selfishness, etc., regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation.
It’d be interesting to see how one would prove that the Quran justifies barbarity, after one has defined what ‘barbarity’ is.
You could say that …stupid, evil people, their pointing to the authority of widely admired holy books…is witness to those books being examples of good moral systems.
If I was an evil person, trying to convince people to do bad, who would I use as my character witness?, someone who is a incessant liar? Or someone who is seen as an honest person, but in this instance, is either wrong about me, or who I’m incentivizing to lie for me? The fact that stupid evil people want to try to use the Quran or the Bible as the basis for their bad acts, is testament to its overall proven status as a system of ethics, morality.
For the love of God, why is it that many countries follow blindly what is clearly an unjust act of criminalizing activism against Israeli occupation? What makes Israel so exceptional, so immune to criticism, and given so much attention as if the Israelis were perfect human beings that never do harm when it’s glaringly clear that they can act as heinous as any other race?
Why do western countries feel the need to outlaw ethics? Good question. I think that when you start down the wrong path, eventually the knots you need to tie yourself in, the absurdities you need to start believing, the atrocities you need to start ignoring, get bigger and bigger. Ethics become “criminal”, massacres become “self-defence”, journalists become “terror-activists” and democracy becomes a threat to those in power.
In spite of the Zionists’ self-evident push to criminalize speech they dislike, I’m quite sure they will label as “anti-Semitic” anyone who points out their hostility to free speech, and they’ll try to get him or her arrested for “hate speech” (thoughtcrime).
The people of the u.s. have been ‘kidnapped’ for a long time by a force of media to force them to listen, by a force of blame to shame them from speaking out, by a force of writ to deny americans rights guaranteed by the constitution.
As a captive audience, americans are being broken like horses into accepting the masterhood of occupation in a very different twisted and perverted way.
Do your research. This has all happened before. A country’s economy was ravaged, a man was elected, he called for a boycott, then had threats of war made against his country. The Bible says “thou shalt not steal”. That is NOT limited to property.
http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/
Germany Must Perish!
by Theodore N. Kaufman
Newark, N.J., Argyle press
Copyright 1941
Library of Congress Call No.: DD222.K3
“The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany” http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html The Economic Boycott of 1933
“As a captive audience, americans are being broken like horses into accepting the masterhood of occupation in a very different twisted and perverted way.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2cCdgwgoM Bernie Sanders Town Hall Gives US Party Line When Confronted re: #Gaza (Please understand Americans…It is not OK for a Presidential runner albeit “whitewash lip service” to tell an American taxpayer to SHUT UP!!! Americans need to place ACTS above lip service…and if any presidential runner aligns itself, defends itself to the blatant corrupt acts of Israel/US against an unarmed and incarcerated peoples…YOU MUST WITH ALL CONVICTION STEP AWAY FROM THESE LIARS. If one can not stand for humanity of any nation…then they will NOT stand for your humanity. (As witnessed in this video). Thank you anonzee.
Actually a change to UK government procurement rules, so nothing is being made ‘illegal':
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/15/councils-and-nhs-trusts-to-be-blocked-from-boycotting-israeli-products
Suggest the first sentence of the article be corrected.
Suggest you learn how to read what you link to.
The article also says, “Councils, NHS trusts and other publicly funded bodies will be prevented from boycotting Israeli goods under new government procurement guidelines.”
Suggest you learn to be a bit more civil, especially when you’re wrong.
You cannot be as stupid as that. The effect is what I quoted. What do you think happens if someone in a publicly funded agency ignores these “procurement guidelines”? They are not really just guidelines. That term just makes the prohibition sound more palatable. But I think you know that.
No, there’s a big difference between being accused and convicted of a crime, and of breaking some government rules. The effects are entirely different – say, the difference between having a criminal record and not having a criminal record. I think you can’t accept that you’re wrong (and very rude).
Yes the first sentence of the article is factually incorrect. Nothing is being made ‘illegal’, and no activity is being criminalised. It’s a new policy (specifically, a change to government procurement rules), and the ‘severe penalties’ would refer to money being withheld from Departments’ budgets.
Hello, other S!
Are you sure it’s going to be a law? Further down the UK story linked in the article, the Minister talks about ‘guidance’. And if it is proposed legislation, I can’t imagine it getting through parliament. So it’s a stupid idea, but perhaps not quite ‘the greatest threat to free speech in the west’!
How can they keep me, an American citizen, from boycotting Israel? You gonna arrest and torture me? Huh, or shoot me dead for not buying Israel’s shit? I would like to see the assholes try. Israel does not know, or even understand, how truly puny they are compared to the will of the American people! We can bring this illegitimate US government down to its knees if we decide to! Israel is relying on the love of a bunch of criminal oligarchs for its special spot under America’s umbrella….but We, the People, can rip a huge hole in that umbrella Israel has over its head, and they fracking know it! FUCK ISRAEL!
YOU SHALL NEVER EAT THIS VEGETABLE!
IT grew in fields which belonged to Palestineans;
IT ate a compost made with palestinean corps et faith;
IT drunk tears stolen from palestinean blood;
IT was packed in a palestinean hope;
IT was carried by palestinean future;
GOD didn’t bless it!
If Zionist force everyone to buy their products, while they continue oppressing people in the ME and now in America, then Americans, Europeans, Canadians, ect. can consciously protest by shunning materialism. Without rampant consumerism the entire economic system would undergo unpleasant adjustments. Corporations would get the message, creating tension between the zionists and the corporate capitalist along with the political elite who aren’t wedded to Zionist ideology.
Excellent article, but this is only one of the biggest threats to free speech in the West. I think Glenn is too polite to name the biggest: the war on journalists, including the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, as well as all the noble whistleblowers with whom they work.
Right now there is not one candidate running for president of the United States who would not support outlawing of the BDS movement.
Hillary Clinton bows to Haim Saban who is one of her main benefactors and she has made speeches against BDS at his request.
John Kasich, at one of the fist Republican debates said this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27bOEgYnBVg
“And no more criticizing Israel in PUBLIC”.
Even the Jewish candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, at a Town Hall, chastised those in attendance criticizing his stand on Israel regarding the Gaza slaughter from two summers ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K437Zd-gM0
Which ever way the political winds blow this November, the American people will find themselves dug deeper into the well of “anything Israel does is right”.
How is it not a First Amendment violation to force someone to do business with anyone they don’t want to? Oh wait, this is not a perversion of the First Amendment that benefits people with power and money.
Hello everyone –
I know this may be OT (but since this is probably the most active thread I’ll post a request here); I think TI really needs to cover and we should discuss that CA ruling that hold Apple be required to hack that alleged terrorist’s cell phone. I hope I’m not the only one disturbed by that ruling by a Judge Pym.
I agree that it’s disturbing and I agree that I would like T.I. to cover this developing news story.
@J. Danek –
thanks, you gave me a bit of hope today.
TI does have an article today – by Jenna. Good to see they’re on it. On stuff like this they’re a fantastis adjunct to other media…
What is revealing about the Israeli regime pursuing this tactic (and various governments being willing partners in the criminalization of free speech) is that it makes it clear that the regime (at least important parts of it) and the partnering governments KNOW that there is no legal, moral, or ethical grounds to defend the regime, and having any sort of friendly relationship with the regime, in any honest debate.
Precisely. The Zionists know that their apologetics can’t withstand scrutiny, so they attempt to hide behind the law.
So ironic that the United States has held the consumer’s freedom of choice as the most cherished “freedom” in the land. After 9/11 we were all urged to shop to show we would not give in to terrorism! It has become a fundamental part of our identity in this culture. But I suppose this can be spun as an expansion of shopping privileges rather than a narrowing of speech. To people who care about that shit.
It’s less about consuming the goods and more about indirectly supporting Israeli occupation by buying these goods from there.
Yes I know that. The point is that this strikes at the only “freedom” that the oligarchs make completely legitimate.
Meanwhile, Israel’s judges, possessing Scalia-level-brilliance, ponder what to do with a journalist held indefinitely without trial, should he die in this hospital? Or that one?
Apparently, judges in Israel have psychic powers that allow them to determine that journalists held without trial are “terror activists”:
And the greatest threat to free speech in the east is….Islam. So we have a truce? Or will we have free speech for all, not just for people criticizing Israel, but for all the Islamic countries who have virtually no free speech, because…Islam. It’s yet another case of Glen applying two sets of standards for the “civilized” world and another for those he pats on the head with low expectations.
Er, perhaps it escaped your notice, but Glenn Greenwald is a Westerner, more particularly an American. When he (we) practiced law we took cases defending the free speech rights of various people — U.S. people.
It’s kinda a big thing with him (and with me). Still is, rather apparently. And right now, the greatest threat in the West to free speech is the criminalization of the BDS movement.
Islam is a path that is based on a book. I do not know how one would prove that the Quran not only threatens ‘free speech’ (one would first have to define it), but it is the ‘greatest threat’ to it.
You consider this worse than the right to speak freely about Islam. So the threat of death (or death) is worse than purported silencing.
The Case Against Noahide Law http://www.noahidelaw.org/
http://www.noahidelaw.org/noahide-law-public-law-102-14-was-passed-by-only-four-congressmen/
http://www.noahidelaw.org/iajlj-and-copla-noahide-law-and-talmudic-execution-in-the-usa/
http://www.noahidelaw.org/us-president-and-supreme-court-justices-praise-jewish-law/
–
http://www.noahidelaw.org/noahide-law-against-theft-jew-can-steal-from-non-jews/
Ah, so Western governments are killing people who criticize Islam? Who knew?
Democracy shriveling before our eyes. If we had the press of the 1970s, attacks on free speech and against those protesting Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians while Israel is actively engaged in repressing American free speech would be in the news across the country. Americans would howl and Israel’s efforts would fail.
Alas, today we have the corporate media that supports Israel’s influence over America. So, another chunk of the Constitution gets flushed.
I think in the 1970s, you just wouldn’t have been informed about this at all.
Like I always say: BDS harder.
They can’t make us buy Israeli goods. They can’t make us buy or list our homes with RE/MAX. They can’t make us invest in Israeli companies.
Isn’t a boycott the democratic equivalent of an embargo? Governments do this to each other all the time. Why should it be illegal for We The People to do it?
The UK law makes it “illegal to refuse to buy goods and services from companies involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels, tobacco products, or Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.”
I can’t be the only person who laughed out loud after reading that.
What esteemed company Israel shares.
Arms trade,
Fossil Fuels.
Tobacco.
Death.
Death.
Death.
Death.
From a PR perspective, they sure are shooting themselves in the foot.
BDS would be fools not to exploit this.
And Israel lobbied to be included in that list.
Fucking hilarious.
A
Beautifully said!
It’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel, but BDS, like the Palestinian cause itself, is rooted in an antisemitic, pro-Islamic agenda.
Most Palestinians, and many if not most of their supporters, don’t actually have a problem with the occupation of the WB, EJ or Gaza, they have a problem with Israel occupying ANY of the land in the region as an independent Jewish state. This is why they refused the two state solution over seventy years ago when it was first proposed (long before Israel was “occupying” the aforementioned “Palestinian” land or building settlements on it) and why they chose a genocidal war of aggression in which they got their butts deservedly kicked. Unprovoked and illegitimate aggression which has literally not ceased to this day.
When they refer to the “occupation” they are referring to the establishment of Israel in 1948 or the British mandate prior, not the territory captured in the 1967 war.
BDS, like Islamic violence towards Jews in Israel, would exist with or without settlements and occupation.
I personally don’t believe boycotts involving Israel should be banned, per se. But any boycotts that single out and exclusively target Israel should absolutely be.
Where are the boycotts aimed towards the apartheid-esque states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or any other nations that adheres to the violent, oppressive and discriminatory practices of Sharia law, whose human rights violations completely dwarf anything Israel is guilty of? Are many of these nations not also western supported?
People claim to support BDS only because they’re in favor of “human rights”. Yet you ignore the human rights violators which are far worse? You’re not calling for boycotts of the murderers and oppressors responsible for far more death and destruction? I don’t think so. Your criticism of Israel has ulterior motives, or at least the people you are supporting do.
The problem is not criticizing the occupation, it’s delegitimizing Israel and promoting a movement which seeks to destroy it.
You took the words right out of Craig Summers’ mouth.
Bwa-ha ha!
If I knew who the hell that was, I might be inclined to take offense.
He should be here very soon.
Muslims’ views on Shariah and its practical implementations are very diverse.
In some aspects, Shariah is in need of reform and reinterpretation for the post modern world.
Here’s an excellent book on Shariah by an expert, Dr. Khalid Abou El Fadl:
“Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age”, at http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shariah-Modern/dp/0742552322/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455668620&sr=1-1&keywords=reasoning+with+god
Here’s a Sufi understanding of Shariah at a philosophical and spiritual level that is not well known to most non-Muslims and even some Muslims:
Every creature on earth and beyond follows a pattern that defines it and identifies it as unique with a distinct physics or behavior profile unto itself.
For example a dog cannot be a cat, a cat a mouse etc. They are limited and defined given the parameters of their design.
The human being, in his animal self is also subject to this “natural” evolutionary design. The major difference between mankind and the rest of the animal world is the development of the frontal lobe and the evolution and plasticity of the cerebral cortex.
The overwhelming majority of the life of animals is inbreed, “written” within their DNA and cannot under most ordinary situations be altered. Granted among some animals, especially higher on the evolutionary scale have some learning capacities. Some simple animals seem also to “learn” from experiences, but this is more from repetitive experiences and not from reasoning per se.
Humankind gifted with these two developments nearly entirely learns behavior, empathy, concepts shaped within him through the experience of life.
Shariah is the the exemplary pattern lived, modeled and communicated through the emergence in every era of the prime pinnacle of guided human evolutionary mutations. These mutations are known as the Prophets, Messengers and “enlightened” teachers that are known and some unknown throughout the history of human kind.
Shariah is the attempt to catalog, communicate and contextualize their exemplary life as way through following in their example, humanity as the potential to reach its highest potential as human beings.
Shariah has been much misunderstood and wrongly practiced and defined by the ignorant, Muslims and non-Muslims. It has become a collection of restrictions, judgments and jurisprudence practiced without self-consciousness and higher referencing. In this form it is mostly a detraction and distraction from the “meaning full” and therefore, quite rightly despised.
Shariah has to be part of a holistic approach with the intent to surrender (Islam, means surrender), ones habitual behaviors, concepts and notions of existence to the truth that is resident at the core of everything, especially its glory of Light within the human heart.
In reality, there is nothing but Shariah, in the sense that not even an atom, a quark, an intention, divine or otherwise that is not at its core, the very fabric of existence, without which there would have never been a question or questioner regarding Shariah in the first place.
Question: How do we reconcile this description of the Shariah with the Quranic injunctions and Prophetic traditions that seem to indicate that Shariah is also a set of laws, e.g., in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc.?
All Quranic injunctions and Prophetic traditions that results in “laws” and injunctions are born out of the “original wisdom patterning” that underlies the created world. In present day “Islam” not all the laws and injunctions meet the test and qualify as true to the original patterning. Many have been extrapolated through history as a result of political influence, both secular and “religious”. Many have come about by the best efforts of the Ulema and at times they themselves are lost in the influences of their circumstances. That is why the Prophet many times counseled that if you hear something that is attributed to him, to test it against the teachings of the Quran and your own heart!. We all need to reflect on these matters and not leave them solely to the judgment of the Ulema.
The Divine messaging….through the universal sacred patterning and geometry….is the underlying foundation of all things. From this the Quran….its reality..has always been present in the world. This wisdom is revealed at intervals, when the Creator “sends” His messenger to the world to remind and renew…appropriate to the time and place in history. From this foundation…..as life carries on in it myriad of expression….we look for what needs we have and apply them to our own contemporary circumstance. Yes there are “clear” laws and injunctions that have come directly out of the Quran and the Prophetic person, but, context, sensibilities, applications and Mercy must be part of the equation or we surely could use these so-called “clear” laws and injunctions to oppress others for power and obedience to corrupt individuals and systems that keep the letter of the law, but not the spirit and since the spirit is ever with us, it must have its voice, lest the Shariah become a hardened hammer than what it was intended to be, a doorway to rebalancing what has become imbalance.
I’m afraid your argument got lost in the claptrap of your own word-gasms above. The Reformation of Islam will come in flushing most of its 6th Century nonsense down the toilet. Sharia is a toxic, retrograde bit of nonsense. Sufi Islam doesn’t stand a chance in the modern context. Get real.
There are as many ways to the higher consciousness as there are hearts.
The various forms of Sufi Islam are just some of those paths, in the pre-modern, modern or post-modern context.
I recommend reading Rene Genon, Frithjof Schuoun, Martin Lings, Titus Burtkard, William Chittick, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Fadhlalla Haeri, Kabir Helminkski, etc. to understand Sufi Islam in the modern world.
It’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel, but BDS, like the Palestinian cause itself, is rooted in an antisemitic, pro-Islamic agenda.
Um, no. The Palestinian cause is rooted in opposition to the deeply racist, ethno-religious nationalism of the Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky. He decreed in the Palestine of the 1920s that the indigenous Arabs were “savages” who would have to be driven out with bayonets.
He and his terrorist Zionist band proceeded to slaughter Arabs, dissident Jews, British, and the UN’s mediator. To a great degree, Israel was founded in 1948 as a reward for terrorism — Jewish terrorism.
Palestinians fled or were violently expelled from the ancient villages, cities and home, and their land was stolen. Indeed,Albert Einstein was so horrified that in ’48 he published a letter in the New York Times calling Menachem Begin (a Jabotinsky disciple) a fascist and terrorist.
The Palestinian cause, then, and BDS, are rooted in opposition to the colonial racism and ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist Jews.
THIS should be in blockquotes:
Thank you for noting the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
Your “indigenous Arabs” are in fact invaders and immigrants to Palestine as much as any European Jew is. They are only in Palestine in the first place because of their ancestors’ own brutal invasions, occupation, conquest and theft of the land from its original inhabitants.
Jabotinsky may have referred to Arabs as savages, but Arabs (including and especially in Palestine) routinely refer to Jews as the “sons of apes and pigs” as these demonic classifications are in their perverse holy scripture. Zionists only started their campaign of terrorism after they were being routinely murdered by Arabs with British complicity. I know it’s a shocker to the likes of you, it’s not just Muslims who may act out after being violently oppressed. Of course it’s only wrong when the Jews do it though, eh?
Most Arabs who fled or were violently expelled were forced out by their fellow Arabs, not Jewish forces. Arabs were not forced from their homes en masse by Israelis until after Arabs started attacking Jews. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were also kicked out of their homes in Arab lands. And by the way, no compensation or restitution will be forthcoming to any Arab in Palestine before these Jews see the same.
Israel is rooted in the Islamic and Christian colonial racism and ethnic cleansing aimed towards Jews for the past several millennia. Only one of those two sides today refuses to accept that Jews will never again be forced to live under the yolk of either side’s oppression.
A misrepresentation of the Quran.
Continuing, having hit the wrong button and sent before I was done. Beginning with a completion of the last paragraph.
This is true — many Arab countries worried that the Jews in their midst would side with the new State of Israel, whom they considered their mortal enemy. Israel has pursued reparations for these displaced Jews — ironic, give their wholesale and ongoing theft of Arab land.
No. Zionism is a child of 19th century blood-and-soil ethnic nationalism. This frequently leads to a virulently racist fascism, and has done so in Israel.
Thank you Mona for an excellent riposte to this hate monger.
Some of the Arab population in Palestine circa the turn of the 20th century were indeed there for centuries (since early Mohammedan conquests). Some were not. Many were immigrants or descendants of immigrants who had arrived in just the previous few decades. There is no reliable data that firmly establishes MOST of the Arab population at that time had been there for centuries before large scale Zionist Jewish immigration at the end of the 19th century. The population was actually declining in the region before this large scale immigration and countless numbers of Arabs flocked to the region when the Zionists did.
They took no Arab land via terrorism and did not carry out any acts of terrorism until AFTER repeated acts of violence by the Arabs murdering Jews decades before the 1948 declaration of independence. Most Zionists happily accepted their allotted territory in the mandate’s partition plan, you have it backwards as it was the Arabs who refused to accept this partition and wanted all of the land for themselves even though they never owned it in the first place. This land wasn’t Arab before the Brits occupied it, it was Ottoman.
I am sure I’m already familiar with your sources (including Israeli ones). It’s not a falsehood, most Arabs who were displaced either fled themselves (because of a war started by their fellow Arabs) or were literally forced out by their fellow Arabs. I’m not disputing Jews also forced Arabs out of their homes, only that this wasn’t the main cause of said flight.
You desperately need to realize and accept virtually every square inch of land you consider “Arab” was acquired with: invasion, occupation, theft, conquest, ethnic cleansing (many having been formerly Jewish or Christian lands) and they are guilty of every single act of violence you accuse Israel of. Zionism, and the creation of Israel, are the inevitable results of this historical violence and oppression committed by both Christian and Muslim imperialists.
Oh please. Zionists decimated and stole Arab villages and cities of great age. This is a fact of history. Arabs were 96% of the population in 1900, and did not come anywhere near to subsequently immigrating to Palestine in the overwhelming numbers that European Zionists did. Your are simply making shit up.
And this is false:
Then there’s this:
As well they should have refused to accept it. The Westerners in the UN had no business giving away other people’s land to European Zionist colonists.
The war began when Zionist terrorists took the land the Arabs would not give, and declared a State of Israel. Arab countries did, indeed, then rise up to attack the thieves.
No. Israel is the result of European Zionist Jews working with Christian European Westerners to steal hundreds of Arab villages and cities and make Palestine a European, Zionist nation.
I’ll close with a quote from a eulogy Moshe Dayan gave in 1956 for an Israeli soldier killed by Palestinians in Gaza:
Clear-eyed, accurate, and monstrous.
I think that I have met you already!! are you half french by any chance?
Ah merci, mais non. Je suis Americaine.
Mona, you are amazing, simply fantastic in your retorts to Decatur !!
No doubt, but it came after the Arabs’ genocidal war of aggression.
I didn’t say their immigration numbers were on par with the Zionists, only that countless tens of thousands came after the Zionists did. It matters because there are millions of descendants today who want their “right to return” claiming to be Palestinian but many are in fact Lebanese, Syrian, etc.
This is the crux of the entire argument on the Israeli-Palestinian debate. If you don’t believe the British had a right to establish a Jewish state in the region then it really doesn’t matter what Israel does, you are always going to be against it.
The reality is westerners did have claim to the land because the people whose land it was, the Ottomans, lost a world war (of aggression which their allies started) and had to give up their claim to the land as a result. Territorial concessions through warfare has been happening for centuries, Israel is no different. When virtually every Arab nation on this planet was acquired or created through warfare, they don’t have a leg to stand on in claiming ownership over Palestine or criticizing Jews for invasions and theft of land.
Arabs had no say in the matter. Not only did they ally themselves with the losing party in a world war (the Ottomans, despite popular mythical propaganda to the contrary claiming most Arabs sided with the Entente), it was never their land to begin with! Just because there were Arabs living there doesn’t mean its theirs. They didn’t sprout from the soil under Al-Aqsa mosque. They came from Arabia and are only there in the first place because of their ancestors own invasions and occupation.
I’ll ask you again since you seem to have no issue whatsoever with these historical Islamic conquests and their theft of land belonging to others – how long does one have to be living in an area before they are considered indigenous in your eyes?
Totally agree with you there, it definitely is monstrous how Arabs refuse to accept a Jewish state on a tiny, fractional sliver of land across the multiple continents they acquired by the same violence they accuse Israel of.
Going over history is pointless. Understanding of history is very subjective.
Blaming the other is also pointless.
Real peace will not come as a result of a political settlement or a military victory or other types of violence.
Real peace will come through spiritual awakening.
Whoever takes the high road will experience boundless spiritual delight.
At this point I think the only hope the human race has for lasting peace is if we’re invaded by aliens and forced to work together for the continuation of our species. Even then it’s dicey.
i’ll take Jewish claims to Israel seriously as soon as Jews start consistently supporting every ethnic group’s right to a self-determined ethnic homeland, no matter how long ago they lived there or controlled territory there. so do Israelis support Navajo independence? Kurdish independence? Chechen independence? Maori independence? Hawaiian independence? Tibetan independence? something tells me they don’t…
the biggest problem with Jewish self-determination in Israel is the amount of time that has lapsed since they controlled the territory there. there are so many better candidates among the displaced ethnic groups of the world who should be receiving an ethnic homeland. furthermore, how do you think Americans would feel if the Chinese started financially supporting Native American aspirations for self determination?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh0Z1VfYPcE Censored Voices Official Trailer
https://vimeo.com/17401477 Palestine is Still The Issue
The world is growing increasingly tired of the same old Zionist tune about god giving Israel to the Jews, about the Jews being in Palestine first and so on. Who knows who lived there first, it is buried in prehistory, and who cares. And as to the biblical claims, let’s see: a group of guys (no women allowed!) sits down and writes a legend, and because they are high on something or other they say it is the word of god. Over the years the story gets embellished, and due to its age takes on a mystical aspect. Then, in what is supposed to be the age of rationality, evil men everywhere point to it to justify their acts of barbarity. Call it the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran, it may have some wisdom in it but also a lot of crap.
It is true that Israel is rooted in colonial racism; the British and Americans thought of it as their own version of the Endlösung, feeding into the Zionists’ dream. But nobody bothered to ask the non-Jewish inhabitants whether it was all right with them, and when they expressed their disapproval, it was they who became the bad people. Sorry, the story just does not play.
You hit the nail on the head. 1 thing you left out is that apart from the obscene financial backing from the diaspora, Israel has one other frightening weapon: the word “antisemitism”. This has now become a cliché too by the way it has been abused, but it still works, though less than it used to I guess.
Did Muslim conquerors ask non-Muslim inhabitants of all the lands they’ve stolen (including in historical Palestine) whether it was alright with them?
Why aren’t people who are calling for Israelis to go back to Europe calling for Arabs to go back to Arabia?
This is the perverse double standard I take issue with.
Furthermore, I don’t support Israel because of their biblical claims, I support it because of the historical persecution they’ve suffered, the fact the people who did own the land (the Ottoman empire) lost a world war and have to give up their claim to the land as a result and finally (probably the biggest reason) because of the barbaric nature of their enemy and the violence said enemy has been carrying out for 1400 years now.
“Furthermore, I don’t support Israel because of their biblical claims, I support it because of the historical persecution they’ve suffered, …”
Historical persecution…amazing how everyone gets nabbed by their emotions from decades of propaganda. Frankly I am tired of the historical persecution they have caused for me in a land supposedly (free), but banking their way to the top while the slaves try to find more bricks to make without straw, perpetually making their corrupt golden calf on Wall Street defecate deceptive numbers to control the world. They have managed through all aspects of propaganda to mold their usury fortune whilst saying “you can too”. In truth…that golden calf is close to being destroyed by implosion…and I welcome it. The Palestinians have suffered too long at the luxury of these hammer fists and liars of victimization that have used extortion and bribes to rule…accusing everyone who questions or disagrees “in their hysterical persecution”. :( In all of this may the revealing of so-called untitled ordinary kind and compassionate people be rewarded with the task of true freedom.
Go burn a ship.
Well in terms of death and destruction the USA has everybody beat hands down. That’s why, in the interests of consistency, I’ve often called for people to boycott, divest and sanction the very nation I’m a citizen of.
Israel delegitimizes itself because of the occupation. If Israel ultimately destroys itself who really cares? Only Israelis and those sympathetic to apartheid states that oppress their own neighbors and citizens. Or maybe you are under the illusion everyone in Israel is treated equally?
You think majority of The Intercept’s readers and commenters ignore Saudi Arabia?
Why is there some unwritten rule in the universe that says people can’t criticize a human rights violator without simultaneously criticizing all human rights violators equally? I’m not sure what universe you are from but doesn’t work that way in the one I live in.
Bzzzzzzt. Wrong answer.
Violence will exist against people in every corner of the world, by somebody, somewhere, at some time. That’s sort of human nature until we evolve a bit more. Why should the Israelis demand immunity from that human reality? Are they special or somehow different than everybody else on the globe? Oh right, they’re the “chosen people” (if there is any more arrogant human conceit than that I don’t know what it is–sadly it is shared by billions of other people of unreasoning faith all over the globe).
I don’t think the words Apartheid or Apartheid-esque mean what you think they mean because neither apply to Iran or Pakistan. I will concede Saudi Arabia more closely fits the bill, but absolute theocratic hereditary monarchy is probably more accurate. Nevertheless, according to some SA is slowly and incrementally improving although I don’t know how you can be an “incrementally better” absolute theocratic hereditary monarchy.
rr, Decatur is committing the Whataboutery fallacy. It’s a very frequent recourse of Zionists.
As Doug, many others and I have stated before, you just want to feel that you won. Those who knock you down are trolls, spammers, or Zionists.
Thank you for the non sequitur. The whataboutery had been standing there, a lonely fallacy, but now you’ve given it a friend.
Thanks for the link, Mona! Very enlightening!
Israel was being deligitimized before the occupation. That’s my whole point. The occupation and settlements are not the root cause of the violence or conflict, they are merely scapegoats employed by people who know better.
Why should Israel be expected to curtail its occupation or settlements when they were being attacked before either, and this SAME aggression continues today? Arabs should be forced to lay down their arms and end their hostility since these things came first.
Every single citizen inside Israel is absolutely treated equally. Arab Muslim or Zionist Jew. This is why Israel is not an apartheid state – because the WB, EJ or Gaza are not Israel. They are militarily occupied by Israel. There’s “apartheid” in these territories the same way there was “apartheid” in the Allied occupation zones of post-WW2 Europe or Japan where belligerent populations were obviously treated differently.
Are you honestly suggesting violence towards Jews because they are Jews is inevitable and they just have to sit back and take it? Delusional. Funny how you bring up the usual “chosen people” canard when talking about Israelis. Because “it’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel”. And it’s not like the Muslims on their borders (or Christians across the globe for that matter) don’t also have the exact same superiority complex. Yet again, another case of “it’s only wrong when the Jews do it!”
I know what apartheid is. I don’t think you know the humiliation, oppression and violence that comes with life as a non-Muslim “dhimmi” under medieval Sharia law or the fact Sharia is the basis for the judicial systems in these Islamic nations. Said discriminatory oppression, where non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens, is far worse than anything any Arab in Palestine is suffering.
You clearly lack authentic and deep knowledge of Islam, which is essentially a diverse set of interpretations and practices.
@ Decatur204
Unsubstantiated conjecture not worth responding to.
Um because most of the civilized world sees the occupation and settlements as illegal. And last I counted, in terms of “aggression”, Israel is knocking off [and by that I mean bombing defenseless] men, women and children and killing them at a rate of about a minimum of somewhere between 10 and 100 to 1 for every Israeli that is killed as a function of Palestinian “aggression”, you know with their rocks, sling shots, knives and wholly ineffective home made crap bombs.
Maybe the Israelis should lay down theirs and go back to the countries they immigrated from unless they are too scared to live in Europe or Russia.
You are a misinformed idiot. Or a paid propagandist.
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/database-discriminatory-israel/
Wow who knew that Israel was really trying to rebuild Palestine and create a viable economy and political institutions in Palestine just like the allies did in Germany and Japan. Looks to me like Israel is trying to starve them out and displace them from their lands going on, oh, about 50 years if not forever.
No I’m suggesting violence by humans against other human is, at this point in human history, as inevitable as night following day (or vice versa depending on how you look at it). My point is you don’t have a moral leg to stand on when you lose one human from your “tribe” and you go and kill 10 to 100 of the other “tribe” in retribution. And bomb out or bulldoze what little infrastructure they have like shops and homes. That’s called “collective punishment”, arguably a war crime, and the hallmark of the biggest cowards in human history.
Boo fucking hoo. People who don’t like to be called the “chosen people” who refer to themselves as “chosen people”. Get a fucking grip. I detest most religious zealots be they Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals or Buddhists.
Not unless you are South African of a certain age or Palestinian.
Pretty sure I haven’t heard of Jordan, Egypt, SA, Iran or any other “muslim nation” bombing the living fuck out of their own Christian or Jewish minority populations (or those of their neighbors) for a long time. Now ISIS is a different matter but I wouldn’t consider them a “nation”.
Prove it.
They also view genocidal violence and unwarranted aggression as illegal. Unfortunately for you and the rest of Pal supporters, the violence and aggression towards Jews preceded the occupation and settlements.
Body counts in this conflict mean nothing except how vastly superior Israeli is militarily or conversely how inept the Islamist forces are in comparison. If the Arabs had the same capacity or capability as Israel, Jews would be slaughtered wholesale. Don’t confuse the lack of ability with lack of the intent to carry out genocide. History clearly proves what their motivations are.
If only those Islamists invested the countless millions in aid they receive in bomb shelters or protection for their civilians instead of new ways to murder Jews.
Sure, right after the Arabs lay down theirs and go back to Arabia, where they immigrated (or conquered) from.
Nothing in that link shows how individual Arab Muslim citizens of Israel are being discriminated against compared to Jewish ones, certainly not to the level of being an apartheid society. Israel gets that false label because of its activity in the occupied territories.
The difference is Germany and Japan capitulated/surrendered and ended their hostility. Palestinians, including some in Israel itself, have not.
Oh, now I see. The settlements are actually military outposts, and will be abandoned, turned over to the Palestinians, as soon as they lay down their arms. Sure. And I suppose the West Bank farms and vineyards taken over by the Israelis are part of the military occupation too, with the profits derived from them used to defray the costs to the military.
I wonder whether you actually believe what you are writing, or whether you are just mindlessly parroting the words provided by AIPAC or the government of Israel.
I didn’t say settlements were military outposts (though it’s not a coincidence most are placed on militarily strategic pieces of high ground), only that the occupation is a military one. Settlements may be illegal, the occupation itself is not.
Excellent, RR
So awesome, rr. *waves*
Sure, pal. And I suppose BDS against South Africa was rooted in an anti-white, pro-black agenda? Or maybe anti-Dutch, pro-African? Surely if calls for BDS aren’t actually about human rights, neither was BDS against South Africa. Do you agree? If not, why one but not the other?
Black South Africans were not engaged in a murderous campaign of hatred and attempted genocide based on what their holy scripture commanded them to. That is to say, they didn’t do anything to deserve their discriminatory treatment.
Arabs are discriminated against by Israel SOLELY because they have a nasty habit of murdering Jews and trying to destroy their state.
Look, you are participating in a comments section populated by well-educated, well-read and well-informed people. Many of us — and this certainly includes me — have read a vast amount on the issue Zionism and its history, including it’s road to imposing the State of Israel on the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
Israel is an ethno-supremacist apartheid state, built on the bodies, homes and villages of Palestinians. Israel is increasingly fascist, vicious, criminal and unfit for acceptance among the civilized nations of the world.
Desmond TuTu and the ANC have long decreed that Israel is an apartheid state. Moreover, a former head of Israel’s Shin Bet — Israel’s FBI — sees that Israel is nearly to the point of no return as it heads toward fascism.
Get a clue about your audience here. You will have to do much better with facts and honesty than you have been. Perhaps your problem is that you have been lying to yourself?
I’m off for the night, will be back tomorrow.
Wow. Massive misdirection. You’re concern is duly noted.
“Most Palestinians, and many if not most of their supporters, don’t actually have a problem with the occupation of the WB, EJ or Gaza, they have a problem with Israel occupying ANY of the land in the region as an independent Jewish state.”
To the extent that it was taken from the prior occupants by coercion, terror and ethnic cleansing and preserved as “an independent Jewish state” by armed occupation, brutality and periodic massacres utilizing the most modern weaponry available (that is, most of it), you’re right: many of us have a serious problem with that.
And some of us have a problem with the very notion of an ostensibly “democratic” state that maintains a prescribed ethno-religious identity.
Awfully sorry that upsets you and Bibi and the Lobby so much. Nah, I’m lying.
i can criticize Israel in the same breath that i criticize Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan. i save some of my worst rhetoric for Saudi Arabia, in fact. Saudi Arabia doesn’t produce anything that gets sold in the U.S., other than oil. Iran is not necessarily a natural enemy of the U.S.; I am looking forward to the reconciliation between the two nations. and Pakistan is a democratic state, with obvious flaws and i try not to buy the few clothing items made there that are sold here… good enough for you?
The BDS objective is the distruction of Israel, not to end the occupation of the West Bank (according to their website). According to the UN rules, a UN member can’t call for the destruction of another country. This is why the BDS is band in many countries.
Since this reporter keeps repeating the wrong objective of the BDS in many articles, he thinks it’s a matter of freedom of speech.
People the world over know Israeli Jews for the murderous scumbags they are and can’t be bought but their politicians on the other hand can and have been bought and often, as in America’s case, with the very same money the politicians take from their own people and give to the Israeli government.
By the way, this is a great documentary on “the freedom riders”. Really impressive how brave people stood up to a violent racist government using only peaceful civil disobedience.
There’s a long history of ethical people… whites, blacks, Jews and Christians breaking unethical laws like the one the UK is putting in place.
“The Israeli government and its most powerful supporters have invested vast sums of money and considerable political capital into the campaign to institutionalize this censorship.”
I am curious. How much did the Israelis pay the French highest court to pass a judgment against BDS?
They didn’t have to pay a thing. France has long been unfriendly to free speech, and the Israel Lobby there is quite strong.
“France has long been unfriendly to free speech”
Is that what the French people believe or just your description of other countries that do not follow the US legal system?
France has long been especially egregious. It is not speech-friendly.
Restrictions on free speech in France are very similar to those in almost all countries in Western Europe including Finland, which has been the best place for journalists to express themselves for years. Those restrictions are mostly based on the historical context of WWII. Based on the history of gun violence in America is it wrong for many US states to place restrictions on gun ownership although every individual has a human right to defend himself?
The topic at hand is freedom of speech, especially political speech. More specifically, the Israel Lobby’s international movement to criminalize BDS in Western nations, or to otherwise cripple the speech of pro-Palestinian activists.
France is very far along in this atrocious process. As I’ve told people for decades, “hate speech” laws give the state the tool to proscribe any speech the state dislikes. And that’s exactly what is happening.
The U.S. never fell for hate speech laws because our First Amendment has held strong. So, the same multi-national efforts to destroy BDS are hamstrung some here, but doing what they can where they can.
Either you do not understand French laws or you are dishonest as usual. Again, you can ignore this FACT as long as you want, but the high court decision does not prevent BDS or any other entities from criticizing Israel or any other states. Boycotting products and services based on the nationality of the producers is a state matter in France. It is part of their penal code.
“As I’ve told people for decades, “hate speech” laws give the state the tool to proscribe any speech the state dislikes. ”
And I have consistently provided examples of countries with hate speech laws that have a better record of allowing freedom of expression than the USA. It is amazing that a “lawyer” cannot understand historical contexts that cause authorities to pass new laws. There is a clear historical context in South Africa that justified the enactment of hate speech laws. There is a clear historical context in Australia that justified the enactment of strict gun control laws. There is a clear historical context that justified the loss of personal privacy in airports. The declaration of human rights allow governments to pass laws to maintain order in their society.
Ah, the “we must have law and order” argument. Seig Heil[!!!!
Uh-huh. And this “penal code” destroys the speech rights of political actors who wish to boycott countries.
This is all a matter of the metrics used, and also irrelevant. As I’ve said multiple times now, for decades I’ve warned proponents of “hate speech” laws and codes that they are wrong not only in their own right, but that the standards can turn on a dime to be used against causes and people whom one supports. And that is happening.
France is relatively authoritarian for a Western European country and drifting even more in that direction. They are not the haven of free speech and human rights you would want the first modern European Democracy to be. And with Marine Le Pen they have their own less lunatic appearing version of Trump.
That is weird. France has similar restrictions on free speech as Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Spain…Yet journalists believe it is better to express themselves in those countries than United States.
Is it possible, that, the government outlawing of ethics is futile, as long as Israel is an apartheid state?
Won’t end the BDS movement? I don’t know, there don’t seem to be too many people boycotting South Africa now that apartheid has ended there. Will there still be anti-Zionism, well, if Israel becomes a democracy, then it ceases to be a racist Zionist state, so there wouldn’t be anything to be terribly anti-Zionist about, would there? On the other hand, if you are still holding out hope that whites can continue to control South Africa while it is simultaneously a democracy, or that Jews can continue to control Israel as it is simultaneously a democracy, then I’d suggest you are failing at the “serious effort at ending the occupation” test.
Notwithstanding the implications for free speech, it never ceases to amaze me how outsized an influence 0.2% of the world’s population (14.2 million give or take) can have on the other 6 + billion people.
Won’t change a thing for me though. I will continue to refuse to buy any product or service once I’m aware it has any connection to the State of Israel. And if I ever find a cool BDS shirt I won’t refrain from wearing it in an public venue I choose.
I really do hope the more open-minded members of the Jewish global diaspora find a way to take back control of the state of Israel.
When 0.2% of the world’s population starts dictating to the rest of the world’s people what is/isn’t criminal speech, then I shudder to imagine what the blowback to something like that might be.
Poor little delicate flower of a state. I’ve got zippo problems with Jews no different in kind or degree than I have with any other “believer” or religious person of faith. But I don’t see the Catholic church trying to criminalize anybody who doesn’t want to do business with the Vatican.
About the time you start telling anybody what they can say or think under penalty of criminal prosecution, you’ve gone right down the rabbit hole into thought-crime mode and you are eventually going to have a whole lot of unintended consequences if not actually strengthen the hand of those you seek to censor.
The First Amendment is definitely one of the better parts of the Constitution warts and all.
Well said!
“0.2% of the world’s population”
The influence of which you speak is actually wielded by far fewer people than that, and only some of them are Jewish.
You have no legal education and skills. That is why you regurgitate whatever you read from TI.
In France only the State is authorized to boycott products or services from other countries. (French Penal Code 225-2). Citizens buy or sell whatever they want, but convincing other citizens not to buy from Arabic or Israeli stores because of the nationality of the producers or service providers has always been considered illegal under French laws.
The French state is one of the few western governments, a member of the UN security council that has publicly stated that it will recognize a Palestinian state if Israel is not willing to negotiate.
Greenwald will always omit those details because he can count on idiots like you who never scrutinize his articles.
@ truth&Freedom
1) Never claimed to have any legal education or skills with regard to the French legal system, which is different than the American one. I have only been trained formally in the American legal system.
2) I made no claims whatsoever about the propriety of any French law, or the French people’s ability to choose representatives to make whatever laws the French people deem are “just” for their people. And that’s because I believe in the fundamental right of humans to engage in self-determination in that respect.
3) My comment regarding “free speech” had to do with the US system and US Constitution which I happen to prefer and specifically the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Because I sure as shit don’t need some effete Frenchman telling me what to say or think.
4) My Oregon State Bar number as an attorney is 073960 feel free to employ the internet if you are able to locate me and introduce yourself. I’m not hard to find. Moreover, I invite you to come to Oregon and discover for yourself the extend of my legal acumen and abilities with regard to the US legal system. I could use the money.
5) And quite frankly I could give a flying fuck what you think, what the French people think or what the French people do. That is for the French people to decide. But in deciding to do X or Y or X, they like any other citizens of any other nation from Israel to France to Saudi Arabia to the good ol’ US of A and whichever stink hole full of morons you were birthed in or now reside are fair game for any and all criticism on the merits and morals of your positions. As I said, I couldn’t give two flying fucks what any Frenchman, or you, thinks about anything. I’m discriminating in that way.
Am I making myself clear or would you like me to draw you a crayon diagram with stick figures holding hands suppressing free speech under the French flag?
“Am I making myself clear or would you like me to draw you a crayon diagram with stick …”
No. You are making a fool of yourself as usual. As I stated many times, you are a perfect idiot.
Let’s start with your last point. If you do not give a fuck about what the French or what other people are doing then shut up about Israel.
Second, it is way better to have no education in laws and writing stupid statements than waving your law license and writing ignorant statements. That makes you a cheap and dumbass lawyer, which is even worst than somebody who writes about subjects he honestly does not understand.
Finally, if your legal opinions are about the US and the US constitution, if your so called legal training is about US laws, then shut up when others are writing about Israel/Palestine, Russia and Crimea, or any other conflicts that are within the framework of international laws.
You are an idiot. You contradict yourself, you write factually incorrect statements, and you display your complete ignorance of basic laws while waving your law license. Put your money where your mouth is. Forget about BDS. Start boycotting what you consider the most criminal government in the world (USA) by renouncing your citizenship and stop paying taxes.
@ Truth&:Freedom
Did you say something? Prove any factually incorrect statement I’ve made and I’ll give you a cookie and retract it.
Short of that, I’ll talk about whatever I please, whenever I please, regardless of what you or anyone else on the internet thinks about it.
And for the record, I’ve almost successfully stopped paying taxes. I’ve taken my ACA penalty as a badge of honor for the last two years for not buying mandated health insurance. Nor do I seek a subsidy. I’m consistent that way. I won’t let anyone other than a doctor or nurse and hospital staff profit off my health. And since I won’t submit to invasive medical tests or take pharmaceutical drugs, I guess I’m about the most consistent guy around as far as putting my money where my mouth is–even if it ultimately costs my life. Sometimes that’s the price you pay for believing in something.
Better yet I’ll stick around and fight to change my nation for the better, as is my right and duty as an American citizen, so that know-nothing fucksticks like you aren’t tempted to move here and further fuck it up. But hey thanks for playing.
“Did you say something? Prove any factually incorrect statement I’ve made and I’ll give you a cookie and retract it.”
Do you think it is that hard? Was it you who stated that women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to get university education? Was it you who stated that “statistically” drone strikes result in more civilian casualties than ground troop operations?
Do I stop now or I keep going. Women in Saudi Arabia do go to universities in their country. There is absolutely no statistical research that prove drones strikes kill more civilians than ground operations. Sometimes ground operations only kill the intended target (Bin Laden) and sometimes it results in more civilian casualties than a typical drone strikes (Somalia Black Hawk Down).
You can write whatever you want including expressing your love for the f word. Unlike Mona I do not ask TI to ban others regardless how stupid they are. But I will sure expose their stupidity.
“Better yet I’ll stick around and fight to change my nation for the better, as is my right and duty as an American citizen”
Contradiction. After you have financed the “most criminal state” for years you want to live in it as a parasite using its public services. Security, safety, environmental public organizations…are all financed by the “criminal government”. Boycott those organizations by leaving the country. Do not use services provided by a “criminal government”. You can be like Snowden and make the US better from Russia whose violation of international laws seem acceptable to you.
It’s easy to say that you’ll recognize a Palestinian state now that it’s quite clear that no such state will come into existence.
Israel killed the two-state solution. What’s left is a one-state, an apartheid state.
Greenwald does, it’s true, generally “omit” non sequiturs.
No. Greenwald as a propagandist omits important information so idiots like you or RR can continue worshipping him. If you had any dignity you would review the French highest court decision on BDS, and the French penal code before you regurgitate whatever he writes about French courts restricting basic freedom of speech. He mentioned the French court decision on BDS many times, but he never reported the reasoning and the laws behind its decision. That is a very important piece of information that you would obviously disregard because you are not interested in the truth.
T&F,
For someone calling GG a propagandist, you sure sound like you’re peddling the Zionist narrative and getting paid for it. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black…
T’as une tête à faire sauter les plaques d’egouts. Souffler ton cul à la place.
I read some of the French press on the matter. You have no idea how much I read on this topic, and it is a lot. I’d bet I’ve read even more than Glenn has. Now it is true I have not read the French penal code, and I do not have to. Any legal scheme that permits what France has done vis-a-vis a quintessential matter of political speech is antithetical to free speech. Period.
In any event, and again, you are now trafficking in non sequiturs.
You may feel that you won as usual. The fact is BDS, Greenwald, you and any other organizations and individuals can go to France and say whatever they want about Israel. And if you do not read and understand the laws used by a court to justify its decision, then it becomes a matter of fact that you are an idiot.
Actually, you cannot. You may not legally wear a T shirt saying: “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” But I’ve taken this to a stand alone post, up above.
thanks for your inormation about french law
It’s hard not to see the worldwide trend, Australia putting refugees fleeing persecution, into an island concentration camp. France trading their constitutional rights for indefinite emergency rule, America, discussing what torture techniques the next president will be tough enough to employ.
And not to be outdone, this should be amusing, seeing the UK government attempt to prosecute groups for the crime of taking ethics into account when they buy goods and services.
It’s interesting to read FDR’s “Quarantine Speech” of 1937. He seemed to have what was happening then in Spain, Ethiopia and China in mind, and his embargo of the Chaco War in Paraguay was a matter of recent record. (See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)).
http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3310
Maybe not the kind of talk you’d hear these days, but then again, there are no FDRs among us today.
and so much for Corbyn as well . . .
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/2/15/4kwrnp76v5oyq4f5f81sz5zkh35i2o
Any decision not to consume a product imposes direct harm on the entity which produced it, since their livelihood is threatened. Freedom extends only to actions which do not harm others.
Passing laws against non-consumption is a stop-gap measure at best, since consumers will always find some plausible excuse for not purchasing certain products.
But every time a consumer purchases an item, they are discriminating against all the products they did not purchase. The solution is for all purchasing decisions to be made by government. They can ensure that no producer is unfairly boycotted, and then distribute the products to consumers according to their actual needs.
People will then be free to advocate for whatever boycotts they wish, since they will no longer have any power to make decisions. Thus everyone will be satisfied.
The debates on these subjects always mystify me, when the solutions are so obvious.
@ Benito
Ever read Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke? Or The City and the Stars by same?
Technological advancement vs. human transcendence?
Myth of progress vs. true human “evolution”?
The paradox of human curiosity, that technological perfection is unattainable, and that the closer you approach it the more it undermines our fitness for survival as a race?
The paradox of “progess” leading to “stasis”?
Not earth shattering or new but interesting ideas. Assuming you’re a fan of the genre in any way or Arthur C. Clarke.
I mean I’d welcome our new cloven hoofed overlords, until it came time for only the children to transcend to a higher evolutionary reality. I mean why do kids always get the good stuff and the geezers get the shaft?
I’m actually pretty comforted by the idea that when I die I just transform back into the energy of the universe that I’d been temporarily borrowing. Doesn’t seem an altogether bad fate in any way. You are born, you do a bunch of stuff that doesn’t really matter much in the grand scheme of things, and a little bit that does to those you love and care about most, and then–poof–you revert back into that from which you came which is basically unorganized energy and dust.
Seems about right for the human condition and experience. We’re blips in the infinite universe existing on a time scale that is utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That’s why I like to drink beer, have sex, go fishing and ride my motorcycle more than I actually do working for money.
Work should be for the purpose of helping yourself and others eat and put a roof over their heads. Not sure there’s a whole lot of deeper meaning or value you to it other than that which is why I try to limit how much of it I do on a day to day basis. At least until the food runs out.
Well reasoned and written!
I read and re-read Childhood’s End when I was 15, and still admire it. With his embrace of Jungian archetypes in the novel to explain some plot elements, Clarke in 1951 tapped into a prophetic vision himself, although the particulars were different (i.e. world didn’t end): those scenes at the end of the children becoming one big organism are strangely predictive of images of late 60s tripping youth in rock festival numbers.
A bunch of those children would end up watching 2001 high, too.
Oddly enough, last point brings it back to the thread: Hey, remember how the only country to actually continue to try to violently resist the aliens in Childhood’s End is —— Israel? The explanation if I recall correctly was that they had just become a nation and so were most passionate.)
2 typos: New York Mag is called “New York”; and “Rafeef Ziadah, a Palestinian a member of…”
Thank you for your reporting, Glenn and Andrew. Of course efforts to quash any discussion of Palestinian rights has been going on in this country for quite a while, but the efforts to make boycott illegal shows that those efforts are not succeeding.
One thing that we can do as individuals is to not do business with any firm that does business with Israel, and not buy any products coming from there. We can also exert pressure in other ways. For instance, locally, George Washington University has instituted a policy of preventing even the display of Palestinian flags on its campus, although at the same time displaying the flag of Israel is considered to be a legitimate expression of free speech. This is something I bear in mind when they come asking me for money, and I am not shy about telling them why they will never get a cent from me so long as they promote Zionism and the suppression of the rights of those who oppose it.
Just letting you know that George Washington did not institute a policy banning Palestinian flags on campus; the whole thing was resolved and the student received an apology from the president:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/12/10/gw-president-apologizes-to-student-after-palestinian-flag-incident/
Thank you Andrew and Glenn for shining needed light of another aspect of of Zionist aggression. Pour it on. Mona has astutely pointed to this malignant behavior of anti-BDS forces in leading to intensified conflict in Israel/Palestine.
I do wonder though what kinds of opportunities for legal terrorism all these laws create. According to the Covington site, companies that do exporting are obliged to report when they receive a _request_ to participate in a boycott. This seems to suggest a two-handed maneuver where one party buries such a request in coded language (‘free to enter ports in Kuwait’ or something) in a proposal that they know full well is so far off base that the victim company is never going to read it – but which creates some sort or other of public record. Then the other party goes out and bangs the drum reporting that this company received such a request and never reported it. If the maneuver is used against companies that actually do business exporting to Israel, perhaps it could even be a new form of BDS…. :)
This is a serious issue and it is a public service to bring it to public attention. But I’m not sure how clear-cut it all is. Just looking over these sources briefly, I see some nuances not covered in the article:
To begin with, the measure appears to be a (malignant?) outgrowth of civil rights laws. Some of the terms described in the Covington reference are specifically about race and national origin and such. The idea is, if it’s wrong for a company not to let blacks ride in the front of the bus, it’s wrong for the company not to do business with Jews or an allied Jewish nation.
And… they’ve apparently been circumspect in the language. At least mostly, what is prohibited is making an agreement not to do business with Israel in the course of commerce. This is, at least theoretically, distinguishable from a company which simply decides not to do business with Israel out of personal ideology, without getting anything in return for that decision. Then there is also the matter of it being done in terms of taxation liabilities rather than as a civil or criminal penalty, so that it is not even “really illegal” (at least in some cases)
In other words, when you market that you have a service that is free to enter ports of a certain country, implying that you WILL comply with the anti-Israel boycott, you’re selling your loyalty to a certain Arab League crusade – and you’re agreeing to participate in discrimination. That’s the theory, anyway.
The recent bill, pressing for a trade representative to push to “discourage” “international organizations” from “discouraging” trade with Israel, does sound like it’s trying to push far over any conceivable line. And of course Britain has lost all sense of lines – I mean literally, Jews can have their British citizenship taken away at the Home Secretary’s say-so according to her own definition of what is “prejudicial to the interests” of the country, simply because they might be able to get citizenship in Israel. So there’s no telling what madness they’ve passed without an equally close inspection that I don’t even have the stomach for right now.
While it is important to push back for freedom of expression and association, I am wary of painting with such a broad brush here that you leave yourself vulnerable to counter-arguments.
Boycotting South African apartheid was wrong because it discriminates against white people?
Race is a religion devoid of logic and rational thought–even factoring in these lowered expectations of debate, the quoted argument is still really bad.
That’s where all this gets political. Essentially, it sounds like the US gives Israel the same status as a minority within the US not to be discriminated against, under some sense that it is an “ally” to be protected. Whereas South Africa wasn’t seen that way. I’m not saying I’m gung-ho in favor of this old anti-boycott law – but it is a different kind of animal than when someone in Canada decides that their ban on ‘hate speech’ extends to a ban on calling for or voluntarily participating (gratis) in a boycott. That’s a whole other kind of position, the sort of position that should remind us that censorship really is a slippery slope, and that banning hate speech is not just a tiny little exception to principle that people can live with, but a fundamental breach against human liberty.
There goes freedom of speech! Today it’s BDS, what’s next? I’m not shocked but disgusted that this is already widespread in the USA. We’re walking a fine line between freedom and fascism, nothing short of a revolution will eradicate this behavior. I wanting to ask “what can I do stop it” but the answer is already there. Always resist, never give up. Thank you for your outstanding journalism and your service to those of us who refuse to live in a repressed society of any kind.
My university receives grants from the Kochs as well as the state and federal governments. This is true for almost every university in the country. The Kochs decide who and what to fund up front, of course, but once they’ve given you money you are essentially free to use it to fund whatever speakers, events, etc. you want. Not so with money from the government. Lots of people think people like the Kochs use their money to get their way, which I don’t think is based on reality so much as perception. But the government takes our money and then restricts what student groups I can fund before they’ll give it back. They use YOUR money to get THEIR way. I find this abominable. So if you like free speech and the idea of your children getting exposed to what some call “honest traders in ideas,” vote for Sanders! (/s — 100% federal funding of college education, his plan: https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/, will inevitably make the problem much worse.)
The reason AIPAC etc. aren’t “honest traders in ideas,” and indeed why you can tell they already know they have no intellectual ground to stand on, is the very fact that they’re pursuing these policies. As the quoted PL reports says, “rather than engage such criticism on its merits” the Zionists simply punch you in the face until you can’t talk about Palestinians being people any more because your lips are swollen and bleeding.
Don’t know what you mean by “almost every university in the country” unless you mean they receive grants from state or government as opposed to the Kochs.
Here’s a list of the schools the Kochs were funding as of 2015:
http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/pdfs/ckfuniversityprograms.pdf
Thankfully it doesn’t appear that any of the schools I attended–University of Oregon, Portland State University or Lewis and Clark Law School take any of the Koch boys money.
OK, roughly half take (or rather get) Koch money. I overstated that bit, thank you for the correction. I hadn’t looked at that distinguished list before and had heard tell that they funded basically everybody.
Fair enough.
What’s happening in the UK and France is unbelievable. Does the populace there also equate BDS with anti-semitism? Why does anyone put up with such restrictions to speech? I want to do something to help end this repression. But if the Israeli government has this much influence then the war seems lost.
For decades, pro-Israel fanatics have counseled Palestinians to engage in non-violent protest and opposition. So, they found BDS in 2005, and look what happens. This is a tragedy.
If Hamas, or any other Palestinian activists, return with a vengeance to terrorism, they cannot be blamed. The West is criminalizing the peaceful means of ending their oppression. And that, of course, is on top of the West’s providing great financial support to Israel with which it attacks Palestinian men, women and children who are murdered, their homes are bombed and/or razed and confiscated, and their apartheid conditions are becoming increasingly severe.
At this point, I can no longer make a moral demand that Palestinians only use non-violent means. They have a natural human right to oppose their oppressor, and the peaceful route is being denied them. Moreover, if they target the Western countries criminalizing free expression in support of them, they ought not be surprised to find that they, too, have put targets on their backs.
As I said, this is a tragedy.
@Mona-Yup, I agree…
The problem with giving up on peace is that Palestinians have even less of a chance of winning that way. That is playing into zionist hands. Once they fight (again), they’ll be killed and Israel will look justified to enough of the world that they’ll get away with it.
Besides, this is what winning looks like! And I don’t mean that facetiously — AIPAC and co. are playing their very last card, trying to criminalize patently legal speech against their interests. They will lose in the end, just like South Africa’s elite did, and though it looks bad now, I think we are closer to the end than the beginning. The Zionists are desperate to disallow an argument precisely because they know they’ll lose. As long as they can’t completely suppress BDS, it will continue to grow stronger.
I don’t think so, not at all. Not with social media sending pictures and stories out of Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem every day. Israel is losing in world opinion as to who is the aggressor and who is the oppressed party.
The ANC committed heinous atrocities, and yet the world stood against apartheid in South Africa.
Definitely agree with the South Africa comparison, but I’m not clear on your overall meaning. Are you saying that the best chance the Palestinians have to end Israeli apartheid is violence (as opposed to non-violent BDS, etc.)? I don’t see the violence strategy as anything but self-defeating. Are you also saying that they have a chance to win the fight or are you saying that simply by fighting they’ll win over world opinion and then prevail? Hope those questions make sense; I’m doing three things at once right now, badly.
I’m saying that criminalizing an increasingly successful, non-violent means of ending Israel’s atrocious oppression of Palestinians leaves them with the alternative of violence.This would tragically mean the shedding of much innocent blood and Israel-Palestine becoming an even worse cauldron of violence and hatred.
When and if that happens the fault will lie squarely with Israel and it’s Western supporters who pass these illiberal laws. No people would continue to tolerate this oppression and then be told their increasingly successful, peaceful battle against it is now criminalized.
Israel and its “friends” are creating a nightmare, and the world isn’t going to see the Palestinians as primarily at fault. Especially not with photos and video all over social media of Israeli atrocities, such as attacking a Palestinians man in a wheelchair and shooting at 13-year-olds. The pictures of dead babies that exploded on Twitter out of Gaza in the summer of ’14 turned the world’s stomach, and the stomachs are still turning.
People who murder civilians “cannot be blamed,” Mona?
Jeez, I hope you’ll walk that back a bit. Otherwise, I’ll have to do something extremely distasteful, namely, tell Craig Summers he’s been right about some things.
I think I have met already!! are you somewhere french?
#BDSIsrael #BDSSaudiArabia #BDSUK #BDSUSA #BDSGermany #BDSFrance #BDSUkraine #BDSHillary #BDSTrump #BDSNewland #BDSKerry #BDSHannity #BDSMurdoch #BDSCameron #BDSMerkel #BDSHollande #BDSNetanyahweh
#BDSHigherEducation #BDSLandoftheFree
Best article on TI in quite a while. Thanks and congrats.
Typo, beginning of last section, “It’s not hard to understand way.” Why.
Thank you Glenn for again pointing out the total hypocrisy of the West on behalf of Israel. It is good to keep the general public inform of these things, even if in the long run we all know who will always win these battles…
Great work, Glenn – thank you.
This is indistinguishable from tyranny. It’s enforced loyalty and submission to the state. It doesn’t matter that it’s a foreign nation state we’re talking about.
It also places Israel above any other nation state or entity, which is contrary to the UN charter.
Outstanding article. And unfortunately I do believe that we will be seeing a lot more of this after the three big global trade deals are signed and done. Not necessarily in terms exerting laws on behalf of pro-Israel agendas, but in terms of exerting laws on behalf of punishing anti-consumerism in general. When Free Speech finds itself powerless to question adcopy, then civil rights won’t fare much better.
@Richard Caldwell –
Great point – I think you’re onto something. There’s already a lot of money going into defeating anti-GMO foods efforts.
I have to pick up on your notion that civil rights won’t fare much better – as that was what I was totally thinking as I read this. I’m glad that Glenn and Andrew did mention some other attacks on free spreech. If they continue this assault on BDS – what next? Assault BLM? LGBT activism? Autism activism? I think most people are TOTALLY UNaware of any pending dangers.
It angers me that they would make BOYCOTTS illegal. Talk about tyranny (Jose) – shouldn’t folks have a right to spend/not spend their dollars where they wish? And I have come to believe that this tactic is one of the MOST effective – most corporations and nation states don’t seem to respect anything but — money.
Now I abhor hate speech (ugh!) and as an educator feel that students should feel safe on campus. But come on – equating BDS with hate speech – or even anti-Semitism ——- what a stretch! And our legislators – and univ. officials are buying into this? Shameful.
Anyway, great effort by Glenn and Andrew. Spread the word, folks.
In my experience, those groups pose a greater threat to free speech than they face.
As an essential pillar of freedom, indeed. Paying for Iraq, as we all continue to do, has weighed heavily on my soul. Yet we have no choice, and people are clamoring for more. Witness, every presidential candidate.
@Macroman –
You said: “In my experience, those groups pose a greater threat to free speech than they face.”
Sorry but I totally disagree. I feel they’re raising serious issues. You may not agree with them, but I do believe they have an often uphill battle. Everything BLM does seems to be extremely scrutinized – didn’t see the Super Bowl Halftime, but it seems there were quite a few who were upset that BLM was in any way acknowledged in Beyoncé’s performance. I don’t see LGBT activists as against free speech because they want to be treated with respect. And autism? There is so much controversy around what research is correct, what isn’t correct that activists are often marginalized, not a threat to free speech. And don’t forget that the FBI and border security have been known to harass environmental protesters.
No, we’d better not forget that old poem about “first they came…” there’s way too much truth in it.
Yep. I didn’t say anything about the merits of their “issues” or whether I agree with them. I said they pose a greater threat to free speech than they face. I definitely didn’t say anything about autistics or their advocates whatsoever. Just clarifying.
I said what I did because the BLM-associated campus protests all have racist and anti-free speech demands. In fact, (correct me if I’m wrong), a “safe space,” which they all demand, means “safe” from speech they don’t like, especially when it comes from the lips of a white person. This is true without exception as far as I know — certainly true at Missou, Yale, and Princeton, the most covered instances in the press. Similarly, LGBT groups are fine with people saying whatever they want as long as the LGBT community doesn’t find it offensive, so they are commonly anti-free speech (in my experience) by definition. You can’t say, “Caitlyn, I mean, Bruce, Jenner is batshit insane,” on a college campus. Just an example. Yes, “they want to be treated with respect” in all cases (because they’re human), but there are many examples of them demanding respect and attempting to impose consequences on those that don’t conform to their speech codes. I may not like some speech to/about me, but I’ve never been such a wuss or a bully to demand someone get fired for saying something that offended me. But the wussy bullies in BLM and LGBT groups do it habitually. Hence, they are the threat to free speech. Of course, Guiliani’s reaction to Beyonce is just another of the innumerable examples of him being a wuss and a bully. He can be safely ignored just like BLM and LGBT advocates when they tread on free speech. You have a right to your rights, but people can think whatever they want about you, and they will.
I doubt you are a Southpark fan or even appreciate my bringing it up, but the last season was dedicated almost solely to these issues and I think it was the best modern satire I’ve ever seen. Certainly better than the show has ever been before. Check it out!