Showing posts with label Freedom of Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Speech. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 15, 2023

Today, Amnesty International tweeted this:


Amnesty is saying that banning a movie is a violation of freedom of expression. Amnesty is against all forms of censorship - the allegation that the movie promotes homosexuality does not seem to be the issue at all, just freedom of expression.

However, when Lebanon bans movies for having Israeli actors or producers, Amnesty has not said a word. Isn't that the exact same violation of freedom of expression?

Perhaps not according to Amnesty. Because they do support some boycotts - boycotts against Israel. 

Amnesty says, "Advocating for boycotts, divestment and sanctions is a form of non-violent advocacy and of free expression that must be protected."

BDS advocates boycotting the free speech of Israelis on college campuses, and its boycotters do all they can to get venues outside Israel to cancel any talk by an Israeli. Similarly, they threaten artists not to play in Israel , which is another violation of freedom of expression. 

How, exactly, is Algeria and Kuwait's boycotts of a movie for religious reasons (whether or not their objections are accurate) a violation of free speech, while Israel-haters' boycotts of movies with Israelis are an example of free speech?

In both cases, the boycotters are the ones that are trying to shut down free speech. You cannot have it both ways.  

The analogy isn't perfect - government censorship is different than people deciding to boycott on their own, which of course is their right. But Amnesty has condemned a number of countries for censoring films with LGBTQ themes, and not one word for censoring films with Israeli links. 

They are both equally guilty of violating freedom of expression, but only one upsets Amnesty. 

It sure sounds like Amnesty's concern for freedom of expression only extends to expression that they agree with. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, July 09, 2023

Amnesty International tweeted on Saturday:

Reminder: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression

Really?

Because on more than one occasion, Amnesty showed exactly how little it cares about freedom of expression.

Amnesty provides various spaces for rent in its London offices. There are no policies listed on its webpage saying who is allowed to rent their space. Yet in 2018, months after the Jewish Leadership Council made arrangements to rent out space for a debate on UN policy towards Israel, and only days before the planned event, Amnesty canceled the rental agreement and refused to allow the debate to take place.

Their reason? “We reserve the right to withhold permission for our building to be used by organisations whose work runs directly counter to our own. The presence of UN Watch is of significant concern and they have been active in the promotion of the event. We have partners and colleagues – both Israeli and Palestinian – working on the ground and this does put some of their working relationships at risk." They also told the JLC that they did not think it was appropriate to allow speakers who support Jews living in Judea and Samaria while Amnesty campaigns a boycott of "settlement goods."

This means that Amnesty will only rent their space to those whom they do not have any political disagreements with. Which includes antisemitism, since Amnesty-UK did rent their space to an organization that featured a speaker who justified and praised the terror attack murdering Israeli children in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva  massacre. 

And it is not only Amnesty-UK that only rents out its public spaces to those it agrees with. In 2014, when the Columbia University branch of Amnesty invited Alan Dershowitz to speak, Amnesty International told them to cancel the event, which they did. 

Which proves that it isn't that Amnesty opposes pro-settlement speech - but any kind of Zionist speech.

Similarly, Amnesty - so opposed to Zionist speech - has never condemned explicit Arab antisemitism and incitement to terrorism against Jews. This is even though Amnesty admits that incitement and hate speech is not covered by freedom of expression. 

This is about as hypocritical as it gets. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Cover of PCHR's "Annual Reprot" [sic]



Remember the huge amount of outrage last year when Israel shut down the offices of seven PFLP-linked NGOs? It was condemned by the UN, political leaders and human rights groups. 

Well, buried in the Palestinian Center of Human Rights 2022 annual report we see something that didn't generate a single headline in the West.

This year witnessed further restrictions, including the amendment to the non-profit companies’ regulation upon a decision issued by the Palestinian Cabinet, which imposed excessive restrictions on the work and funding of non-profit companies, under the pretext of fighting terrorism. 

Issuance of the Non-Profit Companies Regulation No. (20) of 2022 

The Palestinian Cabinet issued a new regulation on non-profit companies, which includes many restrictions on the work and funding of these companies, which is one of the forms of the right to freedom of association in Palestine. This regulation, which was published in the issue 194 of the Palestinian Gazette on 25 September 2022, included serious restrictions that threaten the existence of CSOs registered as non-profit companies. 

The new regulation, which has replaced the old one in force since 2010 and the cabinet’s decision attached to it in 2016 concerning the funding of non-profit companies, came to add more restrictions on the right to form non-profit companies, as the old regulation included many restrictions. The regulation was issued under the pretext of fighting terrorism and money laundering.

More arbitrary measures were imposed by the authorities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on associations, threatening the associations’ right to exist, practice its activities freely, and obtain funding. Most of them fully violate the fundamental rights relevant to the freedom of association, including their right to existence, free performance of activities, receipt of funds and the right to privacy and independence. Also, increased restrictive measures are imposed on the associations in the Gaza Strip due to the double restrictions imposed by the two authorities in Gaza and the West Bank.
So the PA and Hamas are also restricting NGO activity. They are also claiming that they are doing this to fight "terrorism" which is as ironic as it gets.

The Palestinian law includes a provision that the NGOs must operate in line with the plan of action of the relevant Palestinian government ministries, meaning that the takes away all independence for the NGOs. There are many other onerous provisions. 

But no one has a problem with this. I couldn't find any article in Western news media that discussed this topic exclusively.

Palestinian human rights violations are simply not reported. Because if they would be, then the entire lucrative industry of anti-Israel reporting would collapse. 





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, June 13, 2023




In April, when the city of Frankfurt planned to cancel their Roger Waters concert for antisemitism, he wrote on Instagram:

ROGER WATERS FRANKFURT SHOW UPDATE
FRANKFURT COUNCIL WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED
TO RESPOND TO ROGER WATERS INTERIM INJUNCTION
BY MIDNIGHT APRIL 14
DID THEY?
NOBODY KNOWS?
WE CAN ONLY GUESS AT
WHAT’S GOING ON IN FRANKFURT?
ARE THEY PLAYING FOR TIME?
WHO KNOWS?

NOT THAT IT MATTERS MUCH!
WE’RE COMING ANYWAY!
BECAUSE HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER!
BECAUSE FREE SPEECH MATTERS!
YES! FRANKFURT CITY COUNCIL
WE REMEMBER KRISTALLNACHT!
LIKE SOPHIE SCHOLL
OUR FATHERS STOOD
WITH THOSE THREE THOUSAND JEWISH MEN
AND TODAY WE STAND WITH THE PALESTINIANS!
WE’RE COMING TO FRANKFURT
ON THE 28TH OF MAY!

LOVE

R.
(Yes, he pretends to understand Kristallnacht better than the Germans do.)

Last week Waters again said that he supports free speech:




Free speech matters! 


This week, for at least the third time, a fan with an Israeli flag was forcibly removed from a Roger Waters show and the flag desecrated.

Former Pink Floyd star Roger Waters, who has lately featured repeatedly in the news for all the wrong reasons, has stated that wearing a mock Nazi uniform in his concerts was actually a "statement against fascism", but that does not explain why a fan who was waving an Israeli flag was manhandled by security and escorted off site.

"There was no intent on my part to provoke anyone," said Gilad Emilio Schenkar, who arrived at the concert with his partner. "And I certainly did not plan on being thrown out."

"Both I and my partner are huge Pink Floyd fans, and this was dubbed a farewell tour, so we just had to buy tickets. Since we've been noticing the antisemitic displays in his concerts lately, we decided to take an Israeli flag with us.

Shortly after displaying the Israeli flag, he was summarily ejected from the venue. "It was brutal. They grabbed and dragged me out. It was quite painful. They took me to a side room and interrogated me. Who I am, what I was doing there and all that. They firmly held my hands while they searched me. They then took the flag, threw it in the garbage and kicked me out. I told them that I thought this was a democracy, so why is a Palestinian flag allowed but an Israeli one isn't?"

Unlike the earlier incidents, in this case there was no written message, no chanting. The man simply displayed the Israeli flag quietly. It is not blocking anyone's view. It is not disruptive in the least.




And that was too much free speech for Roger Waters.

When Waters says "We remember Kristallnacht," it appears to mean that he remembers it from the Nazi point of view. Because his treatment of peaceful protesters at his concerts are right in line with how Nazis dealt with protests.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, June 07, 2023

Mahmoud Abbas congratulated Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune on Tuesday, on the election of Algeria as a member of the UN Security Council.

Let's take a quick look at what life is like in Algeria today.

- A law was passed in 1962 that ensured that anyone without a Muslim grandparent couldn't be a citizen. Some 140,000 Jews had to leave, and the laws, while changed, ensure that they cannot become citizens today.


- There are credible reports of torture in prisons.

- The judiciary is not independent and effectively controlled by the president.

- There are laws that restrict women's rights.

- Men who beat women can be pardoned if the woman is pressured to marry him. 

- There are laws that criminalize many forms of speech, both in mainstream and social media. Some journalists were harassed and intimidated.

- Laws restrict activities of any religion besides Sunni Islam.

- Gays can be imprisoned under the law for homosexual acts.

- Movies and books must be approved before being allowed into the country.

- Protests in Algiers are essentially illegal.

- Black Algerians, Black migrants and non-Muslims are widely discriminated against.

So Algeria is a racist, homophobic, misogynist, apartheid dictatorship whose citizens have no freedom and limited rights. 

One reason you don't hear much about countries like Algeria in the news is because if the media and human rights groups would judge all countries with the same standards and campaign against all abuses with the same energy, criticism of Israel would be invisible in the tsunami of actual serious human rights abuses worldwide.  And they don't want to live in a world like that. 

A set at the Security Council is a very high honor. Outside of groups like UN Watch, who is protesting giving this honor to a country as contemptuous of human rights as Algeria is?

No one cares. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, February 01, 2023



On Monday, Human Rights Watch's Omar Shakir - a BDS advocate who was hired by that organization not in spite of but because of his rabid hate for Israel - spoke at Yale University about Israel's "apartheid."

During the course of his speech, he predictably engaged in the usual anti-Israel lies, based on the slanderous idea that Israel's non-equal treatment of non-citizen Palestinians is meant to be a system of Jewish supremacy over Arabs.

But then, while actually speaking at Yale, Shakir said the most self-contradictory thing possible:
Shakir then transitioned into a discussion addressing the issue of the academic freedom and space to speak about Palestine on American campuses, with specific reference to Harvard Kennedy School’s fellowship offer, retraction and reoffer to leading human rights advocate Kenneth Roth. 

“What happened to Ken has been happening to academics who are critical of Israel and speak out for Palestinian rights, and young academics and Palestinians are facing the worst,” Shakir said. “Things are changing [and] the conversation is changing and the arc of history is bending, [but] this is happening at the very same time that the situation on the ground is getting worse and worse everyday, so we live in this dichotomy”
If the Zionists have such a stranglehold over academic freedom, how did Shakir manage to speak at Yale?

OK, maybe it is only on some campuses - like Harvard - that the Zionist overlords ensure that the campus only allows pro-Israel, anti-Arab messages to get to the students.

Oops, nope:
Join us for this coming year’s Arab Conference at Harvard, to be hosted between March 3-5, 2023 at Harvard University. 

Previously known as the Harvard Arab Weekend, the Arab Conference at Harvard (ACH) is the largest pan-Arab conference in North America, bringing together over 1300 students and professionals as well as a 20,000-strong livestream audience from across the U.S. and globally to learn from leaders in a diverse array of sectors.
Strange "silencing" of pro-Palestinian voices at Harvard.

But perhaps these events are not academic events - and professors are silenced on campus as to what they are allowed to teach; that anti-Israel academics are severely limited in their "criticism of Israel."

Nope again. 

The very same Omar Shakir who is telling roomfuls of students that academics who are critical of Israel are being silenced and their careers jeopardized tweeted this the very same day:


Yes, an entire course at Bard College by a well-known anti-Israel professor dedicated to spreading a message of racist Jewish evil towards Palestinians. 

That instructor, Nathan Thrall, is so silenced for his views that he wrote a huge anti-Israel article for the New York Times Magazine filled with anti-Israel and pro-BDS lies

The idea that anti-Israel opinions are silenced is a clear falsehood. But in the milieu of the "progressive" Left, victimhood is the coin of the realm, so the Israel haters and modern antisemites have to claim that they are being oppressed while at the same time bullying and shouting down any Zionist voices on campus. 

The entire anti-Israel movement is predicated on lies, and they know that no lie is too absurd to be believed if it is repeated and amplified enough. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 


Tuesday, January 10, 2023

Ken Roth, formerly of Human Rights Watch, has been having a meltdown lately. 

Over the summer, Harvard's Kennedy School did not offer him a fellowship, reportedly because rich Zionists who fund the school didn't like his record of crazed anti-Israel tweets and reports.

We have no information about whether this is really the reason. But Roth is pushing that narrative as mentioned in the original Nation article about this non-story.

 As a propagandist, Roth waited until he could get media coverage for the insult to his vaunted expertise and now he is tweeting about the supposed loss of "academic freedom" that this represents - now that he has found another fellowship at another Ivy League school.

He's been tweeting constantly about this.

Anyway, I responded to one of his tweets where he demeaned anyone who called out his anti-Israel obsession as a form of antisemitism:


So Roth, or one of his German fans, tried to show how much they care about freedom of speech by reporting me to Twitter!

I received an email:

Hello,

Twitter is required by German law to provide notice to users who are reported by people from Germany via the Network Enforcement Act reporting flow.

We have received a complaint regarding your account, elderofziyon, for the following content:


Reported Tweet

@KenRoth We're not idiots, Ken. We know what human rights advocacy looks like. We know what "criticism of Israel" looks like. And we know what antisemitism looks like.

Your obsessive hate for Israel (and even now, blaming rich Jews for not getting the Harvard gig) is antisemitism.


We have investigated the reported content and have found that it is not subject to removal under the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or German law.

Sincerely,
Twitter ------------------------------------------------------
Roth would post every single time someone complained to Twitter about one of his tweets, pretending he is a champion of free speech and evil Zionists were trying to silence him. (Even though Human Rights Watch under him banned me from their Twitter feed!)

So....who is trying to silence me, and does Roth support them?

UPDATE: They complained about a second tweet of mine



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 04, 2023

It is important to examine two events in recent days, as they both severely limit the freedom of Westerners - and signal far worse things that could come.

The first is the visit by Israeli minister of security Itamar Ben-Gvir to the Temple Mount.

The second is the publicizing of the removal of an instructor at Hamline University for including depictions of Mohammed in his art history course.

In both cases, nobody did anything wrong by any reasonable metric: 

- Even though many would say that he has the right to pray on Judaism's holiest site, Ben-Gvir did not. He did exactly what tens of thousands of Jews and hundreds of thousands of Christians have done in 2022 and earlier - he took a quiet stroll on the Temple Mount, without even reporters. There was no violation of the (illusory) status quo. 

- In the case of Hamline University, the instructor told the class ahead of time - in both the syllabus and verbally - that two medieval images of Mohammed, painted by Muslims, would be shown to the class, and he gave any Muslims the opportunity to not look at them. 

In both cases, there is no consensus that even Islamic law was violated: 

- Noor Dahri, a religious Muslim and counterterrorism expert, tweeted, "The rule to allow only Muslims to pray in Makkah is conditioned by the Holy Quran, however such conditions dsn’t apply to the Temple Mount.  Islam doesn’t forbid Jews to worship at the Temple Mount, [just a] political agreement which is called “Status Quo”. It is nothing but racism and religious discrimination against the Jewish people. Jews can freely worship at the Temple Mount according to Islamic rules because the land belongs to them, not Muslims - it’s only holy to Muslims."

- Muslims have included Mohammed in their own artwork for centuries, and Shiites do it today. And while mainstream Sunni Islamic law nowadays is against Muslims creating such depictions, it does not (and cannot) say that non-Muslims cannot create or view such pictures.

In both cases, ignorant Westerners who should be supporting freedom and equality are in the forefront of quashing that exact freedom in order to avoid hurting the feelings of irrational, potentially violent Muslims:

- State Department spokesman Ned Price repeatedly said in response to Ben-Gvir's visit that the US supports the "status quo," implying that the visit violated it and was "provocative:" "We oppose any unilateral actions that undercut the historic status quo. They are unacceptable.... it’s absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve that historic status quo at Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, both in word and in practice....We’re deeply concerned by any unilateral actions because – precisely because they have the potential to exacerbate tensions, or worse. "

- Hamline University issued a statement claiming, falsely, that what the instructor did violated Islamic law: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith."  But it is not at all clear that Islamic law addresses viewing such depictions, only creating them. And as mentioned, the Muslim students could have chosen not to view them.

These are perfect examples of "proleptic dhimmitude," where Westerners act (often beyond what Muslims demand)  in fear of anticipated Islamic responses that had not even occurred.

This illustrates the real unwritten law that has increasingly dominated the West: "Don't piss off the Muslims." All of the moral posturing about "tolerance" and "status quo" are fig leaves to obscure the fact that Westerners live in fear of Islamic terror, and are willing and even anxious to give up on our own freedoms to pander to the most extreme Muslim positions, human rights be damned. 

By using the yardstick of banning anything that is "provocative," the West is allowing the most intolerant and violent Muslims to dictate Western behavior in all aspects of life. Because anything and everything can provoke Islamists. 

Because in both cases the dhimmified Westerners are giving a green light for extremist, potentially violent Muslims to expand their demands ad infinitum:

- Palestinians do not only claim that Jews are violating their feelings by visiting the Temple Mount, but the Western Wall as well - which they also consider part of the "Al Aqsa complex." In fact, every single Jewish holy site, from the Tomb of the Patriarchs to Rachel's Tomb to Joseph's Tomb and scores of others - are all claimed by Palestinians to be Muslim shrines. If Israel gives in to western pressure on abandoning Jewish rights, it wouldn't be the end - it would be only the start of the bigoted, antisemitic demands that Jews have no rights in Israel altogether.

- The same Islamic law against creating depictions of Mohammed also apples to every Muslim prophet.  This includes Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and, according to many, Mary. Beyond that, depictions of Roman and Greek gods would similarly violate Islamic laws against idolatry. The exact same logic that caused Hamline to cave to Muslim intolerance can eviscerate every single art history course in the Western world. 

It isn't hard to picture that as only the beginning, not the end. Imagine a world where every website, every encyclopedia, every outing, every college course, every newspaper article and indeed every activity must be approved by extremist Islamic gatekeepers. We've already seen most Western media refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons from Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, even though they are undoubtedly newsworthy and important to see to understand the story. But that and similar incidents are exactly what is driving today's cowardice: the fear of pissing off Muslims, because they might murder you. 

Jews will only write angry letters, so offending them is "free speech" and "brave." Muslims might kill you, so submitting to their dictates is twisted into "tolerance."

Unless there is serious pushback by those who still value freedom, this is where things are going. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, December 23, 2022



 More than 330 American rabbis, including some who occupy prominent roles in major cities, are pledging to block members of the Religious Zionist bloc in Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government from speaking at their synagogues and will lobby to keep them from speaking in their communities.

An open letter now circulating says they will not invite members of the bloc “to speak at our congregations and organizations. We will speak out against their participation in other fora across our communities. We will encourage the boards of our congregations and organizations to join us in this protest as a demonstration of our commitment to our Jewish and democratic values.”

Its signatories come from the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements. There were no Orthodox signatories.
This is prominent US Jewish leaders embracing BDS.

Every synagogue is free to invite whomever they want to speak, and not to invite people they don't want. But when they say that they will protest other synagogues' choice of speakers, and encourage their congregations to protest those other congregations, that is not a commitment to "Jewish and democratic values." 

That is shutting down free speech.

That is identical to BDS.

Imagine these same rabbis' reaction if Orthodox synagogues encouraged their members to picket their choice to allow Arab or Leftist MKs to speak at their synagogues. Yet they are encouraging the same kind of activities from their own members - in the name of democracy!

I have not dug deeply into the new Israeli government, mostly because every article about it is speculation. Likud is still by far the majority of the government, not the far right, and they will be the ones setting the agenda, just as they have for most of the past decade.  

The cabinet members have not even been finalized.  

With every political party, including in the US, there is a huge gap between what they say when campaigning and what they actually do when governing. Often, their party platforms include things to make the extremists of their parties happy while the leaders have no desire to actually implement them.

Moreover, the hysterical headlines coming out of Haaretz, US media other outlets are rarely correct. For example, reporting about the proposed change to the Law of Return is riddled with major errors.  

In short, the reporting so far about Israel's future government has been high on hysteria and nearly nonexistent on what the government will actually do.

Israeli's policies can and should be criticized when appropriate. But the criticism should be based on actions, on real legislation, not rumors or even falsehoods written by partisan reporters and columnists. 

The thought of of Reform Jews coming out to protest and disrupt a member of Israel's cabinet speaking at an Orthodox synagogue in the US is far worse than anything that Ben Gvir has done - and is likely to do. That is not "Jewish and democratic values." That is hate. 

And it shows that, ideologically, these rabbis are more on the side of BDS - spreading false rumors, looking for publicity rather than waiting for the truth to come out, trying to shut down free speech  - than on Israel's side.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, December 14, 2022



Palestinian prime minister Mohammed Shtayyeh met with Palestinian filmmakers on Tuesday and gave them one message: produce pro-Palestinian propaganda.

He stated, "The strength of our narrative in the face of poisonous funding lies in its sincerity, and every Palestinian has a narrative that must be told, and supporting the cinema sector in Palestine is one form of steadfastness. The private sector and society must participate in it alongside the government."

Shtayyeh stressed the importance of film as propaganda, in "highlighting our Palestinian cause and its justice, and communicating it to the world through cinematic and documentary works, because it leaves a great impact on the hearts of peoples around the world ."

The PA ministry of culture intends to create a committee to regulate the film industry - meaning, not to allow any films that do not adhere to the Palestinian, anti-Israel narrative. 

If there was any independence in Palestinian cinema to date, it is certainly gone now. Not that Palestinian filmmakers ever showed a desire to create films that counter their narrative: their smiling faces above show that they have no problem whatsoever with being told what kinds of films they will be allowed to make. 



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, November 04, 2022



At Berkeley Law School, faculty and staff members are encouraged to include their preferred pronouns in email signatures. Students can indicate their preferred pronouns on their law school applications, as well as on their name tags during student orientation.

Clearly, the right to identify oneself as one wishes is important at the law school, and anyone who chooses to ignore those wishes and tell students and staff that they refuse to address them as they self-identify would be marginalized as a bigot, and probably censured.

There is one exception, though.

This fall there has been a controversy at Berkeley Law when nine student organizations will not host events or invite speakers who have expressed views in support of Zionism. Many Jews protested, saying that this effectively discriminated against them as Zionism and Judaism are tightly bound.

The lawyer defending the student organizations, Liz Jackson of Palestine Legal, who is herself an alumnus of the school, defended the discriminatory bylaws in a most curious way:

“Some students say that their Jewish identity is so deeply identified with Zionism that this effectively discriminates against them," Jackson said. "But that’s their subjective view and choice about how they understand their own Jewish identity.”

According to Palestine Legal's lawyer, Jews do not have the right to say that their Judaism includes love of Israel. Self-identification is not a right for Jews, rather, Jewishness is defined by others and Jews must adhere to the definition that anti-Zionists impose on them.

This doesn't sound very progressive. But this is the argument of the Berkeley Law student organizations to defend their blocking any speaker for whom Israel is a central part of their Judaism, which includes the vast majority of Jews.

Jackson herself says she is Jewish. According to her own standards, I can declare that this is only her subjective view and that she is in reality not Jewish. How do you think that argument would go over at Berkeley? Yet that is exactly what she is saying about 95% of all Jews. 

Jackson's hypocrisy doesn't end there. 

Not only does she deny the right of Jews to define Judaism, she denies the right of Zionists to define Zionism!
In an Oct. 3 statement released by ASUC Senator Shay Cohen addressed to LSJP and student groups that adopted the bylaw, student groups alleged that the bylaw was “a deliberate attempt to exclude Jewish students from the community,” and likened anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

“When we say ‘Zionism,’ we mean the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, which is Israel,” said Amir Grunhaus, campus senior and president of Tikvah, a Zionist student group that signed the statement. “This does not say anything about the self-determination of Palestinians.”

Jackson expressed disagreement with this definition of Zionism, alleging that it was “colonial ideology” and that it is “problematic” to believe that a religious group has a right to a state of their own as it “requires discrimination” against people outside of that group.
This is "1984"-level thought police stuff. This lawyer defines what her political opponents believe. 

Note also that Jackson here is defining Jews as a purely religious group, not as a people. According to her words, atheist Jews aren't Jews, either. 

Jewish and Zionist identity can only be defined by those who oppose Jewish and Zionist identity.

And this is still not the height of Liz Jackson's hypocrisy.

She wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times against the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act where she falsely claimed that the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is incorporated in the Act, makes criticism of Israel illegal on campus. She's lying - the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any country is not antisemitic.

Jackson wrote:
The State Department standard is highly controversial because it conflates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Jewish hatred, shutting down debate by suggesting that anyone who looks critically at Israeli policy is somehow beyond the pale. It has no place on college campuses in particular, where we need students to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.
Jackson claims she supports a vigorous exchange of ideas on campus. No Zionist I know of disagrees.  But at Berkeley, she has taken the exact opposite stand, and defends organizations making bylaws that ban not only speech that supports Zionism, but they ban Zionist speakers from speaking on any topic whatsoever!

To anti-Zionist hypocrites like Jackson and her organization Palestine Legal, these are the rules:

The right to self-identify is sacred - except for Jews. 
The right to define your own beliefs is sacred - except for Zionists.
The right to free speech is sacred - except for nearly all Jews. 
And calling out this obvious hypocrisy is anti-Palestinian racism. 

(h/t Andrew P)



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, October 21, 2022

The Dutch ambassador to Jordan tweeted, "Pleasure meeting HE Minister of Media AlShubol. An opportunity to discuss issues of common concern, including the media scene in Jordan. Stressed our strong bilateral relationship, and I shared our concerns on Jordan’s declining international ranking on freedom of speech. Netherlands ready for cooperation."

Jordan ranks 129th out of 180 nations in press freedom, and as I have noted often, even though it has control over the media it allows virulently antisemitic material to be published daily. 

Jordan and Jordanians are very unhappy at this very mild rebuke.

Jordan's government has criticised the Dutch ambassador to Amman after he made comments about media freedom in the kingdom.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said that Harry Verweij had weighed into domestic affairs during a courtesy meeting with a senior official.

His comments included the licensing of a local radio station and who ran it, according to the ministry, which did not elaborate further.

The ambassador's actions were “incomprehensible” according to a statement.

"Jordan is always open to frank dialogue that approaches all issues with all partners and friendly countries through diplomatic channels and direct contact, in accordance with diplomatic norms, but that it does not accept interference in its internal affairs," a statement on the Petra news agency said.
The responses on Twitter are no less strident:

I reject any interference by you in Jordan's internal affairs.
You must respect your position and shut your mouth Our internal affairs are none of your business.
This is a blatant interference in the affairs of our country and we do not allow you. You have to respect the sovereignty of this country. And not to interfere in his affairs
I advise you to go back to Holland, you need to collect a lot of firewood this winter because of the Russian war. This is none of your business.
Unacceptable intervention in our country's  business. Read your job description again and stick to it..
Our freedom of speech is our concern, and its not yours whatsoever.
No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of others..
I wonder if this robust defense of Jordan from criticism and outside interference applies to Israel too?





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Sunday, October 02, 2022



The full results of the latest PCPSR poll of Palestinians has been published, and it finds a consistent pattern.

86% of Palestinians say there is corruption in the Palestinian Authority and 73% say there is corruption in institutions under Hamas’ control in the Gaza Strip.

That is  truly overwhelming majority - and it is a story that the Western media continuously downplays. After all, if the Palestinian leadership cannot be trusted to take care of their own people, how can anyone expect them to adhere to agreements with Israel?

Another telling statistic: A majority of Palestinians under both Hamas and PA rule say that they cannot criticize their leaders without fear.  58% of West Bankers think people in the West Bank cannot criticize the PA without fear and 54% of Gazans say they cannot criticize Hamas without fear.

Again, Western media will uncritically quote Palestinian media and citizens without mentioning that people are likely to self-censor to parrot what their corrupt leaders want them so say. This results in reporting on the region that is inherently inaccurate.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, June 23, 2022




From JTA:

A US federal appeals court upheld an Arkansas state law requiring all public contractors to promise they won’t boycott Israel in a Wednesday ruling, overturning an earlier decision that had said the contract violates the First Amendment.

The ruling by the St. Louis-based US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was a major victory for pro-Israel activists who have pushed around 30 states to adopt so-called “anti-BDS” laws — intended to strike back against the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement targeting Israel — in recent years. The plaintiffs say they plan to appeal to the US Supreme Court, a process that could result in a nationwide showdown over the constitutionality of all anti-boycott laws.

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled in favor of laws forbidding public contractors from being involved in any Israel boycott movements.

Such laws have been heavily opposed by civil liberties groups and press freedom advocates, who say they violate free speech. Federal courts have previously ruled that similar anti-boycott state laws in Georgia, Arizona, Kansas and Texas are unconstitutional.

But the Eighth Circuit, minus one dissenting judge, found that an anti-boycott contract provision does not infringe on the signer’s free speech rights because it “does not require them to publicly endorse or disseminate a message.” Instead, the court said, the clause requests “compliance” with a financial regulation — which the court says is a form of “noncommunicative” speech not protected by the First Amendment. 
The case that was brought up is a perfect example of why anti-boycott laws have nothing to do with free speech. 

A state-funded school, the Pulaski Technical College of the University of Arizona, stopped advertising in the alt-weekly Arkansas Times unless the paper signed the anti-BDS pledge. The newspaper sued, saying that this impeded its rights to free speech. (It seems to me that suing to force the school to spend money on advertising in the paper is a bit more of a violation of free speech than refusing to advertise is, but I'm no lawyer....)


[T]he certification requirement here is markedly different from other compelled speech cases. Although it requires contractors to agree to a contract provision they would otherwise not include, it does not require them to publicly endorse or disseminate a message. ....We are not aware of any cases where a court has held that a certification requirement concerning unprotected, nondiscriminatory conduct is unconstitutionally compelled speech. A factual disclosure of this kind, aimed at verifying compliance with unexpressive conduct-based regulations, is not the kind of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment.
The newspaper was not being asked to adopt a pro-Israel editorial position - which would be an obvious violation of free speech. They could have a banner headline telling readers to boycott Israel. 

The irony is that the law is meant to uphold equal treatment for Israel. The only people who want to discriminate are those who want to single out Israel for boycott. Such a law would be unnecessary without people singling out Israeli Jews (and only Jews) as objects of attack. 

Boycotting Israeli businesses as a policy is as immoral and reprehensible as boycotting businesses that are owned by people of color or women. Individuals can choose who they will or will not do business with, but a state has every right not to do business with those who pro-actively discriminate against companies owned by those with a specific national origin.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Remember Nizar Banat? 

He's the critic who publicly called the Palestinian Authority corrupt and organized protests against Mahmoud Abbas.

Last June 24, at 3:30 AM,  he was arrested by PA security services. By 6:30 AM, he was dead.

The PA pretended to be shocked at his death and arrested a bunch of people after the international community expressed displeasure at an obvious assassination. 

And now, according to reports, the supposed murderers will be set free on bail.

Felesteen reports that according to sources, the military court of the PA in Ramallah decided to release on bail 14 defendants in the case of the assassination of Nizar Banat. 

The sources stated that the decision to release the accused was based on the decision of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. 

The defendants are being released on condition that their movement be restricted. And if they happen to disappear towards Jordan, well, these things happen. 

Especially when you work in a government as corrupt as the PA is, under the dictatorship of Mahmoud Abbas.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, January 06, 2021




As a publisher who has had my own materials removed from social media, I am very sensitive to freedom of speech issues.

And I'm sensitive from both sides of the issue, since I am certainly against antisemitic and other hate speech.

The topic is fraught with emotion, as it should be. We should get emotional both about defending our freedoms and also against those who abuse their speech to harm others.

As a result of the unprecedented and ongoing violent situation in Washington, D.C., we have required the removal of three @realDonaldTrump Tweets that were posted earlier today for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy.

This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked. 

Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account. 

Our public interest policy — which has guided our enforcement action in this area for years — ends where we believe the risk of harm is higher and/or more severe.
Was this the correct thing to do?

This explanation is a little misleading. Twitter's Civic Integrity Policy is mostly concerned with manipulating elections or other civic processes, and while I suppose one can say that the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday was a version of manipulating a civic process. But if anything encouraged that mob, it sure wasn't Twitter - it was the President himself speaking directly to them and telling them to march to the Capitol, which was also covered by national cable TV news networks live.

So what benefit to society was there for Twitter to take away those tweets when his message was freely available elsewhere?

I want to be clear - I'm not discussing the law here. Twitter has every right to censor whomever it wants, as long as it sets up its rules ahead of time and enforces the rules consistently (which often does not appear to be the case.) I have no problem with Zoom censoring terrorist Leila Khaled from speaking on its platform when she is in the US but allowing her to speak when she is in the UK, because Zoom is only following its own policies that are different in each country. 

In general, my opinion is that freedom of speech should be close to absolute unless it is inciting to violence. Unfortunately, that kicks the can down the road - what is considered incitement? Is saying that Jews control the world incitement to attack Jews? What about claiming that Jews abuse infants when they circumcise them?  Do racist comments make it more likely for people to attack people of color? 

Or do we draw the line at direct specific threats? That sounds like a reasonable policy, but we've already seen how white supremacists and neo-Nazis have adapted to that - by treating everything they say as a joke, jokes that are taken seriously by their audience who understand the game they are playing.

There are two conflicting principles, between freedom of speech and prohibiting incitement, and going too far in either direction can result in either criminalizing independent thought or creating an environment where people can get murdered. There is a third complicating principle as well - that providers of communications platforms treat all speech with a consistent policy, not favoring one political stance over another. 

These are difficult questions. 

In the specific case here, Twitter is clearly trying to tamp down violence, which is of course a good thing. I think that this can easily backfire, though. 

The people who were marching in Washington feel that they are not being heard, that they are marginalized by the mainstream, that their issues with the election are not being taken seriously. They are being censored by YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and they are frustrated - convinced that this is a huge conspiracy against their viewpoints. This drives them underground to other sites that still have plenty of viewers but no alternative points of view. 

And that fuels extremism. 

I didn't see the mainstream media give much of a warning that this demonstration could be as big or unruly as it was. There are demonstrations in Washington every day. But most of the media ignores the underground sites, where people have been planning this demonstration for at least a month. Obviously, tens of thousands came to Washington from all over and just as obviously, the Capitol police and DC police were not close to prepared. 

If the protesters had been allowed to speak freely about their issues with the election on mainstream social media, perhaps they would not be as paranoid. Perhaps they could have been exposed to other points of view as people would argue with them in the open. Perhaps the mainstream media and the police could have been following the situation more closely and defended the Capitol better (and that is a scandal in itself - if there had been a proper defense, there would have been no riots.) 

This is only one example of how a more liberal approach to free speech could actually make violence less likely. 

As I said, I get it. I am frustrated by prominent people using social media not only to mislead but to outright lie, and I fight it every day. Skilled people use social media for propaganda that can have very bad real world effects. I am very sensitive to the possibility of violence resulting from irresponsible conspiracy theories. 

But I still believe that shining a light on the crazy, the paranoid and the hate is a far better approach than to force it underground, where it can become much, much worse - as we saw today.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020




The NYU - American Association of University Professors issued a statement about Zoom denying PFLP terrorist Leila Khaled on their platform.

10/23/2020

Today, Zoom unilaterally shut down a webinar hosted by the NYU chapter of the AAUP, and co-sponsored by several NYU departments and institutes. The webinar was scheduled to discuss the censorship, by Zoom and other big tech platforms, of an open classroom session last month at SFSU, featuring the Palestinian rights advocate Leila Khaled.

Of course, we recognize that it is an act of sick comedy to censor an event about censorship, but it raises serious questions about the capacity of a corporate, third-party vendor to decide what is acceptable academic speech and what is not.

The shutdown of a campus event is a clear violation of the principle of academic freedom that universities are obliged to observe. Allowing Zoom to override this bedrock principle, at the behest of organized, politically motivated groups, is a grave error for any university administration to make, and it should not escape censure from faculty and students.

The NYU administration has told us they knew nothing about Zoom’s decision, and that they have taken up the issue with the company’s representatives. We urge the administration to issue a strong statement denouncing this act, and to revisit the terms of its contract with Zoom.

If Zoom will not walk back its policy of canceling webinars featuring Palestinian speech and advocacy, college presidents should break their agreements with the company.

The AAUP chapter is committed to organizing an event for the NYU community to discuss this appalling breach of academic norms.
Back in ancient times of a couple of decades ago, university professors were expected to tell the truth. It seems to be a minimum requirement for the job. But at NYU, the AAUP seems to be allergic to veracity.

Nowhere in this letter does it say the reason Zoom does not allow Leila Khaled on its platform. This is strange because anyone can read Zoom's Prohibited Use policy:
Prohibited Use. You agree that You will not use, and will not permit any End User to use, the Services to: ... use the Services in violation of any Zoom policy or in a manner that violates applicable law, including but not limited to ...anti-terrorism laws and regulations...

Hosting and promoting a terrorists violates anti-terrorism laws.  

The reason is because Khaled is a member of a terror group, not because she is an advocate for Palestinians.  

When the NYU-AAUP says Zoom has a policy of "canceling webinars featuring Palestinian speech and advocacy," they are not only lying - they are knowingly lying. There are plenty of pro-Palestinian Zoom meetings, every single day. 

Almost as bad is saying that Zoom is "censoring" anything by adhering to its own rules against using the platform for terrorism that it has had in place since 2012. 

The AAUP, with this statement, has destroyed its credibility - in support of an unrepentant terrorist and current member of an active terror group.

Not to mention that the AAUP has not, to my knowledge, ever said a word in support of academic freedom when  gangs of Israel-haters who disrupt lectures and speeches by Zionists or Israelis. This only becomes a "bedrock principle" when a terrorist is affected. Which is its own kind of sickness.

(h/t Andrew P)




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive