To the Honorable President of Baylor University Judge Kenneth Starr
To the Honorable Members of the Board of Regents of Baylor University

Re: Professor Marc Ellis

"The most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedom to learn. All education is a continuous dialogue - questions and answers that pursue every problem on the horizon. That is the essence of academic freedom."
--William Orville Douglas

"The whole idea of equal justice under law means that you've got to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with the underlying subject matter. You just tell the truth."
--Kenneth Starr

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

In our nation freedom of speech much like freedom of the press is defined, implemented, and censored by those in power in direct contradiction to the words and spirit of our First Amendment.

Such is the current outrageous, dishonorable, and unconstitutional actions taken by Judge Starr against one of the country's leading and most distinguished scholars on Jewish Studies, tenured Professor Marc Ellis, by eliminating his upcoming courses, shutting down his department, and launching an investigation on whether Professor Ellis' writing against ISRAELI policies is anathema to the Jewish Christian Zionist's standard of "thou shall not speak against Israel."

The Baylor Lariat, November 30, 2011, highlighted Professor Ellis' dissident voice against Israel's policies as a major factor in his unwarranted persecution by Ken Starr:

"Dr. Marc Ellis, director of the university's Center for Jewish Studies, said Baylor President Ken Starr approved charges against him in June at least in part because of his outspoken criticism of the state of ISRAEL"

It is a shameful stain on Baylor University, a Christian University that espouses to teach the life and moral values of Jesus ("Judge not lest you be judged") should resort to such illegal and unconstitutional persecution of Professor Ellis simply for his right as an American citizen to speak and write freely in an environment that should respect academic freedom and free speech.

As a former Judge President Starr is fully aware of the Supreme Court's decision cited below.

In a 1989 case before the Supreme Court on the freedom to burn the American flag, the Supreme Court ruled that such action is freedom of speech: Justice William J. Brennan asserted that:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

What deemed heresy will next be on Baylor's Christian chopping block? Ethnic cleansing of Non-Christians, expulsion of women unless they bow down in total obedience to man, the handicapped and poor students on scholarship, or anyone who is not born again nor blindly accepts Ken Starr's and the University's ultimatums.

Is this not hypocritical when compared to the statement below on Baylor's mission and values?

"Baylor encourages all of its students to cultivate their capacity to think critically..to arrive at informed and reasoned conclusions."

Starr and Baylor are creating a dangerous precedent of a new inquisition against those who espouse dissident opinions than the accepted conformity for Israel that it can do no wrong.

Is there a financial threat to Baylor that it will lose funds should it continue to keep Professor Marc Ellis' as a tenured academician much like what happened at Harvard with Professor Stephen Walt? Even the founder and first Prime Minister of Israel, the very country Ken Starr is stealthily protecting would've respected Professor Ellis' right to free speech and his dissidence from the overwhelming blind support Israel receives in this country, not out of love or strategic need, but out of sheer fear of its powerful lobbies.

David Ben Gurion said:

"The test of democracy is freedom of criticism."

American ignorance on Israel is its best weapon of mass destruction against America's national interests and the humanity of its occupied populations.

Baylor's Board of Regents has a responsibility and obligation to uphold the University's mission to its students, its faculty, and its national and international outreach to uphold Professor Marc Ellis' absolute right as a tenured Professor and American citizen to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed free speech and his academic responsibility to provide his students and society at large with opposing and dissenting views on Israel or any other issue.

As Ronald Reagan said:

"There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect."

Baylor can solidify the principle that universities are truly the foundation of reason, rationality, critical thought based on knowledge of all sides of an issue, an environment of freedom for the mind and soul, a bastion for free flowing ideas, debates, and research, a pathway to graduate free thinkers who will enter a world challenged by and challenging of competing ideas.

Without such principles there is neither an educational institution nor true learning.

To avoid a historical mistake and shame upon Baylor, the renowned and distinguished Professor Marc Ellis must not face any politically motivated investigation of his academic freedom that might incredibly lead to his dismissal.

Board of Regents, this is not only the right thing to do but the only intellectually honest and sound decision worthy of Baylor University.

With utmost respect;

Mohamed Khodr

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• Uphill battle for academic freedom in US universities
• Israelis hinder academic pursuits
• Propaganda disguised as academic inquiry at the University of Illinois

Robin Hood of the Information Age

Julian Assange

Julian Assange, who might be the man most hated by the U.S. government, was given Australia's Walkley Foundation Award for outstanding journalism last week. He accepted it from a distance, using Skype, because he is under house arrestin England pending extradition to Sweden. He is threatened with extradition because, curiously, the Swedish police have reopened a case of alleged rape against him that had been previously dismissed.

Assange is a kind of Robin Hood of the Information Age–purloining vital information from often criminal governments, and distributing it to the information-poor citizenry. As a result he has become the hero of all those who would defy a media environment of government-warped news. And rightly so, for he and Bradley Manning are the first ones since 1971 (when Daniel Ellsberg and Neil Sheehan made public the Pentagon Papers) to defy U.S. government secrecy and reveal the official criminality committed in the names of its citizens.
Assange accomplished this feat back in November of 2010 when his Wikileaks website began the release of over 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables. Ever since then the U.S. government has been searching for ways to silence him and his web based operation. To date, two approaches have proved effective:

1. The use of official pressure to shut down the avenues through which Wikileaks gets its financial contributions. These have been coming mostly through paypal and other web based sources.

2. And tying Assange up with a rape charge that was active, then inactive, and now, lo and behold, is active again.

Corruption of the News Media

On 28 November, just days after receiving the Walkley Award, Assange addressed, again by Skype, the News World Summit in Hong Kong . Here he was blunt, and quite accurate, in his description of U.S. government behavior in relation to open access to information. "It is not an age of transparency at all" he said (perhaps alluding to President Obama's unfulfilled pledge to promote "an unprecedented level of openness in government")...the amount of secret information is more than ever before."

For this Assange blames not just governments, but also the profession of journalism. In his opinion journalism has become "corrupted" by editors and reporters who value the prestige of being associated with important centers of power more than the uncensored practice of their craft. Such ambition does not allow the profession to hold those in power to account. "There is a crisis of legitimacy within the mainstream press, a rightful crisis of legitimacy." For Assange, the consequences of this crisis are potentially catastrophic. "If the press doesn't hold powerful corporations and governments to account then how can a democratic process work?"

Assange has a point. Yet historically, journalism's record of keeping the powerful honest, and itself uncorrupted, is mediocre at best. In the United States, modern mainstream journalism has its roots in the shady reporting known as "yellow journalism." That refers to the exaggerations and outright lies that passed for news at the end of the 19^th century. Unfortunately, such "journalism" did build up the distribution numbers, and thus the profitability, of the papers that practiced it. And often the consequences have been catastrophic. One of yellow journalism's most notable achievements was whipping up support for the Spanish American War. That is a role the press, and now the news media in general, has played over and again. At least at a national level, the muckraking alternative of honest expository journalism (think of the Watergate reporting of the Washington Post back in 1972) is the exception and not the rule.

The Complicity of Public Taste

Why is that the case? Well, just ask yourself how regional U.S. newspapers which run into financial difficulties reorganize the presentation of their papers. They put in more pictures, up the amount of entertainment "news," gossip and especially sports (lots of sports), favor local happenings and downsize national and international events. This is not really a conspiracy to keep us all stupid, though it might contribute to that end. It is a business decision based on market surveys that tell owners and editors what the customer prefers in his or her paper.

It you want to see a recent example of such a maneuver take a look at the comparison of TIME magazine covers at the website Common Dreams. Buy TIME's upcoming December 5, 2011 issue in Asia, Europe or even in the South Pacific, and you will see an Egyptian protester on the cover with the title "Revolution Redux." Buy the U.S. version of the same magazine and you will see a silly little cartoon guy with the title, "Why Anxiety Is Good For You." That not only says something about how the editors and owners of TIME see their American readership, it also says a whole lot about the apparent tastes and interests of that readership.

The fact is that Julian Assange, and the rest of us who are interested in a truly free press, have run smack up against the fact that as long as we have a capitalist news media, we will also have an easily corruptible news media. Just like any other capitalist enterprise, what such a press or media aims at is profit, and not factual accuracy. It also will follow the lead of its corporate owners and board of directors because that is what private enterprise prescribes. Just take a look at every media enterprise Rupert Murdoch owns. Given this situation you will have a range of news organizations that fall out on something like a bell curve. Most of them will be middle of the road nonentities while on the extremes you will have right-wing and left-wing offerings. It is a sign of our times here in the U.S. that the right-wing media has taken a jump in popularity (witness Fox TV).

That is not to say that what passes for press and media in the non-capitalist world is any sort of worthy alternative. It certainly is not. What is needed is a formula to create endowed, and therefore truly independent, news media. As Assange suggests this is a sine qua non of a free society.

We Will Always Need The Whistle Blower

Most of the world's population has only a minimal interest in what is happening beyond their local environment. That is why the market surveys noted above deliver the message they do. Occasionally something comes over the hill and hits the locals in the head. That something thereby becomes both part of the local scene and demands explaining. The 9/11 attacks qualify as such an event. Originating from afar, how are the locals to understand it? They have no ready context in which to do so. So they listen to so-called "experts" from the government and media who they assume will give them the "truth." That is the only explanation most people ever get.

We have all seen where this leads us–right off a cliff. When Julian Assange dumped those hundreds of thousands of documents onto the web he was saying "Here: you want the truth? It is somewhere in here. Let's all take a look." Some did. Most did not. But the precedent he set sent shivers through the U.S. government as if it had caught an institutional flu. For this Assange is persecuted. That is the sort of world we live in. A world that will always need the whistle blower, will always need a Julian Assange.

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama: tragic hero vs political prostitute
• WikiLeaks: What, really, is the problem?
• WikiLeaks and the press

Republican Congressman Joe Wilson

On September 9, 2009, Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted "you lie!" at President Barack Obama during the President's State of the Union address to Congress.

The outburst came from Wilson after President Obama said his health care plan would not subsidize coverage for illegal immigrants.

On September 26, 2011, The Los Angeles Times reported on the trial of the "Irvine 11" for disrupting a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California, Irvine.

The students expressed support for the Palestinian cause, and shouted phrases such as "You sir, are an accomplice to genocide," at Oren during the event.

When Congressman Wilson called President Obama a liar, no action was taken against him for disrupting the President's speech.

However, when 11 Muslim students called Ambassador Oren an accomplice to genocide, it was deemed an offence to be prosecuted in court.

Since when has heckling become a crime? Those who speak or perform in public can expect hecklers, particularly with audiences who may be offended by what the speaker says or represents.

A student disrupting a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California, Irvine.

When Congressman Wilson called out "You lie", he believed that Obama was not telling the truth when the President said the legislation would not mandate coverage for undocumented immigrants.

In Oren's case, representing a country with a record of brutal occupation of Palestine and never-ending brainwashing of the American public, the ambassador should have expected some heckling.

That the Irvine University administration castigated the hecklers revealed just how brainwashed even academics in America have become. To them, Israel could do no wrong!

Instead of supporting prosecution of the Irvine 11, Oren should at least have been expected to learn how to deal with hecklers.

A clever speaker might have said, "I'm paid to act like a fool, what's your excuse?"

If he got a second heckling, he could have retorted with, "You could play a human being with a little rehearsing."

Every public speaker--especially those facing hostile audiences--should learn how to deal with hecklers. Instead, the case of the "Irvine 11" generated a national debate regarding free speech.

On September 23rd, a jury found ten students guilty of two misdemeanours, conspiring to and then disrupting Oren's speech given on Feb. 8th, 2010.

In the end, ten students were sentenced to 56 hours of community service and three years' informal probation.

The Assistant District Attorney argued that Oren was "shut down", and described the students as "censors" who utilized the "heckler's veto".

In a critical article for the Los Angeles Times Nicole Santacruz complained, "Applauding the violation of a fundamental American right is, you guessed it, UNAMERICAN. Their actions were ugly, thuggish, contrary to the values of the Bill of Rights and the guiding principle of uninhibited inquiry that informs the university these louts attend."

On the other hand, defence attorneys claimed that the students acted within the law and were exercising their right to free speech.

Nora Barrows-Friedman, writing for Al Jazeera, argued that the Israeli Ambassador was "attempting to hoodwink college students into believing that Israel was a democracy."

She added, "There is no democracy under Israeli rule for Palestinians: Those who live within the 1948 borders are subject to an apartheid system, while Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are under the most brutal military and economic occupation of our time."

Apart from showing films of a few children throwing stones at American tanks in the West Bank, the occasional heckling is all that's available to most Palestinians in America to fight the Israeli occupation and its apologists.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Related posts:

• Bashing Islam is Freedom of Speech Criticizing Israel is a Hate Crime
• New speech by President Obama for real change
• Is America’s Military Prepared For The Israeli Threat? Can America Stop An Israeli “Nuclear” 9/11?

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Liu Xiaobo

Poems have been written about everything from angels to the world and everything in between. Thus, it's impossible to ascribe any single set of qualities to the poet.

Ralph Waldo Emerson argued that "the poet is a seer who penetrates the mysteries of the universe and articulates the universal truths that bind humanity together. Hence, the true poet, who puts into words what others feel but cannot express, speaks for all men and women."

One might speculate that these qualities of the poet account for some who become political activists.  A number of famous poets have been in serious trouble because of their activism.

This year Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize. Poet and a literary critic, Liu was a leading voice and an influential presence during the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

According to Princeton philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah, Liu's "insistence on non-violence and democratic process are widely credited with preventing far more catastrophic bloodshed during the subsequent crackdown.

“More recently, Liu co-authored Charter 08, a declaration calling for political reform. He was detained in December of last year and formally arrested in June, charged with ‘inciting subversion of state power’.”

From the official press release of the Nobel Committee, October 8, 2010:

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. Such rights are a prerequisite for the ‘fraternity between nations’ of which Alfred Nobel wrote in his will.”

What was China’s reaction? The Chinese cancelled meetings with Norwegian officials, pointing out that Liu was convicted in December of inciting subversion of the state.

Liu's wife Liu Xia spoke of meeting Liu through their interest in poetry when they were both at Columbia University: “Twenty-six years ago, both of us were writing modern poetry. It is through our poetry that we became acquainted and eventually fell in love. Six years later, the unprecedented student democratic movement and massacre occurred in Beijing.

“Xiaobo dutifully stood his ground and, consequently, became widely known as one of the so-called June 4 ‘black hands’. His life then changed forever.

“He has been put into jail several times, and even when he is at home, he is still, for the most part, not a free man. As his wife, I have no other choice but to become a part of his unfortunate life.”

Said one observer, “The Norwegian panel that gave him the prize provided Chinese officials and their supporters with ample ammunition to denounce the move as another attempt by the West to impose its values on China.”

Liu commented on his imprisonment: "Simply for expressing divergent political views and taking part in a peaceful and democratic movement, a teacher lost his podium, a writer lost the right to publish, and a public intellectual lost the chance to speak publicly."

“Some politicians from other countries are trying to use this opportunity to attack China,” Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, told reporters during a regularly scheduled news conference. He added that the prize, announced Friday, “shows disrespect for China’s judicial system” because the recipient is a convicted criminal.

Ironically, 14 overseas Chinese dissidents, many of them hard-boiled exiles dedicated to overthrowing the Communist Party, accused Liu of maligning fellow activists, abandoning persecuted members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement and going soft on China’s leaders.

As former US president John F Kennedy once said: "Politicians and poets share at least one thing, and that is their greatness that depends upon the courage with which they face the challenges of life."

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Related posts:

• 9/11 Truth nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2008
• Video: Iraqi Poet Abbas Jejan welcomes Obama (Arabic Only)
• Tel Aviv, Peace and the Obama Prize

By Yvonne Ridley* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration By Pete Pasho: www.dollopsofirony.com

Anyone then, suspected of being linked to communism was arrested, interrogated and either imprisoned or forced to give names of others suspected of communist tendencies. And so the fear and intimidation spread like a great plague across the USA.

Names were blacklisted, careers and lives ruined as the authorities ruthlessly traded on peoples' fears, paranoia and weaknesses.

With little or no evidence people were found guilty and anyone daring to question any of the actions and the wild accusations also had suspicion cast upon them. But hey folks, that was back in the Fifties and various administrations resolved the same insane hysteria, hatred and fears would never again cast a dark shadow across the Land of the Free.

Sadly, the Salem-style witch hunts have returned, but the new villains are no longer communists. The Red Scare has been replaced by those who shout Viva Palestina!

From the very highest law-makers right down to ordinary John Doe there is an irrational fear so great that it holds many of them hostage in their homes, workplaces and schools.

Their vision has become so skewed they are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is not.

And so when they're told that heavily armed Israeli soldiers shoot peace activists at near point blank range because they are defending themselves, few dare to question.

When they see babies dying on the Gaza Strip because of lack of medical equipment because of the Israeli-enforced blockade, they remain silent.

And even fewer dare to criticize Israel.

Millions upon millions of Americans wake up frightened, go to sleep frightened while others feed on the hatred and bile spewed out by politicians, preachers, academics and the media who tell them Israel is good and Palestine is bad.

There are some politicians who want to see the heroic Americans who took part in the Viva Palestina convoys and the recent Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla prosecuted as terrorists.

Today I trolled through some of the pages in the American media and there, among the column inches, are stories that perfectly illustrate the Zionist Fear Factory in operation.

The Los Angeles Times reveals that UC Irvine has told its university students that the Muslim Student Union will be suspended for one year because it dared to criticize Israel and protested during a speech given by the Israeli Ambassador. So there you have it - freedom of speech is now banned.

The unprecedented action also sends out a chilling message to students across the USA who might consider demonstrating, rallying or protesting against the Zionist state and its supporters. Free speech, it seems, is a thing of the past in Barack Obama's America.

And should you be in any doubt, read a story about the latest decision to emerge from the US Supreme Court.

In a majority 6-3 ruling it becomes virtually impossible for anyone to put food into the mouths of malnourished babies in Gaza or to give money to a charity to do the humanitarian act for you.

Insane as it sounds, it is now a crime in America to work for peace and human rights in Gaza because the day-to-day running of The Strip is carried out by the democratically-elected Hamas government. Therefore it would be virtually impossibly to bypass Hamas to operate in Gaza.

In an astonishing McCarthy-like ruling any American who even offers advice to banned organizations like Hamas, including legal assistance and information on conflict resolution, will be prosecuted as terrorists. Be afraid, be very afraid ... this is happening in the USA, here and now.

Barack Obama's barmy administration reckons that even giving advice intended for peaceful purposes will amount to "material support" for terrorism. "The supreme court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists," said David Cole, a Georgetown university law professor who argued the case before the court. In the name of fighting terrorism, the court has said that the first amendment [on free speech] permits congress to make it a crime to work for peace and human rights. That is wrong."

The ruling is designed to intimidate Palestinian supporters and their fundraising activity. Some have already been prosecuted and jailed for raising cash for social groups dealing with issues such as housing and welfare in Gaza.

The government's case was enthusiastically argued in February by Elena Kagan, who is now the Obama administration's nominee to the supreme court. She said: "Hizb'Allah builds bombs. Hizb'Allah also builds homes. What Congress decided was when you help Hizb'Allah build homes, you are also helping Hizb'Allah build bombs. That's the entire theory behind the statute."
Well if that's the case an interesting legal situation looms on the horizon - unless all of this legislation is purely designed for Palestinian supporters.
A Congressional subcommittee, led by Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, has uncovered evidence showing US tax dollars are funding the Taliban.
The source is a Pentagon-issued $2.1 billion dollar contract called Host Nation Trucking, which pays for the movement of food and supplies to some 200 American bases. It appears Afghan security firms have been extorting as much as $4 million a week and then funneling the spoils to warlords and the Taliban in return for a safe passage. In short, the US is financing the enemy and undermining international efforts to stabilize the country.

Hmm, isn't this material support for terrorism? I think we need to have the Commander in Chief charged with immediate affect.

* Yvonne Ridley is one of the founders of Viva Palestina and European President of the international Muslim Women's Union

Source: ICH

Related posts:

• The Images Israel Didn’t Want Seen: New Video from Gaza Freedom Flotilla
• Israel Military Admits It Doctored Gaza Freedom Flotilla Audio Clip
• RAW FOOTAGE: Israel navy massacres on one of Gaza Freedom Flotilla

By Mohamed Khodr* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

"We sent thee not, O! Muhammad, save as a mercy to all the people. Say, O! Muhammad: "It has but been revealed unto me that your God is the One and Only God: will you, then, surrender yourselves unto Him?" (Qur'an: 21: 107-108)

There is only one "Absolute" form of Free Speech in the west, the freedom and right to bash Islam, stomp, shoot, and flush the Holy Qur'an down the toilet, and portray Islam's beloved Prophet Muhammad (p) in the most vile manner in all forms of "art".

Freedom of Speech is an ever changing and evolving right that depends on time, person, place, method of delivery, issue, and people involved. Since the time of Socrates who was prosecuted for corrupting young minds to today's blasphemous attacks on Islam, the Quran, and Islam's Prophet; freedom of speech has always been defined and determined by those in power.

Bashing Islam is not new. In fact it began during the Prophet's own lifetime by those who rejected his message in Arabia only to be followed by Christians, Jews, and followers of other faiths. Saint John of Damascus (7th – 8th C) while ironically working as an administrative officer for the Muslim ruler of Damascus wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (p) was a "false prophet...heretic...an Anti Christ." Such attacks continued throughout historical Christian Europe by men such as Martin Luther, Voltaire, Dante, to , right wing European parties, to the U.S. by such men as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey (who called Allah (God) Satan), and politicians. Bashing Islam has become a respectable political and money making cottage industry.

Thus it's not surprising that 9/11 opened the flood gates for a wider multitude of westerners who inflame and further incite hatred of Islam. Such vileness arises out of total ignorance of Islam and the historical innate fear of the "other". The West fears what it does not know. In Europe, especially, fear of an Islamized Europe has conveniently morphed into a political agenda against the immigration of the "other", mainly people of color who immigrate to Europe from formerly European colonized nations.

It is inexplicable to describe the West as civilized when such uncivil behavior toward those of a different faith or color permeates a significant portion of the population. If civilization is based on education then such people must be hailed as arrogant, racists, supremacists, and ignorant fools.
The Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks as part of an art exhibition entitled "Dog in Art" decided to follow in the footsteps of the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew cartoons depicting Muhammad as a terrorist) and drew a cartoon of the Prophet with the body of a dog. While the public rationale is freedom of speech, the underlying motive is pure racism. But freedom of speech in the west depends on who you offend. Offending Jews, discussing the Holocaust, criticizing Israel's brutality against the Palestinians is either attacked as "Anti-Semitic", or met with jail time while the western kosher media quashes such "free speech". God forbid such a cartoonist would draw a similar cartoon of Moses (p), a Jew with a swastika as a tail, or of the Crown Prince of Spain. (Spanish cartoonist fined for royal dishonour", UK Telegraph, Nov. 14, 2007)

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote of Freedom or Speech, "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

The European Union Human Rights reports on Racism and Xenophobia annually reports that racism against Muslims and people of color in Europe is an ever increasing problem. While the E.U. and Sweden have laws on "hate crimes", which I consider these foul cartoons to be, they seldom if ever prosecute the perpetrators of such hate crimes if the intended victim is Islam or Muslims. On the contrary such politicians and artists are applauded and welcomed in the U.S. (Salman Rushdie, "The Satanic Verses", in the White House), by Conservative Christians and Pro Israeli lobbies, think tanks, and the mainstream Pro Israel media as idols of free speech. Yet in Europe and the U.S. if the perceived crime is "Anti Semitic" governments are in the fore front to decry and prosecute such "hate crimes".

When Israel is portrayed in a negative light in the Arab media due to its murderous occupation of Palestinians and constant theft of their land both European and U.S. governments immediately and publicly condemn such actions as hateful and anti Semitic, but when Islam's Prophet is subjected to vile hate it is considered "freedom of speech". It is a fine line and slippery slope between what is considered free speech and blasphemy. Didn't the Nazis use hateful cartoons of Jews as part of their propaganda for the "final solution?

It is this double standard and hypocrisy by western governments that inflames the Muslim world against their policies and practices, especially with respect to Israel's invasions and genocide against Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Criticizing Israel for its illegal occupation, inhumane siege of Gaza, massacring Gaza's children, demolishing thousands of homes, destroying hospitals, clinics, schools, churches and mosques, depriving the population of food, water and medicine, it's massive abuse of human rights and defiance of International laws, and much more is unacceptable, censored, hateful, and strongly defended by western governments and the media as "Israel's right to self defense", a right that its victims are denied.
Muslims are strictly forbidden from carrying out any violence or calling for death threats against the perpetrators of hate against the Prophet. The Holy Quran forbids such violence and directs Muslims to endure and be patient as the Holy Prophet endured during his lifetime.

"And, whenever they heard frivolous talk, having turned away from it and said: "Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong]." (Quran: 28:55)

"Believers (Muslims), stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others toward you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do." (Qur'an 5:8)

The European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) and the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) condemned the death threats issued by Al Qaeda and other small extremist groups against Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoonist, and Ulf Johansson editor in chief of the paper that published his cartoon of the Prophet with a body of a dog. Such hate must be met with patience and a strong educational outreach program to tell the truth about Islam and its beloved Prophet Muhammad (p).

Perpetual racism, arrogance, and ignorance of Islam in the west are the combustible ingredients for assured mutual destruction of our planet. The lack of any sacredness in the west that belies the misguided application of free speech against the "other" rests on the premise that if I hold nothing sacred and I damn my own faith and religious figures then I have the right to damn yours and if you are civilized like me you will accept such racist rantings as free speech. That is the rational of fools who've surrendered their superficial intellect to misguided stupidity.

It's not enough that the west has annihilated, bombed, and committed holocausts across the globe against the "other"; now the "other" must endure the verbal and written bombs upon their faith, culture, and traditions.

What conceivable civilized aim can be achieved by denigrating a Prophet of 1.6 Billion Muslims? Why aren't Muslims retaliating with the same vile hate against Judeo-Christian religious founders such as Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them both, or the Torah and Gospel? Because Muslims believe and revere these two prophets and the original holy revelations they received.

The least that can be expected from "civilized" people who wish to criticize a faith is to have a working knowledge on the subject to confer some credibility for their critique. Such knowledge of Islam is sorely missing in the West, thus such critiques are frivolous and meaningless.
Both the Danish and Swedish cartoonists who drew the vile cartoons of the Prophet were unknown entities until they entered racist contests concocted by two small papers in a competition to defame and demonize a most exalted person. After the controversy these two men achieved the celebrity status that has eluded them for decades.

But what of this man, Muhammad (p), who for centuries became the object of racist depictions by people who knew nothing about him in Christian Europe and in the U.S. (Read: "Muhammad in Europe", by Minou Reeves)

The British Historian Michael H. Hart in his book: "The 100: Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" chose Muhammad (p) as the most influential human being in history. He wrote:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he
was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the
religious and secular level."

The famous French writer, poet, and politician Alphonse le Lamartine (1790-1869) in his book, "Histoire De La Turque", wrote of Muhammad (p):

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in
modern history with Muhammad"?

The renowned Professor of Comparative Religion Karen Armstrong wrote a book in 2006 entitled "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time"

There are endless biographies, books, speeches and statements on Prophet Muhammad (p) by renowned authors around the world that exalt his person, his unshakeable spiritual beliefs, morality, ethics, compassion, mercy, and extraordinary leadership.

Sadly in America's educational system the study of cultures, world religions, history, and geography are sorely lacking. Such a vacuum can only lead to further misunderstanding and conflict between religions and peoples

"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions."
--Hans Kung, Catholic Theologian

The foundation for a peaceful world is the knowledge that all humanity is equal in the eyes of God and in human laws and that human nature is the same throughout time, place, and geography. The secret is simple: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with all things. (Qur'an: 49:13)

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

Related posts:

• ‘Apartheid Israel’ week at Oxford and ‘Freedom of Speech’
• Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous
• Freedom of Racism!

By Mya Guarnieri* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Jared Malsin, the editor of the English edition of Maan News Agency, has been detained by Israeli authorities.

Malsin, a Jewish-American who lives and works in the West Bank, was picked up on Tuesday at Ben Gurion International Airport, as he and his partner returned from vacation in the Czech Republic. After being subjected to eight hours of interrogation, Malsin was deemed a security threat and was slated to be deported to Prague Thursday morning.

Why?

Maan states: Hebrew-language interrogation transcripts obtained by Ma'an reveal that Malsin was deemed a security risk on the apparent basis of his political beliefs. Interrogators gathered online research into the journalist's writing history, which the transcripts indicate included news stories "criticizing the State of Israel," among other allegations that he "authored articles inside the territories."

Although Bethlehem-based Maan is identified as a Palestinian news service, it is widely known as an independent media outlet--free of political agendas and noted for its unbiased reporting. As such, it is attracting a steadily growing readership, receiving over 3 million visitors a month.

Malsin appealed the deportation order and was scheduled to stand before a judge in Tel Aviv on Thursday morning. But according to Maan's lawyer, Castro Daoud, the hearing has been delayed until Sunday for unknown reasons.

In the meantime, Daoud says, Malsin remains in the custody of Israeli authorities.

Since his detainment, which Israeli officials initially denied, Malsin has had little contact with the outside world. Daoud has had only one brief meeting with his client and Malsin has made a short phone call to Maan staff writer and sub-editor, George Hale.

Speaking to The Huffington Post, Hale reports that Malsin was shocked by the detainment. Malsin was also surprised that Israeli security officials were questioning him about the International Solidarity Movement, an activist group that Malsin has no affiliation with.

"He [Malsin] is the last person who would be involved with the ISM. He is a journalist," Hale says, "and his reporting is impartial."

Hale adds: "I think that there are a lot of assumptions about Maan and the people who work here--that we're here to demonize Israel. We're not."

Despite the fact that the Israeli Government Press Office [GPO] refuses to issue press passes to Maan employees, Hales says that both Malsin and Maan enjoy good working relationships with the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF] and other governmental bodies.

"We [Maan] talk to the IDF and include the Israeli point of view [in our articles]," Hale says, "Destroying our English department is destroying [that] side of the story."
Hale states that Malsin's partner, Faith Rowold, who does not have legal representation, was deported to Prague.

When considered within a larger context, Malsin's detention seems to point to a government intent on silencing dissent.

In September, the prominent Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions [BDS] activist Mohammed Othman was picked up by the IDF as he attempted to enter the West Bank via Jordan. Othman was returning from a visit to Norway, a country whose government had recently divested from an Israeli corporation directly involved in the occupation. Othman was widely credited as having been a crucial player in Norway's decision to divest.

After months in administrative detention without charges, held on the basis of evidence that neither Othman nor his lawyer was allowed to see, Othman was finally released yesterday, January 13.

Recently, the IDF has also arrested various leaders of non-violent grassroots movements against the separation barrier. In December, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, coordinator of the Bil'in Popular Committee Against the Wall was arrested on charges of incitement and stone throwing. Abu Rahmah is also accused of arms possession for displaying empty tear gas canisters and discharged rubber bullets--both shot at him and other protestors during the weekly non-violent demonstrations held in his village.

On January 12, Ibrahim Amirah, the coordinator of the Ni'ilin Popular Committee Against the Wall was arrested. Amirah has been detained and released without charges twice in the past.

Additionally, the IDF conducted a night raid on the West Bank home of the ISM's media coordinator, Eva Novakova. While Novakova was arrested and deported on the grounds that she had overstayed her visa, critics of her deportation point out that it's unusual for the IDF to go to such lengths due to an expired visa.

Hale says that, to the best of his knowledge, Malsin has a valid Israeli visa. Malsin's detention is "arbitrary," Hale says. "It's a violation of press freedom."

* Mya Guarnieri is a Tel Aviv-based journalist and writer. A regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post and The National, her writing has also appeared in Outlook India-- India's Newsweek subsidiary-- as well as Haaretz, The Jewish Daily Forward, Maan News Agency, Common Ground News Service, Mondoweiss, Zeek, Daily News Egypt, and The Khaleej Times amongst other international publications. Additionally, her creative work is forthcoming in The Kenyon Review Online.

Related posts:

• Best Press Photo of the Year 2006
• Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2006
• Pluto Press Under Attack by Israel Lobby

By Latuff

'JINSA' article says outlets who oppose future wars should be silenced-killed if necessary-by military strike

By Michael Collins Piper

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL voices of the pro-Israel lobby has published a shocking essay suggesting that, in the future, there should be "military attacks" on journalists and media outlets that oppose American military ventures on behalf of Israel.

In the spring 2008 issue of its Journal of International Security Affairs, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force of the Jewish lobby, published a series of articles devoted to the subject: "The U.S. Military Faces the Future."

One article, entitled "Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars," written by Ralph Peters (described as "a retired U.S. Army officer") states flatly that "Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media."

The JINSA essay says "Freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow's conventional wisdom."

JINSA's suggestion that the media in America opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq-a key demand by Israel and JINSA-flies in contrast to the truth. In fact, the major media banged the drum for war. AMERICAN FREE PRESS and a few independent newspapers strongly opposed this needless war.

So what JINSA is saying is that those independent media voices that opposed the drive for war should ultimately face military violence if they oppose the Jewish lobby's future military aims.

One analyst, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Edward Herman, has described JINSA as "organized and [run] by individuals closely tied to the Israeli lobby and can be regarded as a virtual agency of the Israeli government."

JINSA was founded in the mid-1980s by Stephen Bryen. He, along with several of his close associates-including future George W. Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith-was investigated by the FBI on charges of spying for Israel at various times. JINSA has worked to forge alliances between the Jewish lobby and former American military officials, treating them to international junkets and a variety of business and other financial bonanzas provided by Israeli sympathizers in America and around the globe in return for support for their blatantly pro-Israel policies.

Peters-whose pro-Israel articles are published regularly in The New York Post, owned by pro-Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch-is just one of those whose views on the military appeared in JINSA's journal.

A recurring theme in the essays emphasized the need for the United States to coordinate its international ventures with its "allies," that is, Israel. The essays underscore the idea that it is vital for the United States to engage in covert action to bring down regimes that stand in the way of Israel's agenda. Written in "code," so to speak, the essays carry the theme that Israel's interests are those of America and vice-versa and that those who oppose Israel are "anti-American," and that includes American military officers.

An essay by one Patrick Poole alleges that the distinguished Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College is in the state of "strategic collapse" because it published a study saying that Hamas, the Palestinian faction, has been misunderstood due to misreporting by what the War College report says are "Israeli and Western sources that villainize the group."

JINSA's propagandist claims the War College "is only representative of a larger rot in the U.S. military's halls of higher learning . . . [that] apparently runs through all levels of our military senior service schools. . . ."

The author of these attacks on American military leaders who refuse to pander to the Jewish lobby, Patrick Poole, is a ubiquitous Internet presence, writing pro-Israel screeds for Frontpagemag.com, the website of ex-communist-turned-neoconservative pro-Israel publicist David Horowitz.

The record shows that increasing numbers of American military figures, and a host of ex-diplomats, intelligence officers and others are publicly challenging the Jewish lobby. They include Adm. "Fox" Fallon, former ambassadors Charles Freeman and Richard Peck, ex-CIA officers Michael Scheuer and Ray McGovern as well as top academics such as Dr. John Mearsheimer and Dr. Stephen Walt. And former President Jimmy Carter as well.

It is thus no surprise that influential Jewish voices, such as Forward, published in Manhattan, complain there is opposition to Israel within higher circles, a point that surprises many Americans who believe Israel has a firm stranglehold on the American intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement apparatus.

On May 11, 2005, Forward reported that Barry Jacobs of the Washington office of the American Jewish Committee said there were high-ranking officials in the U.S. intelligence community who were hostile to Israel and unreceptive to pro-Israel lobbyists.

Citing the then-ongoing FBI investigation of espionage by officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Forward noted that this top Jewish leader believed, in Forward's summary, that "the notion that American Jews and Pentagon neo-conservatives conspired to push the United States into war against Iraq, and possibly also against Iran, is pervasive in Washington's intelligence community."

Although the Justice Department recently dropped its case against the AIPAC duo, the FBI investigators remained confident that their criminal case against the intriguers would have resulted in a conviction.

It has been a long-standing concern of JINSA that many in the military are tired of fighting wars for Israel. In the fall of 2006, JINSA's journal suggested that a full-fledged witch-hunt was in order, designed to root out critics of Israel at high levels, implying that Israel's critics were allied to "jihadist" fundamentalist Muslims. JINSA asked:

How deeply have jihadist elements infiltrated the U.S. government and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and various military commands, either through sympathizers or via actual operatives?

Since there are few Muslims in the FBI, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense etc, the suggestion that "jihadist" elements have "infiltrated" our government might seem silly to the average American. But JINSA-determined to enforce Israel's demands on American foreign policy and military might-is concerned that there are growing numbers in the military, the FBI and the CIA who are opposed to wars for Israel-and this, in JINSA's view, constitutes collaboration with the dreaded "jihadists."

A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House.

Related posts:

• Google Bow to Zionists & Hijacked “Freedom of Speech”, Again!
• ‘Apartheid Israel’ week at Oxford and ‘Freedom of Speech’
• French freedom of speech: Long live!

How Those Who Kill Can Enter Canada While Those Who Save Lives Are Barred
By Joshua Blakeney

World renowned, award winning journalist John Pilger commented on George Galloway's autobiography: "Galloway's work has saved countless lives, particularly in Iraq". This is an accurate statement about the record of the five-times elected British MP who was described by Canadian Minister for Immigration Jason Kenny as "a threat to Canada's security" and subsequently banned from entering Canada during March of this year. Juxtaposing the blood-soaked records of George W Bush and Bill Clinton - especially in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Somalia and elsewhere - with the unimpeachable record of George Galloway MP, the patent rudderless and deceptive nature of the current Canadian government and its media accomplices becomes transparent. The Canadian government evidently embraces the inane ethos: "if your going to kill, make sure you kill millions." In other words, the tin pot tyrants like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are to be demonized, subjected to show trials and marketed as a ‘threat', while those who massacre and torture millions like Bush, Clinton, Rice and Cheney are to be venerated, ingratiated and granted VIP treatment if they choose to come to Canada at any time during their lucrative speaking tours.

The Canadian parliament in its history has never stood in such public execration as it does contemporarily for both its tacit and overt support for some of the worst mass murderers ever to afflict humanity. War criminals emanating from Canada's behemoth southern neighbour are apparently welcome to spread their malicious propaganda, leaving with a hansom speaker's fee, all for the pleasure of the wealthy few who can afford the ticket to enter the Gestapo protected venues. In the past eight weeks there have been visits by George W Bush to Calgary (hosted by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce), Condoleezza Rice to Calgary (hosted by the so called U of C School of Public Policy) and imminently George W Bush and Bill Clinton plan to descend upon Canada again, as if it were merely the fifty-first state of the U.S.A, rather than a sovereign country with its own laws and international obligations.

If Canada is indeed still a sovereign country certainly many of us are finding the boundaries opaque at best.

The most criminal and supine of all - and to whom we must channel a large portion of our anger and contempt - are the ‘mainstream' media who invariably negate their duty and responsibility to expose the tyrants' records and to educate the public on the democratically enshrined laws which the current minority government are perpetually glossing over (unless it serves them to do otherwise as was the case with the erudite George Galloway MP in March). The supine, docility of the press has allowed radical extremists such as Bush and Clinton to appear as misunderstood, sophisticated statesmen who had to make ‘difficult decisions' in a ‘dangerous world', whilst peace activists like George Galloway MP are unanimously demonized, traduced and portrayed as a ‘threat to Canadian security.' The Globe and Mail have printed (on a daily basis) a half-page advertisement for the Bush-Clinton visit boasting their affiliation with the event alongside the infamous Bennett Jones legal firm and many other collaborationist conglomerates who seek to make Canada a safe-haven for self-confessed torturers and war criminals. Contrastingly George Galloway MP, who was banned from entering Canada because he delivered wheel chairs, medicine and much needed food supplies to the starving captives of the Gaza ghetto, was described by the National Post's Jonathan Kay as: "Anti-Israel, Anti-American, pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah", all of which are untrue as is evidenced by Galloway's own statements in parliament and in his biweekly radio show in which he confutes such chimeras regularly. Galloway doesn't support Hamas he supports Al-Fatah. Galloway recognizes Israel's right to exist and is widely respected by many Jewish groups throughout the world. As for Hezbollah, Galloway simply expounds the truism that the political force is widely supported by the Lebanese people and that Lebanese democracy should be respected not undermined. He equally promotes bringing home the troops from the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq so that the young U.S. soldiers could be home and safe rather than at war and in danger. How ‘anti-American' is that? Perhaps Jonathan Kay's warped definition of being pro-American equates to supporting the inept, draft-dodging leaders who order young, impressionable men and women into illegal conflagrations? The pseudo-liberal Kay then fascistically advised that if Galloway entered Canada: "then (opponents should) have police on hand to apprehend him" (http://bit.ly/WEKIb).

Getting accused of supporting terrorism by a government and its bought-and-paid-for media who are prepared to roll out the red carpet for Bush (twice in eight weeks), Rice and Clinton is a bit like getting told to sit up straight by the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Bush, the self-confessed torturer and sadist, should either be barred from entering Canada as Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows for, or if he enters Canada, according the Lawyers Against the War: "the Attorney General of Canada must prosecute him for torture or provide consent to private prosecution", as Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act equally allows for. The Canadian government's recent ‘Canada's Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Tenth Annual Report' had the ostensible commitment: "to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals, that is, individuals who may have been either directly involved or complicit in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide." The report concludes: "Canada has proven to be a pioneer in the development of a world-class war crimes program. Its coordinated approach and initiative in the realm of international cooperation and outreach has earned the War Crimes Program acclaim in the global community. Strong legislation reflects the Government of Canada's determination to hold suspected perpetrators of war crimes accountable for their actions"

(see: http://bit.ly/UKA57).

The propaganda surrounding Clinton's legacy has allowed a misperception to coagulate that he was a ‘dove' and ‘the best U.S. president ever'. It must be acknowledged that there exists a plethora of incriminating justifications for banning Clinton from entering the country based on his own illegal rapacity. Some of these include the use of proscribed weapons of mass destruction and the deliberate destruction of Yugoslavian "hospitals and health-care centers, public housing, infrastructure vital to the well-being of civilians, refineries, warehouses, agricultural facilities, schools, roads and railways." (See: http://bit.ly/7VsKy)

George Galloway's courageous solidarity with the Palestinian people by leading the convoy of aide to the Gaza ghetto was a self-styled method of raising awareness about unspoken Holocausts which the media obediently censor from the public domain. Galloway led a similar convoy (this time in a red London bus) to beleaguered Iraq during the 1990s when western governments, spurred on by Clinton, were punishing the Iraqi people with sanctions for having a dictator which western governments had themselves installed, funded and armed to the teeth with chemical and biological weapons. Galloway's humanism thus warrants the kind comments opined by John Pilger that: "Galloway's work has saved countless lives, particularly in Iraq." As Galloway stated: "I've met Saddam Hussein, exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald met him to sell him guns and maps the better to target those guns, and I met him to bring an end to sanctions and suffering and war" (see: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000067165). Just as Galloway's sanctions busting in Iraq was an attempt to alleviate U.S. (Clinton) imposed suffering, which killed a child every six minutes, so the recent convoy of aide was warmly received by the captives of the Gaza ghetto who are starving as a result of Israeli illegality. Thus the canards of ‘anti-Israel', ‘pro-Hamas' etc, disseminated by the popinjay, armchair warrior Jonathan Kay were, as to be expected, no more than squalid propaganda as is customary from the guttersnipe media outlet which he genuflects at the behest of.

The effect of Kay's and others of his ilk's disinformation is highly pernicious and corrosive for a young democracy like Canada's. The truth about George Galloway was concealed and his reputation in Canada was hence besmirched which then allowed his message of peace and anti-imperialism to be diluted which (no surprises) benefits Kay's own perceived agenda of legitimizing the aggressive warfare which Canada's government are deeply complicit in contemporarily. As part of the same hidden agenda, Bush and Clinton's blood soaked records are obediently concealed by the likes of Kay, and the credibly accused war criminals are being glorified rather than arrested. These hidden agendas and disinformation campaigns prevent the Canadian people from imbibing the realities of the world which has the ultimate effect of allowing the U.S. regime to continue its atrophy of democracy uninhibited.

On April 28th 2009, Professor Anthony J Hall (University of Lethbridge) courageously confronted the baneful Jonathan Kay at a speaking engagement in Montreal (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez1sY5g8_Uo). Dr Hall asked Kay why he uses anonymous sources (such as the anonymous, peddler of propaganda ‘Blackrod' blogger) to commit character-assassination upon respected dissenters such as former Liberal candidate Leslie Hughes who's only real crime was that she dared to cross the invisible boundaries which Kay's National Post, CBC, The Globe and Mail and the rest of the 'mainstream' media are the gate-keepers for. Dr Hall described Kay's efforts as "questionable...shoddy journalism" and accused him of being a "radical, extremist...with access to a large audience through CanWest Global." Whilst Professor Hall was doing all Canadians a service by challenging the National Post's chief propagandist, an interlocutor shouted at Kay: "you are covering up for mass murder...you should go on trial for propaganda and disinformation...you should go on trial like Joseph Goebbels did." At which point Professor Hall invoked international law and the Nuremburg Principles educating the infelicitous Jonathan Kay: "the role of the press in dehumanizing whole populations, preparing public opinion for aggressive warfare, that is what you are a part of, he (the interlocutor) is correct, you are part of the propaganda machinery of aggressive war and incidentally that is outlawed in the UN...we've read your columns for years...the War on Terror is based on psychological warfare...and you have been a very intricate part of that machinery of aggressive warfare." Prof Hall also challenged Kay on his complicity in the disinformation campaign against George Galloway to which Kay replied unabashedly: "I said he was a toxic clown", exposing the lack of intellectual rigor which one can expect from his supposed journalism.

It is clear that Canada is increasingly perceived to be a 'safe haven' for self-confessed tortures and war criminals who have committed what at Nuremburg - reflecting upon the unilateralism and genocidal practices of Nazism - was defined as "the ultimate war crime" of aggressive war. If the ahistorical, Goebellian normalizing of those who have committed the "ultimate war crime" perpetuates from Canada's apologetic government and media then it is the people who will be forced to attempt citizens arrests upon those who are either self-confessed violators of international law, or are credibly accused so, as the Canadian domestic law allows for. One such attempt has already been mounted in Canada by the courageous activist Splitting the Sky who sought to break the police lines in Calgary to conduct a citizens arrest against the self-confessed criminal George W Bush on March 17th. Professor of International Law Francis A Boyle in his book Protesting Power: War Resistance and Law has advised those of us who oppose the impunity afforded to war criminals to deputize ourselves and attempt to implement Canadian law which we respect, unlike Steven Harper and Jason Kenny who have eviscerated the legal system. Splitting the Sky will embark upon a five day trial in March 2010 where, in reality, he will not be in the mindset of the accused, but rather that of the accuser, not the criminal but the interrogator. He was attempting prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for mass murderers and self-confessed tortures and was arrested for doing so. If the police are aiding and abetting the self-confessed torturers and mass murderers are we to stand by and watch? As Pastor Niemoller regretfully opined: "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak up." They came for the ‘Communists' during the Cold War - and massacred them in their millions - now they have come for the Arabs and Muslims and massacred them in their millions, who will be next?

© Copyright Joshua Blakeney, Global Research, 2009

Related posts:

• George Galloway Banned from Canada
• Yves Engler – Canada becomes Israel
• Canada’s Ignorant Prime Minister

It seems that the days of using YouTube as #1 media to distribute documentaries, videos and presentations about the truth of Israel and Zionist and their horrific war-crimes history and terrorism profile, has come to END.

Yesterday, it was announced that YouTube officially connected to the infamous ADL as partner to "Fight Against Hate."

NEW YORK, Dec. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- YouTube has reached out to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for its expertise in dealing with hate on the Internet. In one outgrowth of that partnership, the League is now a contributor to YouTube's newly launched Abuse & Safety Center, where users are empowered to identify and confront hate, and to report abuses.

The YouTube Abuse & Safety Center features information and links to resources developed by ADL to help Internet users respond to and report offensive material and extremist content that violates YouTube's Community Guidelines on hate speech. ...

The YouTube Abuse & Safety Center was unveiled on December 11 at the annual conference of the Family Online Safety Institute in Washington D.C. and can be found at http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py?contact_type=abuse.

I know it sounds too weird to believe, but that's the news. YouTube now has on-board one of the US’s domestic branches of Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad. The ADL, the Mossad’s most "professional" organizations whose "speciality is spreading hate", are recruited as a professionals in the just struggle of "fighting against hate"?!

This partnership has many dimensions and should not be taken lightly.

1. As YouTube is one of the most viewed websites worldwide, controlling it means controlling the minds of hundreds of millions of its viewers. This is significant if we look at last year's YouTube report in which Harris Interactive said,

about 32 percent of frequent YouTube users are watching less TV as a result of the time they spend online. Of the frequent YouTube users, 66 percent claim they are sacrificing other activities when on YouTube, including other websites (36 percent), time spent watching TV (32 percent),...

It is also significant if we know that about 700,000 people do watch the YouTube concert at its peak. Imagine you are in control and show one pro-Zionist and anti-Arab/anti-Islam ad during the show.

A couple of days ago, in continuing its dominance of online video, Comscore announced these astonishing figures:

YouTube reached a record 99.5 million visitors in October, according to comScore. How dominant is that? The report indicates that, in total, 147 million people watched video online in the US during the month, meaning better than 2 in 3 watched it using a Google property. Overall, growth in online video remains robust, increasing 45 percent from last year to 13.5 billion total monthly views.

Knowing all the above facts and knowing what ADL stands for makes one 'feel sick to one’s stomach'. It means that hundreds of millions of Americans and others around the world are now going to be officially brainwashed by the Mossad and under censorship for everything they say, upload, document and view on YouTube.

2. From now on, you should expect that no more videos that are anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, anti-war and anti-war crimes to be shown for more than the few hours (if lucky enough) after you upload your video. Sooner or later - and the period depends how critical the video is - all will be tagged with the infamous "anti-Semitism" tag and will be removed, ultimately the user will be blocked and banned. In no time, YouTube will become the official oasis for Mossad, therefore, only the Zionist version of the story will be found and endorsed by the media that follows blindly. I regret to break this news to you, but from now on Israel controls the most influential and powerful alternative media. No more "Israel crimes" to be seen or found and only pro-Zionist, pro-Israel users will continue to control the media, not only conventional, but online.

3. No more 9-11 facts, especially these connected to Israel, and they are countless. These videos and documentaries were and still are, some of the most powerful eye openers for millions who would like and need to know the hidden facts behind 9-11. The same facts which the US puppet government tried to hide from its citizens and the world. Searching YouTube (at least now, before the ADL manages to remove them all) for Israel connection to 9-11 will reveal hundreds of hours of documentaries that no one should miss if s/he really cares to know the truth behind 9-11. "What are you doing putting this stuff out there? You're killing us!" These were the words of Abraham H. Foxman, Executive National Director of the infamous Anti-Defamation League. Foxman shouted this during a sit-down he demanded to have with an unnamed Fox News executive shortly after Sept. 11.

4. The "New Era" will flourish the anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Christ, pro-Neocon and pro-Nazi videos. ADL is widely known for all the above and are specialized in it. Their history is full of cases that flip facts and spread hate. Who can forget that after Islam, Arab and anyone who criticizes the Zionist, it was the turn of Christ and Christians. Abraham H. Foxman (ADL National Director) once told Christians that they should deny part of the historical facts and rip out some parts of the Bible. In other words, change Christian faith so they are not labelled anti-Semitic! Another example of Foxman was slamming only Muslim Congressman.

Actions:

1. If you are a power user of YouTube and have the resources to do some technical stuff, download as much as you can of the videos you watched or bookmarked and upload somewhere else. I don't have any preferences, but BlipTV and DailyMotion looks good (I won't be surprised if these have links to Zionists too). Better is using and promoting some of the European or Arab video services.

2. Boycott YouTube! Yes, I don't see why we need YouTube. Hundreds of similar services are available and some actually offer more than what YouTube offers.
3. Promote other video websites. Regardless which one, any other service will be better and safer than putting your neck under Zionist knife.

Censorship all over the place

Needless to remind the reader that YouTube is a monster owned by the previously known-to-be-controlled-by-zionists, Google.

It was disturbing when we heard that Uruknet was removed from Google's news search index, but now Palestine Think Tank (PTT) has its own experience with Google censorship.

Like many other online news resources, PTT went through all the steps required by Google and applied to be indexed as one of the news resources covering Palestine. Unsurprisingly, our application was rejected for no reason. Following was the application conditions and Google news reply:

Thank you for your interest in Google News. Please read this message thoroughly for important instructions on how to finalize your request to be included in Google News. In order to help us deal with the large number of requests for inclusion, we ask that you review our guidelines below and reply to this email if your site meets our qualifications.

We typically include sites in Google News that:

- have news content that is original to the site

Yes, two thirds of our content is written expressly for our site and has its first publication on the site itself.

- don't solely promote their own activities

It is non-commercial in nature and it is connected to many NGOs and activist and solidarity collectives as well as to news agencies.

- are written and maintained by a clear organization, one that has multiple writers and editors

There are three content editors and 25 stable contributors, listed down the right hand sidebar. We also accept content for publication by writers who are not directly connected to the site.

Please let us know if your site fits these guidelines. If it does, you may want to review our technical requirements as well found at
http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/topic.py?topic=11665. After we hear from you, we'll be happy to review your site for inclusion in Google News.

While we strive to include as many sources as possible, please be aware that we can't guarantee the inclusion of your articles in Google News. We appreciate your support as we work to improve Google News.

Regards,
The Google Team

Google news reply:

Hi Mary,

Thank you for your note. We reviewed your site and are unable to include it in Google News at this time. We currently only include articles from sources that could be considered organizations, generally characterized by multiple writers and editors, availability of organizational information,
and accessible contact information. When we reviewed your site we weren't able to find this evidence of an organization.

We appreciate your willingness to provide your articles to us, and we'll log your site for future consideration. Thank you for your interest in Google News.

Regards,
The Google Team

PTT reply to the above was:

To:
Subject: Re: inclusion in news

You are indeed mistaken:
We are a group of three content editors, who are clearly listed on the left bar. The side bar on the right clearly indicates regular contributors to the site, most of which contribute exclusively or in a first run basis to this site. There is contact information on the top bar of the menu, with four different contacts to select from. I urge you to look again, as the criteria for being a news site are all fulfilled.
mary

It's pretty evident, it’s not the format that matters to them, it is the content, and the content has to be Google-friendly (Zionist-and now ADL-Friendly) to score with them. Even harder times for getting news and information out are up ahead. You have been warned. Now it’s up to you to fight back.

Related posts:

• YouTube WIPE “Gaza Massacre” video from records!
• B’Tselem YouTube Channel
• Google Bow to Zionists & Hijacked “Freedom of Speech”, Again!

By Matthew Taylor

Political Zionism-the quest to establish and hold a Jewish-majority state within historic Palestine-has largely been predicated on the belief that Palestinians should not have the right to live on their ancestral lands. In 1948, Israel's founders carried this philosophy to its logical conclusion and used military force to drive more than 700,000 Palestinians out of their homes in a carefully planned campaign of ethnic cleansing. In 1967, Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and then proceeded to build hundreds of colonies in violation of international law while abusing the human rights of the indigenous Palestinian population.

In December 1987, Palestinians organized a grassroots uprising in an effort to liberate themselves from Israel's occupation. Palestinians refused to pay taxes, they boycotted all Israeli goods and they planted backyard gardens. And they displayed the Palestinian national flag, which was illegal under the terms of the occupation.

Then-Israeli defense minister Yitzhak Rabin ordered his soldiers to break the bones of Palestinians who participated in this uprising or who displayed their flag. Israeli soldiers injured, jailed and killed thousands of Palestinians for their crimes of struggling for human rights and self-determination.

On Nov. 13, three Palestinian students displayed their national flag from Eshelman Hall balcony. However, unlike in the occupied Palestinian territories, free speech is at least theoretically legal in the United States and on this campus. But that didn't appear to matter to the members of Tikvah and Zionist Freedom Alliance who apparently assaulted the Palestinians while yelling racist epithets. One wonders what would have happened had this assault taken place in the occupied territories, where so many bones have been broken, lives taken and land stolen.

The assault was a microcosm of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. It was yet another example of right-wing Zionism attempting to crush any symbol of the Palestinian people's existence.

During the 1987 uprising, Palestinians sought an alternative way to affirm their existence. The Palestinian flag is green, red, and black, so instead of holding up flags, Palestinians held up watermelons. Perhaps to be safe on the UC Berkeley campus, Palestinian students should also hold up watermelons instead of their flag.

Like a Palestinian flag: Water Melon's shell is green, the internal shell is white, the flesh is red and seeds are black.

At a recent ASUC meeting, Senator John Moghtader refused to answer the question, "What do Tikvah members mean when they chant 'From the river to the sea, Israel will be free?'" Moghtader's response was, "It means the liberation of the Jewish people." Moghtader didn't want his fellow senators to know the truth: that this hateful slogan stands for the complete triumph of the Zionist project, resulting in a permanent Israeli Apartheid state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea in which all Palestinians are either subjugated or expelled. An independent Palestinian state would never emerge, and the Palestinian flag would effectively cease to have any meaning. Tikvah's vision is becoming more real every day, as the international community has done nothing to end Israel's Apartheid rule over the Palestinians. U.S. taxpayers fund Israel's military hardware, and this university is deeply invested in corporations that profit from Israel's Apartheid.

I hope someday the U.S. and the university end their shameful role in supporting the right-wing Israeli/Tikvah agenda of permanent Apartheid in Palestine. In the meantime, students on this campus have an opportunity to stand up for justice. Five conscientious Boalt Hall law students initiated a petition to recall Senator Moghtader as a result of his role in the Nov 13 incident as well as other behavior that "silences" others and "undermines the physical safety of students." Support the recall of Senator Moghtader.

Related posts:

• Have you hugged your flag today?
• Weekend read: Israeli Flag, anti-Semitism, citizenship, U.S. bombs, Non-Violent Protest, Prisoners and Cease-fire
• Palestinian Folklore Dancing Banned in a US School

Leeds University Union to vote on a motion to referendum which will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus.

For immediate release

Leeds University Union agreed last week, by a vote of 12 to 11, to send a motion to referendum which will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus.

The motion, shrouded in the language of combating anti-Semitism, is a reversal of a motion passed 2 years ago which gave Palestinian activists at Leeds University the rights enjoyed by their counterparts throughout the country. If passed, organisations which have an anti-Zionist platform, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Palestine Solidarity Group will be prevented from receiving funding from the union and prevented from holding many of their events.

The motion claims, without providing any supporting evidence, that "Anti-semitism is increasing significantly both across the country and within universities and student unions." and resolves to adopt the seemingly innocuous EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism. The EUMC working definition, which the British government has so far refrained from explicitly adopting has been seized upon by pro-Israeli groups across the country and used to silence criticism of Israel by claiming that anti-Semitism includes "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination".

If adopted, the motion will be shut down debate on the extent to which Israel should label itself as a state for the Jewish people as opposed to a state for all its citizens, such as the UK and all other liberal democracies. Thus an issue, which is openly discussed in academia, civil society and even within the Israeli government itself, will become forbidden on the Leeds campus.

Commenting on the motion, the Jewish peace group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians state that "We find this unhelpful, to put it mildly, and believe that it harms the struggle against antisemitism rather than helping it, by severely distorting what the real problems are." They continue, "We hope that the University of Leeds Student Union will not be foolish enough to adopt the motion on the topic when it comes up for debate. It will do nothing to help counter the real dangers of antisemitism in our society because so much of the working definition is, in our view, misdirected".

One of the many parts of the definition they opposed is the example of how 'anti semitism manifests itself': by 'applying double standards by requiring of it (Israel) a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation'. As another peace organization, European Jews for a Just Peace noted, 'this is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not simultaneously applied to every other defaulting state at the same time ...'

Jews against Zionism, an organisation which represents over 150,000 Jews world-wide commented that "One of the well-known tactics of Zionists to silence their critics is to accuse them of anti-Semitism. Of course, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two separate things."

They also take issue with another part of the working definition which classes "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." as anti-Semitic. They assert that whether it is anti-Semitic or not "depends if the accusation is made at the Jews in general, or at particular Jews. We are greatly pained when we hear blanket accusations against our people, or any people, for that matter. But certain Jews may, by their actions and words, demonstrate a greater loyalty to the Zionist state than to their own country. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out."

A representative of the Leeds Student Palestine Solidarity Group commented that "Under current Union policy we are well within our rights to express our opposition to Zionism and defend the rights of Palestinians who suffer discrimination and human rights abuses on the basis of their race, within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The passing of this motion would mean, however, a serious curtailment of the activities of the PSG on campus simply to satisfy the political views of another section of the student body. We believe that people should be allowed to hear both sides of the debate and make up their own minds."

The motion will go to referendum the week beginning Friday the 28th of November and the results will be announced on Friday December the 5th.

To register your opposition to the motion contact:

University Secretary Roger Gair

j.r.gair@adm.leeds.ac.uk

University Vice-Chancellor Michael Arthur

m.j.p.arthur@adm.leeds.ac.uk

Chief Executive of Leeds University Union Leslie Dixon

l.dixon@luu.leeds.ac.uk

Highlighting:

* The status of Leeds University as an institution which encourages free thought.

* Asking these officials to ensure that freedom of speech at Leeds is protected.

To learn more about how you can support the campaign contact the Palestine Solidarity Group at info@leedspsg.org

*END*

Related posts:

• Archbishop Tutu banned in a USA University, tagged as Anti-Semitic
• St. Thomas University president reverses ban on Tutu
• Arab breakthrough at Israeli university

I didn't think America was a place where bookstores barred people for their viewpoints, until it happened to me, right here in Washington, D.C., the city of my birth.

I was scheduled to speak at Politics & Prose Bookstore and Coffeehouse last month about my latest book, "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation." My appearance was canceled when the bookstore owners realized that my book concludes by questioning the viability of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead it proposes a single democratic, secular and multicultural state in which Israelis and Palestinians live peacefully as citizens with equal rights.

"I do not believe that your book will further constructive debate in the United States," one of the owners wrote to me in an e-mail. "A single state is not a solution." I was dismayed that my invitation was rescinded because I express a different point of view from the one sanctioned by a supposedly independent bookstore. Yet the cancellation seems to fit into a larger pattern of nationwide censorship about this issue.

Stanford professor Joel Beinin had been invited to speak about Israel and Palestine at a Silicon Valley school last year; his appearance was canceled when the school was criticized for booking the event. Tony Judt of New York University was invited to speak about Israel and Palestine at the Polish Consulate in New York last fall; his talk was canceled after the consulate came under pressure from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.

The fact that senior scholars are prevented from speaking in well-known forums because they do not toe an official line suggests that the civic culture on which our country was founded has broken down, at least when it comes to Palestine and Israel.

Yet citizens can object to the muzzling of ideas. After receiving letters of protest and eloquent entreaties by bloggers, Politics and Prose decided last week to reissue my invitation. This reversal is an important step forward but questions still linger. Can we afford not to hear each other out as we evaluate our Middle East policies? Should Palestinians not be allowed to speak unless their erstwhile audience gets to tell them what to say? What, then, is the point of a conversation? What is the alternative to conversation?

What is so unspeakably wrong with saying that justice, secularism, tolerance and equality of citizens -- rather than privileges granted on the basis of religion -- should be among the values of a state?

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English literature at UCLA.

Related posts:

• Palestinian Folklore Dancing Banned in a US School
• Samson Blinded: The Book of Israeli Terrorism Manual Banned by Yahoo, Google and Amazon
• Archbishop Tutu banned in a USA University, tagged as Anti-Semitic

SIGN THE PETITION To: Israeli and Palestinian Authorities -Palestinian journalist Khalid Amayreh, who lives in the West Bank, has been invited to attend a media conference in Germany. As required, he set about to request all of the necessary travel documents, including a visa that needs to be granted from the German representative office in Ramallah. After routine questioning regarding his political affiliations, it was not only determined that he was not a member of any party, nor formally associated with any organisation, but it was clear that he had never been arrested or detained by Israeli authorities. Mr Amayreh was granted an entry visa to Germany. However, the Israeli military authorities have refused to give him a permit to leave the West Bank. No Palestinian can travel abroad without receiving such a permit beforehand, otherwise he or she would be turned back once arriving at the Israeli-controlled border terminal at the Allenby Bridge.

Mr Amayreh then went to his local District Coordination Office in Dura, where he was informed that his information was forwarded to the Shin Bet (General Security Services) of the Israeli government. Then two days later, the GSS informed the Palestinian office that Amayreh was “barred from leaving the West Bank for security reasons.” No further explanation was given.

His fortune in obtaining the required travel permission did not change as he applied to the Civil Administration Headquarters in Hebron, a metallic pen holding persons seeking the mandatory permission even to go to East Jerusalem for medical treatment, where it is not unusual to find them huddled and waiting their turn for ten or more hours, under the watchful eye of Israeli military watchtowers.

The Palestinian Civil Affairs Coordination Office in the West Bank was also unable to mediate on his behalf, as they too are entirely dependent upon the decisions, without clarification, evidence or justification, made by the Israeli Security division.

There is indeed no justification for the violation of this man’s civil and human rights, and along with him, the rights of all others who are denied freedom of movement with no justification whatsoever. The Occupation authorities, while they have no sovereignty over citizens of the Palestinian Authority, dictate what must be done with those citizens and the world seems to consider the violation of their rights acceptable and normal praxis. These people are not pawns on a chessboard, but are individuals who seek the basic liberties that all democracies are obligated to provide for their people. The Palestinian Authority does not exercise its duty of guaranteeing civil liberties to its own citizens, and treats them as if they shall be subject to the whims of the Occupier.

We ask for the immediate revision of the decision regarding Mr Amayreh, so that he is granted the documents necessary for him to exercise his freedom of movement allowing him to continue to provide for himself and his family in the work that he is employed in, as well as for the Palestinian Authority to assume a position that sets the freedoms of its citizens as a priority that is greater than the perceived “security” risks declared by the agency of the State of Israel.
http://www.petitiononline.com/k1h2a3l4/petition.html

SPANISH:
El periodista palestino Khalid Amayreh, que vive en Cisjordania, ha sido invitado a asistir a una conferencia de medios en Alemania. Según la reglamentación, se le solicitaron todos los documentos necesarios, incluyendo una visa que necesita le sea concedida por la oficina de la representación alemana en Ramallah. Después de un interrogatorio rutinario relacionado con su filiación política, no solamente se determinó que no era miembro de partidos políticos, ni que estaba asociado formalmente a alguna organización, sino que fue evidente que nunca había sido arrestado ni detenido por las autoridades israelíes. Se le concedió al Sr. Amayreh una visa de ingreso a Alemania. Sin embargo, las autoridades militares israelíes se han opuesto a concederle un permiso para salir de Cisjordania. Ningún palestino puede viajar al extranjero sin recibir tal permiso con antelación, de otra manera sería devuelto una vez que llegue a la terminal de frontera controlada por los israelíes en el Puente Allenby.

Después, el Sr. Amayreh fue a su Oficina de Coordinación de Distrito local en Dura, donde fue informado que sus datos personales habían sido enviados a la Shin Bet (Servicios de Seguridad General o GSS por sus siglas en inglés) del gobierno israelí. Luego de dos días, los GSS le informaron a la oficina palestina que Amayreh tenía “prohibido salir de Cisjordania por razones de seguridad.” No le dieron detalles adicionales.

Su suerte para obtener el permiso de viaje requerido no cambió cuando solicitó el permiso en las Oficinas Centrales de la Administración Civil en Hebrón, un corral metálico para detener a las personas que buscan el permiso para ir a Jerusalén Este por tratamiento médico, donde no es raro encontrarlos amontonados y esperando su turno durante diez horas o más, bajo la mirada observadora de las torres de vigilancia militares israelíes.

La Oficina de Coordinación de Asuntos Civiles palestinos en Cisjordania tampoco pudo mediar en su representación, dado que son totalmente dependientes de las decisiones, sin aclaraciones, evidencias o justificaciones, realizadas por la división de seguridad israelí.

De hecho, no existe justificación para la violación de los derechos civiles y humanos de este hombre, y junto con él, de los derechos de las demás personas a quienes les es negada su libertad de tránsito sin ninguna justificación en absoluto. Aunque las autoridades de ocupación no tienen soberanía sobre los ciudadanos de la Autoridad Palestina, dictan qué debe hacerse con esos ciudadanos y el mundo parece considerar que la violación de sus derechos es una práctica aceptable y normal. Estas personas no son peones en un tablero de ajedrez, sino individuos que luchan por sus libertades básicas, mismas que toda democracia está obligada a garantizarle a su pueblo. La Autoridad Palestina no ejerce su deber de garantizar libertades civiles a sus propios ciudadanos, y los trata como si estuviesen sujetos a los caprichos del ocupante.

Solicitamos la inmediata revisión de la decisión relacionada con el Sr. Amayreh, de manera que le sean concedidos los documentos necesarios para que ejerza su libertad de tránsito y pueda continuar desempeñando su trabajo para abastecerse él mismo y su familia, así como también que la Autoridad Palestina asuma una posición que le brinde la libertad a sus ciudadanos como una prioridad mayor a los riesgos de “seguridad” percibidos y declarados por la agencia del estado de Israel.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned

http://www.petitiononline.com/k1h2a3l4/petition.html

French abstract:

À: Les autorités israeliennes et palestines

Invité à une conférence en Allemagne, le journaliste palestinien Khalid Amayreh s’est vu octroyer un visa d’entrée en Allemagne par les autorités consulaires allemandes à Ramallah mais les autorités israéliennes lui ont refusé le visa de sortie de Cisjordanie. Cette pétition s’adresse aux autorités israéliennes et palestiniennes pour qu’elles permettent à Khalid Amayreh d’exercer sa liberté de mouvement.

Bien à vous,

Les signataires

SEE ALSO: Finkelstein and Me

Related posts:

• How to Become an Israeli Journalist
• Journalist under fire!
• Sign petition!

Wikinews has learned that a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) IP Address has been blocked on Wikipedia after making edits to an article which were considered "vandalism". In two separate instances, the IP address from the DOJ removed information from the Wikipedia article about the organization Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), regarding an attempt by the organization to secretly gain influence on the site. The IP address has been confirmed by Wikinews to be registered and used by the DOJ located in Washington, D.C.

On April 21, Electronic Intifada published a report based on leaked emails written between CAMERA and Wikipedia contributors who are allegedly planning to gain influence on the online encyclopedia. Information about CAMERA's campaign to influence Wikipedia was first added to the site's article about the organization on April 21 by user 'Bangpound', who cited the Electronic Intifada article.

According to the edit history on the Wikipedia article CAMERA, the entire subsection relating to this controversy was removed by the IP address 149.101.1.130, which is hosted by 'wdcsun30.usdoj.gov' and is used by the DOJ. The IP address removed information regarding CAMERA's plan to "cooperate with prominent Wikipedia editors to promote a Zionist viewpoint and oppose pro-Arab viewpoints on Wikipedia" at least two separate times, on April 24 and April 25.

The IP address belonging to the DOJ also made edits identified as vandalism to the Wikipedia articles Tracy Jordan, Roger Ebert, and James E. Akins. After several warnings on the IP address's "talk page", the IP address was blocked for four days for "repeated vandalism." Several hours prior to the DOJ edits, an IP address also from Washington D.C., 71.178.102.65, removed the same information. Wikinews can confirm the IP address is located in Washington D.C. and belongs to Verizon.

Wikipedia administrators were kept apprised in an ongoing discussion about the incident at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard. "The Justice employee is attempting to scrub any mention of CAMERA's activities to influence Wikipedia (now double-sourced) as seen here in this edit," said Wikipedia editor Lawrence Cohen, in an initial post to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Founded in 1982, CAMERA is a pro-Israel media-monitoring and research non-profit organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. On April 21 the Electronic Intifada, a not-for-profit online publication which covers the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective, published an article describing efforts by CAMERA to secretly influence Wikipedia articles. According to the article, Electronic Intifada obtained a series of emails between CAMERA and members of Wikipedia, attempting to game the encyclopedia and influence articles on the site related to Israel.

Electronic Intifada quoted a March 13 email from Gilead Ini, a Senior Research Analyst at CAMERA, who enlisted volunteers to make sure articles about Israel on Wikipedia were "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context". In a follow-up email from March 17, Ini emphasized secrecy, telling the email list members not to "forward it to members of the news media", and wrote that "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions." The media criticism organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting criticized the CAMERA emails, calling them "particularly insidious" because "stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success."

Later discussions in the series of emails obtained by Electronic Intifada included advice on how to get members of CAMERA elected as Wikipedia administrators, in order to gain influence. Wikipedia user 'Zeq' posted to the list: "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."

After the IP address belonging to the DOJ was blocked, Wikipedia editors informed the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications committee about the incident. Both Wikinews and Wikipedia are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to the DOJ IP address, several Wikipedia users determined to be cooperating with the CAMERA campaign to influence Wikipedia had also previously been blocked by Wikipedia administrators.

Wikinews requested a statement from the Department of Justice on the edits to Wikipedia, but as of this article's publication had not received a response.
Sources

* "About CAMERA". Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, retrieved April 28, 2008
* "Need admin eyes on US Department of Justice activity, please (CAMERA/lobbying)". Wikipedia, April 28, 2008
* "Communications committee/Notifications - US Department of Justice blocked for ongoing vandalism". Wikimedia Foundation, April 26, 2008
* "Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Edit from U.S. Department of Justice". Wikipedia, April 28, 2008
* "POLÉMICA EN ORIENTE PRÓXIMO CON WIKIPEDIA - ¿Se puede reescribir la historia?". elmundo.es, April 24, 2008 ((Spanish))
* "Media Views - Electronic Intifada: A Pro-Israel Group's Plan to Rewrite History on Wikipedia". Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, April 21, 2008
* "EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia". Electronic Intifada, April 21, 2008
* Wikinews

Source: Mister-Info.com

Related posts:

• Wikipedia and Israeli lobbyists
• Frank Weltner: The Wikipedia (i.e., Jewish) Biography
• Bush/Rice State Dept. Explains to Palestinian Americans they’re 2nd Class US citizens