Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Internet companies, websites and web applications have a kind of legal immunity that they say makes the internet as we know it possible. First, theyre generally immune from legal liability if a Facebook or Twitter user posts something illegal. Theyre also immune from liability if they take down a post they find objectionable. Users generally cant legally challenge that.

Theres a concerted campaign underway in Congress to roll back some of that immunity. Marketplace Morning Report host Sabri Ben-Achour spoke about that effort with Daphne Keller, director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Sabri Ben-Achour: Just how big is this effort to weaken these types of legal immunity the internet companies enjoy?

Daphne Keller: It is very big. It has support on both sides of the aisle, although you find that often what Republicans want out of it and what Democrats want out of it are inconsistent goals. But I think we should expect to see changes to this law in the near future. And if were lucky, there will be smart changes. And if we are unlucky, they will be not very smart changes.

Ben-Achour: Well, what is first the argument in favor of limiting these types of immunity?

Keller: People have a lot of different goals in proposing changes to this law. Some people want platforms to take down more harmful and offensive content. I think thats actually very widespread. Lots of people want to see more content taken down from from platforms like Facebook or Twitter. Part of the issue is that a lot of that is what we call lawful but awful speech. Its protected by the First Amendment. And so changing an immunity like CDA 230 wouldnt necessarily change the appearance of that content anyway. But we also see people who want to change the immunity in order to get platforms to leave up more of this lawful but awful speech, and compel them to carry things like, maybe racist diatribes or anti-vaccine scientific theories, or even potentially electoral misinformation, and not give them the leeway to take that stuff down.

Ben-Achour: Whats the downside to having tech platforms, internet sites, be held liable for the content that their users post? Like promoting terrorism or child exploitation or something?

Keller: To be clear, they already face liability for a number of those things. Anything that is a federal crime, like supporting terrorism and child exploitation, doesnt have a special immunity in the first place. But, broadly, the issue with putting liability on platforms for their users speech is that it gives them powerful incentives to err on the side of taking things down, just in case its illegal, because they dont want to get in trouble. And you can imagine what that would have done to the Me Too movement, for example. If a platform felt like it had to take down any allegation that could possibly prove to be defamatory later on, obviously, that has a consequence for speech.

Its also a problem for competition. If we changed the laws and platforms had to assume more risk for user speech or put in place expensive processes, thats something that Facebook and Google could probably deal with, but their smaller competitors could not. And then, finally, if we have new obligations on platforms to police their users speech, that gives them reasons to adopt clumsy tools like automated speech filters. And we know that those have disparate impact, for example, on speakers of African American English. So theres this mess of speech issues, competition issues, equality issues, and there are ways to respond to them. Its not that regulation is impossible here. But almost none of the bills were seeing in Congress now really even try to grapple with them in intelligent ways.

Ben-Achour: Lets turn to the question of whether you can sue Instagram [if it] takes down your post. Whats the downside of seeking to erode that immunity?

Keller: It means that platforms will have to worry more about lawsuits from really extreme speakers, like Alex Jones would be an example, saying, you have to carry my speech. Even if you dont want to carry Holocaust denial, you have to. Even if you dont want to carry organization for a white supremacist rally, like the one in Charlottesville, you have to. And weve seen a number of those lawsuits and the platforms ultimately win them all. And even without 230, they would ultimately win them all, but it would be much more expensive without 230. The nuisance cost of dealing with these lawsuits trying to compel platforms to carry speech that violates their policies would be significant. It would give them reason to just give up and carry it, rather than face that burden. And again, in particular, the smaller platforms who might be competitors to todays incumbents are particularly unable to bear the burden of those kinds of nuisance suits that these changes would enable.

Ben-Achour:Under the Department of Justice proposal, a company would be protected from legal liability for taking down something that promotes terrorism or is unlawful, but they would be open to getting sued for taking down something racist or false about coronavirus something just generally objectionable. What do you make of that?

Keller: I think this is one of a hundred cases where the gloves have come off in American politics, really in the past few months. And this one hasnt had that much attention because people see this as regulation about platforms and technology. But the proposal from [Sen.] Lindsey Graham, the proposal from Attorney General Barr, and several other proposals, are just remarkably naked in their speech preferences, in the rules that they want platforms to uphold. And so theyre saying platforms should be encouraged and protected to take down some content, like pornography, but we should take away protection when they take down these lawful but awful categories, including hate speech, and white supremacist speech, and misogynist speech, and racist speech, and disinformation. The other thing that we see in the grant proposal, and then the DOJ proposal, the Justice Department proposal, is that they say to platforms, if you do fact-checking, and you put labels on peoples posts or tweets saying this is false or this is very debatable, you risk liability for that. You cant even leave the speech up and put a label on it without getting in trouble.

Ben-Achour: Are we talking about this simply because the president is angry that Twitter moderates his tweets and Facebook takes down some of his political advertisements? I mean, is that what this is about, ultimately?

Keller: No, I dont think it is. I mean, I think the specific proposals weve seen recently, in particular from the Justice Department, those were absolutely prompted by President Trumps executive order. And that seems to have been triggered by Twitter putting a label on his tweets. But overall, the sense of a need to regulate platforms is bipartisan. Its global. It transcends politics. And the sense that platforms are acting as gatekeepers of discourse, that theyre the new public square, and that its kind of crazy that private companies are setting the speech rules, thats global, too.

In the U.S., its very much a conservative talking point. But I think in the U.S. and all over the world, everyone has concerns. Its one of the biggest policy questions of our age. And that means that we should do the work to make smart laws. And if instead Congress just passes some hastily drafted, politically motivated law, thatll be kind of a dereliction of duty, in my opinion. And we will all have to live with the result for years.

As a nonprofit news organization, our future depends on listeners like you who believe in the power of public service journalism.

Your investment in Marketplace helps us remain paywall-free and ensures everyone has access to trustworthy, unbiased news and information, regardless of their ability to pay.

Donate today in any amount to become a Marketplace Investor. Now more than ever, your commitment makes a difference.

Read more from the original source:

Theres a bipartisan effort to change laws that govern speech on the internet - Marketplace

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Theres a bipartisan effort to change laws that govern speech on the internet – Marketplace
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

With anti-Semitism on the rise, it is fitting that the United Nations recommit itself to eradicating this evil as it commemorates the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the end of the Holocaust. But U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterress promotion of a Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech is nonetheless misguided.

The Strategy encourages states to censor hate speech according to vague and subjective standards. This jeopardizes every persons freedom to speak and live according to their consciences, including Jews. In reality, the safest space for religious and racial minorities is a free society.

From its earliest days, the U.N. has debated the wisdom of creating a hate speech exception to free speech. The U.S. has consistently led opposition to these efforts. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, warned that Soviet bloc demands to crack down on anti-fascist speech were extremely dangerous and would encourage governments to punish all criticism under the guise of protecting against religious or national hostility.

In 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, creating protections for everyone to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. But the international body has undermined free speech since then. First came Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligated states to prohibit speech that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Then, in the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action, the U.N. endorsed criminal penalties for speech that leads to hatred or discrimination.

KYR news subscription offers >

Despite all the action plans, there is no internationally accepted definition of what constitutes hate speech. The U.N.s new Strategy broadly targets:

any kind of communication or speech, writing or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they arein other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor.

The U.N. encourages member-states and social media companies to work with civil society to identify violations. But without clear, objective standards like imminent lawless action, none of them can punish hate speech without endangering free speech.

KYR news subscription offers >

Authoritarians abuse speech restrictions to enforce orthodoxy and maintain control. For example, Pakistan quickly embraced the Strategy as a means of combatting Islamophobia. But Pakistans record as a leader of a previous U.N. campaign to stop defamation of religions does not impress. Indeed, it has harmed minorities.

Far from promoting peace and security, Pakistans punishment of speech that it deems anti-Islamic has led to more intolerance. Jews have lived in Pakistan since the 19th century. Today, only about 200 Jews remain, and they face extreme hostility because Pakistan has designated Israel an enemy of Islam.

Recently, the Pakistani press has taken to blaming Jews for the coronavirus, calling it a plot to shut down mosques. What is needed in societies like Pakistan is more counter-speech by and on behalf of Jews, Christians and any person who holds a minority viewpoint. The U.N. has sought to distinguish blasphemy laws from hate speech laws, but when authoritarians are empowered to criminalize the speech of those who disagree with political or religious orthodoxy, it inevitably ends in more persecution.

Beyond the question of who decides what hate speech is lies the problem of how they decide. The terms pejorative and discriminatory do not provide adequate clarity or objectivity to assure that even the most benevolent decision-maker will censor only hateful language. Facebook recently found an Ohio rabbi guilty for a post showing Adolf Hitler shaking hands with Paul von Hindenburg, even though it described Hitler as the most ruthless dictator in recent history.

That a social media giant with both sophisticated artificial intelligence and a slew of human fact-checkers should miss the point of the post should discourage human rights advocates and policymakers from pushing social media companies, much less governments, to adopt hate speech doctrines.

Even well-intentioned efforts to enlist civil society in labeling hate can have an anti-Semitic effect, according to Rabbi Pesach Lerner, president of the Coalition for Jewish Values. He and 100 Orthodox Jewish rabbis wrote to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, asking him to stop using the Southern Poverty Law Centers Hate Map for guidance. Doing so, the rabbis explained, excluded conservative nonprofits from the Amazon Smile charitable gift program simply because they hold traditional beliefs about marriage and the family. The effect was detrimental and even dangerous to the Jewish community, they wrote.

Finally, its worth noting that Europes Holocaust denial laws fail to address the roots of hatred, and have not prevented the growth of anti-Semitic parties in Austria, France and Germany. They may even be counterproductive. Criminal prosecutions give anti-Semites added notoriety and a persecution narrative to exploit.

The U.N. should combat anti-Semitism. Initial efforts to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition make for a step in the right direction. The IHRA definition captures how modern anti-Semitism is often couched in anti-Israel rhetoric, including:

Both the U.N. and all of its 193 member-states should adopt the IHRA definition and act consistently. The U.N. Human Rights Council should cease its biased treatment of Israel, and the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should retract its Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions blacklist.

Censorship cannot reverse hate. Only more contact with Jews, deeper understanding of the Holocaust and Nazi ideology, and knowledge of Israels ancient and modern history can change peoples beliefs and behaviors. For this to happen, Jews must be able to think, speak and livein freedom and safetyaccording to their beliefs. As the U.N. looks ahead to the next 75 years, it is more important than ever for America to point the way back to freedom as the true path to peace and security.

Emilie Kao is the director of The Heritage Foundations DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society. Joel Griffith is a research fellow in the think tanks Roe Institute.

The views expressed in this article are the writers own.

Read the original here:

What the United Nations Gets Wrong About Fighting Anti-Semitism - KYR News

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on What the United Nations Gets Wrong About Fighting Anti-Semitism – KYR News
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Over the course of the weekend, Facebooksuspended the accounts of more than 200 users, including Greenpeace USA, Rising Tide North America, Rainforest Action Network, and Presente.org, among others.

At the time of imposing the suspensions, rather vaguely, Facebook cited intellectual property rights violation, without providing further details on the alleged infringement. Subsequently, a statement issued by Facebook, said: Our systems mistakenly removed these accounts and content. They have since been restored and weve lifted any limits imposed on identified profiles. And, while some accounts have indeed been restored now, according to The Guardian, some continue to remain suspended, while awaiting a fuller explanation from Facebook.

In the meantime, amid the anger and confusion that ensued due to the suspensions, activists scrambled to come up with a reason. Reportedly, affected accounts have one common link: all the collective, and individual, accounts that were suspended had taken part in a Facebook event targeting KKR & Co. for funding the Coastal GasLink pipeline being built in northern British Columbia, which will cut through sovereign Wetsuweten land, defiantly ignoring assertions from the hereditary chiefs of their rights, title, and consent for the project, according to Greenpeace, who had co-hosted that event last May. Reportedly, the affected accounts were blocked a day ahead of another scheduled online protest against KKR. The timing was more than suspect. We would like to have transparency in this situation, Delee Nikal, a Wetsuweten community memberof the Gitdimten clan from the Witset First Nation,told Canadas National Observer. Fossil fuel companies, and their funders, will use every tool in their toolbox to attempt to silence us. But they are struggling to counter the Indigenous-led resistance to end our addiction to oil and gas and instead respect Indigenous sovereignty, Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA, commented.

Related on The Swaddle:

Globally, 212 Environmental Activists Were Killed in 2019: Report

The suspensions came less than a week after Facebook committed to tackling misinformation on the climate crisis, and even launched a Climate Science Information Center to counter misleading posts that reject the unambiguous science of climate change. On the one hand, while Facebook has suspended the accounts of environmentalists, on the other hand, experts have pointed out flaws in Facebooks algorithms that aim to tackle misinformation. Reportedly, articles and posts categorized as falseupon being fact-checked by Facebook, can still be published on the platform, if it is simply labelled as opinion. And reportedly, that was the case with CO2 Coalition, a group that argues more carbon dioxide is good for the planet, and published its article as an opinion when fact-checking criticized the accuracy of its climate models.

Now, whether the present suspensions were simply a result of yet another flaw in Facebooks algorithm is difficult to ascertain, especially given the social media giants lack of transparency on the matter. But, Facebook is already synonymous with both ineffective algorithmic filters, and opacity around its algorithms. In fact, just last month, Facebooks algorithm was found to beactively promotingHolocaust-denial content through its search function, despite a spokesperson from the company saying: We take down any post that celebrates, defends, or attempts to justify the Holocaust. We also remove groups and pages that discuss Holocaust denial from recommendations and references to it in search predictions.

Videos of extreme violence, alt-right views and calls for violence by militias in Kenosha, Wisconsin, are allowed to persist on Facebook. Yet we are banned and receive threats for permanent removal, for posting an online petition, Nikal said, adding: When media and corporations like Facebook direct the narrative in such a way, it compromises societies access to freedom of information.

See the rest here:

Facebook Suspends Accounts Of Environmental Groups Without Explanation - The Swaddle

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Facebook Suspends Accounts Of Environmental Groups Without Explanation – The Swaddle
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Last week, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced a new initiative, Education to End Hate. Our country is facing two pandemics: coronavirus and hate, he said. Its time to double down on our efforts to combat all forms of hate, bias and bigotry. He contrasted his new initiative with President Trumps attacks on the 1619 Project Curriculum, classroom materials developed by the New York Times that investigate how slavery has shaped America. As a result, Thurmond got great press for standing up for anti-racist, anti-bias education.

Theres only one problem. Education to End Hate rests on the false premise that any criticism of Israel or Zionism, any effort to examine Palestinian history or current realities in the region is inherently antisemitic. One of the three organizations providing professional development and resources for the program is the Simon Wiesenthal Centers Museum of Tolerance. The Wiesenthal Center has a long history of promoting Israel at all costs and trying to silence Palestinian voices. On September 2, Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, wrote that Trump was a non-Jewish hero for recognizing Jerusalem as Israels capital in the face of international law. Last year the center listed Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omars criticism of Israels human rights abuses of Palestinians and support for the ability to boycott Israel as among the Top 10 Worst Global Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Incidents. The center organizes extensively on college campuses to quash discussion of Palestine, and last year successfully pressured the Niles, Illinois, school district into canceling a class that would have taught teachers about Palestine.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center just received a $225,692 grant from Homeland Securitys Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Program (TVTP). In June, more than 70 human rights, civil liberties and community organizations wrote a public letter condemning TVTP programs because they, are built on the false premise that Muslims are predisposed toward violence and require government interventions to prevent them from committing violence and terrorism.

The Wiesenthal Center will not provide anti-bias education; it provides pro-Israel propaganda.

Education to End Hate is a direct response to the successful campaign to include Arab American Studies in the California Model Ethnic Studies Curriculum (ESMC). The ESMC is intended as a guideline for schools and districts as a result of CA Assembly Bill 2016, which mandated the California Department of Education (CDE) to develop an ethnic studies curriculum to be used across high schools in California. The original ESMC was created last year by an advisory committee of ethnic studies scholars and K-12 teachers. In the face of pro-Israel and other right-wing backlash, the CDE drastically revised the curriculum and stripped out core elements including centering ethnic studies guiding values and principles, and Arab American and Pacific Islander content.

Ethnic studies scholars, K-12 teachers, students, and Arab American communities across the state mobilized to defend the Arab American and Pacific Islander content and the core principles of ethnic studies. In a last-minute reversal, theCDE affirmed Arab American studies as a field of ethnic studies and committed to its inclusion in the ESMC.

Zionist organizations, which had been meeting behind closed doors with legislators and state education officials, were furious. Theyre used to getting their way. One result of that anger is Education to End Hate. Another result are the guardrails added to AB-331, which updated the ethnic studies bill and prolongs the implementation date.

The guardrails language seems benign:

[Ethnic studies curriculum must] Be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, pupils with disabilities, and English learners.

Not reflect or promote, directly or indirectly, any bias, bigotry, or discrimination against any person or group of persons on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.

But in floor debate on AB-331 on August 31, Jesse Gabriel, San Fernando Valley Democrat, assistant majority whip, and co-chair of the Jewish Caucus, made the intent clear:

There is a small group of people trying to reinsert bigotry and discrimination back into the teaching of ethnic studies The best approach is for the legislature to insert guardrails so ethnic studies cannot be used as a vehicle to attack or defame Jews or Israel This makes it unlawful for any school district in California to use the anti-semitic or anti-Israel sections of the original draft curriculum or to otherwise teach or promote anti-semitic, BDS, or any other curricula that promotes bias or bigotry or discrimination against Jews, Israel, the Israeli-American community or the Jewish community.

In other words, any criticism of Israel and any discussion of the human rights of Palestinians is automatically defined as antisemitism. This is in direct contradiction of the basic principles of ethnic studies, which include centering the voices of the oppressed and marginalized, ending colonialism in all its forms, and supporting students to become critical thinkers and social activists.

The Save Arab American Studies Coalition which led the struggle to defend Arab American Studies, was encouraged by Superintendent Thurmonds recognition that Arab American studies is an essential component of ethnic studies. But we are concerned about the implications of the CDEs embrace of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and what appears to be an end run around ethnic studies as the best approach for strengthening anti-racist education, Lara Kiswani, executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, told me. Instead of putting childrens anti-racist, anti-bias education in the hands of the pro-Israel lobby, we urge Tony Thurmond to reconstitute the original ESMC advisory committee and recommit to a true ethnic studies model curriculum.

Read more from the original source:
Promoting Zionism is not 'education to end hate' Mondoweiss - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Promoting Zionism is not ‘education to end hate’ Mondoweiss – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Jewish leaders spoke out after an anti-Semitic attack was carried out in England on Yom Kippur on Monday.

Residents of a neighborhood in Bristol reported a large, bright, yellow swastika spray-painted on the hood of a car. The windshield was covered in paint, as well. The police were notified.

The Bristol Post reported that resident Nick Bayne called it a sign that people are starting to feel empowered enough to do something like this.

Bayne, who lives across the street from where the car was parked, called it a display of selfishness and a giant symbol of hate.

He added that his wife was a grandchild of Holocaust survivors.

World Zionist Organization Vice Chairman Yaakov Hagoel said, Anti-Semitic incitement does not take a break even on the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur. Anti-Semitic hate criminals know exactly when and where to target.

Hagoel, added, I thank the local police who took this matter seriously. But more must be done. Do not allow the perpetrators to be free to carry out their plot against Jewish communities here or anywhere in the world.

This article first appeared in Israel Hayom.

The post World Zionist Organization condemns Nazi vandalism in England on Yom Kippur appeared first on JNS.org.

Read the original here:
World Zionist Organization condemns Nazi vandalism in England on Yom Kippur - Cleveland Jewish News

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on World Zionist Organization condemns Nazi vandalism in England on Yom Kippur – Cleveland Jewish News
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Abraham Accord signing ceremony in Washington. (Photo: File)

By Reza Behnam

In the early 1900s, Zionisms founders laid out their strategy to build a Jewish state in Palestine. According to the plan, colonization had to be slow and covert, beginning with small land acquisitions. In the words of Zionist leader, Chaim Weizmann, another acre, another goat.

Zionisms strategy of gaining Palestinian land here and there through creeping annexation has expanded to include land taken by force. Force, whether diplomatic or military, has been a building block of the Jewish state. Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force; so said militant Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky.

Israels annexation strategy is no longer another goat, it is instead, another acre, another Arab dictator. Establishing diplomatic ties with Arab despots is in keeping with Zionist goals laid out by leaders such as Weizmann.

The Abraham Accords of September 2020, establishing full diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Israel, reveal the seminal role the United States has played as a guarantor of Israels expansionist objectives. The agreements also demonstrate Washingtons willingness to put partnerships with oppressive, authoritarian and expansionist regimes over human rights.

A state built on a foundation of domination can never be stable or at peace with its neighbors. Since 1948, Israel has depended on the United States for legitimacy and security. Israels leaders have labored to maximize and deepen Americas commitment and involvement in accomplishing their objectives in Palestine. After a half-century of unwavering support, it has become virtually impossible for Washington to imagine a regional reality other than that proffered by Israel.

The UAE-Bahrain deals have made Israels leaders all the more confident that they do not have to reckon with the catastrophe they have created in Palestine. In fact, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brazenly stated that the deal confirms that Israel does not need to withdraw from occupied West Bank land in order to achieve normalization with Arab states.

With US backing, Israel has had carte blanche in the region. The rulers of the UAE and Bahrain have determined that their security and longevity is bound up with the two regional powers and that they should make their years of furtive cooperation official.

Bahrain has served as Washingtons footman for decades. The tiny Persian Gulf state has been home to the US naval command headquarters for the Gulf region since 1948, it has had a formal Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States since 1991 and in 1992 was designated by Washington as a major non-NATO ally

With a restive majority Shiite populationestimated at 70 per centBahrains ruling Sunni monarch is eager to maintain the status quo and to crush any opposition to his government. Despite Bahrains abysmal human rights record, Washington has been well-disposed to provide the regime access to sophisticated US weapons and training.

Bahrains domestic security and political agenda are dominated by Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi troops that helped suppress a popular uprising there during the Arab Spring of 2011. Clearly, Bahrains alliance with Israel had the blessing of Riyadh.

Like Bahrains ruler, Emirati dictator, Mohammad bin Zayed, runs a sophisticated surveillance state, which he uses to crack down on all forms of domestic dissent. The security and intelligence arrangement with Israel will provide him protection against his own people.

The UAE, prepared to underwrite Washingtons policies, will be allowed to purchase more and higher quality US weapons and will face no opposition from Washington as it continues its destructive and expansionist policies in Yemen, Libya and Qatar.

The Emirati and Bahraini rulers would be wise to draw some lessons from Egypts dealings with the United States and Israel.

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat became the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Condemned throughout the Arab world, Sadats decision sparked decades of conflict. His assassination in 1981 led to three decades of oppressive rule by his successor, Hosni Mubarak.

The 1978 Camp David Accords and peace treaty that followed left the Arabs further divided and removed Egyptian military pressure from Israel, freeing Tel Aviv to continue its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights. The Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty also removed the urgency of addressing Palestinian sovereignty.

Although the peace initiatives outlined in the accords were never achieved, Egypt continues to receive $1.3 billion in US military aid agreed upon in the treatyIsrael receives $3 billion. Each year US largesse flows to Egyptian military dictator General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisiwhose regime has been described as one of the most repressive in Egypts history.

With one in three Egyptians living in poverty and over 60,000 political prisoners in jail, it is difficult to see how the Egyptian people have benefited from the treaty with Israel.

The irony of the UAE-Bahrain accords is that they reward Israel for threatening a hostile, illegal actannexing the little that remains of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu used the same subterfuge to involve the Obama administration in a nuclear showdown with Irana crisis the Israeli prime minister created.

In 2012, Netanyahus threats to bomb Irans nuclear facilities pushed President Barack Obamafearful of being dragged into another catastrophic regional warto impose draconian economic sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu had counted on the confrontation between Washington and Tehran. His threats backfired, resulting instead in US -Iran cooperation and the signing of a multilateral, comprehensive nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Abrogating the JCPOA then became a major priority for Netanyahu. The pro-Israel, anti-Iran Trump administration was eager to help, announcing US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement on May 8, 2018.

Arab leaders who once sought political unity under the banner of Pan-Arabism, or Arab nationalism, are united today by their hostility toward Iran. The Abraham Accords are essentially a military alliance between the Gulfs Sunni monarchs and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Irana central foreign policy goal of the Trump administration and its Evangelical base.

The Palestine-Israel conflict has been transformed into an Iran-Arab conflict. The signatories to the accords are engaged in diplomatic terrorism against Tehran and Palestine. For 40 years Israel has used Iran as a foil to distract attention away from its ongoing annexation policies in the occupied territories.

Countries that refuse to bow to US-Israeli pressure and aggression pay dearly. Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen continue to face devastating military and economic assaults from the United States and Israel.

Fearing internal opposition and pressure from Washington, other Arab monarchs will fall in line like the UAE and Bahrain. Although they profess commitment, most Arab leaders have never really supported the Palestinian cause.

Before the signing ceremonies, President Trump presented Netanyahu with what he described as a ceremonial golden key to the White House and to the country. Interestingly, no such gesture was made toward the Emirati or Bahraini representatives, nor were the American people consulted as to whether they wanted Netanyahu to receive a key to their White House or country.

Presenting Israels leader with, in Trumps words, a key to our country was symbolic. It revealed how the two governments have become indistinguishable in their symmetrical pursuit of hegemonic control over the old Middle East, which they have worked tirelessly to create in their image.

The Abraham Accords and similar agreements that fail to address and correct the terrible wrongs that have been done to the Palestinians will not win the hearts of the Arab people or quell their anger. US-Israeli policies of coercion and bribery will only bring more instability and tragedy to the region. And engineering bargains with Persian Gulf despots will not make the Palestine-Israel catastrophe disappear or bring Israel regional acceptance, normalcy or peace.

Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist whose specialties include American foreign policy and the history, politics and governments of the Middle East.

Read more:
Another Acre, Another Goat: Israel in the Middle East - Palestine Chronicle

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Another Acre, Another Goat: Israel in the Middle East – Palestine Chronicle
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

Last week, the pro-peace organization Americans for Peace Now proudly announced that Bronx Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young and charismatic avatar of the new American left, would participate in an event honoring Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated 25 years ago for making peace with the Palestinians. But their announcement resulted in a barrage of online criticism from far-left activists, who cited Rabins history before the Oslo peace agreement, specifically the fact that as a general in the Israeli army, he gave an order to break the bones of Palestinians at the start of the First Intifada. In response to this criticism, AOC promptly withdrew from the event, claiming it had been misrepresented to her, and that she was taking a look into this now.

The fact that a few random Twitter activists could change her mind by pointing out the obvious that besides shaking hands with Arafat, Rabin was also a general with blood on his hands raises a number of questions, not least of which is, did the Congresswoman not know about Rabins past beforehand? Was it only upon seeing the vehement reactions to her participation in the Peace Now event that she realized that Rabin, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are controversial issues?

Yes, Rabin called to break Palestinian bones. He also did far worse: In 1948, he expelled Palestinians from Lydda and Ramleh. Theres no way to undo that history. Rabin himself acknowledged that, twenty-five years before the Twitter activists could, in a speech to Congress. I, Military I.D. Number 30743, retired general in the Israel Defense Forces in the past, consider myself to be a soldier in the army of peace today, Rabin said.

It wasnt an exercise in rhetoric; even though Rabin wore a suit when he said these words, mentally, he had never taken off his uniform. Embedded in that IDF ID were all his previous actions, legitimate and not. Saying it out loud was a confession and a reckoning with his past.

But in addition to all that he did in the IDF, Rabin, like no other Prime Minister before him, did the unthinkable: first, by signing the Oslo Accords, faulty as they were, and second, by bucking the convention that one needs a Jewish majority to make historical changes; he pushed for the agreement relying on Arad-led parties.

Rabin risked everything for the chance of peace: going into a shaky minority government, ripping apart Israeli society, having the right-wing calling him a traitor with rabbis conducting rituals to usher his untimely death, all while grinding his teeth against brutal suicide bombings.

Rabin also understood the brutality and racism of Israels past. At a rally in Nazareth in 1992, he said, We have been in power for twenty-nine years and we are to blame for the discrimination. I apologize and I intend to act to eradicate it.

Rabin broke with his past. And for that reason, he was assassinated.

He advocated for peace and normalcy while having doubts about its plausibility, while being a hardcore Zionist, while being agnostic on the question of Palestinian nationality. It says a lot about the stakes of conflict that he was assassinated for an agreement so many criticize for being so flawed. Yet, in Israel and Palestine, even a small step can create earthquakes.

AOC should have showed up to honor this legacy. Indeed, just three days before AOC caved to the online bullying of Twitter activists, Saeb Erakat, secretary general of PLO, did just that, sharing a heartfelt tribute to Rabin on that same medium, noting how the Prime Minister was assassinated for trying to make peace on the basis of two States 1967 borders.

Instead of following the lead of the Palestinian leadership, AOC chose to meet the purity demands of the far left, chose to cleanse herself of the stain of compromise for peace by not showing up. She chose to hang Peace Now out to dry an organization thats been at the forefront of the fight to end the occupation for over four decades.

In abandoning an organization thats on the ground seeking peace, AOC imposed the purity demands of the American left on those most impacted by the conflict, most in need of a solution, and thus most cognizant of the need for compromise. It is we who live in Israel and Palestine who should determine Rabins legacy, who are struggling with it, and with our own role in the conflict.

In addition to her ignorance, AOCs actions show a deep lack of solidarity; where she had an opportunity to strengthen the Israeli left, she chose instead to push Israelis who are already despondent to apathy, which will ultimately hurt those already marginalized and attacked by Israels right-wing government.

It was a big mistake. Commemorating Rabins struggle for peace doesnt mean erasing the Palestinian struggle and suffering; canceling your appearance for political points certainly does.

While liberal Zionism has fallen out of vogue in the U.S. left, there are still real people in Israel and Palestine who are working for peace against all odds. Forsaking them is a betrayal of leftists values.

Etan Nechin is an Israeli journalist and author.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Continued here:
Opinion | AOC abandoned peace to satisfy the purity demands of the left - Forward

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Opinion | AOC abandoned peace to satisfy the purity demands of the left – Forward
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

The recent death of US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (known popularly as RBG) has brought accolades from all over the world, especially from progressives who hailed her positions. Even Black Lives Matter issued praise, not mentioning the justices crass statement on Colin Kaepernicks taking the knee, saying the gesture was dumb and disrespectful (she later walked it back saying that her comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh and that she should have declined to respond). Black Lives Matter sidestepped the incident by stating that as a nation, we cannot politicize this moment. But the interest in Ginsburgs legacy is a political matter.

There is also a serious contesting of the popular legacy of Ginsburg as a kind of radical progressive activist judge. David Kinder, who appraised her record in Current Affairs in 2016, concluded that Ginsburg was basically a cautious centrist.

And there is more to this than domestic policy. As a Jewish Israeli citizen, I was drawn to see what legacy Ginsburg had when it came to Israel, particularly her acceptance in 2018 of the Israeli states Genesis Prize, which claims to be a kind of Jewish Nobel. She was certainly not making critical statement of Israel, and she was saying nothing about Palestinians. When it came to Israel at least, Ginsburg was just unexceptional. A real cautious centrist. One could even say a progressive except on Palestine (PEP).

Ginsburgs nomination to the prize for the 2018 ceremony was complex. Reportedly, Netanyahu first opposed her getting it, due to her condemnatory statements on Donald Trump ahead of his election. So then, actress Natalie Portman was selected for the main prize. In order to smooth away the drama, the committee tailored a secondary prize for Ginsburg, not involving money. The committee claim, to cover the earlier misstep, was that Ginsburg couldnt accept a monetary prize, but that was false. Anyhow, in March 2018, Israel was massacring scores of Palestinian Gazan protesters at the perimeter fence, and that made Portman feel very uncomfortable with the inevitable split screen of her getting the prize from a state that was turkey-shooting unarmed protesters who were protesting their incarceration in an uninhabitable concentration camp. Portman was reserved in her snubbing of the prize: her expressed reasoning was that she did not want to appear as if supporting Netanyahu.

Ginsburg gave a 12-minute speech at the Genesis Prize ceremony, and did not say a word about Palestine or Palestinians. Her focus was womens rights and it was seasoned with Jewish romanticism, even with a favorable hint to Zionism. She said that good fortune accounts for my part in the effort to achieve equal citizenship stature for women.

For anyone aware of the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, where even citizenship of Palestinians is discriminatory (not to mention occupation, siege and expulsion), such a sentence screams for at least a mentioning of that issue. Otherwise, the justice focus ends up as a kind of white feminism where intrinsic racism is neither addressed nor challenged, and the feminism is taken to be a sufficient substitute for that omission.

While Ginsburg talked alot about Jewish history and mentioned some women to do with it, she also mentioned Zionism by name in connection with Emma Lazarus, whose sonnet The New Colossus of 1883 is represented on the Statue of Liberty.

Emma Lazarus was a Zionist before that word came into vogue, Ginsburg said. Her love for humankind, and especially for her [Jewish] people, is evident in all her writings.

But Emma Lazarus died in 1887. How could she be a Zionist before the actual beginning of the Zionist movement? Obviously, Ginsburg is making a romantic appraisal of Zionism as synonymous with humanism and love of kind.

Ginsburg said that Lazarus poem etched on the Statue of Liberty has welcomed legions of immigrants including my father and grandparents, people seeking in the USA shelter from fear and long[ing] for freedom from intolerance.

Once again, this appraisal of Zionism as a representation of some kind of open embracing of immigrants is egregious, when mirrored against the fact that it was and is a settler-colonialist movement where transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in the words of Israeli historian Benny Morris. [B]ecause it sought to transform a land which was Arab into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population.

Speaking at another event during the same tour, Ginsburg praised Israels courts for being known throughout the world for judicial independence, and its something we hope we can keep, adding that it requires a public that understands the tremendous value of having courts that are free from any influence from the government. She was sharing the panel with her Israeli counterpart, former Supreme Court judge Dorit Beinisch, who had coined a new de facto legal term for Israels never-ending occupation, calling it a prolonged occupation.

Reflect that Ginsburg made these statements in July 2018, just a couple of months after Israels Supreme Court fully supported the sniping of unarmed protesters with live fire in the mentioned Gaza protests. Israels Supreme Court, with all its occasional aberrations, is a notorious blue-stamp machinery that has basically endorsed all of Israels central occupation violations, and has even ruled against the International Court of Justice which deemed the security barrier (aka Annexation Wall or Apartheid Wall) illegal by international law in 2004, since the vast majority of its path ran through occupied territory (the ICJ ruling reemphasized the settlements as being contrary to international law).

Surely, Ginsburg must have realized that her acceptance of the Genesis Prize is not occurring in a vacuum, and that this is a highly political, and highly politicized, prize.

As limited as Portmans reasoning was, it was far more impressive than Ginsburgs whitewashing of Israeli crimes.

Ginsburgs romanticizing of the Israeli democracy is unsurprising and unexceptional. For Portman, this PEP position became somehow untenable, and she had to find a way out it was becoming too toxic. For Ginsburg, it was certainly tolerable. As long as Palestinians were kept out of the equation and not spoken about, it was alright.

Ginsburg and Portman apparently shared an admiration of the Israeli author Amos Oz who beneath the aura of romantic Jewish liberalism was actually a fanatical Zionist zealot. Portman had also recently filmed his Tale of Love and Darkness. But for all that romanticism, it became too much for Portman. Oz could rationalize the most egregious massacres of Palestinians like he did in 2014 promoting false conspiracy theories about Hamas tunnels leading into Israeli kindergartens but for Portman the prospect of receiving the Genesis prize was already not comfortable. For Ginsburg, it was fine.

I am certainly not idolizing Natalie Portman. I think she is egregiously understating. But I think the comparison serves to show, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a rather unexceptional person. She could have used her last years to make a strong statement about Palestinians, but she didnt. She could have done it with hardly a word by for example refusing the prize. But she didnt. This doesnt make her exceptionally mean in the relativity of the current USA paradigm, where Israel is an issue that hardly any leading official or celebrity may challenge it just makes her unexceptional.

And thats where I leave it. Its very similar similar with current liberal leaders such as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris they may have all kinds of heroic agendas for USA domestic policy, but when it comes to Israel, they are unflinching in their support of its Apartheid, and despite some small disagreements here and there, Biden loves Netanyahu, and Harris often speaks as if she wer Netanyahus spokesperson.

Ginsburg is definitely what we could call a liberal Zionist. She manages to bridge the disparity between humanism and colonialism by romanticizing the humanity, accentuating Jewish persecution, and ignoring Palestinian persecution. On that issue, she simply did not want to go any further, which confirms what David Kinder said about her being a cautious centrist. As far as Israel and Zionism go, she was certainly not going to take them to task.

Link:
Accepting Israeli prize in 2018, RBG never mentioned Palestinians - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Accepting Israeli prize in 2018, RBG never mentioned Palestinians – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

My Hungarian parents were both survivors of Auschwitz. I heard their stories often while growing up. I never asked, but always wondered why there was no resistance. Why did 600,000 Hungarian Jews go like sheep to their slaughter?As we reflect 75 years after the end of World War II, we have much documentation about great resistance to the Nazis in many countries: Poland, France, Belgium, Greece, Albania and more. From Britannica to Wikipedia, there are long lists. But Hungary is missing.In fact, there was resistance in Hungary, as I discovered in my research for Recipes from Auschwitz, a book I wrote. I came across Brothers for Resistance and Rescue, by David Gur, a Hungarian Jew who was part of the Resistance. Rafi Benshalom, another leader, also described the resistance movement in We Struggled for Life.I met with Gur in Israel and was inspired to learn more.The Resistance movement was obstructed by the relative complacency of Hungarys largely assimilated Jewish population who believed the Hungarian government would always have their backs. After all, theyd been loyal citizens for decades. Jewish leaders fed that complacency, urging their constituents to obey the laws, including strict edicts that robbed them of their property as well as their political, civil and economic rights. Resistance was not in the DNA of Hungarian Jews.But this attitude of unquestioning obedience didnt carry over to young, idealistic Zionists, who realized that Hungary offered them no future. These pioneers formed the Halutz movement and became the backbone of the Young Zionist Resistance Movement.Although their activities were forbidden, by 1941, they started helping their young Zionist compatriots fleeing Poland and Slovakia. Together, in 1944, the Young Zionists launched the Tiyul, an operation that smuggled more than 15,000 Halutzim to safety in Palestine. cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });That was a pivotal year: The Nazis began losing ground in the war, and on March 19 Germany invaded Hungary, before its ally could switch sides. Fearing the worst, the Resistance went underground, providing members with Christian identities printed by their own forging experts. Gur, a 17-year-old aspiring draftsman, established several underground printing operations in various apartments in Budapest. He was joined by others, including Zvi Seidenfeld, and they played pivotal roles in rescuing Jews.In the meantime, Jews throughout the provinces were rounded up, collected in ghettos, and readied for deportation. The Resistance sent members to warn the villagers. They also brought Christian IDs to enable many to go underground and avoid detection. Their efforts, however, were largely unsuccessful, because few believed the young Zionists. Within several weeks, nearly half a million were shipped to Auschwitz.BY JULY 1944, the only Jews left alive in Hungary were the less than 200,000 in Budapest. More forging centers were established, but it was a dangerous business. Many were betrayed and raided. In his book, Gur tells of one incident in which he and two of his accomplices were caught and imprisoned. One was beaten to death while questioned by members of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party, a fiercely Fascist group. In a daring rescue, complete with Zionists dressed in Nazi uniforms, Gur and his partner were freed.Toward the middle of that summer, both the Swedish and Swiss governments decided to intervene and attempt to save the remaining Jews.Carl Lutz, the Swiss vice-consul, was in charge of British interests. Lutz procured 7,800 protective passes called Schutz-Passen each earmarked to protect an entire family for safe passage to Palestine. Surprisingly, the Hungarian authorities honored the legality of these documents. Zionist forgers worked non-stop in the Glass House, previously a window and commercial glass manufacturing factory in Budapest. Located only a block from the Swiss consulate, it was designated as an annex and furnished with a Swiss flag and plaque identifying it as a diplomatic building.Jews by the thousands lined up, clamoring for these life-saving documents. And when they were gone, thousands more were forged.But October 15, 1944, saw a dramatic turn for the worse for the Jews of Budapest.The Arrow Cross Party seized control of the government. Deportations that had been suspended in July resumed. Zvi Seidenfeld was caught with an attach case of forged documents and brutally tortured before being saved in another daring rescue mission.In the meantime, undisciplined, drunken Arrow Cross thugs roamed the streets looking for Jews, randomly murdering thousands in cold blood. Many others were dragged to the bank of the Danube, forced to remove their shoes, and with ankles tied, shot dead to fall into the freezing river water. Schutz-Passes no longer helped.But again, the Resistance prevailed, meeting the needs of a huge number of new orphans created by the senseless murders. The Halutzim quickly organized more than 50 shelters, providing daily food, clothing and adult supervision, rescuing more than 5,000 defenseless children.The entire rescue effort in Hungary is shrouded in controversy. In his essay, Rescue Operations in Hungary: Myths and Realities, Hungarian history expert Randolph Braham bemoans the lack of any organized effort by the Jewish leadership. But he nevertheless credits the Halutzim for their role in the rescue effort that helped save the lives of nearly 100,000 Hungarian Jews during the waning months of World War II.After the end of the war, several Young Zionist Resistance fighters chronicled their activities, including Benshalom and Gur, providing names and details of the entire resistance movement. To their everlasting credit, the Youth Zionist Resistance movements provided a shining example of the teachings of Hillel: At a time when there are no men, you be a manDr. Alex Sternberg is the author of Recipes from Auschwitz: The Survival Stories of Two Hungarian Jews with Historical Insight. http://www.alexsternberg.com. Cammy Bourcier is a journalist, teacher, and daughter of Zvi Seidenfeld.

Originally posted here:
The story of the Resistance Movement in Hungary - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The story of the Resistance Movement in Hungary – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 29, 2020

For American Jews of a certain age, the name Bess Myerson is still a source of pride. Myerson was the first and still the only Jewish Miss America, winning the famed pageant in 1945, just months after the news of the full tragedy of the Holocaust had been reported and American Jews were still in shock over the horror.

This month marks 75 years since Myerson was crowned and a new documentary, The One and Only Jewish Miss America, by David Arond, has recently been released to celebrate that anniversary.

It had its premiere at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City and featured a panel with the director, Myersons daughter Barra Grant, Anti-Defamation League emeritus director and Myersons friend Abraham Foxman, and director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism Brian Levin.

The documentary is a celebration of Myerson and all the joy that her win brought to the American Jewish community, as well as a reminder of the antisemitism she fought against. It does not cover her post-Miss America years, when she worked in politics, was instrumental in helping Ed Koch become mayor of New York, and was eventually involved in a scandal dubbed the Bess Mess by the New York press, in which she faced federal fraud and conspiracy charges for allegedly bribing a judge who was working on a case against her married boyfriend, sewer contractor Andy Capasso. Although Myerson was acquitted, she spent several years fighting these charges in the 80s.

Instead, the documentary spotlights her early life and probes the politics of the pageant and how she overcame antisemitism to win.

Myerson excelled in school and at music, both of which were accepted routes for bright children to overcome poverty and become solidly middle class in those days. Entering a beauty pageant was not expected for a Jewish young woman, no matter how lovely she looked. Myerson actually did not enter the contest on her own but was entered by an amateur photographer for whom she had modeled. Her sister, Sylvia, was more enthusiastic about Miss America and she offered to be Myersons chaperone, which was preferable to having her difficult mother accompany her.

Although she was a contestant with great musical skill, few felt it would be possible for a Jew to win. The documentary details how her supporters among the pageants organizers made sure her talent and beauty were fully appreciated and made it virtually impossible for her to lose the pageant, since she kept winning each individual competition.

In an interview, Myerson recalls the pressure she felt as a contestant when Jews, including Holocaust survivors, encouraged her to show the world that Jews can be beautiful and said they were counting on her.

Her win was a moment of triumph for American Jews, but her struggles werent over. Several sponsors pulled out rather than allow a Jew to represent them. As Myerson toured the country as Miss America, many hotels refused to allow her to stay because she was Jewish. Upset by the discrimination, she switched gears and began to give talks for the Anti-Defamation League on the subject, You Cant Hate and Be Beautiful.

Its a story about a bygone era in which beauty pageants were an arena in which talented young women could find opportunity, but it also resonates today, with the resurgence of antisemitism around the world in recent years.

Read more from the original source:

Celebrating Bess Myerson, The One and Only Jewish Miss America - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Jewish Heritage Month | Comments Off on Celebrating Bess Myerson, The One and Only Jewish Miss America – The Jerusalem Post
Tags: