[Stating that Jews dominate the mass media is true. In Canada, saying this is apparently punishable as a "hate crime."]
Ahenakew claims 'racial control' of media,
CBC (Canada), August 14, 2003
"An aboriginal leader who faces hate crime charges for comments about Adolf Hitler and the Jews has made controversial new comments about racial control of the media, a Toronto-based magazine says. David Ahenakew In its July/August edition, This Magazine quotes David Ahenakew as saying no one race should have control of the media. "When a group of people, a race of people, can control the world media, then there's got to be something done about that," Ahenakew is quoted as saying before hanging up the phone on reporter Alex Roslin. The article says Ahenakew later told the reporter that he is frustrated that he has to defend himself over his views on Jewish control of banks and the media. "For me to keep defending myself in my own land is not going to happen," This Magazine quotes Ahenakew as saying. It is Ahenakew's first interview since his controversial comments last year about Hitler. FROM JUNE 11, 2003: Ahenakew charged with spreading hate. In December, he told a Saskatoon reporter at a conference that Hitler was trying to "clean up the world" when he "fried" six million Jews in the Holocaust. World domination Ahenakew said Hitler's rise to power was a response to the "disease" of Jewish world domination. He was head of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations senate at the time but later quit the post. In June, the Saskatchewan Justice Department charged him with promoting hatred. He later apologized for his comments and said he doesn't hold the views expressed in the December interview. But the article in This Magazine quotes sources familiar with the former native leader who say he has long held racist views which have been largely shielded from the public."

[Yet MORE Jewish Totalitarian Censorship. Jews are sacred, beyond reproach. Look at them cross-eyed and the heavy weight of their Politically Correct Network suffocates you. Say something critical about them, privately, to a friend, and if you're overhead by the Thought Police you're gone.]
Gregg Whiteside, Longtime Host at New York's WQXR Radio, Fired Over Off-Air Remark,
Andante (from The New York Post), August 14, 2003
"Radio announcer Gregg Whiteside, the voice of The New York Times -owned classical station WQXR, was fired this week in another political-correctness flap at the Gray Lady. The station canned Whiteside - whose voice was synonymous with classical music in New York for 25 years - without notice or severance. The station said the firing was "because of inappropriate comments which he admitted making." Neither Whiteside nor the station would say exactly what those comments were. [MusicalAmerica.com, citing station insiders, reports that the comments were "construed" as anti-Semitic by a passerby.] "They've destroyed an innocent man," an emotional Whiteside told The Post yesterday. "I gave my life to that place. This wasn't a job for me - it was a way of life." Whiteside says the trouble started two weeks ago when he made an off-the-air remark to 'QXR colleague Sam Hall that was overheard by someone who passed by the studio. The station is located in the Times building on West 43rd Street - near the paper's newsroom. "I believed I was having a private and confidential conversation with Sam Hall, who's even more like my brother than my own brother ... and that conversation might have leaked out into the newsroom," Whiteside says. "I was speaking privately to a dear friend and it was not something that was on the air," he says, adding that he wasn't given the chance to apologize and told to leave Tuesday. "I am in a state of utter depression and I'm devastated by this," he says. "To be fired with no severance? Are you kidding me?"

[The Jewish Thought Police strikes again:]
Cartoonist sacked after being accused of anti-Semitism,
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), August 15, 2003
"An award-winning cartoonist dumped by New Zealand's biggest newspaper because of his drawings on the Middle East conflict said he stood by his work and rejected an editor's right to direct what he could or could not draw. Malcolm Evans, twice named as the country's cartoonist of the year, says he was sacked by The New Zealand Herald after the newspaper received complaints from Jews about his cartoons on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Evans, who denied that his cartoons were anti-Semitic, said while he accepted an editor's right to reject a cartoon, he did not accept an editor's right to direct what he should draw. He said the paper's editor-in-chief, Gavin Ellis, had told him to stop submitting cartoons on Israel. However, Ellis said Evans had been sacked on legal advice, but would not comment further. Evans, who had worked for the Herald for seven years, told National Radio the argument had started when the paper received letters from readers about his cartoons critical of Israel. "I have got to acknowledge in the first instance that the paper had the balls to publish those cartoons, but once they were published and reaction came in, the paper seemed to shrink from association with them and ultimately I received this edict."

[Look at a Jew cross-eyed? Get fired. Go to Jail. Get harassed. Become persecuted. Etc., etc., etc. Jews are SACRED: DO NOT CRITICIZE THEM.]
Star makes waves in Jewish circles; Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon spurs fury,
By Faygie Levy and Alexandra Perloe, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (from Philadelphia Jewish Exponent)
"A cartoon that first appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer is having repercussions as far away as Seattle, where the cartoon also appeared. The editorial cartoon by Tony Auth, which first appeared July 31, depicts a wire fence in the shape of a Jewish star. Enclosed in each of seven sections — the six points of the star, as well as the center — stand groups of Palestinian men, women and children. According to Auth, the drawing was designed to illustrate "that the State of Israel is building a fence that separates Palestinians and is an obstacle to peace." But that´s not how many people saw it. "It was really outrageous," said Israel´s consul general in Philadelphia, Giora Becher. "It was insensitive for the cartoonist to use the Jewish symbol of a Magen David, and to use it with barbed wire and some connotation of the concentration camp." Harold Goldman, president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, said, "The Tony Auth cartoon crossed a line between what is acceptable political commentary and satire to what is clearly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel commentary." Nancy Baron-Baer of the regional Anti-Defamation League office added that the cartoon evoked memories of the Holocaust, "where the fence was used to commit atrocities, equating that to the Israelis´ building a fence to keep terrorists from committing atrocities." By using a symbol of the Jewish faith, she added, Auth "has put his criticism forth to say that it´s representative of all Jews, not just the State of Israel." Auth responded that over the years he has drawn many cartoons critical of suicide bombers. He also said that those who seek to peg him or the Inquirer as anti-Semitic are dead wrong. "It is only possible to regard me and my work as anti-Semitic by selectively looking at certain cartoons," he said. Several groups — including the federation; the ADL; the Zionist Organization of America; the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia; the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and others — lodged formal complaints with the paper. A letter written by the local JCRC and the Va´ad: Board of Rabbis said the groups were "appalled that Mr. Auth can take a symbol of the Jewish people, the Star of David, and so distort and pervert it — that it borders on desecration." The cartoon, said Steve Feldman, executive director of the ZOA´s Philadelphia branch, "defames the Jewish people and defames Israel."

[Fear of the Jewish Lobby is worldwide. Could we have an article like this in a major American newspaper? Never. The Jewish American Lobby controls commentary about itself.]
Muzzled, say ALP's critics of Israel,
By Mike Seccombe, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), August 19, 2003
"Concern that Labor is in danger of losing votes and donations from the Jewish community appear to have driven the Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, to stop two pro-Palestinian backbenchers from speaking yesterday in a parliamentary debate on the Middle East. One of the censored backbenchers, Julia Irwin, a strong critic of the Israeli Government, last night said she was appalled that Labor policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict had been "hijacked by powerful forces" associated with the Jewish lobby. She said she had been told by Mr Crean's foreign policy adviser, Karl Ungerer, that she was not allowed to speak, following a complaint to Mr Crean by the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Jeremy Jones. Before Parliament rose last week, three backbenchers - Ms Irwin, Leo McLeay and the pro-Israel Michael Danby - were scheduled to speak to a private members motion on the so-called road map to peace in the Middle East. But following the complaint to Mr Crean on Wednesday they were told the next day that they could not. They were replaced by Mr Crean, the shadow foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, and the former leader Kim Beazley - a rare collection of Labor heavyweights for a minor debate on a Liberal-sponsored backbenchers' motion. "I've definitely been muzzled in this debate," Ms Irwin said last night. "It's quite clear that . . . the leader's office wants Labor to toe the line and they just will not tolerate any different views. "The Labor Party has been hijacked by powerful interests. And there are a lot of members on my side on the back bench who are absolutely horrified." A spokesman for Mr Crean denied that the sudden change in speakers was a response to concern that the Jewish community was deserting Labor because of pro-Palestinian comments made by a number of prominent ALP members over recent months. But he did acknowledge a need to "clarify" where Labor stood. "There has been a lot of debate about what Labor's position is on Israel," the spokesman said. "Mr Crean thought this was a good opportunity to put Labor's position on the record." Ms Irwin and Mr McLeay are from the NSW Right, but it is understood several backbenchers, mostly on the Left, are also concerned about the move. In a speech to the house on Monday last week Mr McLeay savaged Mr Jones for what he called "regular attacks on members of Parliament and others who give any support for the plight of the Palestinian people". "The attacks that have been made on my colleague [Ms Irwin] . . . have been disgraceful. It amazes me how intolerant Mr Jones and the pro-Israeli lobby can be. "If you are not an enthusiastic supporter of the Sharon version of the Berlin Wall , you are considered to be anti-Jewish. When will the Jeremy Joneses of this world understand that criticism of the Israeli Government and its actions is not anti-Semitism?"

ADL Attempts to Defame Florida Muslims, Says CAIR; Behind-the-Scenes Smear Campaign Fails to Block Speakers,
U.S. Newswire, August 19, 2003
"A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today said it has learned that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently engaged in a behind-the-scenes smear campaign designed to block speakers from taking part in a Muslim event in Florida. That state's office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL), the sponsor of the event, said speakers disregarded an ADL letter smearing other event participants and making false allegations against CAIR. The ADL sent letters to speakers, including journalists and human rights activists, scheduled to take part in the August 2nd CAIR-FL banquet in Ft. Lauderdale, implying that former Congressman (R-Ill.) Paul Findley is an anti-Semite because "he labored to depict Israel and its American supporters as a menacing force." The letter made similar accusations against another invitee, Rev. Bill Baker, based on statements he allegedly made in the 1980s. In a letter to CAIR-FL, Baker, who heads Christians and Muslims for Peace (CAMP), wrote: "The so-called 'quotes' attributed to me are pure, insulting, and outrageous lies." CAIR itself was targeted by the ADL letter, which repeated a long-discredited claim that the group sponsored a 1998 conference in New York during which a speaker made anti-Semitic comments. In fact, CAIR did not sponsor the event, and no CAIR officials spoke at or attended the gathering. CAIR's New York office did not even exist at the time the conference took place. "It is disturbing that the ADL, a group claiming to fight bigotry, would choose to exploit and amplify existing anti-Muslim prejudice by peddling scurrilous smears based on distortions, fabrications and guilt by association," said Altaf Ali, executive director of CAIR-FL ... He noted that this was not the first time the ADL sought to exclude American Muslims from the public arena. In November of 2001, the group attempted to bar CAIR's Los Angeles office from taking part in a hearing on hate crimes. That same year, the Florida Commission on Human Relations rejected an ADL demand to exclude a Muslim representative from an annual civil rights conference and the State of California Select Committee on Hate Crimes turned down a similar demand to prevent a Muslim leader from offering testimony at a public hearing. In early 2002, the ADL demanded that Muslim groups be denied the right to offer presentations on Islam to public officials at a public event in Southern California. At that time, the ADL's smear campaign was revealed when the Los Angeles Times wrote: "Pro-Israel or Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Defense League and (Daniel Pipes') Middle East Forum think tank have provided news organizations with reams of critical documentation on Muslim leaders in recent weeks" (Los Angeles Times, 11/3/2001). The ADL campaign is not limited to American Muslims. In April of 2001, a federal judge upheld a jury's findings that the ADL defamed a Colorado couple by publicly accusing them of being anti-Semitic. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham said that evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the ADL "acted recklessly in its efforts to publicize what it perceived to be anti-Semitic conduct" (Associated Press, 4/4/2001). In 1999, the ADL agreed to pay $25,000 to a community relations fund and said it would not spy on other organizations as part of a settlement with the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other groups. The settlement resolved a class-action lawsuit filed in 1993 that accused the ADL of spying on Arab-American, pro-Palestinian and anti-apartheid groups and individuals (AP, 9/28/1999)."

[From freedomsite.org : "Dear Free Speech Supporter: Well, the book burners are at it again and, wouldn't you know it, leading the torch brigade of "Jewish pressure groups" is a Canadian bookstore chain. Could that be Heather Reisman's Indigo/Chapter chain? Two years ago, Reisman decreed that her chain would not sell Adolph Hitler's MEIN KAMPF as it was "hate literature," according to her. The book burners actually want Macmillan to shred existing copies of Elizabeth Laird's A LITTLE PIECE OF GROUND, a children's book that offers a sympathetic view of a young Palestinian. The Zionist war machine and their cheerleaders abroad, apparently, will tolerate nothing but the pro-Israeli point of view. Next time you visit Chapters or Indigo, inquire whether it was their bookstore chain that was putting pressure on Macmillan to deep six this book. Let them and other bookstores know in no uncertain terms what you think of such censorship. Paul Fromm, Director, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION"
Resisting the Jewish totalitarian tyrant, in Israel and Britain.]
Children's author faces Jewish wrath. Tale of boy's life in West Bank prompts pressure groups to call for withdrawal,
by Fiachra Gibbons, The Guardian (UK), August 23, 2003
"Jewish pressure groups are calling on a publisher to withdraw a children's book about a Palestinian boy growing up amid the intifada on the West Bank. A Little Piece of Ground, by the multi-award-winning author Elizabeth Laird, is a fictional account of how a 12-year-old called Karim - whose family's olive groves have been confiscated by settlers - copes when his father is stripped and humiliated by Israeli troops. As the boy is swept up in the protest against the occupation, and his friends make a fake bomb, he dreams of developing an "acid formula to dissolves the steel in Israeli tanks". Macmillan has received three demands for the book to be pulped, and many bookshops are worried about stocking it, lest it provoke further protests from Jewish groups. So far, most of the attacks on Laird have come from North America, led by a chain of Canadian bookshops which made the first "vitriolic" complaint to her publisher. It is understood that others have come from Jewish pressure groups. The New Zealand-born novelist wrote her book after visiting Ramallah as part of a British Council scheme to encourage writing for children. She denies the story is anti-Israeli. "I did expect comeback, but to say that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is doing Israel a disservice. This is an important story that should be told. It shows a child under military occupation. It's terrible for the occupiers, and terrible for the occupied. I hope I have shown how awful it is for the soldiers too," said Laird, who has lived in Beirut and Iraq. "There is already a great deal of understanding of Israel. All western people have felt sympathetic to Israel, for good reason often; and I don't think that should stop. The voice of the Palestinian child, on the other hand, has not been heard" ... Laird, who has won the Children's Book Award, the Smarties Prize and been nominated three times for the Carnegie Medal, claimed A Little Piece of Ground was not meant to explain politics ... Britain's children's laureate, Michael Morpurgo, has defended the novel. "Sometimes we need more than escapism. No one but Elizabeth Laird could have written this book. She has lived in the Middle East. She knows it, loves it, grieves for it, and hopes for it." He urged parents to encourage their 11- to 14-year-olds to buy it. "Read it, and we know what it is to feel oppressed, to feel fear every day. And we should know it, and our children should know it, for this is how much of the world lives," he said. Macmillan refused to discuss where the demands to pull the book had come from ..."

Artist's protest mural is removed,
by Tim Gray, Staten Island Advance (New York), August 26, 2003
"It seems Mayor Michael Bloomberg is such a controversial figure, his image can inflame passions -- and now so has the disappearance of his image. When a controversial mural draped on a building adjacent to Engine Co. 212 in Williamsburg, Brooklyn -- one of six fire companies closed by the Bloomberg administration to save money -- was torn down under the cover of darkness early yesterday morning, it created a firestorm -- as well as another dose of ill will toward the city's administration. Scott LoBaido of St. George, the activist/artist who created the mural -- a 26- by 17-foot banner that depicts the mayor, wearing a Grinch-like grin, shooting a New Yorker wearing an "I love New York" T-shirt -- blamed the mayor yesterday for ordering the artwork removed and blasted him for "tightening the noose on free speech" and making his final march toward "destroying the city." "The man made millions and billions of dollars as a media mogul expressing his First Amendment rights, but when it comes to mine, I'm not good enough," said LoBaido, who claims one of the building's owners gave him permission to hang the protest banner. This is not the first time LoBaido has tangled with the mayor, who he blames for ruining the city with his policies, such as the smoking ban and the closing of firehouses, at the expense of the working class. Earlier this year, LoBaido stood outside City Hall clad in a Superman costume while Bloomberg signed the city's smoking ban into law. He said he chose the Man of Steel outfit because Superman "fights evil." But the mayor's office said Bloomberg -- who is in Israel on a humanitarian visit -- didn't order the unflattering likeness removed. Instead, they said, it was the owner who asked it to be yanked. An amateur video shot yesterday showed two unidentified Hasidic men loading the banner into a car, flanked by two New York City cops. But no one has claimed responsibility for the banner's removal. A man identifying himself as the son of the building owner said he had no idea who ordered it removed."

Cartoonist fired over Israel views,
BY BUSTER SOUTHERLEY, Green Left Weekly, August 27, 2003
"The New Zealand Herald newspaper has sacked its award-winning cartoonist following a censorship row. Malcolm Evans was dismissed after drawing cartoons criticising the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian people, including one that depicts the word apartheid, a Star of David forming the letter A. Geoff Levy of the Auckland Jewish Council claimed that “the apartheid cartoon was offensive to Judaism and members of the Jewish community”. In June, the Herald responded to criticism of the apartheid cartoon in an editorial: “Criticism of Israel is, in the minds of some, criticism of all of Judaism. Yes, there are some for whom that may be the case; people whose views are driven by prejudice. That is not to say, however, that all criticism of the Israeli government's policy in relation to Palestinians is based on such prejudice, far from it. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of those policies, just as Palestinians can be called to account for their unacceptable retribution on innocent Israeli citizens.” Nonetheless, Evans reported that Herald management tried to stop him from drawing any more cartoons about Israel and its policies towards the Palestinians. Evans refused to be censored and was sacked. He denied the charge of anti-Semitism ... He recently won a Qantas media award as New Zealand's Cartoonist of the Year. His cartoons can be viewed at: http://www.www.evanscartoons.com

UAE shuts research centre after Jewish complaints,
gsonweb.com (from Reuters), August 27, 2003
"The United Arab Emirates has closed down a research centre it funded amid accusations by Jewish lobby groups that it was promoting hatred against Jews. A decree issued by UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan on Wednesday announced the closure of the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZICCF) because it had "engaged in a discourse that starkly contradicted the principles of interfaith tolerance." The ZICCF was set up in 1999 and operates under the umbrella of the Cairo-based Arab League. It researches regional political and economic issues, including relations between Arab countries and the West. The decree gave no further details, but the ZICCF has been embroiled in controversy over the past months for hosting Arab and European intellectuals who lectured on Israel and Judaism. Arab newspapers have repeatedly reported on what they called a Zionist campaign against the ZICCF and efforts by U.S and British Jewish groups to close it. Intellectuals in Syria and Egypt have campaigned to support the centre, which media said was closed two weeks ago."

Lawyer sues white advocacy group. Says reputation hurt after being branded enemy of free speech,
by Tony Lofaro, The Ottawa Citizen, September 03, 2003
"An Ottawa lawyer is taking a London, Ont., white supremacist group to court for libel over comments on its Web site. Richard Warman, a lawyer at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is suing The Northern Alliance and its leader after the group's Web site branded Mr. Warman "an enemy of free speech" and "a misguided witch hunter" and associated him with communism. The group, founded in 1997, advertises itself as "an advocacy group devoted to promoting freedom of speech and expression" and to "promoting the advancement of the rights of Canadians of European descent." Mr. Warman said he is taking the group to court because he believes they defamed him and because his reputation as a lawyer is at stake. "The Northern Alliance published material that I considered to be defamatory over the past couple of months," he said. Mr. Warman was awarded $30,000 in June by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for his role in shutting down another Web site he believed was anti-Semitic and contained material that was 'over the line' ... Jason Ouwendyk, a spokes-man for Northern Alliance, said Mr. Warman was branded an enemy of free speech on the Web site because of his past litigious behaviour. "Mr. Warman has engaged in litigious activity where he goes around suing certain Web sites. He works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which in and of itself is a body that has devoted itself partially to restricting free speech," he said. "He's suing us for libel for calling him an enemy of free speech, so in effect, he's trying to censor what we're saying. He's a public figure, he's run for the Green Party and he works in a governmental office."

[The usual circle: a band of Jewish "oligarchs" loot Russia and Ukraine, a Canadian Russian language newspaper reports this, the Jewish Lobby complains and screams "Antisemitism," and -- ho! -- the owner of the offending paper is ALSO Jewish. The Jewish Lobby has the mainstream world in line, but in-house is a little more slippery.]
Russian paper apologizes for ‘anti-Semitic’ article,
By SHELDON KIRSHNER, Canadian Jewish News, September 11, 2003
"A Russian-language weekly newspaper in Toronto has printed an apology to readers who were offended by an article that many condemned as anti-Semitic. In the piece, written from Lvov, Ukrainian academic Valery Serduchenko writes that a “group of the sons of Abraham” has “undressed the country down to the underwear” by privatizing government assets. But Arkadi Turin, editor of Russian Canadian Info, denied the article was offensive. “I don’t think it was anti-Jewish,” said Turin, a 43-year-old professional journalist who immigrated to Canada from Moscow 13 years ago. “It was directed against a very small group of people called the oligarchs, and unfortunately, some of them are Jewish.” Boris Nusenbaum, the Jewish proprietor of Russian Canadian Info, said the article did not offend him. It was an acerbic commentary on wealthy Jewish businessmen in Russia, collectively known as oligarchs, who made vast fortunes after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. “I didn’t feel, as a Jew, an assault from Serduchenko,” said Nusenbaum, whose publication appears in slimmer editions in Montreal and Otta ... The article ... contains passages that could have come from the pages of the notorious anti-Semitic Czarist tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In the opening sentence of his article, Serduchenko writes: “In many troubled times, of which, basically, consists of Russian history, a Jew surfaced.” “All this has caused and continues to cause exasperation in Russian souls,” he observes in the second paragraph. In a direct reference to Jewish oligarchs Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich, Vladimir Gusinsky and others, he states: “Another group of the sons of Abraham arranged a privatization campaign in Russia and undressed the country down to the underwear, and a Jew with an operatic last name of Abramovich became the chief person in Chukotka [a vast region in eastern Russia].” In the third paragraph, he writes: “It is hard even to imagine more Jewish and, alas, less likeable Jews. Generally undereducated, they started to worm themselves into all the crevices of Russian life… “Gusinsky proclaimed himself to be the president of the self-made World Jewish Congress, stuck a kippah on his head and started to show it off on the screens of Russian television.” In a reference to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil magnate whom Forbes magazine has called the richest man in Russia, Serduchenko says, “[He] is a cosmopolitan, a ‘citizen of the world,’ and carries his homeland on the soles of his shoes. Russia, for Khodorkovsky, is a cheap work force, while for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, it is his fate, soul, heart, his… human composition.” Toward the close of the article, Serduchenko notes: “It is not the nationality but the truth that matters, and one of the truths is that there should not be too much or too little Jewish percentage in the genetic substance of any nation. Each time when this percentage becomes too high, the nations become enraged.” As a result, he warned, pogroms are bound to occur. “Jews, be alert!” he warn ... Asked whether the article was anti-Semitic, Igor Korenzvit, a member of The CJN’s editorial advisory board, replied, “Very much so.” He then expressed surprise that it had been printed in a publication whose owner is Jewish and whose staff and readership are primarily Jewish. “I would have expected more sensitivity and sense from them.” Nusenbaum, who also publishes the newspaper Gazeta Plus, conceded that Serduchenko’s foray into genetics could be construed as anti-Semitic. “But the views in this article are not anti-Semitic,” he added. A native of St. Petersburg who said he left Russia to escape anti-Semitism, Nusenbaum, 50, said the oligarchs with Jewish surnames “bring anti-Semitism to Russian and Ukrainian souls ... In a concession to their sensitivities, Russian Canadian Info ran an apology to readers who were offended by the article, as well as letters critical of Serduchenko. Turin said he will no longer accept contributions from him on similar topics. “He’s temperamental and goes over the top.”

[Westin, Eisner, Ross, Schwartz, Wald ... Guess who?]
"There's no proof that Disney honchos ordered David Westin, president of Disney-owned ABC News, to kill a critical report about the entertainment giant. They didn't have to,
by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens, people.vcu.edu (originally from Brill's Content, December 1998/January 1999
"All theme parks are magnets for pedophiles. But our four-month investigation found that Disney's hiring practices actually allowed the employment of convicted pedophiles at its parks and resorts. And law-enforcement sources we talked to say Disney is less willing to cooperate with authorities battling the problem than are other parks. Is Disney placing its youngest and most exploitable customers-your children-at unnecessary risk? Stay tuned for our ace investigative reporter's troubling report. . . . Though this isn't a real promo, this was a real story. But it never ran. It didn't because this was an ABC News story, and since 1996, ABC has been a relatively small, financially struggling division of the mammoth Walt Disney Company. David Westin, president of ABC News, killed the story after a bitter clash with the journalists who had nearly completed work on it-igniting suspicions that the story would have been told, but for Disney's ownership of the network. Especially troublesome is how ABC went about evaluating and killing the story. The whole mess validates the viewing public's worst fears about conglomerate ownership of major news outlets. In this case, an otherwise powerful, prestigious news operation has shown itself incapable of covering-or unwilling to cover-a major cultural and economic force in American life. What, exactly, is Disney's policy on the question of ABC's coverage of the entertainment giant, which had 1997 revenue of $22.5 billion? Just days before the story was killed, Disney chairman Michael Eisner gave the view from the top. In a September 29 interview on National Public Radio's Fresh Air, Eisner said, "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney. think it's inappropriate for Disney to be covered by Disney.... [B]y and large, the way you avoid conflict of interest, is to, as best you can, not cover yourself....We don't have a written policy....ABC News knows that I would prefer them not to cover [Disney]." Eisner did not answer questions posed by Brill's Content concerning the extent to which his sentiments may have guided Westin's decision to kill the story. It is not much of a stretch to conclude that Westin had those words in mind in October when he told ABC News's investigative bulldog, Brian Ross, and Ross's longtime producer, Rhonda Schwartz, that their story would not air. Westin had by then been at the helm of the news division for only four months. Surely anyone so new to a job that requires skillfully managing both up and down would have been mindful of Eisner's remarks. But Ross and Schwartz may have had the words of another ABC News executive in mind when they first proposed the story to Westin and other ABC News bosses in June. A little more than a year ago, Richard Wald, ABC News's senior vice-president for editorial quality, was asked about the potential for a network to censor itself when it comes to producing tough stories on its parent company.

[In America, it's kosher for Jews to assail ANYONE as "anti-semitic" bigots and racists, but they struggle to censor when the same spotlight turns on them. What's really wrong with this picture? It's a little too small.]

Controversial Cleveland murals are protected,
By: DOUGLAS J. GUTH, Cleveland Jewish News, September 20, 2003
"For those offended by murals painted on the outside walls of Brahim "Abe" Ayad's East 55th Street deli, "more speech" might be the only recourse. Ayad, 37, a Palestinian-American who owns Grandpa's Kitchen, has had dozens of controversial images painted on his business establishment over the last few years. Public officials and Jewish Clevelanders say these murals are blatantly offensive and antisemitic. The newest signs, painted over the spring and summer at the deli, include a group of skullcap-wearing Jews counting money at a table while Jesus hangs on a cross above them, and a supposed talmudic endorsement of pedophilia. In the latter, a Jewish priest holds a small boy in his arms. The priest is quoted as saying, "Silly man, this is not my son, he's my wife." Below this is an alleged line from the Talmud. "Like the tear comes to the eye again and again so does ... virginity to a child under 3 years and 1 day." Above this mural is contact information for Cong. Stephanie Tubbs Jones for those seeking reparations from Israel. The congresswoman's image has also unflatteringly appeared on past murals. Ayad was angry she never followed up on a letter she sent him over two years ago, claiming she would help him get back his father's land. Another new sign shows Hitler with the Star of David branded into his upraised and bleeding hand. A larger Star of David superimposed with a swastika is painted to the right of this image. In the past, Ayad's signs have portrayed Jews as monkeys and pigs, and repeated canards such as Jews control the media and Jews were behind the 9/11 terror attacks. The first signs appeared on a car wash Ayad owned at E. 55th and Cedar. The images were painted over after the City Mission bought the building. Ayad, a father of eight who lives in North Olmstead, has said he does not support violence against Jews. The murals, he notes, are a protest against "evil-doing Zionists" who, among other offenses, he claims, took away his Palestinian father's land to make way for the state of Israel. "The Constitution states the guy has a right to be as obnoxious as he wants," says Jonathan Entin, professor of constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University. Even if the signs are perceived as hateful, it's difficult to make "a valid, legal claim" that someone is defaming a particular group. In a landmark case in Minnesota (RAV vs. St. Paul-1992), the U.S. Supreme Court declared a city hate speech code unconstitutional. The state's law, according to the court, was "viewpoint based" and "overbroad," prohibiting speech that was constitutionally protected, Entin explains. Put simply, "the government cannot choose sides," says the professor. Ayad's signs could be taken down only if they led to an unusually dangerous situation. Further, "If we suppress bad speech, people might be deterred from using 'good' speech," says Entin. Clevelanders have rallied against the murals over the last few years. Last fall, a billboard stating, "The Hate Stops Here," was erected as part of a campaign begun by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) ... Ayad says the ADL and Cleveland City Hall, among others, have been trying to shut him down for eight years."

[The Jewish Thought Police seeks to disband the innate democracy of ideas in the Internet to narrow search results to think "like they would."]
Wanted: a search engine that feels our pain. Industry seeks a savvy, more-human way to take Internet users where they're looking to go,
By STEPHANIE EARLS, Times Union, September 25, 2003
"The 1968 movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" introduced us to the HAL 9000, a self-actualized supercomputer that spoke in dulcet tones, empathizing with its beleaguered crew while piloting them through space (and, ultimately, plotting to kill them -- but that's another story) ... "We want it to be people, not just a machine," said Shelly Shapiro, director of the Holocaust Survivors & Friends Education Center in Latham. But a machine it was, in 1995, when Shapiro held a teacher's seminar in which she instructed her charges to type the word Holocaust into computer search engines. A top response that emerged on sites was a report by a notorious Holocaust revisionist, claiming the Holocaust never occurred. Sharpiro was horrified. "You could type in the word Auschwitz, and up came pages about there being a debate on whether or not it happened," she said. "Students don't want to go to the library anymore, they want to go to the computer and have it act like a librarian. But a librarian wouldn't put a book about white supremacy on the bookshelves, presenting it like it's an argument." Shapiro wanted the computer to think like she would. She was told -- by AltaVista, for one -- that responses were just math, but, she said, "we decided to find a way to help the search engines do their job." In the end, Shapiro found empathy at LookSmart, where Ontology Manager Alice Swanberg in February agreed to "properly categorize" the Holocaust denial sites ... In the meantime, honing our genuine intelligence (and computer literacy) may be the best way to get the Internet to respond in kind, said University at Albany network services librarian and Webmaster Laura Cohen. Learning to ask the right questions, when it comes to search engines, is a start. "Search tools have become very humanized in the past years."

[Jewish efforts -- sometimes by proxy -- to mold history to their convenience is omnipresent, everywhere. The "Holocaust" DOES make "for odd behavior among Jews and non-Jews."]
France withdraws textbook over content offensive to Jews,
Haaretz (Isael), September 26, 2003
"A book for religion studies teachers in French public schools has been withdrawn from sale because of disputed statements it made about Jews and the Holocaust, education officials said on Friday. The Education Ministry's publishing section stopped sales of the new book for public school teachers after hearing criticism that some passages could be offensive to Jews, said the officials who asked not to be identified. According to the daily Liberation, one passage compared the fate of the Jewish people to the death of Jesus Christ. Another section said some Jews had paranoid reactions to theHolocaust while non-Jews felt overly guilty. "The part about Judaism could cause controversy," said one official, without giving details. "There were some critical remarks made, but not by the Jewish community." The new book was the first in a background series for teachers of religious studies, a subject taken up in recent years because widespread ignorance about France's religious heritage meant pupils no longer understood some of its culture. French public schools have traditionally been hostile to any mention of religion, arguing they must be strictly neutral, but the growing ignorance of the country's heritage and the growing number of Muslim pupils in schools have challenged this stand. According to Liberation, one passage in the book spoke of "the Jewish people, who have only very distant and politically very suspect links with real Judaism". Another passage said the Holocaust had prompted "very odd behaviour among Jews and non-Jews, making both very sensitive to any possible resurgence of anti-Semitism. This amounts to an almost paranoid tendency on the one side and often unhealthy guilt feelings on the other."

Who Is Ernst Zundel And Why Is He In Jail?,
By Mark Weber, rense.com, September 26, 2003
"For more than six months now, Ernst Zundel has been held without charge in solitary confinement in Canada on the pretext that he a threat to national security. In fact, this 64-year-old German-born writer, publisher and civil rights activist is a political prisoner and a victim of great injustice. Who is this man, and why is his case important? Zundel was arrested at his home in Tennessee on Feb. 5, where he had been living peacefully with his wife, Ingrid Rimland, on the pretext that he missed an interview date with immigration authorities. Two weeks later he was deported to Canada, even though his wife is an American citizen. Claiming that he is a national security threat, Canadian authorities have been holding Zundel since Feb. 19. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) - something like the American FBI - supports this charge by citing tenuous and years-old ties by Zundel to "white supremacist" groups. While acknowledging that he is not violent himself, CSIS also argues that material published by Zundel might cause "like-minded individuals to engage in violence." There is absolutely no basis for the "security threat" charge. Zundel's life is an open book. He is a peaceful man with no record of violence. During the 40 years he lived in Canada, he was never convicted of a crime. In fact, he has himself been a victim of hate and violence. He survived at least three attempts on his life, including a devastating arson attack against his residence. Jewish groups are demanding that Zundel be deported to Germany, where he faces years of imprisonment for the "thought crime" of "denying the Holocaust." ("Holocaust denial" is against the law in Germany, France, Switzerland and some other European countries.) Zundel is in prison not because his views are unpopular, or because he's a "security risk." He's in prison because Jewish groups want him there. He's a prisoner because he promotes views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests. This lobby is the decisive, critical factor in the decades-old campaign to silence him. The only sustained and institutionalized effort to imprison him has come from this lobby, which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith (with the Anti-Defamation League, its counterpart in the US). A few prominent Canadians have been speaking out against the unjust treatment of Ernst Zundel. One such person is Bill Dunphy, a veteran investigative journalist and editor for the daily Hamilton Spectator. He spent six years probing Canada's "white supremacist" movement, and got to know Zundel personally. Although he has no sympathy for Zundel's views, in a hard-hitting column (Hamilton Spectator, May 14) he told readers: "Our government has seized and branded Ernst Zundel, stripped him of his human rights, tried him in secret and found him wanting, and will now hand him over to a foreign government anxious to throw him in jai ... I know this man, his local and international contacts and I know this movement. And after reading the 58-page 'unclassified, summary of the government's case, I can assure you there is no justice here. Their 'evidence' is riddled with errors and misinformation, hearsay and inflammatory innuendo. Dead men walk again, and the shattered bits of shoddy secret networks long since collapsed under the weight of their own ineptitude are made whole and menacing once again. It is a shameful piece of dishonest, unreliable tripe." The trendy Toronto weekly Eye pointed out in an editorial (May 15) that "declaring Zundel a terrorist now is not the result of any startling new information," but rather 'it has to do with political pressure' ..." The paper added: "The new security certificate admits Zundel has 'virtually no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence.' It labels him a terrorist partly because he 'seeks to destroy the multicultural fabric and underpinnings of Canadian society.' Citing opposition to official multiculturalism as a type of terrorism risks expanding the war on terror to include everyone to the right of Pierre Trudeau."

[Jewish or not (some in Internet Land deem him Jewish by virtue of an alleged matrilineal Jewish geneology), Rupert Murdoch is a well-known for his ardent pro-Israelism.]
Media Censorship That Doesn't Speak Its Name,
by John Pilger, Focal Point Publications (from the New Statestman -UK)), September 26, 2003
"Reducing journalism to a branch of corporate and government public relations is the hidden agenda of the media deregulators, in Britain and America. The Australian novelist Richard Flanagan was recently asked by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to read a favourite piece of fiction on national radio and explain his reasons for the choice. "I was unsure what fiction to read to you this morning," he said. "If we take the work of our most successful spinner of fictions in recent times, [Prime Minister] John Howard, I could have read from the varied and splendid tall tales he and his fellow storytellers have concocted..." He listed Howard's most famous fictions: that desperate refugees trying to reach Australia had wilfully thrown their children overboard, and that faraway Australia was endangered by Iraq's "weapons of hysterical distraction", as he put it. He followed this with Molly Bloom's soliloquy from Joyce's Ulysses, "because in our time of lies and hate it seems appropriate to be reminded of the beauty of saying yes to the chaos of truth..." This was duly recorded; but when the programme was broadcast, the entire preface about Howard was missing. Flanagan accused the ABC of rank censorship. No, was the response; they just didn't want "anything political". This was followed, he wrote, by "a moment of high comedy: would I, the producer asked, be interested in coming on a programme to discuss disillusionment in contemporary Australia?" In a society that once prided itself on its laconic sense of irony, there was not a hint of it, just a managerial silence. "All around me," Flanagan later wrote, "I see avenues for expression closing, an odd collusion of an ever-more cowed media and the way in which the powerful seek to dictate what is and what isn't read and heard." HE may well be speaking for the rest of us. The censorship in Australia that he describes is especially virulent because Australia is a small media pond inhabited by large sharks: a microcosm of what the British might expect if the current assault on free journalism is not challenged. The leader of this assault is, of course, Rupert Murdoch, whose dominance in the land of his birth is now symptomatic of his worldwide grip. Of 12 daily newspapers in the capital cities, Murdoch controls seven. Of the ten Sunday newspapers, Murdoch has seven. In Adelaide, he has a complete monopoly. He owns everything, including all the printing presses. It is almost impossible to escape his augmented team of Pravdas. Like all his newspapers, they follow the path paved with his "interests" and his extremism. They echo Murdoch's description of Bush and Blair as "heroes" of the Iraq invasion, and his dismissal of the blood they spilt. For good measure, his tabloid the Herald Sun invented an al-Qaeda terrorist training camp near Melbourne; and all his papers promote John Howard's parrot-like obsequiousness to Bush, just as they laud Howard's racist campaign against a few thousand asylum-seekers who are locked away in outback concentration camps."

Telephone Bomb Threat Follows Campus Debate,
By JAKOB SCHILLER, Berkeley Daily Planet, October 7, 2003
"Berkeley Police officers escorted Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew, into her organization’s South Berkeley office Monday afternoon, three days after a voicemail threat warning her to stay away from her office at 2 p.m. Monday or risk losing her life. Weir was one of four panelists who spoke during a debate Thursday on the UC Berkeley campus where participants presented contrasting views of the Israeli/Palestinean crisis—with Weir as a representative of the Palestinian perspective. She said If Americans Knew was created to inform and educate the American public about issues she says are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media. The anonymous caller claimed to have attended the campus debate and expressed outrage at Weir, who he claimed was helping to “destroy Israel.” The voice on the message—which she replayed for reporters—sounded young, American, and intense, with long heavy breaths in between words. “Hi. I heard your speech today in UC Berkeley; the debate. And I’m telling you this right now. On Monday, at 2 p.m., you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you sons-of-bitches for what you are doing to destroy Israel. So watch out, this is not a joke. On Monday you better watch out. Don’t come to work. And close your organization or you’re going to die,” the message said. After contacting the Berkeley Police and the FBI, Weir asked all other employees to stay home, but she decided to show up herself to demonstrate that she was not intimidated. “I’m not going to be silenced,” Weir said. Several supporters, including UC Dean of Students Karen Kenney—moderator of the UC debate—and Kriss Worthington from the Berkeley City Council, came to join her at the group’s second floor Adeline Street offices for the designated time. “This is the bullying action of cowards,” Weir said. “I think it represents that fanaticism with which people defend Israel. It also shows how weak their cause is in a public debate.” The debate was the result of a challenge from a San Francisco State student who had asked Weir to defend her claims against pro-Israel speakers. Weir agreed, and sat on the pro-Palestinian side with Hatem Bazian, a lecturer in UC Berkeley’s Near Eastern Studies Department. David Meir-Levi, head of the Israel Peace Institute and Eric Sirkin, a Palo Alto technology firm executive, spoke for the Israeli position ... Weir attributes the threat to the pro-Israel side’s frustration over the debate, which she says they lost. “Since they didn’t win the debate, they thought they would just kill us,” said Weir. She said there is a history of threats against pro-Palestinean activists from groups like the Jewish Defense League (JDL), whose chairman was indicted Jan. 10 on charges of conspiring to bomb the office of Congressman Daryl Issa. The group was also investigated for the 1985 murder of the West Coast Regional Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)."

Anti-Israel exhibit opens with government support,
By JANICE ARNOLD, Canadian Jewish News, October 9, 2003
"The Quebec-Israel Committee (QIC) is angry over a government-funded exhibit called “Artists Against the Occupation,” an international project launched by a Japanese artist who believes Israel is to blame for the Mideast conflict. The exhibit opens Sept. 25 at the MAI (Montreal Arts Interculturels) cultural centre by the City of Montreal with $8,000 in funding from the Canada Council for the Arts. It runs until Nov. 1 as the launching event of the MAI’s 2003-2004 season. QIC interim executive director Sara Saber-Freedman said the QIC is concerned the government is supporting the exhibition and said it intends to “intervene” with those funding bodies. “In investing public dollars, I think the funders are obliged to look for some kind of balance. “We hope members of the community will write to the government agencies involved and make them aware of their outrage.” MAI was created with major support from the city in 1999. It is now described as an independent, non-profit institution, but its building on Jeanne Mance Street is owned by the city and the centre is funded by three levels of government. “Artists Against the Occupation” displays works that address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a variety of media by 33 artists, mostly from Quebec. The curators are Freda Guttman, an installation artist and member of the Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation and the International Solidarity Movement, and Beirut-born artist Rawi Hage. Saber-Freedman said the exhibit is “very clearly one-sided… We are obviously offended by the lack of balance. One would like to hope that there are artists also concerned with terrorism and the murder of innocent Jews.” “Artists Against the Occupation” was launched by Mizuko Yakuwa in 2001 in Tokyo with her solo exhibit “Palestine, Palestine.”

[So now we have Jewish efforts to censor art and dictate its meaning. If international Jewry can take seriously a prospective boycott of Greece, isn't it time we all threaten -- in an echo response -- a boycott of world Jewry?]
Jewish group slams Greek exhibit that glorifies female suicide bomber,
By Jean Cohen, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Oct. 9, 2003
"A Jewish group is threatening to call for a boycott of the 2004 Olympics if an art exhibition that allegedly glorifies Palestinian suicide bombings is allowed to proceed in Athens. An embroidery montage in an exhibit called “Body Milk,” scheduled to open Oct. 20, shows a pregnant woman pushing a cart down a supermarket aisle. Next to her are knitted women’s vests with multiple outside pockets, similar to those worn by Palestinian suicide bombers. The image of tranquility and peace ends in the second part of the montage: A blown-up supermarket is shown, with shelves, products and human body parts jumbled together. “Body Milk” was created by Alexandros Psychoulis, an architecture professor at the University of Thessaly who is well-known in Greek modern-art circles. Psychoulis says the exhibit is not intended to be political. “I personally feel that the experiment of Israel has failed, and I understand the desperation of a girl who carries out a suicide bombing having nothing to lose,” he explained to Ta Nea, Greece’s largest daily newspaper. “But politics does not essentially concern me in this specific work.” “What interests me is the relation between the woman and the supermarket, either during turbulent times or good times,” he said ... But the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris expressed horror at the exhibit ... [T]he Center’s director for international liaison, Shimon Samuels, wrote to Greek Prime Minister Kostas Simitis. Samuels said that the center would call on Jews around the world to boycott the Olympic games in Greece if the show is allowed to open. The exhibit would fan “the anti-Semitic campaign currently underway in the Greek media,” wrote Samuels, demanding that Simitis “take immediate measures to abort this obscenity.”

[Begging forgiveness from the Jewish screenwriter (Simon) below can't help. Easterbrook is already fired (for noticing Jews) from a job he had at ESPN. Easterbrook should realize that once he tells the truth, he's permanently screwed. SO TELL MORE TRUTH when -- once he's fired from New Republc too -- there's nothing to lose.]
GREGG EASTERBROOK AND ME,
Roger L. Simon
"I just got off the phone with Gregg Easterbrook who emailed me that he wanted to talk. He is a warm and cordial man. He honestly solicited what I thought he should have done but I could offer him little advice. I have enough trouble deciding what I should do, but I did point out that in this world that has gone radioactive on what the Stalinists used to call “The Jewish Question”—from the appalling UN Conference on “Human Rights” in Durban to yesterday’s rehash of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” for the entire Moslem world by the Prime Minister of Malaysia—it is incumbent on all of us to be especially alert on issues of anti-Semitism. The results of such talk have been devastating in the past and can be again. But Easterbrook also informed me of something else that is highly disturbing. He has been fired from his job at ESPN. Gregg takes full responsibility for this (he wrote the original words that he regrets), but I, as one of his harshest critics, believe that ESPN has vastly overreacted. I urge them to reconsider their decision. I don’t think anybody who attacked Easterbrook wanted to see him fired. I certainly didn’t. To the degree that I am even remotely responsible for this I humbly apologize. I can only say this is another example of what we all know—words have consequences."

''If this is press freedom, who needs repression?'',
By Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi, Yellow Times, October 22, 2003
"If you think Israel and the U.S. respect press freedom and are shining examples to the Arab world, Reporters Without Borders' "World Press Freedom Ranking" for 2003, released October 20, might cause you to think again. The journalism advocacy group has "singled out" the two countries "for actions beyond their borders." As such, their rankings distinguish between their behavior at home and abroad. Among 166 countries, the U.S. is ranked 31st for domestic freedom of expression, but plummets to 135 regarding behavior beyond its borders, likewise with Israel, which is ranked 44th and an appalling 146th respectively. "The Israeli army's repeated abuses against journalists in the occupied territories and the U.S. army's responsibility in the death of several reporters during the war in Iraq constitute unacceptable behavior by two nations that never stop stressing their commitment to freedom of expression," said Reporters Without Borders. The organization -- which compiled its rankings by asking journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists to fill out a questionnaire evaluating respect for press freedom in a particular country -- ranked U.S. behavior towards the media in Iraq below that of Iraq itself, as well as below 13 other Arab countries. Israel's respect for press freedom in the occupied Palestinian territories is worse than that of all but 5 Arab countries (Tunisia, Oman, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia). These rankings are particularly grim considering that the Arab world is unfortunately not exactly a torch-bearer of press freedom -- Comoros, which led the way this year, was ranked 79th, followed by Kuwait at 102. In the introduction to its 2003 Annual Report, Reporters Without Borders stated: "In the Palestinian Territories, the Israeli army used excessive and undue force against journalists. Three journalists -- an Italian and two Palestinians -- were killed while doing their job, to all appearances by the Israeli army. The army's attitude, deliberate administrative delays and fierce attacks by Israeli officials on the international media were all part of a strategy of harassing journalists, Palestinian or foreign … Israel had the record for journalists arrested, including more than a score of Palestinians." The organization added that Israel, among other countries, "abused" its state of emergency "to arrest journalists and ban newspapers." Further extracts from the 2003 Annual Report concerning Israel, including restrictions on its own media, "pressure and obstruction" in the occupied territories, and details of journalists being killed, wounded, imprisoned and arrested, can be read by clicking here.

[Criticizing Jews is UNACCEPTABLE. We need to open up democracy a little more and make criticizing Jewish power and influence FORBIDDEN.]
Jewish Groups Want Stronger Reaction to Malaysian PM's Comments,
by Julie Stahl, Crosswalk (from CNSNews.com)
"Jewish groups, outraged at comments made by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, want to see the international community take a stronger stand against the blatant anti-Semitism. Speaking in Malaysia last week, Mahathir told a gathering of Muslim leaders that Jews "rule this world by proxy" and that Muslims should be able to "stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter-attack" in order to defeat the Jews. Mahathir, who is due to retire after 22 years in power at the end of this month, received a standing ovation from the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The United States, along with Britain, Italy, Spain and Germany, was among a handful of countries that strongly opposed the speech. But Jewish organizations say the world community needs to confront the issue more strongly. "It's a very clear reflection of the distorted world view of the Islamic world," said Dr. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Jerusalem. In a "microcosm," it explains why there is Islamic fundamentalism, terror directed against the West and no peace agreement in the Middle East, Zuroff said in a telephone interview. "It is not only his (Mahathir's) view. It is shared in all the Arab capitals and by all the Arab leaders [with the exception of Turkey and few others]," Zuroff said. "The world is mired in anti-Semitism...The problem has to be dealt with in an extensive way. The comments have to be denounced [as] simply unacceptable parlance," he added. Zuroff said that such statements should cause the world to "lift the red flag" and tell Mahathir he is out of the "game" in the international community. The fact that he was cheered is "simply outrageous," Zuroff said. "His anti-Semitism is classic and needs to be repudiated from the highest levels," said Laura Kam-Issacharoff, director of the Jerusalem office of the Anti-Defamation League. "His words amount to a call for global war against the Jews by the Muslims. It's an outrageous affront to society," Kam-Issacharoff said. Although Mahathir has made outrageous statements in the past, Kam-Issacharoff said, the fact that he could come out in such a forum and spew anti-Semitism was "very out of the ordinary." According to Kam-Issacharoff, not only did Mahathir receive a standing ovation, but not one country of the 57 represented at the summit walked out or said anything against the speech. She said the ADL was thankful for the Western countries that came out against the comments but said that other countries need to do so as well. Avner Shalev, Chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and education center in Jerusalem, wrote to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, urging him to denounce Mahathir's statement and demand that the Malaysian prime minister retract his words and call on leaders of the other countries at the OIC to disown the statements. Shalev asked Annan to encourage OIC countries and others to educate their populations against hatred and stereotypes and offered Yad Vashem's assistance in doing so ... One source, who did not want to be named, said that the entire Jewish community was taking Mahathir's comments very seriously and was trying to think of ways to deal with it. Since making his original comments, Mahathir has refused to apologize and has continued to defend his viewpoint. On Tuesday, a correspondent from the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz asked Mahathir at a press conference in Bangkok if he would consider visiting Israel. "I would [visit Israel] after the Jewish leadership would go to Muslim countries and explain why they call Muslims terrorists," Mahathir replied. "That would be fair. Then I will go to Tel Aviv and explain why I said what I said," he added. Asked to explain his earlier speech, Mahathir said, "My speech was very clear. I said that the Jews have all the world behind them -- and that's why they can defy the United Nations.""

[The usual disgusting Jewish double standard: Jewish lobbying groups have succeeded in making it illegal to boycott racist Israel in America. What will rank-and-file Malyasians think about Jews now?]
Jewish group calls for boycott of investment in Malaysia,
New Straits Times (Malaysia), Oct 22, 2003
"A leading US-based Jewish lobby group has condemned Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad as a “serial anti-Semite” and called for a boycott of tourism and investment in Malaysia. The influential Simon Wiesenthal Centre launched a scathing counterattack on the outgoing Prime Minister after he branded Jews "arrogant" and accused them of controlling the world by proxy. The centre called on investors and tourists to avoid Malaysia until it became clear that the leaders who will follow him after he retires do not share his views. "It cannot be business as usual as long as the head of Malaysia continues to validate the ugly racist hate of anti-Semitism that invites antiJewish hate crimes and terrorism," said the centre's Rabbi Abraham Cooper. "Dr Mahathir's serial anti-Semitism has now moved the most virulent anti-Semitic stereotypes into the mainstream of the body-politik of the Islamic and Asian communities," he added. But Dr Mahathir stepped up his attacks on Jews in an interview on the fringes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit on Tuesday. "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy," he said at last week's summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Malaysia. "The reaction of the world shows that they (Jews) do control the world," Dr Mahathir said in an interview published in the Bangkok Post. Cooper also accused the world community, with the exception of the United States, of meeting Dr Mahathir's remarks with "silent indifference and in the case of the recent OIC Summit, standing ovation".

Jewish lobbying polite, says Carr,
The Australian, October 23, 2003
"NSW Premier Bob Carr today said lobbying by the Jewish community for him to withdraw from presenting a peace prize to a Palestinian advocate had been polite and reasonable. Mr Carr will present the Sydney Peace Prize, awarded by Sydney University, to Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi at a dinner on November 6. The premier today told Sydney radio station 2UE that members of the Jewish community had approached him and asked him not to award the prize to Dr Ashrawi, who has been an outspoken critic of Israeli government policy. "There has been lobbying," Mr Carr said. "It's been polite. It's been reasonable. "But I have got a lot of friends in the Jewish community who have said (to the lobbyists): `Hang on, don't attack Bob, over this. He's been a long time supporter of the Israeli cause'." Yesterday, Sydney Lord Mayor Lucy Turnbull announced she would not attend the ceremony in an official capacity, despite the council being main sponsor of the event, because of Dr Ashrawi's criticisms of the Israeli government. Mr Carr today said he was disappointed Ms Turnbull planned to boycott the ceremony honouring Dr Ashrawi ... NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden and Vaucluse MP Peter Debnam, whose electorate has a large number of Jewish voters, have called on Mr Carr not to present the award."

[Here it is: the smoking gun. Israel is proven to be America's enemy. It's just that Israel and the Jewish Lobby own the White House and has commandeered our political system.]
Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), October 22, 2003 09:59 PM EDT
"A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident. In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Boston was senior legal counsel to the Navy's original 1967 review of the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for years because he's a military man, and "when orders come ... I follow them." He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded the attack was unintentional. The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War. In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded. Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States. After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it was an accident. It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins. "Why in the world would our government put Israel's interest ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack. Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate ... Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned. David Lewis of Lemington, Vt., was on the Liberty when it was attacked. In an interview, he said Israel had to know it was targeting an American ship. He said a U.S. flag was flying that day and Israel shot it full of holes. The sailors on the ship, he said, quickly hoisted another American flag, a much bigger one, to show Israel it was a U.S. vessel. "No trained individual could be that inept," said Lewis of the Israeli forces. In Capt. Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Later in a phone interview from his home in Coronado, Calif., Boston said Johnson may have worried the inquiry would hurt him politically with Jewish voters. Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war."

A Dull and Largely Uncritical Recitation of Official Sources,
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, October 24, 2003
"The New York Times reported yesterday that a Columbia University history professor hired by the paper to make an independent assessment of the coverage of one of its correspondents in the Soviet Union during the 1930s said that the Pulitzer Prize the reporter received should be rescinded because of his "lack of balance" in covering Stalin's government. The Times had asked the professor, Mark von Hagen, to examine the coverage of the correspondent, Walter Duranty, specifically for his "failure to report on a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933." According to the Times, Professor von Hagen described the coverage for which Mr. Duranty won the Pulitzer -- his writing in 1931, a year before the onset of the famine -- as a "dull and largely uncritical recitation of Soviet sources." Well, if the standard is "dull and largely uncritical recitation of" official sources, then maybe the Times should just close up shop. Let's take one example: the 1967 Israeli military attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American crew members. Both the government of Israel and the government of the United States continue to claim that the Israeli bombardment of the U.S. ship was a "tragic mistake." There was a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday where former high-ranking U.S. government officials released a report that found that Israel "committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States" when it deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. Why would Israel want to deliberately sink a U.S. ship? One reason put forth by the Commission: Sink the ship, and blame Egypt -- with the hope of drawing the United States into the 1967 war. In addition, the chief attorney to the original 1967 Navy Court of Inquiry said in a sworn affidavit that then-President Johnson and then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered the Court of Inquiry to cover up the attack by presenting it as a mistake. Admiral Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed the independent commission of inquiry that released the report yesterday. "The men of the USS Liberty were representing the U.S. They were attacked for over two hours by Israeli Air Force and Navy units with 70 percent American casualties and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship," Moorer said. "These sailors and marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense. The findings of this commission are irrefutable. Every other attack on a ship in our history has been investigated by our Congress except this one." "Nor has Congress ever investigated the recall by the White House of U.S. Navy aircraft sent to rescue the Liberty while the ship was still under attack." Moorer called the Johnson White House's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty "the most disgraceful thing I have witnessed in my entire military career." The major newspapers, including the New York Times, did not mention Moorer or his report. Typical of the Times' reporting on this issue is its most recent entry July 10, 2003, when it ran an AP story reporting that "newly declassified transcripts back up Israel's claim that its attack on an American spy ship during the 1967 Middle East war was an accident." The AP dispatch quotes a Florida Judge, A. Jay Cristol. It was Mr. Cristol's work that led the Navy attorney of the official inquiry to go public after almost four decades of silence. In his sworn affidavit, Captain Ward Boston, Counsel to the original 1967 U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, says the attack was deliberate but that the Court was ordered to cover it up by the Johnson White House. "For more than 30 years I have remained silent on the topic of the USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them," Boston said. Boston said that Cristol's book forced him out of the closet. The book, The Liberty Incident, "twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack. Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors." On the issue of the USS Liberty, it can be said that the New York Times' reporting has been a "dull and largely uncritical recitation of" official sources. They'll win no Pulitzer on this one -- so they won't have to give it back."

Columnist Fired Over Anti-Jewish Remarks,
1010 Wins, Oct 23, 2003
"Cable sports network ESPN has fired Gregg Easterbook as a freelance contributor to its Web site. Easterbook was canned after he wrote that the producers of the movie "Kill Bill" were -- in his words "Jewish executives" who "worship money above all else." Easterbrook apologized for the remarks last week, as has The New Republic magazine, which posted Easterbrook's comments in an online column on its Web site. In a statement, the sports network said Easterbrook had made comments "that were highly offensive and intolerable." Easterbrook apologized for the remark last week and said he was guilty of "mangling words." In his last ESPN column, Easterbrook was critical of "Kill Bill" and its director, Quentin Tarantino, saying they glorified violence. He criticized the studio that released the film, Miramax, and its parent, Walt Disney Co., saying it was "wallowing in gore" for profit. He noted that Disney and Miramax are both run by Jewish executives, Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein, respectively. "Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence," Easterbrook wrote in the column. "Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?"

Prize for suicide bomb poem,
by Lindy Markson / Nathan Jeffay, Jewish Chronicle, (UK, paper copy), July 11, 2003, p. 3
"A poetry competition judged by both the Glasgow and Edinburgh poet laureates, has been condemned by communal leaders for awarding first prize to a piece glorifying a female suicide bomber. 'Daughter of Ishmael,' Marion McCready's poem, won the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama's Edwin Morgan prize, named after the Glasgow poet laureate and worth 300 pounds. She wrote: 'Metal confetti, shrapnel, body, hair. Daughter of Ishmael shower this land. An eye for an eye.' The theme of the competition was 'revenge,' and the poem was published last week in the Herald newspaper to marke its winning the competition. 'It is disgraceful,' said Ephraim Borowski, direcor of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. The Glasgow Jewish Representative Council said it would launch an official complaint with competition organisers and Professor Morgan."

Homepage hatred,
by Gaby Wine, Jewish Chronicle (UK, paper copy), August 22, 2003, p. 3
"A top university has refused to remove links from its website to articles which equate Zionism with Nazism and suggest Israel as behind the 9/11 attacks. The homepage of Birmingham University mathematics lecturer, Dr. N. M. Queen, part of the university's website, contains links to a web site called 'American State Terrorism.' This includes articles entitled 'The dark secret of Jewish power is out' and 'Jewish plutocracy, Jewish power' ... Union of Jewish Students campaigns organiser Danny Stone has urged the university to remove the material and for Birmingham to rethink its website policy ... However, in a letter to Mr. Stone, Jane Usherwood, director of the university's personnel services, said that the university took no responsibility for the material on the website or the links ... In a separate incident, the Anglican chaplaincy at Bangor University has received complaints about its website, which contains strong pro-Palestinian views. Shimon Shamila of right-wing Zionist movement, Betar-Tagar, is spearheading a campaign to remove material, claming 'it is very one-sided.'"

Criticizing Zionism. It Is Forbidden to Say Such Things,
By KURT NIMMO, CounterPunch, October 23, 2003
"It's okay to call Muslims worshippers of Satan. That's essentially what far right Armageddon happy Lt. Gen. Boykin -- newly appointed deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence -- did recently. It seems to be okay with Rumsfeld, Boykin's boss. It's more than okay for the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other Islam-hating Christian-Zionists. For them, denigrating Muslims is an industry. "That's the way we live," Rummy told reporters Thursday during a Pentagon news briefing. "We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country. And I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong... Saddam Hussein could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like." Of course, it depends who you criticize. Remarks of Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad aside, there is a campaign to portray criticism of Zionist state violence against essentially defenseless Palestinians as creeping anti-Semitism. "Liberals and leftists, traditional champions of the underdog, engage en masse in a form of fashionable, politically correct anti-Semitism by condemning Israel's 'racist,' 'apartheid,' 'Nazi' regime, portraying the tiny Jewish state (with 0.1 percent of the Mideast land mass) as the brutal aggressor Goliath, while casting the Arab world (with 99.9 percent of the land, and all of the oil) as David," writes Whistleblower Magazine. Never mind that it's true -- Israel is a racist state. Can you imagine the outcry if Americans passed a law denying citizenship to people of African descent who marry US citizens? The Israeli Knesset passed just such a law July 31, forcing Palestinians who marry Israelis to live "separate and unequal" lives from their spouses. "This law comes to address a security issue," Gideon Ezra, an Israeli cabinet minister, declared. "Since September 2000 we have seen a significant connection, in terror attacks, between Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs." Get the connection here? Arabs are a "security issue," they are terrorists -- all of them, from the Hamas suicide bomber to the Israeli Arab grocer. In fact, the state of Israel is predicated on racism and religious exclusivity. Consider Israel's 1950 law of return, which allows any person "born to a Jewish mother," or one "who converts to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion," to immigrate to Israel. "The fourth basic law is Israel's status law, which gives Israel's citizens with 'Jewish nationality' certain rights and privileges which are denied to Israel's citizens with 'Arab nationality,'" writes Shaw J. Dallal. "Chief among these rights is the ownership or use of the very land which was expropriated from the Palestinians." But it's not simply Arabs who are discriminated against in Israel, but all Gentiles. "I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to collapse in his Jerusalem neighborhood," wrote Israel Shahak, a Hebrew University professor. The Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem ruled that the man had acted properly. "We need to recognize that in Israel the real issue is discrimination not only against the Palestinians (including those who serve in the Israeli army, police and [the Israeli counter-intelligence and internal security service] Shabak), but against all non-Jews. This discrimination has the same character as that which the anti-Semites want to apply against the Jews," wrote Shahak. "Until the beginning of the Jewish Enlightenment all Jews firmly believed that non-Jews should be discriminated against whenever possible. It now turns out that the Jewish Enlightenment failed to change the attitudes of all, or perhaps even of most, Jews in this respect. Many completely irreligious Jews still believe that for the sake of the Jewish tradition which commanded discrimination against non-Jews, the latter should be discriminated against in the 'Jewish state' forever." It's forbidden to say such things. Simply pointing out the reality of state-sanctioned Israeli racism against non-Jews is considered anti-Semitic ... "Are we not allowed to criticize the Jews if they do things which are wrong?" Mahathir Mohamad asked after he was accused of anti-Semitism. "If Muslims can be accused of being terrorists, then others can accuse the Jews of being terrorists also." Not in America, Mahathir. Ahmed Yousef and Betty Molchany: "For more than 50 years, Americans have been taught to hate through Hollywood, television, the radio, and print media. Throughout these years, more than 800 movies have depicted Arabs and Muslims unfavorably, with no positive attributes. Many television programs, such as Law and Order and The West Wing, also present negative portrayals of Arabs and Muslims. It has been an unrelenting campaign of defamation and instigation prompted and inflamed by right-wing Zionists and extremist Christian coalitions which are unconditionally allied with Israel -- no matter what crimes she commits, no matter how many UN resolutions she violates, no matter her illegal occupation of other countries, no matter her possession and use of weapons of mass destruction. The objective of both the Christian and Jewish Zionists is not only to remove all Arabs, Christian as well as Muslim, from Palestine, but also to allow Israel to control the neighboring countries. To accomplish this, these political Zionists are determined to remove the voice of Muslims in the United States and with it any support for Palestinians and neighboring Arabs. Political Zionist organizations, such as the Project for a New American Century, create unjustified fear of countries, such as Iraq, which are predominantly Muslim and push for pre-emptive attacks, assassinations, war, and domination." It's forbidden to say such things... even if they're true."

[Go gutsy Malaysians! Where can I get a Malaysian flag?]
Don't allow Jews to blackmail us, says Mahathir,
By DEVID RAJAH SUBANG, The Star Online (Malaysia), October 26, 2003
"Malaysians should not allow themselves to be blackmailed by calls by a Jewish group for a boycott of foreign investments into the country, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He said although the country would be affected “a little” economically by such a move, Malaysia and Malaysians should stand up for the truth. “The question is, do we allow ourselves to be blackmailed or do we stand up for what is right, and I don’t think we should allow ourselves to be blackmailed by them,” he said yesterday after arriving from Papua New Guinea at the RMAF base here. The influential US-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish lobby group, has called for a boycott of investments and tourism in Malaysia over what it described as Dr Mahathir’s “serial anti-Semitism.” It made this call in response to the Prime Minister’s speech at the recent Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in which he said the Jews ruled the world by proxy. Dr Mahathir said businessmen would know what was good for them. “The truth is, the Jews now control the world through proxy. If you say anything against them, then they are going to accuse you of being anti-Semitic. “And they may try to stop investments from coming into this country, and this is the kind of pressure that they apply,” he said. Dr Mahathir also said the media which had distorted his speech were controlled by the Jews because they belonged to them. “Their power is so great that people are afraid to criticise them as if they are beyond criticism,” he said. The MCA backed Dr Mahathir on his statement, saying the Prime Minister was entitled to speak his mind. MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting said Dr Mahathir was merely giving his views and had no intention of lashing out at Jews. “They must be rational. Malaysia will stand firm on what we view is true and needs to be said. “Malaysians will stand together and continue a policy of non-interference in the affairs of others but at the same time hold true to our principles,” Ong said. He added that there was no need for any group to be confrontational as Dr Mahathir was merely stating a historical fact. MCA vice-president Datuk Chua Jui Meng said those calling for an economic boycott came from a small portion of radical Jews. “Their actions are illogical. It was a balanced speech by Dr Mahathir, who criticised those who had abused their power and also Muslims,” he said. In Dungun, Umno Youth chief Datuk Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the youth wing would continue to champion and defend Dr Mahathir's criticism of the West as this was based on facts. “This is the advantage Dr Mahathir has, his strength comes from us, the people at the grassroots level who have given him the confidence to speak up against the injustice and oppression taking place in the world today,” Bernama quoted him as saying. DAP also condemned the call by the US-based group. “Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, should unite to deplore the intolerable boycott call by the group, to send out a clear message to the world that the 23 million Malaysians are united as one in the defence of national interests,” its national chairman Lim Kit Siang said in a statement yesterday."

Here's Lucy, caving in, taking flight,
by Alan Ramsey, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), October 25 2003
"Dr Hanan Mikhail Ashrawi is a woman, a professor of English, an international human rights activist, and a politician. A year ago she was chosen, unanimously, to receive the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize. The Premier, Bob Carr, will present Ashrawi with her award at State Parliament in 12 days. The first four recipients of the annual prize were honoured at functions in the Great Hall of Sydney University. They included South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1999), East Timor's President Xanana Gusmao (2000) and Australia's Sir William Deane (2001). However, for Ashrawi, the Great Hall is out of bounds. This is not because Ashrawi is either a woman, an academic or a political activist. It is because she is a Palestinian. That is enough to ensure a virulent campaign of distortion and ridicule by Jewish critics to brutalise her image and try to have Carr renege on Ashrawi's presentation and the award taken from her. So far Carr has refused to buckle. Not so Sydney University. Earlier this year the university's chancellor, Justice Kim Santow of the NSW Supreme Court, made it known to Professor Stuart Rees, director of the Sydney Peace Foundation, and to Kathryn Greiner, the foundation's chairwoman at the time, that the Great Hall would be closed to Ashrawi. Rees and an academic colleague, Ken McNabb, took the matter to Sydney's vice-chancellor, Gavin Brown. In what was called a "difficult and shameful" meeting, Brown confirmed the decision. The campaign now is about maximum political pressure for other corporate and civic sponsors to abandon Ashrawi and intimidate Carr. Lucy Turnbull, Sydney's Lord Mayor since Frank Sartor joined Carr's ministry after the NSW elections in March, is the latest to fold her tent and take flight. Sartor, as lord mayor, had earlier arranged for the City of Sydney to be a $30,000 annual sponsor, for five years, of the Peace Foundation lecture, which is always given, in a separate function, by the peace prize winner the night before the award ceremony on the first Thursday in November. On Tuesday this week, in a brief "Dear Professor Rees" letter dated October 20, Turnbull told Rees the Sydney City Council "will be unable to participate in this year's Peace Prize events". That is, the council was blackballing both the lecture and the award ceremony. Turnbull's reasons for doing so were a travesty: the usual ignorant mishmash of allegations forever trotted out by the usual suspects against any Palestinian with international credibility and standing in the peace process. Lucy Turnbull should read the letter from a Jewish academic at Oxford University published in the Herald yesterday. Then she should go hide her head in shame. The letter responded to Tony Stephens's story in the Herald two days earlier about Turnbull's craven cave-in to the anti-Ashrawi campaign. It said: "Opposition to awarding the Sydney Peace Prize to Dr Hanan Ashrawi has so far been based on historical ignorance, ideological blindness, wilful malevolence or provincial political opportunism." (Are you listening, Malcolm?) The letter continued: "Dr Ashrawi has been a rare and precious voice of reason in the peace process and her commitment to a just solution has been exemplary. She has consistently encouraged Palestinians to reject violence, despite continuing Israeli territorial expansion and systemic political oppression." (signed) Ben Saul, Tutor in International Law, Magdalen College, University of Oxford, England.".

With Friends Like These... Cover-up of the Attack on the Liberty,"
By SARAH WEIR, CounterPunch, October 24, 2003
"A new report released on Capitol Hill today by former officials from the highest level of the American military and government reveals that Israel "committed acts of murder against American serviceman and an act of war against the United States" when it deliberately attacked the American Navy Ship USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 and wounding 172 American crewmembers. Israel had alleged that the two-hour attack with napalm, missiles, and torpedoes was a mistake. The release of the Independent Commission of Inquiry's findings is a major step in debunking the myth that Israel is a friend to the United States and the American people, said Alison Weir, Executive Director of If Americans Knew, an organization dedicated to providing information on issues misreported in the American media. "The fact that this Independent Commission of Inquiry was made up of prestigious American leaders will encourage the largely misinformed American public to take a closer look at the relationship between Washington and Israel. It is likely that once they examine this 'friendship,' Americans will demand a change in their government's policies, which empower the brutal oppression of the Palestinians," Weir said. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and four-star Admiral Thomas Moorer is outraged at the cover-up of the attack and the fact that this is the only attack on a US ship that has never been investigated by Congress. "Why would our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own?" Moorer asked. "Does it continue to do so? This is an important issue that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government. Our own Independent Commission of Inquiry findings have grave implications for our national security and for the American people. In order to confront this problem, the American people and our elected officers will need to overcome their fear of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States." Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry have now been joined by the Chief Attorney in the Navy's original 1967 Court of Inquiry into the case. After remaining silent for more than three decades, Captain Ward Boston describes in a sworn affidavit how he and many others were ordered to never speak about the attack on the USS Liberty. "I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd [president of the Court of Inquiry] that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary," states the affidavit. Captain Boston said he felt compelled to "share the truth" because of "recent attempts to rewrite history."

[Hmmmm. Double standards, always and everywhere. Isn't the great Jewish ethnostate FOUNDED on discrimination? Doubt it? Apply to move there if you're not Jewish.]
Israel row tutor suspended. The university said there was no place for any form of discrimination, BBC (UK), October 27, 2003
"A professor who rejected a student's application because he had been in the Israeli army has been suspended by Oxford University. Professor Andrew Wilkie, Nuffield professor of pathology, emailed the student saying he would not enrol "someone who had served in the Israeli army". A university spokesman said: "This ruling reflects that there can be no place for any form of discrimination within the University of Oxford." Professor Wilkie has been suspended from his academic duties, without pay, for two months and will have to undergo equal opportunities training. 'Diverse backgrounds' The student, Amit Duvshani, a masters student at Tel Aviv University, had applied to work for a PhD under Professor Wilkie. He says he was rejected in an e-mail from the professor which outlined his objections to Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The spokesman from the university said: "Professor Wilkie fully accepts the gravity of the situation and is determined to make full use of training to ensure that his actions and those of his staff reflect best practice in future. "He particularly wishes to make it clear that he greatly values the diverse backgrounds of the staff and students with whom he works and looks forward to applications from able candidates, whatever their background."

[Astounding. The prime minister of Malaysia says that Jews run the world, they run things by proxy, and you can't criticize them for anything. The Islamic world agrees, because it is true. Anyone in the West can say whatever they want about Muslims, and it's no big deal. In the West, where Jewish hegemony rules, such open criticism of Jewry is condemned and now the Zionist-led U.S. Congress moves to prove the enormous influence of Jewish Power and Judeocentrism.]
Senate Threatens Malaysia Military Aid,
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Las Vegas Sun (from Associated Press), October 27, 2003
"The Senate tied $1.2 million in military aid for Malaysia to religious freedom there, a response Monday to criticism of Jews by the Southeast Asian nation's prime minister. Before money could be spent, the State Department would have to determine that Malaysia "supports and promotes religious freedoms, including tolerance for people of the Jewish faith." The stipulation could be waived for national security reasons. The restrictions were approved by voice vote as an amendment to the $18.1 billion foreign aid bill being considered by the Senate. After the bill's approval, it will have to be reconciled with a $17.1 billion version approved by the House in July. In an Oct. 16 speech to a summit of Islamic countries, retiring Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said that Jews "rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." Mahathir, who leaves office Friday, defended the remarks Monday. Noting European Union criticism of his comments, he suggested the European Union says nothing when Muslims are criticized. Mahathir said that "shows that they are under the thumb of the Jews." He said he does not consider himself anti-Semitic. Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said the Senate vote was an example of the United States trying to "discipline the world in their own mold." "So, now it is another Muslim country that is being zeroed in for their so-called disciplining," Syed Hamid told The Associated Press in Kuala Lumpur."

Hanan Ashrawi and the Price of Dissent,
by Antony Loewenstein, ZNet, October 23, 2003
"It's not easy advocating Palestinian rights. Edward Said frequently commented upon the constant abuse he had received throughout his life. Upon his death, the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) in Australia (related to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America) renounced Said as 'anti-American and anti-Semitic'. Supporting Palestinian self-determination, critiquing Israeli Government policy and questioning Zionist history was seemingly enough to incur the wrath of Jewish groups around the world. Hanan Ashrawi is currently finding herself in similar straits in Australia. The Sydney Peace Foundation, associated with the University of Sydney, recently decided to award Dr Ashrawi its annual peace prize. Previous winners have included the East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao in 2000 and Archbishop Desmond Tutu in 1999. What originally appeared to be an uncontroversial choice has developed into a full-blown battle between the Peace Foundation, elements of the Jewish lobby, the New South Wales premier, Bob Carr and the Jewish press. The issue in my opinion, however, is not simply the prize, but a more fundamental debate around Palestinian identity in Australia. I believe it is nothing less than an attempt by the Jewish community to delegitimize the Palestinian cause. This kind of behaviour is becoming a regrettably common Zionist ploy in the Western world for increasingly transparent reasons. Since the announcement of the prize to Ashrawi, Jewish groups have begun a campaign to firstly discredit the high-profile winner, and then to convince Premier Carr that attending the ceremony on November 6 would be, in the words of Gerald Steinberg, an associate professor of political studies at Bar Ilan University, "honouring war, murder and hatred, while debasing the concept of peace and reconciliation". Incidentally, Professor Steinberg launched a petition to stop Ashrawi receiving the prestigious award and received nearly 4000 signatures. The Australian Jewish News (AJN), the sole Jewish community newspaper in Australia, wrote in its editorial on October 17, that "an Australian premier [Bob Carr] is about to present a peace prize to an apologist for terrorism…The problem is not that Premier Carr is meeting Dr Ashrawi; on the contrary, the more engagement there is, the greater the chance of achieving a solution. The problem is that by presenting her with the prize, he is endorsing her track record." Her track record, according to the AJN, is thwarting the Oslo peace deals in the 1990s, not condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization and suggesting Jews living in the West Bank are legitimate targets for Palestinian aggression. All these comments are a misappropriation of the truth. Dr Ashrawi was clearly aware of virulent anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab feeling in the Australian Jewish community, as her comments to the Sydney Morning Herald on October 23 suggested: "I knew there would be mobilised voices trying to malign Palestinians, particularly ones like me who have been outspoken for peace." So who are the groups so determined to smear Dr Ashrawi? The Australian Jewish News has been the conduit through which numerous Jewish groups and individuals have been able to libel her. The paper, not known for its coverage outside the official Israeli/Palestinian paradigm, has chosen to repeat the lies against Ashrawi and in doing so, has become even more of an impediment to dialogues of understanding between the two sides ... Indeed in August this year, after learning of [President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Jeremy] Jones' complaints regarding the Peace Prize to Ashrawi, NSW Labor member Leo McLeay said the following in the New South Wales parliament: "Mr Jones's comments on this issue are in line with his regular attacks on members of Parliament and others who give any support for the people of Palestine…It amazes me how intolerant Mr Jones and the pro-Israeli lobby can be. If you are not an enthusiastic supporter of the Sharon version of the Berlin Wall [in the West Bank occupied territory] you are considered anti-Jewish. When will the Jeremy Joneses of this world understand that criticism of the Israeli Government and its actions is not anti-Semitism?" Other Jewish groups have also joined in placing pressure on Bob Carr to withdraw his support for Ashrawi ... The debate brings up a number of uncomfortable realities regarding the influence and mentality of the Jewish lobby in Australia, though their modus operandi is far from limited to this country. I would argue that the central, yet unspoken, complaint of the Jewish community is awarding a prize to a woman who so well articulates the Palestinian cause. In the current battle for international legitimacy, there is no question that Israel is losing friends at an ever-increasing rate. For this reason alone, the legitimacy given to Ashrawi lessen the arguments of Zionist and Israeli supporters. She is being given credence after a lifetime of speaking out against Israeli aggression" ... There is no reason to believe that the current battle over Dr Ashrawi is not yet another attempt at legitimising Jewish supremacy in the Israeli/Palestinian debate."

Israel Attacks Ramadan Series For 'Anti-Semitism',
Islam Online (Egypt), October 24, 2003
"A new Arab miniseries on the evolution of Zionism and the creation of Israel has come under fire for alleged accusations of containing anti-Semitic remarks. A number of Jewish organizations are pressurizing Arab satellite channels into taking Al-Shatat (Diaspora) off the air during the holy month of Ramadan, read a statement by Lebanon's Al-Manar TV. Promoted as political drama, the miniseries traces back Zionism at all political, economic and religious levels, and unmasking ways used by the Jews to create their "fictitious" entity in Palestinian territories, said the statement obtained by IslamOnline.net Thursday, October 23. Putting leaders and contributors to the movement on the screen, the program also highlights their role to release its objectives culminated in the establishment of Israel in 1948. The first scene is of a British Jewish grandfather flanked at deathbed by his five sons, to deliver his will trusting them with seizing control of the world under the name of the secret world Jewish government. Other related events are rolled in England, Russia, Romania, France, Egypt and the United States, as the production unveils plots by Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, to achieve his coveted dream of setting up a homeland for Jews in Palestinian territories, said the statement. The miniseries, produced by Sryia's Lin company, includes 26 episodes, with 250 actors from Syria and other Arab countries."

["Overzealous" Jewish lobbyists? So what else is new? Jews apparently want to alienate everyone.]
Ashrawi lobbying damaged Jews: leader,
Nine MSN, November 3, 2003
"Overzealous efforts to stop NSW Premier Bob Carr giving the Sydney Peace Prize to Palestinian MP Hanan Ashrawi had probably damaged the Jewish community's standing, a senior Jewish leader said. Mr Carr will present the prize to Dr Ashrawi on Thursday in the face of opposition from Sydney's Jewish community, which regards her an inappropriate recipient for a peace prize. But NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president Stephen Rothman said Mr Carr's judgement should be respected and acknowledges some Jews had overstepped the mark in their lobbying. "There's been methods of approach by one or two people, who are not part of the leadership of the community that probably have not done the community much good," Mr Rothman told ABC radio. Efforts by some Jews to "heavy" members of the Sydney Peace Foundation and demand Mr Carr withdraw his offer to present the award were "unfortunate and probably inappropriate, but I don't criticise them for that", he said."

[It is apparently a crime in Germany to question anything about Jewish history.]
Jewish slur MP faces probe,
BBC (UK), November 3, 2003
"Christian Democrat Martin Hohmann compared the actions of Jews in the Russian revolution to those of the Nazis in the Holocaust. In a storm of angry reaction he was forced on Saturday to apologise for the remarks, made during a speech in October. But prosecutors on Monday announced their inquiry had been opened after a criminal complaint had been filed, alleging incitement, slander and disparaging the dead. Prosecutors in the central city of Fulda, near the town where the speech was delivered, said the identify of the person who filed the complaint was not being made public, although reports said it was an individual from Bonn. Jewish groups were furious at the Holocaust comparison. The Central Council of Jews had earlier said it was planning to lodge a complaint. The full text of Mr Hohmann's speech will now be examined by the prosecutors, before they decide whether to mount a full-scale inquiry, says prosecutors' spokesman Harry Wilke. Mr Hohmann's comments drew angry reaction from Jewish leaders and widespread criticism. 'Innocent lambs' He argued that while Germans still felt burdened by their Nazi past, others cast themselves as "innocent lambs" despite their own records - for example, the role of Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1917 Russian revolution. "With a certain justification, one could ask in view of the millions killed in the first phase of the revolution about the 'guilt' of the Jews," Mr Hohmann said. Blame should not be placed on the Germans for Nazi crimes or Jews for those of the Bolsheviks, but rather "the godless with their godless ideologies", he argued. On Sunday Mr Hohmann was thrown off a parliamentary commission looking at compensation for Nazi-era forced labourers. Christian Democrat leaders were due to discuss the case on Monday. Critics have called for him to be suspended from the parliamentary group. A German Government spokesman called the remarks "an unacceptable and intolerable gaffe". According to a transcript of his speech on the website of his local CDU branch in Neuhof, Mr Hohmann said: "Jews were active in great numbers in the leadership as well as in the Cheka [Soviet secret police] firing squads. "Thus one could describe Jews with some justification as a Taetervolk [a race of perpetrators]. "That may sound horrible. But it would follow the same logic with which one describes the Germans as a race of perpetrators." However, he went on to say: "Neither the Germans nor the Jews are a race of perpetrators." The speech has since been taken off the site."

[More Israeli "fascism."]
Israel's security service to vet reporters,
By JOSHUA BRILLIANT, Interest Alert, (from UPI), November 3, 2003
"The Israeli government decided to have Shabak (Israel's internal security agency) check all journalists' requests for press cards and "recommend" who should be denied accreditation. Such accreditation is vital in Israel in order to properly cover the country. The new regulations, announced Sunday, aroused strong protests. The prestigious Israel Press Council said in a statement, Monday, "This idea is befitting dark regimes." "These are the kind of small steps that gradually lead a democratic state to becoming a fascist regime," the Council's outgoing president, Hebrew University Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, maintained. The plastic press cards that the Government Press Office issues are almost always the sole form of identification for journalists. Without it one would have difficulties entering government offices, party meetings or crossing a police line at the site of a terrorist attack. The new regulations say that Israeli and foreign journalists' requests for press cards for 2004 will be forwarded "for an initial examination by the competent security authorities." A request may be rejected "on security grounds" and in such cases a person may submit another application after six months have elapsed. The head of the Journalists' Association in Jerusalem, Yaron Enosh, said the terminology used means that a person whose request is denied "won't know why he is not getting the card" ... Foreign journalists have complained of various government obstacles to covering the occupied territories. Palestinian journalists do not get press cards, Seaman confirmed. The GPO has discriminated against media whose coverage it did not like or who failed to heed "friendly advice." "If we interview a Hamas member, are we (going to be branded) collaborators? It is a worrying form of censorship," said the FPA's Vice Chairman Tami Allen-Frost of the British Independent Television News. The Israel Press Council, which is made up of journalists and prominent public figures, noted it would be the first time in Israel's history that "journalists will have to be checked by the Shabak. ... It is another in a series of steps that the GPO took in recent years, including restrictions of the freedom of action and work of foreign and Palestinian journalists and the imposing of a boycott on media organizations."

Issues regarding my dismissal from the New Zealand Herald,
by Macolm Evans, This interview piece published in Israel contains a number of errors that have upset some people. I wrote to the paper expressing my concerns at being misquoted and the Editor published my response in the "Letters to the Editor" sectionf, September 6th 2003 Ha'aretz newspaper Israel Friday, August 29, 2003 Elul 1, 5763 "Drawing the line" By Sara Leibovich-Dar
"New Zealand editorial cartoonist Malcolm Evans is waiting at home in Auckland for a miracle that will return him to work. Last week he was dismissed from the New Zealand Herald, the largest newspaper in the country, after drawing a series of pro-Palestinian cartoons that harshly attacked Israel's policy in the territories and compared it to Nazism. In the wake of the cartoons, many letters of protest reached the newspaper; the Jewish community in Auckland complained to the editor, Gavin Ellis. Evans was asked to moderate his cartoons or to stop drawing those relating to the Middle Eastern conflict. He refused. "An editor can decide not to publish my cartoon, but he can't tell me how to draw it," he says in a telephone interview from his home in Auckland. Evans is angry at the New Zealand Jewish community and at Jews from other countries who, he says, complained about him. "I don't want to say that the Jews control the media, it sounds racist, but I didn't believe they'd fire me. I thought we could work something out," he says. "Suddenly I'm unemployed, after working on the paper for seven years. I'm fighting for the principle of freedom of expression, but soon I'll have to put bread on the table, and I don't know what I'll do." Editor Ellis refuses to provide his reaction because of "legal circumstances." His office sent a notice to the press in which he claims that it's not true that Evans was dismissed because he refused to stop drawing critical cartoons about Israel. The Auckland Jewish community believes that firing the cartoonist was the right thing to do. Geoff Levy, head of the Auckland Jewish Council, says in a phone interview from his office that Evans caused damage to Judaism and the Jews. "One can criticize Israel," says Levy, "but one can't arouse hostility toward the Jews and that's what he did, something which is contrary to the laws of New Zealand." The Israeli ambassador to Australia and New Zealand, Gabby Levy, who met with Ellis and asked him to moderate the newspaper's pro-Palestinian policy, believes the editor did the right thing by firing Evans. "Hostile media are liable to cause harm, and we must warn about it," he says. The dismissal of Evans, who is also the president of the New Zealand Cartoonists Association, is causing a storm both within and outside of his country. Evan says he has been receiving about 80 e-mails a day from all over the world since he was fired, most of them supportive, "but there are also those who attack me." Robert Russell, director of the Cartoonists Rights Network, which comprises about 2,000 cartoonists from all over the world, sent a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Herald and demanded that he demonstrate courage and stand by Evans. "It's rare for such a thing to happen in a developed country. On the one hand, the paper has a right to fire anyone who doesn't do good work for it," says Russell in a phone interview from his home in Virginia. "But we mustn't forget that a cartoonist is hired because of his personal opinions."

The Cartoons That Got MALCOLM EVANS fired:
1. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Evans/main.asp
2. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Evans/1.asp
3. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Evans/2.asp
4. http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Evans/3.asp

American Jewish Committee Denounces British Award to Cartoonist,
U.S. Newswire, November 26, 2003
"The American Jewish Committee today denounced the British Political Cartoon Society's decision to give a first-place award to a cartoonist who published an anti-Semitic cartoon in The Independent earlier this year. Dave Brown's cartoon shows Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian baby. "This image conjures up some of the most vile stereotypes imaginable," said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. "Not only should this grotesque cartoon never have been honored, but it should never have been published in the first place by The Independent. It is not about legitimate political criticism. It is all about incitement against a people," Harris said."

["Dissenting views excluded?" Is it necessary that the Persecutor ALWAYS be given equal time with the persecuted? This is naked Jewish Censorship, as always.]
Pro-Palestinian conference sparks U of T controversy. Jewish groups threaten to block meeting; Arab students say right to speech muzzled,
By CHRISTINE BOYD, Globe and Mail (Canada), Friday, November 28, 2003
"Jewish groups are threatening to block a pro-Palestinian conference planned for the University of Toronto that they say advocates the destruction of Israel. B'nai Brith Canada and the student group Hillel accuse the Toronto Palestinian Solidarity Conference of promoting hatred by forcing participants to sign a pact that calls Israel a "racist, apartheid state," rejects a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict and supports the rights of Palestinians to resist Israeli "colonialism by any means of their choosing." The organizers, Al-Awda at U of T and the Arab Student Collective, counter that critics are trying to muzzle their right to meet and speak freely at the conference, which could take place as early as Sunday. Al-Awda, which lobbies for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes, denied that signing the "Basis of Unity" pact was mandatory and insisted it does not support violence against Israel. The conference was originally scheduled to take place last weekend on campus at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, but was cancelled at the last minute by university administrators who feared that those with dissenting views were being excluded. The university also said organizers barred people from attending unless they signed the pact. Al-Awda said it reached a compromise with the university yesterday that will likely allow the conference to go ahead on Sunday. University officials denied an agreement had been reached, but plan to meet with the group again today. A spokesman for B'nai Brith Canada, a prominent lobby group that originally complained about the conference, causing its cancellation, said it is exploring a number of options to ensure Al-Awda does not proceed. "The conference is, in our view, set up to promote the destruction of the state of Israel," said Joseph Ben-Ami, B'nai Brith's director of communications. "The organizers are taking a line that if not outright advocates violence, certainly promotes it. It's just not acceptable in a country like Canada and in an institution of higher learning."

Call for political balance,
By Balázs Dóczy, The Budapest Sun (Hungary), November 13, 2003 - Volume XI, Issue 46 November 13, 2003
"Activists and supporters of new right-wing political party Jobbik Magyarország Mozgalom and "civic" organization Honfoglalás 2000 Egyesület gathered on Saturday outside state-run Hungarian Television (MTV) in a protest against the recent stoppage of a program called Éjjeli menedék+1. Although the police refused to give an estimate as to the number of people present, the organizers said there were thousands of protesters. According to police reports, the demonstration was free from violence, finished peacefully, and no arrests were made. Ervin Nagy, Jobbik's Vice Chairman said the people had convened to mourn the freedom of press which he claimed to have been destroyed by the current government coalition of he Socialists (MSZP) and Free Democrats. Nagy asserted that the state-run channel is no longer capable of fulfilling its duty as a public television. Éjjeli menedék+1 was the only program catering for the interests of right-wing audiences, Nagy pointed out, and called for public television capable of conveying national and Christian values. "We will make the will of the Pest boys come true, and clean this house, one where dictatorship of opinion still lives on," said Tamás Molnár, another Jobbik Vice Chairman, in reference to protesters who surrounded the same building 13 years ago in a bid to push for freedom of the media. Among the speakers were Katalin Kondor, Chairwoman of Hungarian Radio (MR) who said, "It is rather unpleasant to become a national hero without having done anything for it," in reference to recent press allegations that she had acted as an agent in the 1970s and 1980s. "This demonstration, along with all similar ones, was organized for the sake of free press which, according to my view, has never faced such a serious threat as it is facing today," Kondor emphasized. She called the present media situation the "suppression of the freedom of press under the disguise of genuine democracy". The management of MTV took the program off air on October 28 because its previous edition featured comments from rightwing British historian David Irving who spoke at an earlier rally in Budapest. Among others, Irving said that "anti-Jewish pogroms were a feature of the first two days of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising". MTV explained their decision by saying that "some of the historian's remarks offended the dignity of the entire Hungarian nation and the memory of the 1956 Revolution." Jobbik released a statement the very same day in which they protested against the cancellation of the program. Fidesz chairman Viktor Orbán also denounced MTV's decision. He expressed his concern over the fact that this was not the first time that programs representing "civic" values had been attacked. In response, Socialist MP Zoltán Szabó said the program was canceled because the footage in question was presented without comments, adding that Irving has been banned in the past by several European courts for his denial of the Holocaust. In a related event, former Fidesz education minister József Pálinkás has recently spoken in favor of the political division of state-run television - including the establishment of two information and cultural departments catering for the different tastes of left and right wing audiences - should Fidesz win the next general elections. If this be rejected by leftwingers, Fidesz would be "ready to go into war," which, in this case, would mean to set up two entirely separate state-run channels, an idea Fidesz has floated before."

[The issue here: the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and even the Southern Poverty Law Center are in the literal business of prohibiting criticism of the Jewish community. What exactly is "hate?' In these censorial organization's grips, "hate" is virtually anything: whatever they say.]
Yahoo Asks Users to Help Delete Hate,
By Dana Williams, Tolerance.org (Southern Poverty Law Center), Nov. 10, 2003 "From sports to astronomy and religion to cooking, internet discussion groups are a simple way to connect those with kindred passions. At Yahoo, these groups are touted as a popular way for users to meet new friends or keep in touch with old ones, with hundreds and hundreds of active discussion communities listed on the site's group directory. But what happens when a group's common interest is hate? ... Human rights and anti-racist groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center have criticized Yahoo and other internet portals for allowing members to host groups promoting racist and hateful activities and ideologies. In 2000, the Anti-Defamation League launched a campaign calling for the removal of dozens of racist and anti-Semitic clubs hosted by Yahoo, charging the company was violation of its own terms by allowing these groups to post hateful messages, chat and plan events. Yahoo removed dozens of racist groups following the ADL campaign and has continued to remove such sites periodically ... Roy says hate-monitoring organizations like the Intelligence Project regularly gather information from these discussion communities that helps identify users involved in other hate activities."

[The Jewish Lobby has been chasing cartoonists for a while now. Malcolm Evans even got fired from the New Zealand Herald after Jews starting complaining about how they and their racist nation (Israel) were beyond normal criticism.]
Daryle Cagle's Cartoon Web Blog,
November 23, 2003
"Here's an interesting tidbit that I missed last week. The Australian Press Council upheld a complaint by a reader of the Sydney Morning Herald who felt that a cartoon by Alan Moir was racist and should not have been published. (Although Alan is a regular on our site, we didn't receive a copy of the offending cartoon.) The Herald acknowledged a "lapse in judgement" in printing the August 12th cartoon which juxtaposed images of the Warsaw Ghetto and the security wall being built on Israel's West Bank. The cartoon showed two images of roads blocked by walls, with a wall labeled "Warsaw 1943" and a wall labeled "West Bank 2003." The Herald printed many angry responses from readers in addition to an unusual apology by the Herald's editor."

[Something extraordinary is happening. We are reaching a stage in Western societies where laws may be instituted that make it illegal to criticize Jews. It will be categorized as a Thought Crime. Perhaps when the Kings and Queens ride through town we will also not be allowed to look up at them. Once we have laws against criticizing Jews (vaguely defined as "anti-Semitism"), people will invariably begin to subvert insane laws as they always have, and the essential problem of a virtual Jewish potentate in the West will become more and more clear to people who doubt the astounding reach of censorial Jewish power.]
German Parliament To Vote On Penalizing Anti-Semitism,
Islam Online, November 30, 2003
"The German parliament (Bundestag) will debate and vote Tuesday, December 2, on a new draft law penalizing anti-Semitism in the country, reported a leading German newspaper on Sunday, November 30. The preamble of the proposed legislation vocalizes concern over spiraling anti-Jews activities in different sectors of the society after they had been confined to small far-right groups, reported the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. According to the paper, the articles of the new bill, drafted by lawmakers from the various political parties represented in the legislature, will condemn anti-Semitism and penalize all its forms - ideas, statements or activities. A specific article of the law will implicitly carry the possibility of politically isolating any politician indicted of anti-Semitic charges, said the newspaper. It states that politicians who attempt to create a new framework for propagating Nazism, cast doubts on the crimes perpetrated by Nazis against Jews or place the society and Jews at a clash course have no place inside the society. The bill also exhorts all German lawmakers to exert their utmost efforts and shoulder their responsibilities in persistently reminding the German people of the so-called Holocausts. The parliamentarians are also asked to work tirelessly to normalize the situation of Jews in Germany by opposing water-tight and around-the-clock security procedures around Jews facilities in the country. Daim Agueler, a legislator of a Turkish origin and one of the bill drafters, called on the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to conduct a comprehensive survey of anti-Semitism across Europe, not only Germany. Agueler, a member of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) leadership council, stressed that the findings of the study must be published in full. Germany became the second European country, after France, to seek a legislation penalizing anti-Semitism."

[Note: Jewish censorship is the foundation to any public Jewish discussion about "anti-Semitism," scholarly or otherwise, as noted here. Kevin MacDonald has written three critical books about Jews and Judaism.]
[Discussion group commentary about the Jewish censorship of scholar Kevin MacDonald,
by David Lieberman
"Kevin MacDonald is quite right. I am a graduate student in the musicology program at Brandeis Univerity. I have also served as a member of the editorial board of the H-Antisemitism list, and am now one of the lists's moderators. Professor MacDonald apparently feels that as a graduate student in musicology I lack the requisite expertise to check the citations to historical research that form the basis for the claims he advances in his work, although he has never fully explained the logic that brings him to this conclusion. As I replied on the H-Antisemitism list when he used this claim to justify his non-responsiveness to specific criticisms I have raised concerning his scholarship, training in musicology does not differ dramatically from training in any other historically- or historiographically-oriented discipline. Certainly, developing the ability to assess the effectiveness, relevance, accuracy and fairness of secondary source citations is a fundamental element of such training, and it is this skill that I have brought to bear in my critiques of MacDonald's scholarship. Readers of this list may be interested to know, as MacDonald does not mention, that after allowing him four years of relatively unrestricted access to H-Antisemitism, the editors of that list decided some months ago to delete him from its membership. Over the course of his four years of intermittent participation, there were several instances of loud protests from list members demanding to know why the editors persisted in giving him a voice. For whatever it may be worth, I consistently argued in favor of keeping MacDonald on the list, largely on the grounds that any student of the antisemitic imagination ought to find the rhetorical strategies evident in his postings fascinating primary source data. By the time of the decision to delete him from the list, it had long been evident that the inevitable disruptions his participation triggered were damaging the tone of discourse, and his unwillingness to address specific questions based on his own scholarship suggested rather strongly that whatever his motivations for participating on the list may have been, scholarly exchange as it is normally understood was not among them. I know of no other instance in which a tenured academic professional has been deleted from the membership of a list sponsored by H-Net, H-Antisemitism's host network, much less from a list immediately relevant to his own field of research (granted, my knowledge of the experiences of other H-Net groups is not extensive)."

Canadian Muslims challenging Jewish lobby over the style of anti-racism in the school curriculum,
By Zafar Bangash, Muslim Media, July 1-15, 2001
"A vigorous debate is underway in York Region (the site of Crescent’s Canada office), on the question of racism, or more precisely how to address the issue of racism in the school curriculum. The controversy began in April and has now pitted some dedicated Muslims against the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and Jewish members of the region’s race-relations committee. Bader Abu Zahra, a Muslim member of the committee, who is originally from Palestine, distributed a review of The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, by Norman Finkelstein, at a teachers’ conference convened to discuss the need to include "Holocaust and Anti-racist education in History, English and Social Science courses" in public-school curricula. Abu Zahra’s position was (and remains) that placing special emphasis on the Holocaust excludes other genocides and marginalizes others’ suffering. He proposed that the suffering of other peoples — Ukrainians, Chinese, African-Americans, Native Peoples etc — also be included in the school curriculum. This makes sense in particular because of the composition of the Canadian population, a third of whom are non-white. In cities like Toronto, nearly 50 percent of the population is non-white, and this proportion is increasing. Abu Zahra’s distribution of the book-review upset the Jewish chairman of the race relations committee, one Alan Shefman, so much that Shefman wrote to Abu Zahra to demand his resignation. Abu Zahra, of course, refused. Shefman then tabled a motion calling for Abu Zahra’s dismissal from the race-relations committee. A clear majority of the 20-member committee rejected the motion. Abu Zahra’s case was defended vigorously and argued cogently by Ahmed Motiar, another Muslim on the committee. He was able to convince the majority of members that Abu Zahra had done nothing wrong and that in a multicultural society like Canada diverse points of view should be welcomed. He further stated that it was unacceptable that one man, Shefman, should act as accuser, judge and jury; he (Shefman) had overstepped his authority by demanding Abu Zahra’s resignation in the first place. In dismissing Shefman’s demand for his resignation, Abu Zahra wrote: "The belief there is a hierarchy of human suffering is in itself profoundly racist and deeply offensive." He went on to say: "The notion that the suffering of Jewish people should be featured in the school curriculum over that of others is without intrinsic merit from either an educational or human-rights perspective." This sent the Jewish lobby into a frenzy; they denounced any challenge to their opinions as "racism" and even described Finkelstein’s book as "overt racism." To understand the true import of this allegation, one needs to bear in mind that Finkelstein is himself Jewish; his parents are survivors of the holocaust and many of his relatives perished in it. What he has done, however, is to challenge the exploitation of Jewish suffering by turning it into a commercial enterprise. This is what has touched the raw nerve of the self-appointed guardians of the world’s conscience. Shefman, however, did not accept his defeat gracefully and drop the issue; instead he dragged the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) into the affair. Bernie Farber, CJC’s executive director, threatened to take the York Region board of education to the human-rights commission if Abu Zahra was not immediately dismissed. At first Bill Crothers, the board chairman, stood his ground and refused to accede to the CJC’s demand, saying: "We respectfully disagree with the CJC on the appropriateness of overturning a decision of a committee that has been duly constituted by the board, particularly when the committee was constituted to deal with these very issues." He also stated that board trustees had worked hard to ensure the 20-member race relations committee was representative of all York Region’s diverse communities by ethnicity, language, culture and religion as well as geographically. But later Crothers buckled under Jewish pressure and denounced the book-review as "anti-Semitic". He said that if the review had been brought to the board’s attention before its distribution at the teachers’ conference, it would not have been allowed. It is true that the board was unaware of Abu Zahra’s action, but it is cowardly of the board chairman to cave in to CJC’s blackmail. It is inconceivable that the human rights commission would agree with the CJC’s position, for there is absolutely nothing wrong with the position taken by the Muslims; they just want an inclusive, not exclusive, curriculum. But there was another reason for CJC’s anger which became apparent from Bernie Farber’s letter to the board: "People are concerned about what happened at the conference, but they are more concerned with the lack of respect shown to Alan Shefman and the Congress in terms of our expertise in identifying anti-Semitism." It takes chutzpah to make such outlandish claims. Farber and Shefman have appointed themselves sole interpretors of what constitutes anti-Semitism, and demand instant submission to their demands. Why should people respect Shefman and the Jewish Congress when they are so dismissive of others’ concerns, especially in a multicultural society like Canada? No group has a monopoly over suffering or the right to demand that only their own history be taught to the exclusion of others’. This matter may not be over. Muslims will have to make a stand for a worthy principle. We must not allow the Jewish lobby to dictate to the rest of us what we can or cannot think and teach our children. It may also be an opportunity to bring home to the rest of the general public t the extent to which their officials are constantly manipulated by a tiny minority by coercion and blackmail. It is time for us to stand up and declare that enough is enough."

Israel muzzles Palestinian journalists,
By Khalid Amayreh, Al-Jazeerah, December 19, 2003
"The international press organisation “Reporters Sans Frontiers” (RSF) recently lambasted Israel for abusing and harassing Palestinian and foreign journalists covering the Intifada against Israeli occupation. The Paris-based group did recognise that Israel generally respected “the local (Jewish) media freedom of expression”, but criticised Israel for violating the international covenant on civil and political rights, including press freedom, especially in the occupied territories. “Since the start of the Israeli army’s incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported,” it said. Constant intimidation Israeli troops have also killed at least 10 journalists since the outbreak of the Intifada in late August, 2000, including two European journalists covering Israeli raids into Palestinian population centres. Aljazeera.net has spoken to dozens of Palestinian and foreign journalists in the West Bank and Israel. Virtually all of them agreed that Israeli attacks on press freedom have assumed unprecedented ferocity, especially since the outbreak of the Intifada. Israeli soldiers take aim at photo-journalists “There is press freedom in Israel as long as you say and write good things about Sharon, the settlers and the occupation army. "However, as soon as you start reporting the ugly reality, the rough treatment begins,” says Nawwaf al-Amer, a Palestinian journalist from Nablus who was imprisoned and tortured for eight months last year for “incitement against Israel and the IDF”. Al-Amer, who spent 25 “nightmarish days” in Israel’s most notorious top-secret prison, known as Facility no 1391, said he lost all feeling in the right side of his head and face as a result of “sustained abuse and mistreatment”. “They only told me they wanted to teach me the difference between journalism and incitement.” Palestinian spokespersons accuse Israel of deliberately “abusing, intimidating and eventually killing journalists” in order to prevent the Palestinian view point from getting through to the international public opinion."

[Here's the summary of the European Union's controversial report about "anti-Semitism" that the world Jewish Lobby pushed to have created to police world unrest against Jewish racism, brutality, power, and chauvinism. The EU decided not to publish it because it notes that Muslims were disproportionately "anti-Semitic" and in our Jewish-inspired POLITICALLY CORRECT world, you can't make (what's conventionally understood in this case to be) negative generalizations ("Muslims are anti-Semitic") about any religious, racial, or ethnic group. So Muslims, who justifiably loathe Israel and the Jewish Lobby that oppresses them, got off the critical hook. HOWEVER, the Jewish Lobby (with fingers in every pie) managed to get a leaked copy of the EU report. Surprise, surprise! Here the pirated EU report is posted at CRIF, the major Jewish lobbying organization in France. The EU report is a blueprint for a world Thought Police to curtail critical public commentary about anything Jewish. And that includes, ultimately, at core, racist Israel and its many tentacled Zionist Lobby.]
Executive Summary,
CRIF (Conseil Representatif des Institutions juives de France)
"The Internet reflects a development observable since 2000, namely the networking of the extreme right via links with sections of radical Islamists, some sites from anti-globalisation campaigners and from the anti-American far left. Since the end of the 1990s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homepages present on the web from far-right groups and parties, which quite often also have ties to radical Islamic fundamentalists. In addition, the Internet provides easy access to music from the far right, which glorifies violence and is often anti-Semitic. Sales and distribution centres for such music are mainly located in Scandinavia. Up till now, state organs have paid too little attention to the Arab language publications which spread anti-Semitic propaganda in European countries, whether through newspapers, audiotapes or the Internet . Prevalent anti-Semitic prejudices As almost all reports emphasise, Jews in the EU Member States are well integrated socially, economically and culturally, and as such the typical motives of xenophobia (fear of competition for jobs, housing and social welfare, linguistic and cultural otherness of migrants, external appearance) are hardly of consequence. Instead, the Jews are basically imagined to be a nationally and internationally influential group, allegedly controlling politics and the economy. Hence, anti-Semitism has other motives and a different structure from racism.
– The dominating assumption of contemporary anti-Semitism is still that of a Jewish world conspiracy, i.e. the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA, but also on European countries. This basic assumption is applied to explain very different phenomena. The Holocaust denial assumes a central role in European right-wing extremism. It is purported that the Holocaust has never taken place and that the Jewish side, exploiting their victim status, use the “Auschwitz lie” to apply moral pressure on mainly European governments (restitution, support for Israeli policies), but also to influence US policy towards Israel. Furthermore, the thesis of the “Auschwitz lie” naturally also negates the assertion that the foundation of the state of Israel was historically necessary in order to create a secure homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust and Jews in general. Precisely at this point, extreme right-wing propaganda becomes employable ideologically for radical Islamist groups in their struggle against Israel, for the victim status and Israel’s right to exist are challenged by the “Auschwitz lie”. Here a learning process has taken place in which “revisionist” thought has been adopted by some people in the Arab world. The influence of these ideas is supported by a number of Western Holocaust deniers like Jürgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fröhlich who fled prosecution in their homelands and found asylum in Arab countries, and last but not least by Roger Garaudy who was hailed as a hero throughout the Middle East when he faced prosecution by the French government for inciting racial hatred. Via Arab-language media (newspapers, satellite TV and internet) in Europe these notions reach a small section of the Arab speaking population in European countries. – Following September 11, 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unsolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over the USA’s allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes could converge and conspiracy theories over “Jewish world domination” might flare up again. – The assumption of close ties between the US and Israel gives rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude. Amongst the political left, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are very closely tied together. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists like the Holocaust. In the form of anti-Semitism it could be said that the tradition of demonising Jews in the past is now being transferred to the state of Israel. In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could become part of the political mainstream. – Israeli policies toward the Palestinians provide a reason to denounce Jews generally as perpetrators, thereby questioning their moral status as victims that they had assumed as a consequence of the Holocaust. The connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment lies in this opportunity for a perpetrator-victim role reversal. In particular there is an attempt by the right-wing to compare Israeli policies with the crimes perpetrated against Jews throughout history in order to minimize or even deny the guilt and responsibility of their own nations. – The fact that the Middle East conflict is taking place in the Holy Land of the Christians has led in a number of countries to a revitalisation of anti-Judaist motives by church leaders, and confessional and some liberal newspapers. Recommendations The upsurge of anti-Semitic criminal offences and verbal assaults against Jewish citizens and institutions, but also against Muslims, indicates that joint action has to be initiated. This action should not be restricted to one area of society, but has to deal with a multitude of combined activities. Actions on the political level should be backed by sound data and information about the phenomena in question. The civil society has to be mobilized to establish dialogues, the press, TV and the Internet has to be addressed to report about ethnic and cultural groups in a responsible way. Also for large-scale sporting events, preventive measures fighting racist attacks have to be implemented. We recommend that the EUMC requests state authorities to acknowledge at the highest level the extraordinary dangers posed by anti-Semitic violence in the European context. Legal • The EUMC should propose to the Member States to adopt the proposed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (COM 2001/664) as soon as possible and call on the Council of Ministers to ensure that it is amended to be as effective as possible to deal with reported incidents of anti-Semitism. • The EUMC should propose to the European Commission and to the Member States that they consider a decision for police cooperation according to Article 34 of the Treaty of European Union, which shall bind all Member States to collect and disseminate data on anti-Semitic offences. This decision should also involve EUROPOL and EUROJUST. • To achieve effective regulation of the Internet concerning racist propaganda, it is essential to extend the jurisdiction of European courts to include detailed provisions on the responsibility of Internet service providers. Registering anti-Semitic incidents • State institutions must assume responsibility for monitoring anti-Semitism in the individual EU Member States. These institutions should work in accordance with well-defined categories enabling them to recognise an anti-Semitic element within any politically motivated criminal offences they register, and to then incorporate them into their statistics ... We recommend that the governments of the EU Member States still absent should undertake initiatives to become members of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research, whose purpose is to mobilise the support of political and social leaders to foster Holocaust education, remembrance and research. • We recommend that NGOs engage in initiatives of intercultural and inter-religious exchange and inter-religious dialogue, and cooperate in educational information campaigns against racism and anti-Semitism. • National ministries of education should organise round tables and seminars on mutual respect and tolerance; all teachers in the EU should be required to learn about different religions and faiths, cultures and traditions; history books used in schools around Europe should be examined for prejudice, or one-sidedness ... • Across all Member States there should be implemented a coordinated programme of victim studies to overcome the problem of underreporting with regard to incidents of anti-Semitism. • To date there has been no well-founded media analysis on how the European press exploits and perpetuates anti-Semitic stereotypes. We recommend the implementation of research studies to fill this gap. Internet • State authorities, academics and research institutions engaged with racism and anti-Semitism should establish joint committees at national and international levels to monitor anti-Semitism on the Internet. Through mutual exchange these committees should establish a basis for an improved recording and combating of racist and anti-Semitic developments on the Internet. • Recent developments have shown that partly impeded or completely obstructed access to some homepages at least hinders the possibility of placing racist propaganda on the Internet. Thus private and state organisations should exert continuing pressure on large Internet providers to remove racist and anti-Semitic content from the net. • The enormous potential of the Internet for educational purposes has not yet been recognised and utilised. We recommend that projects are developed to utilise the Internet far more in order to combat anti-Semitic and racist content with serious counter-information."

[More totalitarian Jewish pressure against public scrutiny of the world Jewish Lobby. The two books Jews want banned now are about "the Jewish question in Poland," and "another with a passage claiming that Jews themselves provoked anti-Semitism with anti-Christian attitudes." Both these issues are legitimate and based on historical facts and reason in what is supposed to be a democracy. The Jewish Thought Police is everywhere, furiously forbidding any look at Jewish actions and beliefs that cause "anti-Semitism." If Jews get away with this all the time, how about an exactly parallel policy: to go into synagogues and burn any books that Christians don't like? Hmmmm. No, no! THAT is fascism. We are at the point in modern history where Jewish permission must be sought before a Christian can be a Christian. What you believe MUST HAVE THE KOSHER SEAL OF APPROVAL. What to do when the Jewish Lobby, like below, decides to "sue" to censor these books that examine Jewish racism and chauvinism? Drag out the Talmud, put it under a spotlight with a microscope, get the big yellow magic marker, and start screaming that Jews are going to get sued for anything in there that paints non-Jews in a less than heavenly light.]
Poland's church leader refuses to ban anti-Semitic books,
Haaretz (Israel), December 4, 2993
"The head of Poland's Roman Catholic church is refusing to respond to a call by leading intellectuals to remove literature condemned as anti-Semitic from a church bookshop, the Zycie Warszawy daily reported Thursday. "I do not want to get involved because the case has been already taken by the prosecutors," the daily quoted Cardinal Jozef Glemp as saying. "I think the case should be resolved on the grounds of the state law." A letter signed by 17 intellectuals published Wednesday suggested the church was condoning anti-Semitism and appealed to Glemp to have anti-Jewish books removed from the capital's All Saints Church, across the street from Warsaw's only synagogue. The bookshop offers titles by Polish nationalist authors and reprints of pre-World War II anti-Semitic publications. On display in the basement store Thursday were two books by Polish priests from the 1920s - one on "the Jewish question in Poland," another with a passage claiming that Jews themselves provoked anti-Semitism with anti-Christian attitudes. Store assistant Jan Wodakowski insisted, however, that allegations of anti-Semitism were groundless. "None of our books call for hatred," he told The Associated Press. "They just deal with painful Polish-Jewish history. They contain facts, not prejudice" ... Warsaw's Jewish community filed a complaint with prosecutors this year. Prosecutors questioned the publisher and the bookshop owner but refused to open an investigation, saying the men wanted only to make profit and did not intend to spread hatred of Jews. The community is considering suing Poland to the Human Rights Tribunal in Strasbourg, after a Warsaw court supported the prosecutors' decision. Poland's chief prosecutor Karol Napierski has suggested the case may be reopened. Poland had a thriving Jewish community of some 3.5 million, or 10 percent of all citizens, before World War II and the Nazi invasion. Some 3 million Polish Jews were among the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. About 15,000 to 20,000 Jews live in Poland now.

[CounterPunch is a good leftie anti-Zionist journal. But its moral indignation about censorship (see below) of its own material (based upon CounterPunch's alleged "anti-Semitism") is pretty thin. What goes around, comes around, and what you sock over the net is what you get socked back. The Jewish Tribal Review has sent articles to CounterPunch in the past and its editors don't even respond to us. Now, why would that be, except to play the usual close-to-the-vest gamesmanship about what is, and is not, kosher "anti-Semitism?" To criticize Israel is one thing, and you can get in plenty of difficulties just for that. But to criticize JEWISH history, identity, and political influence is apparently off the charts, even for CounterPunch. We think our 150+ page Accusation of Anti-Semitism is as good an examination as there is about the subject. The information by Jewish author Jason Sherman that addresses his article about two books about "anti-Semitism" is quite revealing, but not surprising. (His article didn't match Judeocentric and Zionist propaganda standards and was killed by Toronto's Globe and Mail editor Martin Levin, who of course is also Jewish.) Bottom line here though, as usual, is that "anti-Semitism" in the mass media is the domain of Jewish and Jewish sycophant discourse; the discussion of what ranks as "anti-Semitism" at the large audience public forum level is a purely Judeocentric exercise.]
Toronto Globe and Mail Kills Review of "The Politics of Anti-Semitism",
by Jason Sherman, CounterPunch, December 6-7, 2003
"Hello, CounterPunch, I was asked to write a review of two recent books on anti-Semitism for Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper. The two books are "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" and Phyllis Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism." I filed the review a week ago, and was sent an email earlier this week from the editor, who expressed "real problems" with the review. The "real problems" seem to stem from the fact that I didn't slam "The Politics" (and its "out of the same litter contributors") but instead praised it while ridiculing (justifiably, I believe) the Chesler book. I have written many reviews for the Globe, as well as for the Toronto Star and other publications. (My day job is writing plays.) They have never spiked a review of mine before. I should add that I approached the Globe with the idea of reviewing "The Politics" (before I'd read it), and that they agreed, but only if I would also consider the Chesler book. I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at the review, as well as the correspondence relating to it. Yours, Jason Sherman, Toronto. [The review, filed Thursday, Nov 13.] You're Either Against Us, or You're Not For Us, By Jason Sherman. The Politics of Anti-Semitism Edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair AK Press, 178 pgs. (US$12.95) The New Anti-Semitism The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It By Phyllis Chesler Wiley, 305 pgs, $38.95 It doesn't take much to get yourself called an anti-Semite these days. A few years ago I wrote a play that questioned some cherished notions about Israel. My "self-hating Jew" badge arrived in the next edition of the Canadian Jewish News. Not that I was surprised. After all, Noam Chomsky once wrote that "Left-liberal criticism of Israeli government policy since 1967 has evoked hysterical accusations and outright lies." Oppose the Israeli occupation and its treatment of the Palestinian people, he noted, and you risked being labeled "a supporter of terrorism and reactionary Arab states, an opponent of democracy, an anti-Semite, or if Jewish, a traitor afflicted with self-hatred." As two new books make clear, little has changed in the last 35 years, except perhaps that the mud is thicker, the slinging fiercer, the cry of "anti-Semite!" louder (and less credible) than ever."

[What do Jews NOT "protest" these days? Jewish identity seems to be in large part censoring other peoples' lives. To use the term "intifada" does not necessarily mean an endorsement of suicide bombing. It means, at core, the struggle for Arab human rights and dignity against the Israeli state. Jews dictate that it is an inappropriate ideal for a soccer term.]
Muslim football tournament's team names sparks Jewish protest,
Tulsa World, Decembr 7, 2003
"It was planned as a way to bring young athletes together for a weekend of fun, but when participants in the Muslim Football tournament started naming their teams Intifada, Soldiers of Allah and Mujahideen, Jewish leaders took offense. Intifada means "uprising" in Arabic and is the term applied to suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis in the Middle East. Mujahideen means holy warrior. Rabbi Bernie King, who lives in Irvine, said the teams' names undermined those who worked to have closer relations with Muslims. "Something like this ... tends to support those in the community who have suspicions about the real intent of Islam," King said. "What exactly are they honoring here?" asked Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Los Angeles-based Jewish human rights organization. "The continued targeting of innocent women and children by homicide bombers deserves to be condemned across the board. It's deeply, deeply disturbing." One of the Jan. 4 tournament's organizers said the names were meant to show support for Muslims in the Middle East, but also represent football bravado. "A lot of the kids on our team are from Palestinian origin," said Tarek Shawky, Intifada's 29-year-old captain and quarterback. "We are in solidarity with people in the uprising. It's about human rights and basic freedoms.""

Hartford Seminary tangle points to bigger issues,
Jonathan S. Tobin, Jewish World Review, May 26, 1998
"The irony is that the Hartford Seminary, one of the two institutions which combined forces to create the forum for Nyang (the other was the Maurice Greenberg Center for Judaic Studies of the University of Hartford), has now come under fire for the damage it has done to interfaith relations. The controversy over the appalling anti-Zionist essay by Rev. Barbara Brown Zikmund, the Seminary's president, published in the Hartford Courant on the occasion of Israel's jubilee, is still being hashed out by that school and the Jewish community. Zikmund's apology for her article, which was subsequently published in the Courant, did little to end the dispute. She did back away from her belief that Jews should "let go of the idea that a Jewish state located in a physical place is crucial to Jewish identity" which was one of the gravest of her offenses. That's certainly a step forward, but Zikmund's letter was less than contrite. It was a classic non-apology apology in which she also claimed she had been misinterpreted and repented for the pain her article caused and not for the body of thought it represented. She also sought to deflect criticism with double talk such as "I also have discovered that what one intends to write is not always what is written or read." Whatever that is supposed to mean, I guess she's very sorry that she is in this pickle. And even though she's the perpetrator here, the Rev. Zikmund has come to view herself as something of a victim. Missing from her apology is any retraction of her analogy between the victims of the Nazis and the Palestinians or of her general tone in which Israelis and their supporters are hard-hearted victimizers of the Arabs."

[Older news, but pretty horrifying. Americans, you are living in Amerisraelistan.]
Company fined $6,000 for not reporting customer's question: "Is any of this stuff made in Israel?",
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News, June 27, 2003
"A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for not reporting a customer's question to the federal government. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials? The Kansas City Star reports: The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration. We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden? It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question. Only a few years ago, during South Africa's apartheid era, it was considered the height of good moral backbone to ask whether a product came from that country. Today, many Americans are asking such questions about products they suspect came from France, after the French government declined to join "Operation Iraqi Freedom" ...And here's a press release from the US Department of Commerce: "Commerce Under Secretary for Industry and Security Kenneth I. Juster today reiterated to U.S. companies that the Department will vigorously enforce its regulations prohibiting U.S. persons from taking any action in support of foreign government boycotts against Israel. ..." If K-Mart is having a sale on cheap plastic chess sets and we ask the clerk whether the board or pieces were made in Israel, is the clerk allowed to answer? Must the store promptly file a form with the Bureau of Industry and Security reporting that we asked? Well, we'll be asking the forbidden question in every store we enter. Not because we're boycotting Israel — we're not. Heck, if we were boycotting products from countries whose policies are abhorrent, we'd start by boycotting anything marked "made in USA." We'll be asking the forbidden question because we believe in freedom. In a free society, the government doesn't tell people what questions they can ask, and what questions they can't, and what questions must be promptly reported to the authorities. We had heard of this law before — banning people from even asking about boycotting Israeli products — but we had foolishly assumed it wasn't often enforced. According to the article, though, "more than $26 million in fines" have been levied for violations of this law, suggesting that enforcement of the Forbidden Question Law is not at all uncommon. The fine in this case was $6,000, so assuming that's average and doing the math, more than 4,000 Americans or American companies have been fined — for asking the forbidden question, or failure to report that someone else asked the forbidden question."

[Canadian Jewish Lobby seeks to ban "the CNN of the Arab world" from Canada:]
Will Al-Jazeera win its war? It's not likely that protests from bodies such as the Canadian Jewish Congress will stop the CRTC licensing the currently illegal Arab station, James Adams writes,
Globe and Mail (posted at Canadian Jewish Congress), December 2, 2003
"You won't find Al-Jazeera, described almost ad nauseam since its creation in 1996 as "the CNN of the Arab world," in any TV Guide-type listing or on the digital-cable menus of Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and other big Canadian carriers. Indeed, it's illegal right now for anyone in Canada to carry the unexpurgated 24-hour-a-day Al-Jazeera signal, either via cable or DTH satellite ... Videotron, Quebec's largest cable company, and the Canadian Cable Television Association, which includes Rogers, want to change all this. Earlier this year, they asked the broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to list Al-Jazeera and a dozen or so other "foreign-language" or "ethnic" channels as permissible viewing for Canadians. A decision is expected some time this month, and sources close to the CRTC say it's expected to be favourable. If so, it means the cable companies can soon begin negotiations with executives at Al-Jazeera, RAI International, Cine Latino, Romanian Television International and the rest to pull down their satellite fare and have it digitally distributed as specialty programming across Canada .. This will no doubt please many of the estimated 600,000 Canadians of Arab and West Asian origin who have been going to places like the Bloor West halal restaurant, with their U.S. satellite dish and other so-called "grey-market technologies," for the Al-Jazeera broadcasts. But it will prove irksome to organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress, which has strongly opposed the addition of Al-Jazeera to the list of satellite services eligible for digital carriage. In the cover letter for its 37-page, Aug. 8 submission opposing the legal introduction of Al-Jazeera into Canada, the Congress argued that Al-Jazeera's "programming content contains hate propaganda, in contravention of Canadian laws and broadcast standards." Indeed, Jews on Al-Jazeera "are frequently characterized . . . as a duplicitous, corrupt, world-dominating conspiratorial force," the CJC said. Holocaust denial, too, is "commonplace" on the network. Authorizing Al-Jazeera for distribution places control of its content far beyond the reach of the CRTC. "That is why [the] application must be denied at the outset" .. Even the Canadian Jewish Congress, which argues freedom of speech is not "an absolute right," seems prepared for this eventuality if the penultimate page of its Aug. 8 report to the CRTC is any indication. There, the CJC says that if the CRTC allows Al-Jazeera on its digital distribution list, it should do so under three conditions: (1) it must be a dedicated subscriber-only service à la the Playboy Channel; (2) its licence should be for only 12 months at a time, with its broadcast distributors filing concerns and complaints from viewers to the CRTC every three months; (3) the service should be subject to a code of ethics analogous to what the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has for its members, as well as an enforcement mechanism similar to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council."

Quebec Jews upset as paper lists Arafat as possible ‘Man of the Year’,
by Bram Eisenthal, Virtual Jerusalem
"Outrage from Montreal Jews has prompted a French-language newspaper to withdraw a Person of the Year competition that included Yasser Arafat as a candidate. The competition in the daily La Presse — which also featured Canada’s new prime minister, Paul Martin, Quebec Premier Jean Charest, French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, champion cyclist Lance Armstrong and author Yan Martel, among others — asked readers to vote at the newspaper’s Web site. Bios were included with each personality. Arafat’s bio portrayed the Palestinian Authority president in a noble light. “Many people from different cultural backgrounds sent e-mails and letters of complaint,” said Philip Elharar, the Quebec-Israel Committee’s director of public affairs. “From what I understand, a serious number of people contacted them,” he said. “I think they were bombarded with complaints.” “It’s a shame, really, that they chose him. So much corruption surrounds this man,” he continued. “It’s unbelievable that Arafat would receive such an honor from a reputable newspaper like La Presse. People at La Presse are not stupid. Perhaps they were not consulted by the people who do their Web site.” Real-estate consultant Julia Coriat, a French-speaking Jews, said she was incensed when she read Arafat’s bio. “It’s all lies. I wanted to be sick when I saw what they wrote about him,” she said. The bio began by lauding Arafat for his “courage and tenacity” in the advancement of the Palestinian cause and the pursuit of peace in the Middle East ... Eric Clement, who is in charge of the paper’s Web site, cyberpresse, told JTA that the paper had been deluged with e-mails and letters, “mainly from the Jewish community.” “We have withdrawn Mr. Arafat’s name,” he said. “In fact, we have stopped the competition altogether.” “Initially, we wanted to just suggest names among many that people could vote for. We wanted the public to come up with names,” he said. “After all the letters and e-mails, we decided it had not been a good idea. We made a mistake.”

AUTH CARTOON BEGETS CHARGES OF ANTI-SEMITISM, FAIRLY OR NOT,
by Ahmed Bouzid, American Reporter, December 17, 2003
"On July 31, 2003, nationally syndicated cartoonist Tony Auth, who is based at the Philadelphia Inquirer, published a cartoon critical of the 'Separation Wall' that showed the star of David made out of barbed wire enclosing Palestinian populations. The cartoon immediately created an uproar within the Jewish community in Philadelphia and nationwide and raised the usual hackles of anti-Semitism against the cartoonist. Representatives from various Jewish groups in Philadelphia at once asked for a meeting with the Inquirer and two weeks later, on August 18, 2003, met with newly installed Editor in Chief, Amanda Bennett, to complain about the cartoon and the cartoonist. Two weeks later, on August 31, 2003, the Inquirer devoted a whole page of op-ed space for these groups to air their grievances. On Sept. 1st, representatives of Arab and Muslim groups in Philadelphia who had been seeking a meeting with Ms. Bennett since she became editor in June, and who had been told by Ms. Bennett that she was not meeting with anyone "just yet," contacted Ms. Bennett upon learning of her meeting with the Jewish groups and requested a meeting to discuss what they felt to be a disturbing and well-established pattern in Mr. Auth's cartoons of using and abusing deragotary stereotypes about Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. Five weeks later, On Oct. 8, representatives from Palestine Media Watch (I was one) and the Philadelphia chapter of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) met with Ms. Bennett for more than one hour to discuss Mr. Auth's cartoons. We presented Ms. Bennett with seven copies of two neatly bound reports focusing on all cartoons published by Mr. Auth regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict (45 cartoons) and Arabs and Muslims in general (41 cartoons, excluding Iraq) between September 2000 and August 2003 ... Our request to Ms. Bennett at the end of the meeting was for the Inquirer to provide a Sunday op-ed page for Arab and Muslim Americans in the Philadelphia area to write on how they have been portrayed by the US media and how they have fared in general since 9/11, given their precarious civil rights situation. Ms. Bennett said that she would take the matter into consideration and that she would get back to us with an answer soon. Since the meeting, we sent Ms. Bennett three follow-up emails in a span of more than two months asking for her to update us on her decision. For more than 10 weeks, neither Ms. Bennett nor Mr. Auth, nor indeed anyone else in the Inquirer, even bothered to respond to our queries. Direct queries to Mr. Auth were also ignored ... Obviously, the difference between our groups and the Israel-first groups is that we came to Ms. Bennett respectfully, quietly, without first mobilizing a letter-writing campaign, with two reports spanning three years of evidence, and we presented our case without impugning the cartoonist's or the paper's intentions or integrity, and without shrill accusations of bigotry and racism. By contrast, Israel-first groups immediately mobilized their members to flood the Inquirer with letters and phone calls, with of course the usual accusations of anti-Semitism. So, what lessons should one draw from this tale of two pressure groups? The first immediate lesson is that the "anti-Semitism" card, especially when backed with hysterical and shrill outcries, will every time trump reasoned and empirically-informed argument. About a year ago, a similar tug-of-war between Israel-first groups and our groups took place, with basically the same results: on the one hand, a hundred or so Israel-first demonstrators shouted outside of the offices of the Inquirer slogans to the effect that - what else - the Inquirer was 'anti-Semitic', that it was the legacy of Nazi-sympathizers, that it supported terrorism, and called for a boycott of the paper ... A second, and related, lesson is that newspapers will react not to reasoned argument but to raw pressure. The pressure group that mobilizes the more people to make phone calls, send faxes, or send emails, is the pressure group that gets the attention. Pretty straightforward physics, but important to note and highlight, since I have yet to meet a single editor or reporter who was honest enough to acknowledge this depressing fact of life in American journalism. Instead, every single time the issue comes up, I am given the high-minded bromide that journalists resent organized mobilizations and that such mobilizations are more often counter-productive than they are effective. But reality spells a different story: the loud and hard right, for instance, has successfully intimidated weak-kneed newspapers into giving them far more space than they deserve, given how marginal their opinions are relative to mainstream public opinion ... The bottom line: mobilize and mobilize, and make noise. Not that we should stoop to tarring-and-feathering, to lying and lynching; not that we should emulate every aspect of the Israel-first and the hard right camps. That is not the style of principled causes. But we do have clear and present enemies who are so consumed by self-righteousness that any destruction they wreck with their intolerance to dissenting opinion is in their mind fully justified by the end they seek. Well, for those who feel that the progressive cause is inherently and by definition too diverse and too democratic to train its sights on any one target with common, concentrated energy, we do have one: a bitter fight against those who feel that our destruction is an important stepping-stone towards their false Utopia."

[The Canadian Jewish Congress is a censorial octopus. It is trying to make it illegal in Canada to link to this web site.]
Free speech shut down at Toronto school, I object to the willingness of the CJC to interfere in a public school and tell students what they can and cannot do to promote dialogue and discussion,
by Max Silverman, Rabble, December 17, 2003
"In grade 11, I transferred from the Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto (CHAT) to Northern Secondary School, a public school also in Toronto. My decision was primarily because I could no longer stand to be in the untenable situation at CHAT where anyone who strayed from the party line — that of an “Israel is always right” mentality — was branded an anti-Semite and a traitor. Dissent was muffled and propaganda was rampant. For you see, unlike most students at CHAT, I am active in a group called Jewish Youth Against the Occupation (JYATO), as well as various other local social-justice oriented groups. I hoped that by changing to Northern, I would be able to express myself freely, and engage in educated and open debate. Until now, this was the case. At Northern we have a number of student-run, student-oriented and student-council-sanctioned clubs. One of them is the “Peace-Justice-Environment” club, which is a merger of two previous clubs: “Students for Social Justice” and the “Youth Environmental Organization.” At the first meeting of our newly united club, one campaign we decided to organize was a weekly film series of movies with a social-justice slant. I was put in charge of this film series, and decided that our first movie was to be Jenin Jenin by Mohammed Bakri about the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin, the Israeli invasion of that camp, and the emotional responses of the inhabitants. It is important to know that Jenin Jenin does not have a narrator, guide or interviewer. It is simply ten or so inhabitants of Jenin telling their stories, expressing their opinions and their emotions. It is a beautiful film and the director, Bakri, a citizen of Israel, is well-known among Israelis for winning numerous Israeli film awards. When the movie first came out in Israel it was banned for public showing, but after an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court the ban was lifted. Our group picked December 10, International Human Rights Day, for the screening, booked a room for the lunch hour, got a staff advisor to sign off on all our posters, and began advertising the event. The day before the event, our staff advisor informed us that our principal, Bob Milne, had received a number of complaints about the movie, and asked that our advisor screen the movie to view it for potentially racist or hateful content. He was also asked to screen Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in Israel, a right-wing propaganda piece that the Northern Israel Solidarity Club (another student club at the school) wanted to show. He watched both movies, said that neither contained racist content, and noted that Jenin Jenin, while biased as all documentaries are, was far less political and propagandist than Relentless. I went home that night fairly certain that the event would go ahead the next day as planned, though something told me there could be trouble. I got to school rather early on the morning of December 10 and went straight to the office of this staff advisor. I found him looking rather distraught on the phone. I found out after he hung up that he had been on the phone with Len Rudner of the Canadian Jewish Congress. The staff advisor told me that Rudner objected to the showing of the movie as it was too one-sided and potentially anti-Semitic. When asked by this teacher whether or not Rudner objected to the showing of Relentless, he had no objections. When asked whether or not Rudner had seen Jenin Jenin, his answer was that he had not seen it. As the student organizing the event, I felt obliged to call Rudner back and hear his objections. I explained who I was, my role in showing the movie, and asked his objections. Bluntly and simply he told me his objections were that “There was no massacre in Jenin” and that we were advocating the position that there was. I asked him if he had seen our posters advertising the event. He said no. I told him that our posters said “Operation Defensive Shield or War Crimes and Massacre?”, clearly showing that there are differences of opinion as to what happened. At this point, Rudner had to “end the call” as he said he was going into an underground parking garage. He said he would call me back in the afternoon if I left him my number. I have yet to hear a word from him. After ending the call with Rudner, I decided I would call Bernie Farber, executive director of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Farber told me that he was “dealing with the principal” and refused to speak to me until he had discussed it with him first. I pointed out that I was the student organizing the student-run event for a student club which got its rights to organize from the student council. (Gee whiz! Students organizing autonomously!). He refused to speak to me, and ended the call. (Please note that in a form letter sent in response to inquiries to the CJC, they claim that Farber wouldn't talk to me only because he was on the phone at the moment with the principal, Bob Milne. This is a fabrication as the principal told me he would not speak to Farber until he — Milne — had met with me as the student organizer). At 10:30 that morning my staff advisor and I met with Milne. He told me that Farber said in an email that to show the movie could potentially violate the Safe Schools Act, as when the movie had previously been shown, it had caused racial violence at another school. I was intrigued at hearing that Jenin Jenin had been shown at another school, and that it had caused violence. I asked which school, but Farber had not told Milne that. I asked when, but Farber had not told Milne that. Generally when something related to Middle East education occurs in Toronto or the area, I hear about it from my activism with JYATO, especially when it occurs in a school. I have yet to be told when or where this occurred and remain skeptical as to the event's existence. I also learned in this meeting that Milne had received calls from the Superintendent, Director of the School Board, the Canadian Jewish News, as well as former school trustee, Shelly Laskin, which puzzled me as she has no authority over the school, and I wondered how she had heard about the events. Part of my puzzlement was laid to rest when I found out that the CJC had called her at home the day before. At the end of our meeting, I was told that the movie's showing was to be “delayed” until he could consult with others on the school board. He assured me that he has always opposed censorship and would make sure that students are given the opportunity to express and hear all opinions, barring racism. I believed him, and in an email I sent to some interested parties, I asked them not to call Milne as he was already overwhelmed with calls, and I thought we could deal directly with him as students. Looking back, this was a mistake as he only received calls from people wanting to stifle free speech and shut down the showing of both movies. On Thursday, I found out that both movies were cancelled and will not be shown at Northern. Since then, I have been meeting with Milne, the student council president, and the head of the Israel Solidarity Club in an attempt to find a solution."

[Criticize Jews? No joke, that may be good for 2-3 years in prison. That's what the world Jewish Lobby seeks everywhere. This Orwellian Thought Crime tool is to call legitimate criticizm of Jewish racism, power, and censorship "hate." The Jewish Master doesn't want to hear anything bad about His sacred self. ]
HUNGARY'S PRESIDENT VETO'S HATE SPEECH LAW. Jewish community shocked about latest developments,
By Stefan J. Bos, Christian News Today (from Voice of America), December 24, 2003
"The Hungarian Jewish community expressed concern Tuesday, Dec. 23, about a veto by President Ferenc Madl of one of Europe's toughest legislations against hate speech. Madl also asked the Constitutional Court to review the law, which was this month approved by parliament following a series of incidents against Hungary's Jewish and Roma communities. In a statement released by his office Madl said he refused to sign the hate speech legislation because the bill could "restrict freedom to a greater extent than is constitutionally permissible." The law, adopted earlier this month by parliament, stipulates that any person who publicly incites hatred "toward any nation, or national, ethnic, racial or religious group" could face three years in prison. In addition, someone who "publicly insults the dignity of a person because of his or her national, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation" could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and sentenced to up to two years of imprisonment ... The legislation came after a series of anti-Semitic incidents. Earlier this year a prominent lawyer representing racist skinheads in a trial asked the presiding judge whether she was Jewish. And in Budapest, a soccer team owned by a Jewish businessman heard rival fans chant, "The train is leaving for Auschwitz."

L.I. rabbi apparently is being let go for criticizing U.S. and Israel during sermon,
by Manja Ressler, Jewish Week, December 5, 2003
"On Kol Nidre this year, Rabbi Paul Joseph of Temple Emanuel in Lynbrook, L.I., took to the pulpit and, while professing love for the United States and Israel, voiced strong criticism against both governments. He chastised America for invading Iraq and Israel for its handling of the Palestinian conflict. The criticism caught many of those in attendance off guard. And it may have cost Rabbi Joseph his job. Last week, in a vote that reflects a deeply divided synagogue and raises questions about rabbinic freedom of speech from the pulpit, the 600-family Reform congregation voted 159 to 112 to ratify the board of trustees’ decision not to renew the rabbi’s contract at the end of this year, his third at Temple Emanuel. The decision was based in part on a flood of angry letters about the Kol Nidre sermon, in which Rabbi Joseph said, “What grieves me as an American and a Jew is that I have been thrust into the conflict of conscience in which the two societies I love and admire more than any others in the world, the United States and the State of Israel, seem to have lost their moral compass and slipped back into more primitive modes of acting.” “Their ethics,” the sermon continued, “have reverted to tribalism and their claims to righteousness when examined closely amount to little more than intra-tribal morality, with one standard to be applied to their own kind and another, lesser standard to those with whom they are in conflict.” During his sermon, some congregants left the sanctuary, enraged by his remarks about Israel. ... Said Rabbi Joseph: “Of course, there are sacred cows. Israel is one of them. What people don’t understand is that when a rabbi speaks from the pulpit, it is a Jew speaking with other Jews. I wouldn’t publish what I said in my sermon in a newspaper, or say the same things when confronted by an antagonist of Zionism and Israel.”

Comedian's Jewish joke faces judicial probe,
Sify News, December 24, 2003
"Paris: French prosecutors said Wednesday they had opened a preliminary investigation into a comedian's televised skit in which he appeared as an orthodox Jew who urged disaffected urban youths to join the "American-Zionist Axis". A statement from the prosecutors' office in Paris said they were probing the December 1 performance of Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala - known in France just as Dieudonne - because it "seemed to constitute defamation of a racist character." The entertainer, a 37-year-old self-declared atheist born in France of a French mother and a Cameroonian father, went on a show on state owned channel France 3 dressed in a ski mask and wearing a wig, hat and jacket to look like an orthodox Jew. He jokingly urged disadvantaged French youth - many of them second-generation Arab immigrants from north African Muslim countries such as Algeria - to "convert, like me, try to pick yourselves up, join the Axis of Good: the American-Zionist Axis." The incident elicited outrage from French Jewish groups and a reprimand to the network from the broadcasting regulator. Dieudonne, however, has been defiant and has even demanded an apology for being called anti-Semitic, noting that his controversial brand of humour has also in the past targeted Muslims and Christians. "Everyone is so touchy about this issue.... The ones who are really suffering from racism are not the Jews, but blacks and Arabs. It is easier to make fun of Muslim fundamentalism than Israeli fundamentalism," he said in a press conference days after the programme. A minor presidential candidate in 2002 elections who once described Osama Bin Laden as the "most important personality in contemporary history", Dieudonne has sought attention with his controversial humour and comments. Last year, an appeals court acquitted him of slander after he called white Catholics racist slavers."

[A Jew makes a little moral sense, and the rest hate him for it. World Jewry's support for Israel is a kind of internal totalitarian fascism, an iron bond of self-delusion.]
Embattled Academic, Tony Judt Defends Call for Binational State,
By NATHANIEL POPPER, Forward, Decembe 26, 2003
"Tony Judt is a scholar who was until recently best known for his writings on European history. But then, in a 2,900-word essay in the October 23 edition of The New York Review of Books, Judt dropped the intellectual equivalent of a nuclear bomb on Zionism, calling for the dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state. Judt argued in his essay that Israel is quickly on the way to becoming a "belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno state." The ethnic basis of Israeli laws, Judt said, was counter to the modern, democratic ideals to which Israel holds itself. In place of a Jewish state, he argued, should emerge a binational state with equal rights for all Jews and Arabs currently living in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The response to the essay, "Israel: The Alternative," was fast and furious, with several vehement critics seemingly ready to dismantle Judt, the London native and director of the Remarque Institute at New York University. In the first weeks after his essay was published, Judt and The New York Review received more than 1,000 letters, many peppered with terms like "antisemite" and "self-hating Jew," and some going so far as to threaten the scholar and his family. Judt was removed from the masthead of The New Republic, where he had been listed as a contributing editor, and condemned by the magazine's literary editor, Leon Wieseltier, and other pro-Israel commentators. In the end, the outrage in many circles appeared to boil down to one basic question: "What kind of a Jew would write such things?" A "proud" one, answered Judt, in a recent interview with the Forward, insisting that despite his transformation from teenaged Zionist activist to 50-something Zionist apostate he is still happy to be connected to the "annoying, burdensome, proud, difficult, unique, Jewish heritage" ... Urged on by his parents, Judt enthusiastically waded into the world of Israeli politics at age 15, rising to become the national secretary of the Labor Zionist youth movement Dror. He helped promote the immigration of British Jews to Israel and organized relief missions to the fledgling Jewish state. Just after the Six Day War, Judt, then 19, dropped out of Cambridge and went to Israel, where his excellent Hebrew allowed him to work as a translator for international volunteers aiding the army. While many Jews throughout the world found themselves inspired by Israel's dramatic victory in 1967, it was during the aftermath of the war that Judt's belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. "I went with this idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work," Judt said. The problem, he began to believe, was that this view was "remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible" ... "Even if I felt threatened as a Jew," Judt told the Forward, "I would never want to go to Israel." Judt went further in his essay, arguing that rather than serving as a safe haven for Jews around the world, Israel and its policies were responsible for a global spike in antisemitism. "The depressing truth," Judt wrote, "is that Israel today is bad for the Jews" ... With all this venom being exchanged, Judt told The New Republic that he would understand if his name were dropped from the masthead. A week later it was, without any further communication, Judt said. Judt told the Forward that while he understood the controversial nature of his call for a binational state, he was taken aback by the refusal of most of his critics, especially the American ones, to even consider the idea. European and Israeli readers and discussion partners did not voice the same vehement objections to his proposal, Judt said ... Judt seemed remarkably unperturbed by the deeply critical response to his essay from American Jews, a reflection that appears to stem in part from his rather dim opinion of the Jewish community. "It is such an insecure community," Judt said, "so desperate to find some basis for its own identity." The scholar said that he does not identify with Israel or the American Jewish community, and acknowledged that this partially explains his lack of attachment to the Zionist state. Still, Judt said, he considers himself a "proud Jew."

[Before you do anything, you MUST jump through the requisite Jewish hoop and ask permission from the Jewish Thought Police. The terms "Intifada" and "Mujahedin" mean different things to different people. They are not exchange words for "suicide bomber." But the Jewish Lobby is not happy unless it removes any notion of resistance to Israeli oppression from the English language and consciousness. We suggest as an American Muslim soccer name "Nonviolent Warriors Against the Jewish Thought Police." Then, suicide bomber-less, we can all struggle with Jewish censorship from there, where the real issues at stake will be out in the open.]
Muslim Football Tournament Under Fire,
by CHELSEA J. CARTER, Yahoo! News (from Associated Press), December 29,. 2003
"The idea was innocent enough: A group of young men organize a holiday football tournament and give their teams such innocuous names as "4th and Goal" and "Playmakerz." It was some of the other team names that raised eyebrows: Intifada, Soldiers of Allah and Mujahideen. The furor that followed has forced some teams to change their names and a handful of players to quit. It also sparked a debate that threatens to overshadow the tournament, which was planned primarily for young Muslims and scheduled for Jan. 4. "This was really just supposed to be about the youth playing football. Now it's become so political that a part of me thinks we shouldn't even play," said Tarek Shawky, 29, one of the tournament's organizers. Those involved in the league said they never set out to upset or offend anyone. But critics say such names as Intifada and Mujahideen glorify terrorism. Intifada, "uprising" in Arabic, is a term used by Palestinians for their revolts against Israeli occupation from 1987 to 1993 and over the past three years. Mujahideen, which means "holy warrior," is associated with several Islamic groups that are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. "The issue is these are words that are linked to real terrorists, real threats, real murders today," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. "There shouldn't be young Americans chanting the name Mujahideen as American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are put in danger and attacked daily," Cooper said. "As for Intifada, it has been a disaster for the Palestinians and the nearly 1,000 Israeli children and parents murdered by suicide bombers."

[The Jewish insistence upon controlling popular discourse. The MoveOn organization, of course, dares to criticize Israel and here's another twisted, doublethink Anti-Defamation League trick to try to subvert morality by declaring MoveOn's expression of morality is immoral. The ADL is a corrupt shill for apartheid Israel, and has always been so.]
ADL Says Hitler Ad Should Never Have Appeared on MoveOn.org,
U.S. Newswire, January 5, 2004
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said it was deeply troubled that MoveOn.org had allowed an outrageous and highly offensive political ad that directly compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler to be posted on its Web site. Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director and author of "Never Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism," issued the following statement: "It is shocking that a mainstream political group like MoveOn.org not only allowed this vile and outrageous comparison of the American President to Adolf Hitler to be entered into its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest in the first place, but that they even went so far as to make it available to the public on the Internet. Those responsible for this contest at MoveOn.org should have immediately identified this advertisement as one going far beyond legitimate criticism and rejected it out of hand. Instead, they made an irresponsible decision that has given legitimacy to the exploitative manipulation of images in a campaign season. "MoveOn.org clearly would not have accepted a pornographic ad as legitimate criticism of a candidate. Why did they think that images of Hitler, the Nazi whose evil regime was responsible for the slaughter of millions of people during the Holocaust, was a fitting and credible expression of criticism of President Bush and his policies? Their lack of discretion cheapens the level of political discourse in America, and their comments explaining it were hardly comforting."

Urgent call for disclosure of usage and personnel data Lubomyr Prytulak to Mary M Gusella,
by Lubomyr Prytuylak, Ukrainian Archives, January 9, 2004
"I wonder if the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), contrary to its name and its mandate, does not make of itself the leading practitioner of ethnic and religious discrimination in Canada, and the chief instigator of ethnic and religious strife, by placing its resources at the service of some ethnic or religious groups, while denying these resources to other groups. For example, it may be the case that the CHRC will support a complaint of hate messaging lodged by a Jew against a German, but not a complaint lodged by an Arab against a Jew, even though the racist and homicidal qualities of Nazis and Zionists in the respective cases are comparable, and even though Nazi crimes are historical whereas Zionist crimes are ongoing. The question of the CHRC servicing some ethnic and religious groups to the exclusion of others might be tested by examining the proportions of its hate-messaging budget that it has dedicated annually over the past decade to prosecutions (a) on behalf of various ethnic and religious groups, and (b) targetting various ethnic and religious groups — of particular interest perhaps being Arab, German, Jewish, and Ukrainian groups. Furthermore, the CHRC publishing on an ongoing basis, together with an annual summary, a listing of all hate-messaging cases would also be helpful in evaluating CHRC bias, and which would be no more than bringing the CHRC up to the standard of openness of a court of law, where all cases are a matter of public record, and where listings of all cases are available. I would appreciate your informing me where such CHRC funding and case information has been published, or if it has not been published, when it might be, or if it never will be, then what alternative evidence the CHRC intends to produce that will be capable of convincing Canadians of CHRC impartiality. The need for disclosure of this information is urgent, because as things stand, a Ukrainian complained of by a Jew to the CHRC is likely to conjecture that the CHRC has to date allocated not ten, not a hundred, not a thousand, but a million times the funds to prosecuting Jewish complaints as it has to prosecuting Ukrainian complaints, which conjecture will suggest to the defendant Ukrainian that he stands before a kangaroo court whose intent is to conduct a show trial, and which conjecture is so damaging to the CHRC, and which is so likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and which must so inevitably incite inter-ethnic and inter-religious animosity, that it is mandatory to quell that conjecture with hard data demonstrating that it is false. I urge you to brush aside every obstacle to the gathering and publication of this data, as the credibility of the CHRC is at issue, and that credibility will not survive stonewalling. It would be insufficient for the CHRC to explain any preponderance of Jewish-initiated prosecutions which the above-proposed analysis might discover by replying that the CHRC responds to complaints from whatever source they happen to come, and that complaints do happen to come overwhelmingly from Jews rather than from Arabs, Germans, or Ukrainians."

USA Today Reporter Resigns Over Probe. Editors Investigated Jack Kelley's Stories,
By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, January 8, 2004; Page C01
"Jack Kelley, a USA Today correspondent who has repeatedly risked his life in war zones around the world, resigned Tuesday after the paper's top editors questioned whether some of his stories were fabricated. Kelley, 43, has been under scrutiny since June, when an anonymous letter accused him of falsifying stories. Another USA Today reporter, Mark Memmott, was assigned to try to verify Kelley's earlier work, according to sources familiar with the paper's internal investigation. Kelley insisted yesterday that he had done nothing wrong. "Recent allegations were raised in the form of an anonymous letter, but they were proven to be false, as evidenced by the fact that no retraction or correction has been published," he said. "Nonetheless, USA Today and I have decided to go separate ways and I wish USA Today all the best." Kelley has told colleagues he felt that the atmosphere had become too hostile for him to continue. Editor Karen Jurgensen confirmed the "investigation," saying: "We are in a position where we're not correcting anything at this time. . . . It's our policy to thoroughly investigate any suggestion of an inaccuracy." She said that Kelley "elected to resign." Jurgensen declined to characterize the investigation's findings or discuss the details because it involves "a personnel matter," but said there were no plans to continue the probe "based on what we know now." One USA Today staffer said that the paper's investigation has wrongly suggested that Kelley might be another Jayson Blair, the New York Times reporter who resigned last year after admitting that he faked and plagiarized dozens of stories. This staffer and several others, all of whom declined to be identified because the editors had made no announcement about Kelley's status, say that is deeply unfair to a 21-year veteran who, among other things, was nearly killed in a terrorist attack on a Jerusalem pizza parlor. Kelley, who in 2002 became the first Pulitzer Prize finalist in the paper's history, was so highly regarded that he made up to three dozen speeches a year for USA Today and was featured in a promotional video aimed at advertisers. His wife, Jacki, is the Gannett newspaper's senior vice president for advertising. Seven stories were initially selected for investigation, but only four were actually examined, say sources familiar with the inquiry. This led to a long period in limbo -- Kelley has not had a byline since October -- as Kelley hired a lawyer and spent December working at home, trying to defend stories filed from Israel, the West Bank, Cuba and the Balkans. One story that sources said was confirmed by Memmott, a former top editor, was Kelley's presence at the suicide bombing of a Sbarro's pizza restaurant in Jerusalem in August 2001. Kelley, who reported that he was with an Israeli official 30 yards away, has said that he and the official had left the restaurant moments earlier and that the blast knocked them to their knees. USA Today also examined Kelley's report during that period on 13 Jewish settlers in the West Bank who he said opened fire on a Palestinian taxi, with one of them quoted by name as saying it was "our Jewish duty" to "eliminate all the Muslim filth." Sources familiar with the inquiry say an Israeli official has confirmed the incident to USA Today ... David Aikman, a former Time correspondent, said he has worked with Kelley in Moscow, Hong Kong and Jerusalem and "it's inconceivable to me that he would invent a story. He's one of the bravest reporters I've ever come across." Sherry Ricchiardi, a senior writer for American Journalism Review who spent time with Kelley in Croatia and Macedonia, called him "a meticulous reporter. There was no doubt in my mind that he'd done everything he said he had done." Kelley, who has told friends he has lost 25 pounds in recent months, said yesterday that he was "very appreciative" of the opportunities he had at USA Today. But colleagues say he believes that he made his share of enemies at the paper and that the allegations were prompted by professional jealousy. Kelley often seemed to be at the center of a brewing storm. In 2002 he told The Post about the reaction to his story on the Israeli settlers who were reported to have fired on the Palestinian taxi. "I got 3,000 e-mails a day for 10 straight days, including several death threats," Kelley said. "Someone sent a bouquet of white funeral flowers. The message was loud and clear: If you don't play our way, you will suffer the consequences."

Hate Speech: Anything Jews Hate to Hear,
by Edgar J. Steele, Conspiracy Pen Pal, January 9, 2004
"What's more, today's hate crime laws protect only certain groups of people: blacks, jews, homosexuals, women, certain minorities - after all, it is still ok to tell the most reprehensible jokes about lawyers (I'm one), rednecks (I'm one) and whites (I'm one), but when was the last time you heard a Rastus and Liza joke? Like today's hate crime laws, tomorrow's hate speech laws also will protect only certain groups of people, jews in particular. Tomorrow already is here in Canada, Germany, England, Italy and so many other Western countries. It almost is here in America. It soon will be, if the ADL has its way. And, just as the truth of one's comments no longer matters, mere intent no longer is the core issue. Hate speech laws focus upon the effect one's comments have, regardless of one's intent. Hate speech is hurt speech. The truth hurts, in other words. And, like a sword, it can hurt in both directions. Just ask Nusrat Hussein, a Canadian resident who publishes a small newspaper for his local Muslim community. You see, Mr. Hussain had the temerity to reprint my essay, "It Wasn't Arabs" (http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arabs.htm) in his paper, "The Miracle," which has a circulation of about 2,500 in and around Vancouver, British Columbia. Now they want to put Mr. Hussain in prison just for printing my little diatribe: Muslim newspaper accused of spreading hate (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2004/01/07/publish040107). This has become a huge affair in Canada, with radio, TV and the press converging on poor Mr. Hussain. Imagine what they would like to do to me. "It Wasn't Arabs" has developed a life of its own, it seems. It began as a personal rant, then developed into a laundry list of complaints which can be laid at the doorsteps of jews around the world ... Recently, in "Tell a Joke, Go to Jail" (http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/rant.htm), I wrote about a law which had been passed by Hungary's democratically-elected Parliament which stipulated a two-year prison term for "someone who publicly insults a Jew." (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/Hungary_FreeSpeech.html) What's more, if the insult amounted to an expression of "hatred," the sentence went up to three years! Fortunately, at the last moment, Hungary's President declined to sign the bill. It will be back, though, and it will be passed eventually. Think about it for a moment: two years in prison for publicly insulting a jew in Hungary! Regardless of intent. They just have to have their little jew feelings hurt. Add a year if you mean it! Now my essay, "It Wasn't Arabs," has some Canadian jews in high places hyperventilating. "Free speech does not mean hate speech, and I think this article clearly is hate speech," said Nisson Goldman of the CJC. That is CJC, as in the Canadian Jewish Congress. They are the guys that are demanding Mr. Hussain be prosecuted. It is ironic that "It Wasn't Arabs" actually was inspired by the CJC itself! ... We have seen how free speech in the world has been whittled away, bit by bit, going from prohibiting harm to punishing mere intent - and intent regarding only certain people. We see the next iteration in America being hate speech bans, the touchstone for which is the effect one's speech has on another's feelings. That's for tomorrow. What about the day after that? Remember who is pushing all this censorship. Jews like Bernie Farber, of the CJC, now on the trail of poor Mr. Hussain, whose crime was printing an essay that told the truth. Because jewish feelings were hurt."

Investigation against Indymedia Israel has turned into intimidation, harming Freedom of Speech,
posted by Shimshimblim, Infoshop, December 29 2003
"The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) states in a letter to the Attorney General of Israel: “The investigation against Indymedia Israel has turned into intimidation, harming Freedom of Speech on the Internet.” Translated from Hebrew December, 26th, 2003 Police investigators are attempting to throw responsibility on Indymedia Israel’s operators, for publications appearing in the “open publishing zone” of the website. This is done illegally and against the recommendations of a professional committee of the Israel Ministry of Justice. The Indymedia Israel website provides a free and open stage for surfers on the Internet. Approximately three weeks ago, a surfer outside of Israel published a caricature in the open publishing zone of the website, in which the Israeli Prime Minister is portrayed passionately kissing the leader of Nazi Germany. Subsequent to this, the Attorney General of Israel ordered the opening of an investigation against the website’s administrators, for incitement and insulting a public figure. Today, attorney Avner Pinchuk of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) sent a letter to the Israel Attorney General demanding an immediate end to the investigation. Attorney Pinchuk claims that the moment the police realized the site’s operators did not publish the publication, it was illegitimate to harass them with an investigation. Worse than this, the police investigators are attempting to ‘convince’ the site’s operators to commit themselves to continual censorship over all publications in the open publishing zone of the site. By doing this, the investigators deviate from their authority in an attempt to impose on the Israeli Internet arena, norms which are against both the law and the position of most professionals working in the field, in Israel and abroad—including a special committee of the Israel Ministry of Justice. Electronic billboards, like that of Indymedia Israel, are very common on the Internet and are used by many individuals and communities wishing to exchange information and opinions freely. As opposed to the global process of concentration of the media and debate in the hands of a few, the public platform of the Internet provides a unique ground for free, democratic dialogue. Indeed, in the open publishing zone, some offensive expressions might appear, such as slander or abuse of privacy."

[Think what you like about the National Alliance. But herein lies the usual dual moral standard. Thanks to the Jewish Lobby and Jewish Money that strangles America's politicians, it is ILLEGAL in America to boycott Israel. The "white nationalist" National Alliance is toxifed, censored, and boycotted -- routinely. One hysterical Jew making threats from a phone booth can effectively create a boycott to censor just about anything. Meanwhile, the powerfully racist state of Israel -- world Jewry's Great Beloved -- is legally protected from what goes on below.]
Owner to remove white supremacist billboard near Orlando,
ABC Action News, January 14, 2003
"A billboard owner has agreed to remove an advertisement rented by a white supremacist group after a Jewish group organized a telephone campaign and threatened a national boycott. The Jewish Defense Organization launched the campaign against Sunshine Outdoor of Florida and its owner, Jerry Sullivan of Micanopy, to remove the advertisement from a billboard standing on Florida's Turnpike about 35 miles from Orlando. Sullivan had defended the sign on free speech grounds -- a long as the client paid. In big block letters on a black backdrop the sign reads "WHO RULE$ AMERIKA?" and gives the Internet address of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group based in West Virginia. The New York-based Jewish Defense Organization put Sullivan's name and phone number on its Web site and urged anyone who hates Nazis to call and complain. An agreement to remove the sign had been made with Sullivan on Tuesday, said A.J. Weberman of the Jewish Defense Organization. Sullivan's spokesman, Dennis O'Neill, confirmed the deal to remove the sign."

[Note: Lawrence Attard Bezzina is a wealthy and influential Jew in Malta. Here is a current JTR Contributor comment about the older article submitted to us below: "Mr. Lawrence (Larry) Attard Bezzina, a Maltese Jew who is the very carbon copy of Christopher Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta", threatened this Maltese website, Maltafly.com with a lawsuit, accusing one of its authors, Mr. Toni l-Pagun of "anti-Semitism" for speaking out against Israeli policies in the Middle East. While this is old news, he continues to this day to respond to those who criticize Zionism in the same fashion that Mr. Tim Wise did to JTR. And of course, he decided to resort to something that has become such an integral part of modern Jewish culture and society: file a lawsuit ...."]
A reply to Lawrence Attard Bezzina. The law is not on your side,
by Toni l-Pagun, Malta Fly, November 18, 2003
"Well, this gentleman is saying that Maltafly.com is spewing out “anti-Semitic” propaganda and should be stopped. He even mentioned taking the issue to Court. I do not subscribe to everything that people such as Norman Lowell say, but Malta is a democratic country whose Constitution guarantees the freedom of expression. ... Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society" ... If one were to argue on a more personal level, one has to say that Mr. Lawrence Attard Bezzina has a nasty track record of threatening journalists, University academics and all those who do not subscribe to his views. Moreover, he has the tendency of using blatant half-truths and lies to push forward the Israeli agenda. Not a fine ambassador for the Jewish cause indeed!! Hence I appeal to my friends at Maltafly not to feel downhearted and not to succumb to Mr. Attard Bezzina’s coercive methods. Maltafly.com is and should remain a true platform for freedom of expression."

[JTR Contributor's Comment: "The Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, made havoc at the Swedish Museum of History yesterday, trashing a piece of art for its 'anti-Semitic undertones'. This is today¹s top story in Swedish media, but I guess it will not get much attention abroad. However, there is some information about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/17/international/europe/17BRIE1.html The 'Palestinian' art mentioned is in fact very Jewish. The man behind it is the Jew Dror Feiler, an Israeli citizen, born in Tel Aviv 1951 and a former parachutist in the IDF. Today he is involved in the Peace movement, trying to make Jews and Palestinians to reconcile. Zvi Mazel, by the way, made headlines a couple of months ago when he blasted the Swedish archbishop KG Hammar, calling him an anti-Semite for supporting a boycott of Israeli goods. I noticed that you wrote about Oscar Berger becoming president in Guatemala. I have also noticed that the vice President is a certain Eduardo Stein, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs. Stein had his education in the USA and served later on as an advisor to the Panamanian government. Is either Berger or Stein Jewish? Well, I do not know, but I have forwarded the question to a Jewish journalist and will of course let you know what he replies."]
Israel's Sweden Envoy Attacks Suicide Bomber Art,
By Peter Starck and Jeffrey Heller, Reuters, January 17, 2004
"Israel defended its ambassador to Sweden on Saturday after he attacked and damaged a Stockholm art exhibit that made an avant-garde link between a Palestinian suicide bomber and Snow White. Sweden's Foreign Ministry said ambassador Zvi Mazel had behaved improperly and that it would summon him for talks on Monday. "He will have the opportunity to explain why he did what he did," Catherine von Heidenstam, chief of protocol at the Swedish foreign affairs ministry, told Reuters. "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" was created by expatriate Israeli artist Dror Feiler, an activist in Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, a Stockholm-based group opposed to the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The artwork consisted of a rectangular basin filled with red fluid. A boat floated on top carrying a portrait of Hanadi Jaradat, who killed herself and 22 Israelis in an attack on a restaurant in the northern Israeli city of Haifa in October. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said the piece glorified the bomber. Israel Radio quoted Feiler -- who has also composed works of music with titles such as "Shrapnel" and "You Are Dead" -- as accusing the ambassador of vandalism. Mazel said he saw red when he came upon the artwork on Friday while visiting an exhibition in Stockholm's Historical Museum tied to an international conference on genocide coming up in Sweden later this month. "RIVERS OF BLOOD" "My wife and I stood there and began to tremble," Mazel told Ynet, the Internet site of Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "There was the terrorist, wearing perfect makeup and sailing placidly along the rivers of blood of my brothers and the families that were murdered." He said he ripped out electrical wires attached to spotlights illuminating the exhibit and that one of fixtures fell into the basin. In a statement, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said the Swedish government had promised not to link the conference with the Middle East conflict. "The exhibit that glorified the actions of a suicide bomber who murdered 22 people is a violation of that understanding, and if it is not removed, Israel will reconsider its participation in the conference," the ministry said. Kristian Berg, the museum's director, said he realized the installation might have been emotional for Mazel, but that destroying art was unacceptable: "If you don't like what you see, you can leave the premises," he told SR."

[Hey. So how about someone in government telling the truth about Israel one time? The suffocating tentacles are too broad, too deep? Jewish scamsters everywhere scurrying to control information?]
Israel Presses White House To Reword Rights Report,
By ORI NIR, Forward, January 16, 2004
"Israel is pressuring the Bush administration to omit references to the West Bank security fence from the State Department's annual human rights report. American diplomats in Tel Aviv recently told Israeli officials that the administration planned to refer to the fence in the report's chapter that scrutinizes Israeli violations of Palestinians' human rights. But, sources said, the administration has not yet made a final decision on the issue. The report is scheduled to be released in March, the same time that the International Court of Justice is expected to take up the Israeli fence issue. Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are worried that a negative citation in the report will weaken Israel's case at the Hague, according to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel activists in Washington—who also are increasingly concerned that any mention will be used as ammunition against Jerusalem in front of the court. The administration is still considering whether it will support Israel's position in front of the court. Briefs to the court have to be filed by January 30. The court is expected to start discussing the case three weeks later. "This is a very serious issue with dire potential implications," said a pro-Israel Washington activist. "And our sense is that administration officials are not quite focused on it."

[Israeli oppressor versus Palestinian victim. That's the heart of the story. There are not two victims in this Middle East tale. Period.]
Media Lens Alert: Why the BBC Ducks the Palestinian Story - Parts 1 & 2,
by Tim Llewellyn, Unobserver, January 16, 2004
"Watching a peculiarly crass, inaccurate and condescending programme about the endangered historical sites of "Israel" - that is to say, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories - on BBC2 in early June 2003, (1) I determined to try to work out, as a former BBC Middle East correspondent, why the Corporation has in the past two and a half years been failing to report fairly the most central and lasting reason for the troubles of the region: the Palestinians' struggle for freedom. The approach of the programme - made by Arts rather than News and Current Affairs - reflected the general run of BBC domestic coverage of the issue: the strained effort at "balance"; the failure to question the circumstances of the beleaguered historical sites (why are they beleaguered?); the acceptance of the "equivalence" of the two peoples fighting over this territory, the indigenous population and an occupying army; the assumption on which the whole programme was built: that in the then looming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq these historical and holy places might be damaged by missiles fired from Iraq. Perhaps BBC Arts was not aware before their team arrived that many ancient Arab monuments had already been besieged, shelled, violated, ransacked, bulldozed, and in many cases closed to their worshippers and their inheritors by Israel's occupying army. A week earlier, in a BBC News documentary about the wall that Israel is building between the Israelis and the Palestinians (2) - much of it encroaching on occupied Palestinian land, destroying houses and olive groves and dividing families - it was again felt necessary to leaven the images of Arab suffering with the "balance" of how awkward the wall would be for a handful of illegal Jewish settlers. To explain this, a sympathetic Irish woman settler told that side of the story in the vivid English of her people. It was not that the BBC did not tell the Palestinian story graphically and shockingly - but that "the other side" of the story had to be told as well, diluting the central and violent issue of The Wall and all it symbolises of Israel's fears, greed and brutal dismissal of its Arab neighbours. Since the beginning of the Aqsa Uprising, or Second Intifada, in September 2000 there have been countless examples throughout the BBC's news broadcasts, discussion programmes, features, documentaries and even online of this muddying of the clear waters of the Israel-Palestine crisis."

[There is one central theme here: the censorship of art by the Jewish Lobby. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." Whoever holds power dictates for the masses which is which. The Simon Wisenthal Center now is in the business of legislating to the world what is permissible "art," and what is not. The very principles of modern "art" have long championed popping the bubbles of illusory convention and the frauds at the helm of social control. Power Elites always seek to censor. Kings ban any idea that threatens them. The Jewish Lobby is our era's preeminent Thought Police. The Jewish Lobby is fast becoming the principle hammer of New Thought Fascism.]
ART EXHIBIT GLORIFYING SUICIDE BOMBER CALLS INTO QUESTION WHETHER SWEDEN IS RIGHT HOST FOR ANTI-GENOCIDE CONFERENCE E,
Simon Wiesenthal Center, January 18, 2004
"The Simon Wiesenthal Center said today that Stockholm was entirely to blame for allowing a so-called “work of art” that glorifies a Palestinian homicide bomber to be included in an exhibition linked to an upcoming international anti-Genocide conference hosted by the Swedish government. “To allow this exhibit to be included on the pretext that Hanadi Jaradat, the suicide bomber who murdered 22 people, had grievances, is shocking – every despot and mass murderer in history had grievances against society,” protested Rabbi Marvin Hier the Center’s dean and founder. “Will Sweden next display Adolph Hitler as Snow White under the pretext of a work of art?” he continued. “The fact that this ‘artistic tribute’ was included in an exhibit entitled “Making Differences” is even more sinister because it legitimizes terrorism and the only difference it will make is to encourage and glorify further suicide attacks against innocent civilians around the world,” Rabbi Hier continued. “Instead of calling in the Israeli Ambassador Zvi Mazel to explain his actions on Monday, the Swedish government should explain to the world why they are an appropriate host for an international conference against genocide, when Sweden allows the glorification of terrorists who themselves are guilty of crimes against humanity,” added Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Center’s associate dean."

[JTR Contributor' comment: "The schism between Sweden and Israel, or should I say world Jewry, is taking bigger and bigger proportions. Thomas Nordanstad, the person who is artistically responsible for the exhibition where the now famous piece of art is a part, has received hundreds of death threats from Jews and Zionists. Yesterday he was even attacked outside the Historical museum by an unidentified man who tried to push him down the steep stairs leading up to the museum entrance. Dror Feiler, the Israeli Jew behind the “anti-Semitic” art, has also been a target for Jewish hatred. After several death threats, both by phone and by e-mail, he is now living under police protection round the clock. Jews are also running about handing out leaflets outside the museum. There have also been several attacks on the exhibit, keeping the six guards dedicated to protecting it very busy. Around the world some really good examples of chutzpah are taking place. The notorious Simon Wiesenthal Center, for instance, released this press information on Sunday: The Center “calls into question whether Sweden is right host for anti-genocide conference”. Well, I guess Israel is better suited according to the Wiesenthal weasels. They also claim that “Stockholm was entirely to blame for allowing a so-called ‘work of art’” and that “the only difference it will make is to encourage and glorify further suicide attacks against innocent civilians around the world”. In other words Stockholm and Sweden is guilty of encouraging suicide attacks, not only in Israel, but around the world. The Israeli policies are, of course, blameless: the triggering factor is Sweden. Rabbi Cooper adds “Instead of calling in the Israeli Ambassador Zvi Mazel to explain his actions on Monday, the Swedish government should explain to the world why they are an appropriate host for an international conference against genocide, when Sweden allows the glorification of terrorists who themselves are guilty of crimes against humanity”. Perhaps the Wiesenthal Center instead could explain why they are an appropriate organization to interfere in other countries' business. When a monument was erected in Israel to honor the Jewish mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, the Simon Wiesenthal Center did not utter a word, they did not argue that it could lead to even more Jewish violence against Gentiles, they did not even comment on how distasteful that action was. The Wiesenthal Center is fond of talking about tolerance, but what they actually demand is that everyone must tolerate everything beneficial to Jews, while being completely intolerant when it comes to anything on collision course with those interests."]

The Untouchable Israelis,
by Deck Deckert, Swans, April 8, 2002
"There are a lot of taboos and untouchable stories in the Establishment Media -- corporate crime, racism, the insanity of the failed drug war, criticism of the war budget, corporate control of government, Bush gaffes, etc.. But one of the oldest and currently the most powerful taboo is this: One must never speak ill of Israel. No matter how savage or barbaric Israel's actions, the American media, following the example of the American government, offers unquestioning support. The key word is "unquestioning" -- no criticism, no expressions of doubt. Anyone who dares express the mildest criticism of Israel is likely to be hit with the nuclear bomb of public discourse -- a label of anti-Semitism. That point was first driven forcibly home to me in the 60s when a senior editor at the Miami News said during a news meeting that he wasn't interested in a story I was pitching about Israeli maltreatment of some Palestinians. "You'd be interested if it were the other way around," I said dryly, and unwisely. I was severely reprimanded for my attitude that, it was hinted, smacked of ...you guessed it ... anti-Semitism. A few years later, on Feb. 21, 1973, Israeli fighter planes shot down a civilian airliner, killing all on board. The Libyan Arab Airlines 727 had been en route to Cairo when it ran into a blinding sandstorm. Having lost his landmarks, the pilot became confused and drifted over the Sinai Peninsula which was then controlled by Israeli forces. Cairo air control was providing him with the information he needed to fly back to the airport when two Israeli Phantom jet fighters appeared and shot the airliner down. A total of 113 men, women and children died. I was the wire editor of the Miami News at the time, the guy in charge of the news coming in from wire services such as the Associated Press. When the story broke, I passed it on to the news editor and prepared to handle the updates and the sidebars. Sidebars are the additional stories always accompanying major breaking news. In this case I was expecting details about weather conditions that contributed to the crash, profiles of some of the people who died, interviews with their families, analysis of why Israel would shoot down an airliner, comments from U.S. and Israeli authorities and public figures. I waited in vain. Updates were sparse, sidebars nearly non-existent. I called the local AP office and asked when we could expect more stories. The low-ranking AP exec I talked to was noncommittal. Little further information became available and the story was essentially a one-edition splash and then disappeared. It is instructive to compare what happened then to what happened in a similar incident ten years later. When the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner which had strayed over Siberia in September 1983, killing 269 people, American media and politicians became hysterical. They averred that the incident was proof that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire that President Reagan had always claimed it was. TV newscasts and newspapers were filled with stories about the depravity of the Soviets, features about the passengers lost in the shootdown, and the condemnation by politicians and pundits of all types. The story remained in the news for weeks. (When the U.S. shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988 killing 290 innocent men, women and children, the media and the politicians dismissed it as an insignificant accident. Ho hum. These things happen.) ... Congress wants sanctions against, believe it or not, the Palestinians, and the corporate media portrays the Israelis as a poor beleaguered nation simply engaged in self defense against suicide bombers. Nearly every story in the print and electronic media is easily and casually slanted to show that everything is the fault of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and the Palestinian people or Palestinian terrorists -- the terms are sometimes used synonymously. If, for example, a couple of hundred desperate people hide out in a church for protection against Israeli tanks and troops, the media reports that the Palestinians are "occupying" the church. Facts that show the Israelis in a bad light are ignored, or buried deeply. And stories hint or state bluntly that Arafat, a helpless prisoner of the Israelis, is somehow in charge of suicide bombers. Neither the media nor the U.S. government can explain how crushing a powerless and poverty-stricken people is going to stop suicide bombings. Actually, of course, it can't and won't. Children who watch their nation's leader humiliated, their homes razed by tanks, their family gardens and groves destroyed, their helpless parents gunned down by Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships aren't going to become placid and peaceful lovers of Israel. Some of them will become the next wave of suicide bombers. Israel has become an arrogant, brutal occupying power that will brook no opposition and listen to no advice. But then, it doesn't have to. The U.S. will continue to ship billions of dollars in aid and will use its veto on the UN Security Council to kill any measure that might inconvenience Israel -- such as requiring it to withdraw from the Occupied Territories, the only solution that can bring lasting peace. Deck Deckert has spent nearly two decades as copy editor, wire editor and news editor at several metropolitan newspapers, including the Miami Herald and Miami News, before becoming a freelance writer."

Hate mail. Jewish activists opposing the Israeli government's policies face intimidation and harassment via email and on the internet,
Brian Whitaker reports, The Guardian (UK), Monday January 19, 2004
"Deborah Fink is a singer and music teacher living in London. She is also Jewish. Last month, out of the blue, she received a deluge of hateful emails - more than 150 in the space of a week. One came from a rabbi in New York, informing her: "Your soul, my dear, is petrified and lost." Another said, menacingly: "Hitler killed the wrong Jews." Yet another - ostensibly from a Jewish doctor of medicine in the US - elaborated on the Holocaust theme. "Too bad Hitler didn't get your family," it said. "With six million Jews dieing [sic] 60 year [sic] ago it's a shame scum like you somehow managed to survive." What, exactly, had Ms Fink done to deserve this vitriol? The short answer is that she had been planning to sing. Ms Fink is a member of Just Peace UK, a mainly, but not exclusively, Jewish group opposing the Israeli occupation and seeking "a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states". Just before Christmas, she helped to organise an alternative carol concert in Trafalgar Square, at which traditional Christmas songs were sung with new words. One of them went like this: Oh little town of Bethlehem, How still we see thee lie. A wall is laid where tourists stayed, And tanks go rolling by ... To publicise the event, organisers sent out several hundred emails. One of them fell into the hands of a man named Tom Gross, who strongly disapproved. The furious Mr Gross passed the email to his friend, Naomi Ragen, together with a note saying that the carol singers would be handing out songsheets "filled with hatred for Israel and digusting calumnies" to passers-by. On receiving his message, Ms Ragen circulated an email of her own, which began: "I suppose it's fitting that self-hating Jews will be singing anti-Israel Christmas songs to curry favour with oh-so-genteel British anti-Semites." Her message concluded: "I hope this will give British Jews a chance to organise a counter-campaign. If, after reading what the hate-mongers are going to be saying, you'd like to contact them, here are some addresses." Email addresses for four of the "hate-mongering" carol singers followed, including that of Ms Fink. For good measure, Ms Ragen sent her own personal note to Ms Fink, saying: "I hope you and your children suffer what we in Israel have suffered. And then perhaps I will sing carols praising those who blow you and yours up. Happy Holiday." Ms Ragen is a US-born novelist and dramatist who now lives in Jerusalem, where she also writes freelance columns for the Jerusalem Post. Among those who received her complaint about the carol singers was an organisation called Isralert. Its exact purpose is unclear, although it describes itself as a "Jewish advocacy network". It also operates a private, and rather secretive, emailing list. The only way to join is by invitation from an existing member - and even then, its organiser, Harv Weiner, "may refuse a subscription to anyone for any reason" ... Interestingly, most of the nastiness generated in the name of defending Israel seems to come from the US rather than from Israel itself. It may be the work of a lunatic fringe but, according to Ms Fink, even Jewish activists in Britain who reject the Israeli government's line can face various kinds of harassment. Earlier, Ms Fink had come under fire from the Union of Jewish Students when she tried to set up a student branch of "Jews for Justice for Palestinians". Last November, a Jewish protest in Golders Green - the heart of the London Jewish community - against the construction of Israel's West Bank wall was greeted by threatening phone calls, a counter-demonstration and cries of "traitors". It ended with one of the peace activists - a former Israeli soldier - being punched and knocked to the ground."

New Zealand Herald covers up reasons for sacking anti-Zionist cartoonist,
By John Braddock, World Socialist Web Site, January 20, 2004
"New Zealand’s largest-circulation daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, last month broke a four-month silence over its sacking of cartoonist Malcolm Evans. Evans was dismissed in August following complaints from pro-Zionist lobbyists about his cartoons critical of Israel’s repression of the Palestinians. Evans had worked for the Herald for seven years, during which time he was the paper’s chief political cartoonist. He was president of the New Zealand Cartoonists Association and twice named cartoonist of the year. Evans’ sacking followed his refusal to accept an edict by the paper’s editor-in-chief, Gavin Ellis, that he stop submitting items on Israel ... The Herald’s belated response to the protests over Evans’ sacking is not only dishonest as to the detail of the matter. It evades the key issues of democratic rights and political censorship. Evans’ cartoons (which can be viewed at www.evanscartoons.com/dismissal.htm) sharply depicted the consequences of the Sharon government’s brutal war against the Palestinians. According to Evans, arguments with Ellis had been going on for a year, after the paper received letters from readers. Auckland rabbi Jeremy Lawrence was a prominent complainant, claiming the cartoons were “offensive” to the Jewish community and lacked “balance” in their portrayal of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Evans had consistently rejected pressure to change his approach to the subject and refused to stop submitting the cartoons. He accepted the editor’s right to reject cartoons but not to dictate their content. “I was specifically told not to draw any more cartoons about Israel’s policy in the territories,” Evans said."

Israel Versus Free Speech. In vandalizing a Stockholm art exhibit, Israel's ambassador to Sweden showed the true face of his government,
by Justin Raimondo, antiwar.com
"When Israel's ambassador to Sweden vandalized a work of art that he found offensive on exhibition at Sweden's Museum of National Antiquities, Zvi Mazel did the world a service: he opened our eyes to Israel's descent into barbarism. Just as Israeli tanks bulldoze entire blocks of Palestinian homes, so her ambassador seeks to bulldoze the rising tide of protest against Israeli government policies in the West. The artwork, by Israeli artist Dror Feiler and his Swedish wife, Gunilla, featured a pool of red water illuminated by spotlights in which a small boat floats, its sail a photo of suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat. The incident was captured on video, and if you want to see the full ugliness of the face that Israel now chooses to present to the world, check it out: Real Player dialup, Real Player broadband, Windows Media dialup, Windows Media broadband. This video is fascinating in that it thoroughly debunks the impression given by Mazel and his supporters that this was an impetuous act, brought about by righteous rage over a hideous act of anti-Semitism. Instead of Mazel on an emotional rampage, it shows the cool calculated way in which the ambassador walked unhurriedly around the pool, calmly unplugging the spotlights and pushing one of them into the water, like an actor following a script. We are then treated to the confrontation between Mazel and the museum director, who asks, plaintively, "but didn't you read the statement?" He is referring to the artists' statement accompanying the installation, which does not in any way condone violence. Indeed, it expresses sympathy for the victims of Ms. Jaradat's act, even while seeking to explain it. But in addressing Mazel as if he were open to reason, the director was wasting his breath. If this wasn't a planned provocation, then it certainly succeeded in looking like one. It is clear even in the title of the Feilers's work, "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," that the artists, far from endorsing, advocating, or glorifying Jaradat's mad act, are quite clearly horrified by it. The smiling face of a beautiful woman floating on an ocean of blood is hardly an image likely to generate much sympathy for suicide bombers: to characterize this as propaganda on behalf of Islamic Jihad is visibly and jarringly wrong. But the artwork itself no longer matters, because the Israelis have now made this the latest chapter in their ongoing propaganda narrative about "anti-Semitic" and "hate-filled" Europe – where speech deemed anti-Semitic is outlawed and the faintest weakest echo of Hitlerian ideology is relentlessly silenced. But, again, none of this matters. As a propagandistic exercise, Mazel's provocation was designed to challenge the very idea that "the madness of truth" needs to be explained. Because to examine it too closely is to focus on Israel's role in perpetuating the cycle of violence – and that cannot be permitted ... All this is part and parcel of a general offensive on the part of Israel's amen corner worldwide, a series of provocative acts that dramatizes the unleashing of Israeli power in the wake of the American invasion of Iraq – and not only in the Middle East. Cynical manipulation and aggression on every front: these are the methods that characterize Israeli policy and the tactics of its partisans in every country. Free speech is everywhere the enemy of Israel's interests – and the Israelis know it." That's why their supporters, both here and abroad, are ratcheting up the campaign to smear critics of Israel and impose limits on their right of free expression: "Freedom of art is not limitless," brays Mazel. "There are always some limits." The only thing there seems to be no limit on is the brazen aggression of Israel and its apologists."

[The censorial Jewish Lobby at work in the art world. Question: what if this "anti-Semitic" artist below wasn't a former Israeli paratrooper, but was a Gentile? And what if this incident had happened in America where the government is in Israel's pocket, and the art world is dominated by Jews, many Israel worshippers? It's scarey to think.]
'It's inciting murder'. How did one piece of art pit Ariel Sharon against the Swedish government - and kick off an international crisis?,
by Jonathan Jones, Guardian (UK), Thursday January 22, 2004
"[T]his is the stupidest story you will ever hear about art, outrage and international diplomacy. Only it isn't funny. On Friday night there was an incident in Stockholm that rapidly involved Ariel Sharon and the Swedish government in an international crisis that shows no signs of being resolved. Zvi Mazel, Israel's ambassador to Sweden, tells his side of the story unapologetically. Along with other diplomats and VIPs, he was invited to the opening, at the National Historical Museum in Stockholm, of an exhibition at this and other venues called Making Differences, linked to a conference on how to prevent genocide. "They said to me, you've got to see this," Mazel tells me. "They led me into this inner courtyard. I could not believe my eyes - to see this sea of red blood and then the smiling face of this suicide bomber. I thought to myself, What does it mean, that there's this sea of still-fresh blood and she's smiling, and then I read the title and I saw that she's Snow White, meaning her sins have been washed away - and this is the blood of my brothers, my people." The floating photograph is of Palestinian trainee lawyer Hanadi Jaradat, 29, who murdered 21 people at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, Israel, on October 4 last year. She also died herself. In the photo she is made up and gently smiling. Mazel continues: "I spoke to the museum's director and said it's not acceptable; it's inciting murder, it's the encouragement of genocide. He wouldn't close the exhibit so I said, 'I'll do it,' and I pulled the plugs of the spots out of their sockets. Then I pushed one of the spots into the pool." Rage rose in him like a sea of blood. "An ambassador was overtaken by his feelings," as he puts it. It was, he acknowledges, a release for his larger frustration with European attitudes to Israel ... Art vandalism is always a good story. Art vandalism by an ambassador against an artwork in the country with which he is employed to maintain diplomatic relations is something rarer - a new story. And this one just keeps growing. Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, has publicly supported his ambassador, with some enthusiasm. "I think Zvi Mazel behaved in an appropriate way," Sharon announced. "I called ... and thanked him for his stand against the growing wave of anti-semitism." Passion is always attractive; reports around the world, especially in the Israeli and American press, have found in Mazel a popular hero, the undiplomatic diplomat, the man who decided to do something more committed than have a quiet word behind the scenes over the smorgasbord ... Death threats have been made against the artists. Only one of them, Dror Feiler, is prepared to speak in public, but you get the feeling he can take care of himself. Before leaving Israel, he was a paratrooper for three years in his country's army. "My family lives in Israel - why should I like suicide bombers? The fact that we try to explain terrorism doesn't mean that we forgive. It feels ridiculous to have to say it, but we condemn suicidal bombings." Feiler is as stoked up as the ambassador, and perhaps not entirely displeased by the hubbub. He is a political man, a prominent pro-Palestinian rights campaigner in Sweden. He, like everyone else at the museum, believes that far from being a spontaneous outburst, the high-level "hooliganism" was planned. He thinks his reputation drew attention to the piece: "I am a harsh critic of Israeli government policies" ... Israel has demanded the removal of the exhibit. This will not happen, insists the museum, unequivocally supported by the Swedish government. "Difficult and controversial works of art should be shown in public institutions like ours," the director, Kristian Berg, tells me. That Friday night, he ordered the ambassador to leave his museum - "mildly, of course". Outside, TV crews huddle over their equipment as Dror Feiler shows his work to Marita Ulvskog, Sweden's minister of culture. She doesn't say much, just looks gravely at him, then at the pool. They shake hands. Sweden's spin doctors are more relaxed than ours, and she gladly agrees to talk to the Guardian. "Our position is that we cannot accept that an ambassador or someone else is violently attacking a work of art. We can understand why somebody is angry or depressed by a work of art, but we cannot accept that you meet that anger with violence."

[Here we go, folks: Jewish Totalitarianism, up another notch. And what's "anti-Semitic?" Whatever the Jewish Lobby decides it is.]
Banning anti-Semitic material, [in Breaking News column at home page]
Jewish Telgraphic Agnecy, January 22, 2004
"France’s broadcasting authority asked prosecutors to ban anti-Semitic material on satellite TV channels. Dominique Baudis, president of the CSA Higher Audio-Visual Council, said Tuesday that he had written to European satellite provider Eutelstat to halt broadcasts of Hezbollah’s Al Manar station in France. Baudis’ legal attempt to ban the broadcasts follows an official complaint by the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jews that a recent serial entitled “Al Shatat,” or “The Diaspora,” contained virulently anti-Semitic material."

[What Dov Hikind must mean is that all the death and misery the Jewish army has created in Israel and its surroundings smells like perfume. Hey, you know what? Most of New York City where Hikind lives is smelly too.]
Site: Israel “smelly”, [in Breaking News column at home page]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, January 22, 2004
"A New York politician called for the removal of a travel article on an AOL Web site that calls Israel “smelly.” The article, found on an AOL site that features articles by the Lonely Planet travel guide, warns travelers seeking spirituality in Israel that they may be disappointed by a “smelly” and “noisy” country that is “as capable of squeezing a tacky tourist buck out of the sacred as any US bible-belt town.” Calling the article “offensive” and “degrading,” New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind wrote to AOL asking it to remove the article and apologize. An AOL spokeswoman expressed regret but said the company is not legally responsible for third-party content, including the Israel feature."

[We don't know much about Ernst Zundel, except that the Jewish Lobby calls him some kind of Nazi racist. But, then again, Jews call whoever they don't like a "Nazi racist." But we do know this: The moral person -- any supporter of open, democratic society -- must inevitably ask "Why is Zundel in jail?" What are his crimes and why are the accusations against him not made public? Is he in jail because he "denies the Holocaust?" Is he in jail because of the Jewish Lobby behind the scenes? Does he advocate violence against someone? In a free society, why is the enforcement of law occurring in back rooms and behind locked doors? What kind of precedent is this for justice in a supposed democracy? If they can lock him up because of "secret" evidence, why can't they hold "secret" evidence against you?]
Federal Court rejects Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel's bid for interim freedom,
by JAMES MCCARTEN, Canadian Press, January 21, 2004 ADVERTISEMENT "Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel must remain behind bars until a court can decide whether he poses a legitimate threat to national security, a judge ruled Wednesday. Lawyers for Zundel, who has spent nearly a year in jail since being deported to Canada by immigration authorities in the United States, had argued that their client's detention was unconstitutional. But in an 18-page written decision based on secret evidence against Zundel, Federal Court Justice Pierre Blais disagreed, acknowledging that he was unable to say exactly why. "I have come to the conclusion, based on the information presented to me in camera, that Mr. Zundel does represent a danger to the security of Canada and should remain in detention for the time being," Blais said. "I am constrained by the reality of national security reasons which impede giving full expression to the grounds for continuing the detention." Zundel is being held on a security certificate while the courts determine whether it is reasonable to deem the 64-year-old man a security risk to Canada and to deport him to Germany. The fact the case against him is a secret is precisely why Zundel's detention is a violation of the Charter of Rights, lawyer Peter Lindsay said after Blais's ruling was released. "It's a bit like trying to grab smoke," Lindsay said. "I'm in the dark totally." In the ruling, Blais said he empathized with Zundel's plight, but added that he "knew the gist of the case against him was his link to individuals and groups who advocate violence against certain groups in our society." Zundel, who has lived in Canada since 1958, fled to Tennessee to be with his wife prior to a January 2002 ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Commission that a website he controlled spread anti-Semitic messages. And while he has "virtually no history" of violence, "his status within the White Supremacist Movement is such that adherents are inspired to carry out his acts in pursuance of his ideology," Blais wrote. Canadian authorities "believe that by his comportment as leader and ideologue, Mr. Zundel intends serious violence to be a consequence of his influence." He went on to say the secret evidence paints "an entirely different picture" than the one Zundel himself has depicted in court ... "There is a real unfairness in this whole process, because the entire basis for the detention is secret evidence presented by the government that I don't know about and Mr. Zundel doesn't know about." [said Lindsay]."

Palestine Media Watch,
January 16, 2003
"The Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper of the US armed forces, published today an unprecedented op-ed from Adm. Thomas Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974 and former 7th Fleet commander, which alleges not merely timidity by the US government in seeking the truth about what happened to the USS Liberty when it was attacked by Israeli airforce jets, but accuses the US government of outright cover-up and deception. The US media, as usual taking its cues from the US government, has been very timid in tackling this dark episode. But now that the Stars and Stripes has run this powerful op-ed, clearly at least the US military has lifted the taboo status off this tragedy. So, let's alert the media that it is ok for them to start talking about and investigating this episode. Please take the time to: 1. Write a letter: Email: letters@pstripes.osd.mil Phone: 202-761-0900 Use the PMWATCH interface: Circulate this op-ed and push your local paper to run this it and to pursue stories on the 1967 attack against the USS Liberty. Media contact information can be found at: http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/contact/media.html The Stars and Stripes does not publish its op-eds on-line, but a pdf of the op-ed can be fount at: http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/cast/Proof_BROO_OPIN_46216.pdf  For more on The Stars and Stripes, please go to: http://www.stripes.com/about/aboutstripes.html# Contacts: For more on the attack on The USS Liberty, please go to: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/ussliberty.html Palestine Media Watch http://www.pmwatch.org (610) 993-0608 "

[The Western world is fast falling beneath a Judeocentric Hammer. The Jewish Elite forbid critical commentary of their activities -- of any sort. And all tremble with fear to offend -- in even the slightest way -- the powerful Jews. Any who dare to resist this Orwellian dictate of self-imposed censorship are prey for persecution and punishment. Free speech on this subject? The Jewish West is a Banana Republic.]
A Post-Blair Firing at Times Radio Station Outrages Listeners Requiem for a Bach Jock,
by Tom Robbins, Village Voice, January 7 - 13, 2004
"Thanks to Jayson Blair and his devilish delight in concocting news stories, The New York Times suffered a public relations fiasco last year that exceeded even its fiercest critics' dreams. Its own enabling behavior helped cause the episode, the paper acknowledged, but at root, it insisted, it was the victim of a trusted employee gone bad. The same cannot be said of the paper's post-Blair performance with another staff member, a 25-year veteran announcer on the Times Company's classical music station, WQXR, who was summarily fired last August for having made what was termed an "inappropriate" remark off the air to a colleague and friend at the station. Exactly what Gregg Whiteside, the morning voice of WQXR's Bright and Early show at 96.3 FM since 1978, said is still unclear. Reportedly, the offending remark was anti-Semitic in nature. But what is uncontested is that, unlike Blair's fictions, which he intentionally foisted upon a believing readership, Whiteside's words were never heard by the public ... Off-color language and offensive jokes are hardly unknown in a newsroom, even that of the august Times. But whatever Whiteside's offending words, they fell on the ears of someone nearby who later complained. The complaint, in turn, was routed to the Memphis (!) headquarters of the Times Company's broadcast group. Termination, managers decided, was the only solution. The abrupt firing set off a storm of protest by loyal listeners who raked the paper for choosing political correctness over quality and loyalty. They wrote petitions, letters, and even graffiti on the sidewalk outside the Times' West 43rd Street headquarters. They filled Internet protest sites with anguished messages in which they tried to explain why the loss of Whiteside's smooth basso voice, introducing works from Bach to Wagner, nattering on about sports and the weather, mattered so much to them. Some registered their rage, demanding reinstatement and threatening boycotts ... But whatever their reasons, more than four months after Whiteside went off the air, his former listeners are still mourning his loss, punching out unanswered e-mails to WQXR managers, and demanding that someone, somewhere get to the bottom of what happened. Hence this column. Partly, it is the murkiness behind Whiteside's firing that has stoked much of the fans' anger. ... [H]e will not go. The reason, as he has explained to friends, is that after being fired without severance and being told to clean out his locker, give up his keys, and leave the studio, he initially vowed to fight. Prudence and family needs (he and his wife have a 15-year-old son who is a piano and violin virtuoso) soon took precedence over valor, and he later accepted a financial settlement which included a firm nondisclosure agreement. Such stipulations are standard fare, the price of fair compensation being silence. Whiteside later told friends that when station manager Bartunek called him into his office on August 12, he assumed it had to do with upcoming shows. Upon arrival, however, Whiteside was asked if he had ever said anything that could be considered anti-Semitic. In a burst of candor that did little to preserve his rights to challenge the accusation, the announcer responded that he and Hall often bantered off the air. "I could have said anti-anything, anti-anyone. It could have been 100 different things," he reportedly told the managers."

[Truly, the New World Order. Telling the truth about a Sacred Elite is now a crime. You are forbidden from naming the Zionist tyrant. How is this different than any other totalitarian Thought System?]
Comic Prosecuted for Anti-Semitic Remarks,
Guardian (UK), Saturday January 24, 2004
"A well-known French comic will be prosecuted for on-air antics that included dressing up as an Orthodox Jew and decrying an ``American-Zionist'' axis, the Paris prosecutor's office said Friday. Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala's performance, which drew criticism from the French prime minister, came during a prime-time TV show, ``On Ne Peut Pas Plaire a Tout le Monde,'' (``You Can't Please Everybody'') on Dec. 1. As part of the skit, the comic raised an arm and shouted ``Isra-Heil!'' - a reference to the Nazi slogan, ``Heil Hitler.'' Prosecutors opened a preliminary investigation Dec. 24 into whether the comic's skit and ``incriminating comments'' constituted racial defamation. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has said he was ``shocked'' by the performance, and the show's host, Marc-Olivier Fogiel, apologized for the episode. Several Jewish groups complained. On Thursday, Justice Minister Dominique Perben said that ``justice would be inflexible'' if racism is proven. ``Racism is an evil that I don't want to see develop in this country,'' Perben said. France has been battling a wave of anti-Semitic violence for more than two years, often involving attacks against Jewish schools, synagogues and community centers."

[Another crucifixion on behalf of the Jewish Lobby. What's this woman's crime? Empathy for the desperate, the oppressed. Like it or not, "suicide bombers" are part of the poor man's liberation army, who lash out with no prospects for hope, no sense of a future. One doesn't need to condone it to understand the hopelessness that leads to such actions. The Israeli army kills Palestinian civilians all the time, and because their military is a multi-billion dollar machine largely funded by the U.S. and fits the form of a stereotypical army, that style of murder is considered kosher: "self-defense."]
Jenny Tonge comments: Your views,
BBC, January 24, 2004
"The BBC "The leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat party, Charles Kennedy, has sacked his children's spokeswoman, Jenny Tonge, because of comments she made about suicide bombers. She's been widely condemned for telling a pro-Palestinian lobby group she might have become a suicide bomber herself if she'd lived in the Occupied Territories. Conservative Party spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael Ancram, said the comments would "sicken those across the world who have lost loved ones to suicide bombers". However, the MP has insisted that her remarks did not mean that she condoned suicide attacks."

[JTR Contributor's comment: "Bill Baker is no "Nazi","neo" or otherwise. He has, over the years, championed the cause of the Palestinians. He has also advocated for American neutrality in the Middle-East. This article is nothing more than a Jewish-authored media smear job." We at JTR know nothing about Bill Baker. But what makes us wonder how much of a smear job this might be is this article's parallel smear of The Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, which is excellent and highly regarded by those who seek justice of any kind in the Middle East. This article also champions the Canadian Jewish Congress which is one of the foremost censorial organizations in North America.]
From Nazis to Schuller to Arabs. Former neo-Nazi leader Bill Baker now speaks on the Muslim circuit,
by Stan Brin Baker, Orange Country Weekly,
"He's baaaack! He just won’t go away. Bill Baker has resurfaced as a frequent guest speaker at Muslim functions across North America despite articles in OC Weekly in 2002 that outed the Laguna Hills resident as the former head of the neo-Nazi Populist Party and led to his ouster as a close associate to the Reverend Robert Schuller of Garden Grove’s Crystal Cathedral. Baker’s appearances are causing consternation, public recrimination and bad feelings wherever he goes. He spoke amid protests on Jan. 3 at "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," a conference attended by more than 7,000 people in Toronto, Ontario. The Toronto Star reported that Canadian Jewish Congress-led protesters cited the OC Weekly series as the basis for their descriptions of Baker as a professional anti-Semite, self-promoter and huckster ... His topic in Toronto was "More in Common Than You Think," an attempt to gloss over deep historical and theological differences between Muslims and Christians. A similar talk at the Crystal Cathedral in 2002 left a group of moderate Christian pastors shaking their heads ... A similar appearance by Baker at a Muslim conference in Florida last year produced an angry exchange between the Jewish human rights organization the Anti-Defamation League and the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The latter organization published a letter from Baker claiming that "The so-called ‘quotes’ attributed to me [in OC Weekly] are pure, insulting, and outrageous lies." Baker also spoke last October at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia as a guest of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) ... Baker’s influence extends to other pro-Arab outlets. The website for the pro-Palestinian magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, widely regarded as representing the views of Saudi Arabia, offers a favorable review of Baker’s incoherent, anti-Semitic book, Theft of a Nation, which it sells for the discounted price of $12. Hussam Ayloush, director of the California CAIR branch in Anaheim, says he’s heard Baker speak at many Islamic events—and Ayloush was loath to rebuke Baker. "His focus is that we all hold stereotypes—and that we shouldn’t feel threatened by knowledge or interaction," Ayloush said. "As a Muslim, I have been accused of so many things that I would be very hesitant and careful before condemning anyone."

Ed Morgan Letter. 02 28-Jan-2004. Canadian Jewish Congress Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto, by Lubomyr Prytulak, Ukrainian Archive
"... The University of Toronto has been infected with Canadian Jewish Congress Fanaticism. I have spent many years studying, and sometimes teaching, at four universities — the University of Toronto, Stanford University, the University of Western Ontario, and the University of British Columbia — and in all of these, irrespective of faculty or department, I have found that there is no more retrograde, ignorant, and benighted thing that someone might say than that there exists a single truth, and that any who deviate from that single truth should be jailed. This is the talk of fanatics that universities are dedicated to debunk. This is the ideology of the repressive regimes that the West struggles to supplant. This is the talk of tyrants under whose strangleholds much of the earth chokes. This is the babble of the maniacs that students sometimes invite on campus for the purpose of laughing at their backwardness and jeering at their arrogance. This may be normal talk from the leadership of the Canadian Jewish Congress, but it is incongruous from a faculty member at a Canadian university. What moderation, what restraint, what submission to evidence or reason can be expected from those who would strike so mortal a blow at the very heart of Western justice? And, more particularly, what must the Faculty of Law which employs you think of your stance? If one were to express the single most fundamental of all principles which underlies Western justice, would it not be, Audi alteram partem — Hear the other side; hear both sides; no man should be condemned unheard? Justitia blindfolded conveys Hear both sides impartially, which is a qualification and a reinforcement of the more fundamental Hear both sides. That Justitia should abstain from peeking at her balance from underneath her blindfold presupposes her more fundamental holding of a balance that can be peeked at, and that balance necessarily has two pans. But for those who proclaim that there is only one truth, there remains no other side to be heard. What you and your Canadian Jewish Congress propose, then, is much worse than allowing Justitia to corruptly peek, it is taking away one of the pans of her balance. What moderation, what restraint, what submission to evidence or reason can be expected from those who would strike so mortal a blow at the very heart of Western justice? I think none. With the weighing of truth banished from the courtroom, what safeguard would remain to attenuate the power of fear and favor? I think none. Yours is either the primitive doctrine of children who know nothing of the world, or it is the alien and subversive doctrine of authoritarians hoping to seize power and totalitarians hoping to control thought. And so I stand alarmed at how things have changed at the University of Toronto since I last saw it. From your example, I fear that what in my day was rejected as bankrupt absolutism, has today won a following. I can only hope that your finding employment at the law school does not signal the University of Toronto's embrace of fanaticism, but only fanaticism's having stuck its foot in the door, with the University still having strength to slam it shut."

[World Judeocentric Thought Control continues. Everywhere political sycophants kiss Jewish Butt for Jewish support, power, and money. The real Question at stake here isn't the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The real Question is What EXACTLY is "anti-Semitism" that is to be literally banned? The ban is not of the "Protocols," but of "anti-Semitism." What is "anti-Semitism?" The Ultimate Answer: Whatever the Jewish Lobby says it is.]
Anti-semitic programming to be banned on Arab channels,
Ireland Online, Febuary 1, 2004
"The government will take action to ban Arab satellite television stations from broadcasting anti-Semitic programmes in France, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has announced. Raffarin told France’s Jewish leaders last night he was revolted by some of the anti-Jewish broadcasts he had seen on French television and that parliament would pass legislation to ban such programming from French airwaves. “I say to the Jews of France, do not be afraid, do not be tempted by those who want to separate you from the national community,” Raffarin told a crowd of 800 people attending the annual dinner of CRIF, an umbrella group of French Jewish organisations. The announcement comes one day after Israel announced that it had asked France to block broadcasts by Al-Manar, a television station that belongs to Lebanese-based Hezbollah militants. Hezbollah is fighting Israel in south Lebanon. Israel and the United States last year formally protested at the Al-Manar channel’s broadcasting of a series it said was based on the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a 19th-century, anti-Semitic tract commonly used in Nazi propaganda to incite hatred against Jews. Raffarin said Culture Minister Jean-Jacques Aillagon was to prepare an amendment to electronic communications legislation being examined by the National Assembly on February 10. The amendment would allow the CSA, France’s media watchdog authority, to bring action before a judicial administrator in order to have programmes banned from French television. Financial penalties would be put in place for violators."

Why Do Jewish Leaders Want to Censor Mel Gibson?,
Support Mel Gibson.com

[The Jewish Thought Police and their lackey mercenaries take aim in a new Propaganda War. Jews hate Christianity, they loathe Jesus, and cannot function as "Jews" in good standing without condemning the rest of the world for Jewry's OWN moral failings.]
Jews, Christians to campaign against Gibson's Jesus film,
Haaretz (Israel), February 2, 2004
"Jews and Christians who fear Mel Gibson's epic on the crucifixion of Jesus will fuel anti-Semitism are planning lecture series, interfaith talks and other programs to try to mute the film's impact. Gibson has insisted that "The Passion of the Christ," set to be released Ash Wednesday, February 25, does not malign Jews. However, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, whose representatives saw a version the movie last week, said it contained destructive stereotypes about the Jewish role in Christ's death. Critics of the film hope to explain how dramatizations of the crucifixion, called Passion plays, were used in the Middle Ages to incite anti-Jewish violence, and emphasize that many Christian denominations now reject the idea of collective Jewish responsibility in the slaying of Jesus. "Do I think there will be pogroms (massacres) as a result of this movie? No," said Rabbi David Elcott, the American Jewish Committee's interfaith director. "It's part of something larger, which is a hardening of religious conversation. It is such an absolutist movie. It undermines the progress that we've made in this country toward mutual respect and religious pluralism." Opponents do not plan boycotts or protests outside theaters. "Artists have every right to create any kind of movie they want, but an audience has the absolute right to pass judgment on that," said Rabbi James Rudin, a longtime interfaith adviser for the committee, a public policy organization based in New York. The campaign is being undertaken in the face of a massive evangelistic effort by many American churches in conjunction with the movie's release. Several prominent conservative Christians, including the Rev. Billy Graham, said the film was among the most powerful depictions they'd seen of Christ's last hours. Evangelical supporters of the film agree with Gibson that it does not blame Jews for Christ's death but instead follows biblical teaching that Jesus died because of the sins of each individual ever born. They plan sermons and lectures related to the movie, and have even produced special Bibles that contain images from the film. In response, the American Jewish Committee is sending a 40-page resource guide to its chapters nationwide on how to explain Jewish concerns about the film. Rudin also is urging Christian colleagues not to use the movie as an education tool

FRENCH POLICE TO OPEN INQUIRY AFTER SINGER CALLED "DIRTY JEW",
The Tocqueville Connection (from AFP), February 1, 2004
"French police said Sunday they planned to investigate an incident where a young Jewish singer was targeted at a concert by anti-Semitic insults, including being called a "dirty Jew." A regional police official, Gilles Lagarde, said the incident occurred late Saturday in the eastern town of Macon when the 25-year-old entertainer Jennifer Djaoui -- known by her stage name Shirel -- went on stage to sing a song entitled "Jerusalem". According to the head of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, Roger Cukierman, "around 30 young people of North African origin sitting in the front rows started to insult Shirel with cries of 'dirty Jew, death to Jews, we'll kill you'." He said the singer intended to lodge a formal complaint Monday. Lagarde confirmed that teenagers were involved and that the threat "death to Jews" had been made, but added: "It seems the cries were pretty isolated... the officers didn't hear them, there was a lot of noise." But he said a search was on for the suspects, and stressed that "we take these things very seriously." One of the organisers of the charity concert, former French judo champion David Douillet, told AFP that the singer "was very shocked" by the insults and that she had been comforted by Bernadette Chirac, the wife of the French president who was in the audience. Dajoui, whose biggest moment of fame so far has been a leading role in a French musical version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", converted to Judaism after her father, a French producer, went to live in Israel, where she now spends most of her time."

Israel Asks State Dept. to Put Off Report,
By BARRY SCHWEID, Las Vegas Sun, February 2, 2004
"Israel has asked the State Department to postpone its annual human rights report for fear it could be used by the International Court of Justice against the security barrier the Israelis are building. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Israeli request was under consideration. Department spokesman Richard Boucher, when asked about an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosing the request, said he was "not aware of anything like that." Boucher also said the department intended to present the report on time, at the end of February. Another U.S. official said Israel worried contentions that its security barrier interfered with the lives of Palestinians might be reflected in the human rights report and influence the court in The Hague, The Netherlands. Last week, the United States backed Israel in opposing the court's consideration of the case. It was brought by the U.N. General Assembly, with a request for an opinion, not a decision. Still, the State Department told the court that cases can be brought only by states, not by the General Assembly, and that intervention could hurt prospects for negotiating a settlement of the issue. The European Union last Friday also opposed the court's involvement. The court is expected to begin hearings on the security barrier Feb. 23 with the backing of the Palestinians. It was not known when the court might issue an opinion. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, said nations that supported Israel's position "don't respect international law ... but rather follow in this mentality, the mentality of racist actions." President Bush and other senior U.S. officials have invoked Israel's right of self-defense in rebuffing Palestinian and Arab demands that the administration oppose the project outright. However, Bush and the other officials have strongly objected to parts of the construction plan on grounds that the combination of trenches, fences, walls, razor wire and electronic sensors would interfere with Palestinians' daily lives."

Ed Morgan. Chair Canadian Jewish Congress (Ontario); Law Professor (University of Toronto),
by Lubomyr Prytulak, Ukrainian Archive
"The Canadian Jewish Congress persecutions of today demonstrate that the political machinations of what might appear to be the backward and benighted early 1600's have not changed profoundly over the ensuing three and three-quarters centuries, and that yesterday's role of Pope Urban VIII is today being played in a different context but to the same effect by Ed Morgan — the role of the leader of an attempt to suppress knowledge because the dissemination of that knowledge diminishes revenues. However, the world has changed, and heresy suppression today is not the easy matter that it was then, and yesterday's Inquisition was a more powerful body than today's Canadian Human Rights Commission, and there were not the free press and Internet then that there are today, nor the same protection of free speech and respect for individual liberties, and so what worked for Pope Urban VIII to the discredit of the Catholic church may not work for Canadian Jewish Congress Chair Ed Morgan, thus sparing the Canadian Jewish Congress further disgrace, and thus demonstrating the paradox that failure can be success, failure for the incumbent Canadian Jewish Congress leadership being success for the shadow Canadian Jewish Congress leadership, and being especially success for the Jewish people, as the Canadian Jewish Congress today works against the interests of Canadian Jewry. Actually, in a comparison of Pope Urban VIII in 1633 and CJC Chair Ed Morgan today, or in a comparison of the Catholic Inquisition of that distant era with the Canadian Jewish Congress of today, the pope and his Inquisition come out as the more enlightened and just, as neither of them ever argued that Galileo should be condemned and his work suppressed whether Galileo was right or wrong and whether his work was true or false, or without hearing Galileo's defense. Rather, the Inquisitors concerned themselves solely with the truth of the Heliocentric theory, provided Galileo with every opportunity to defend it, and only after that concluded that the evidence in its favor was insufficient ..."

[More Jewish Ethnocentric Totalitarianism: Literally, at the university it is a common Jewish expectation that only Jews are permitted to teach about Jews. And Jewish faculty bigots "organize" to fight for their subversion of the very principles of open academe.]
The Jewish Community And the Ivory Tower. A Threat to the Academy,
By JACOB NEUSNER, Forward, January 30, 2994
"It has been 40 years since universities began to make faculty appointments in Jewish subjects in their departments of religious studies, history, literature and language. In the decades that followed, the field of Jewish studies has flourished on campus. The latest testament to this fact is the recently released finding by the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01 that 41% of Jewish college and university students report having taken courses in Jewish studies. This finding has prompted much excitement in the larger Jewish community. Along with this excitement, however, comes a great danger to the future of Jewish studies in the academy. The danger is that these findings will fuel the already prevalent tendency to view Jewish studies courses primarily as a means for connecting Jewish students to their heritage, a medium comparable to Birthright Israel for carrying the Jewish message to unaffiliated and estranged young Jews ... The Jewish community correctly seeks a place for Jewish learning in the university, where the Jews and their traditions of knowledge belong. But doing the right thing for the wrong reason corrupts. When the purpose of Jewish studies is understood to be serving parochial ends, we invite outside meddling in areas such as faculty appointments and discredit the very subject the Jewish community seeks to make an integral part of the academy. When I taught at the University of South Florida, our religious studies department approached the local Muslim community for support to bring in a lecturer on medieval Islamic law. The answer we received was, in essence, "Bring him and we'll listen. If we like what he says, we'll pay his fee." The Jewish community has better manners, but often no deeper grasp of the nature of the academic enterprise. The threat to the academy from the Jewish community is not a matter of mere speculation. When Queens College of the City University of New York in 1996 chose a gentile, with the highest qualifications in Jewish scholarship, to chair its Jewish studies program, some Jewish faculty organized against him. One professor protested that the department's chairman should be a "role model" for Jewish students. This disgraceful controversy effectively called into question the right of a gentile to teach a Jewish subject and along with it the academic integrity of the field."

Zionist Extremists Terrorize Rense.com Advertisers, Again,
rense.com, February 2, 2004
"Once again, net fascists and terrorists are trying to take away your rights. These new Brown Shirts are ready to burn your books, and ours, and to financially destroy anyone who gets in the way of their plans for total domination and thought control...for they are absolutely petrified of the truth. Rense.com and its advertisers continue to stand firm in the face of these dual-loyalty thugs and their pernicious and increasing threats to our First Amendment rights, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Inquiry. We will not cease bringing our visitors the widest range of sometimes controversial information for your personal intellectual consideration. You deserve ALL the facts, all the viewpoints and opinions in order to make your best decisions about the most critical issues of our times. These dark forces dedicated to destroying our individual liberties and freedom of speech have no qualm threatening and harassing our supporters, friends and our brave advertisers. This newest round of attacks on OUR freedoms are not the first, as our regulars visitors know. The current spate of assaults is the most explicit and outrageous yet. The following is an actual email which was spammed out to several of our advertisers with their individual company names subbed in -- all of whom remain resolute in standing up to terror, or, as one rense.com ad client put it: "I don't like being threatened by anyone, especially when I'm not guilty. They can go to hell!!!!!" ... While Zionist prisoners of conscience such as Ernst Zundel rot away in prison for daring to examine history anew, while Zionist groups work double-time to intimidate and harass individuals, net sites and businesses in order to silence, obfuscate and destroy reputations and lives, those who cherish freedom - and who are not afraid to read material they may disagree with - must stand firm against them with the solidarity and conviction of one engaged in a war. We ask that all Rense.com visitors not only voice their opinion about this threat to our Liberty but that they also show these goons that their tactics will not effect this site or its operation by continuing to patronize our most excellent sponsors, supporters, friends and advertisers who bravely and consistently stand with us for personal freedom of speech and freedom to read whatever we want. If we fail, these people will one day try to fill new concentration camps with political prisoners like us...and a genuine Holocaust will occur."

Ad Timed to Gibson Film Release Refused,
By BOBBY ROSS JR, Yahoo! News, (from Associated Presss), February 3, 2004 "AMC Theatres is refusing to accept a 30-second ad produced by the Baptist General Convention of Texas and timed to coincide with the Ash Wednesday opening of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Like many evangelical Christian groups throughout the nation, the 2 million-member Baptist convention hopes to take advantage of the publicity generated by Gibson's R-rated epic about the last hours of Jesus. Rick King, spokesman for AMC Entertainment Inc., based in Kansas City, Mo., said he couldn't address the specific situation. In general, King said, "Screen advertising is a pretty sensitive area and we have a pretty tight set of guidelines for what we will place on our screens and what we won't." Regal Entertainment Group of Knoxville, Tenn., whose holdings include United Artist theaters, has accepted the ad. "The advertisement meets all of our standards and guidelines," Regal spokeswoman Lauren Leff said. "There's no reason why we wouldn't run it." Becky Bridges, communications director for the association of 5,700 Texas Baptist churches, said the black-and-white ad is designed to "spark some interest and questions on the part of younger viewers about the story of Christianity." The ad opens with a young man asking: "You want to see the most scandalous story ever?" Words then flash on and off the screen: "Betrayal. Sin. Adultery. Greed. Envy. Weakness. Poverty. Torture. Murder." "Redemption," the actor says. The ad ends with the message "Now playing at a Baptist church near you" above a Baptist General Convention of Texas logo. AMC has been "very vague about why" it declined the ad, Bridges said, with company officials describing it variously as "too dark" and "too Christian." "We followed all their regulations: not using Jesus, Bible or any other overt God talk," she said. "We do not use religious symbols or icons. We do not attempt to use guilt or other things that might appear to be judgmental or proselytizing. "In my opinion, it is a good teaser which is edgy enough that audiences will find it intriguing, but not offensive," she added, noting that the ad's art director was Catholic and the director Jewish. Texas Baptists plan to run the ad on about 200 Regal theater screens in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio, Bridges said. At a cost of about $40,000, the ad will run for four weeks starting the Friday before the Feb. 25 opening of Gibson's movie. The convention also had hoped to show the ad on about 150 AMC screens in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Bridges said the convention approached theater chains that it knows accept regional advertising and don't require a national contract. King said ads accepted by AMC must be appropriate for all audiences — those coming to see a children's film such as "Finding Nemo" as well as someone expecting the graphic nature of a drama such as "The Passion of the Christ." "In general terms, we don't allow any kind of negativity," King said. "We do run ads for a number of churches and organizations, but this particular one would need some modifications to meet our guidelines." Bridges said the Baptist convention offered to soften its ad, including taking out references to "murder" and "torture," but that did not appease AMC, she said. Gibson's movie, with dialogue in Latin and Aramaic and English subtitles, is set to open on 2,000 screens nationwide — an unusually large release for an independent religious film made in dead languages. Some critics of "The Passion of the Christ" worry that its depiction of the role of Jewish leaders in Jesus' final hours will revive the idea that all Jews are to blame for his death. Gibson has repeatedly denied that his film maligns Jews. It has won praise from many prominent Christians including evangelist Billy Graham."

World Court Refuses to Disqualify Judge,
By ARTHUR MAX, Las Vegas Sun, February 3, 2004
"The World Court rejected an Israeli request to disqualify an Egyptian judge from the tribunal, which will rule on the legality of the security barrier Israel is building in Palestinian territories, the court said Tuesday. Israel wanted Judge Nabil Elaraby to step down, citing his earlier job as legal adviser to the Egyptian government and what it described as a prejudicial newspaper interview in 2001. By a vote of 13-1, the court ruled on Friday that Elaraby would remain on the bench. Only the court is empowered to excuse one of its judges. The Hague-based panel has 15 judges; Elaraby didn't vote. The International Court of Justice, the highest U.N. judicial body, was asked in December by the General Assembly to give a nonbinding opinion on "the legal consequences" of the 440-mile complex of walls and fences on Palestinian land, some of which slice deeply into the West Bank. Israel says the barrier is meant to stop suicide bombers. The Palestinians say it is an attempt to redraw borders and has already disrupted tens of thousands of lives. As a government legal adviser, Elaraby sat across from the Israelis at the negotiating table on several occasions, dating back to the successful Camp David agreements in 1978 that led to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. He was elected to the court in October 2001 for a nine-year term."

[ALL human beings have a "personal philosophy." If yours is publically Jewish, you are worshipped. If you want to herald nihilistic decadence, that's kosher too. Anything else, you're garbage.]
Professor Removed for Saying He's Catholic,
Newsmax, February 2004
"Lakeland Community College near Cleveland, Ohio, has removed a professor of moral philosophy from his classes as punishment for refusing to hide his religious identity from students. The college threatened Dr. James Tuttle, who espouses traditional Catholic beliefs, with dismissal because he made statements on his syllabi and in class that disclosed his religious faith and how that shaped his personal philosophy. "Asking a philosophy professor to divorce his deepest philosophic views from his teaching is both outrageous and absurd," said Greg Lukianoff, director of legal and public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). "To say that a philosophy professor cannot discuss religious ideas is to render him incapable of meaningful discussion of some of the greatest minds in the history of his field. Feminists are not forced to veil their feminism, and Catholic philosophers should be free to be Catholic philosophers." Dr. Tuttle's problems began in March 2003 when he received a copy of a student complaint forwarded to him by Dean James L. Brown of the Arts and Humanities Division at Lakeland. The student complained that Dr. Tuttle mentioned his Catholic beliefs too often for the student's taste and suggested that he be given "counseling for tolerance." In an effort to address this issue, Dr. Tuttle decided to add "disclaimers" to the syllabi of two of his classes informing students that the professor was "a committed Catholic Christian philosopher and theologian," so that students would know in advance about his perspective. The statement also encouraged any students who felt uncomfortable with Dr. Tuttle's views or methods to feel free to talk to him outside class. On April 21, 2003, Dr. Tuttle received a letter from Dean Brown saying that he was "more bothered by [Tuttle's] disclaimer than by anything I read in [the student]'s complaint." Dean Brown went on to suggest that Dr. Tuttle "would be happier in a sectarian classroom." In punishing Dr. Tuttle for including the disclaimer, Dean Brown stated that he would reduce Dr. Tuttle's course load for the next semester to only one class (thereby reducing his pay) and would subject him to classroom monitoring by a fellow professor before reaching a final decision on whether to actually fire him. Dr. Tuttle contacted FIRE for help, and in December FIRE wrote to Lakeland Community College President Morris W. Beverage to protest the college's punishment of Dr. Tuttle. FIRE reminded Lakeland that Dr. Tuttle's disclosure and discussion of his religious beliefs in a philosophy class were directly relevant to the topic of the class and that "such candor from an instructor should be welcomed rather than condemned." FIRE also pointed out that Lakeland's demand that Dr. Tuttle avoid commenting on his own religious beliefs ignores the pervasive historic, intellectual and cultural ties between the worlds of religion and philosophy. Reminding President Beverage that philosophers including Plato, Lao Tzu, Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas espoused theories that regarded religion and philosophy as integrated parts of one whole, FIRE asked, "Which of these thinkers would Dean Brown punish for intellectual honesty at Lakeland Community College?" Lakeland failed to respond to FIRE's request that the college cease its unfair persecution of Dr. Tuttle and that it restore him to his full class load. Instead, Dr. Tuttle was informed in December that he was being given the last pick of classes – with a selection of courses that administrators knew he did not wish to teach – despite the fact that Lakeland's traditional seniority system should have given him preference over six other instructors. Dr. Tuttle refused to accept the loss of his seniority and declined to accept Lakeland's shameful offer. FIRE is calling for Lakeland Community College to reinstate Dr. Tuttle as a philosophy instructor and will put information about Dr. Tuttle's situation in the hands of the media, the public, and local and national advocacy groups. FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, civic leaders, scholars, journalists and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and due process on our nation's campuses."

[Sure. It's an old Jewish adage: a weak Christianity is good for Jews. (Forbid displays of crosses and the Nativity in public spaces, ban prayer from schools, etc. etc. etc.) In other words, destroy the logical rallying points that might be antithetical to Jewish tribal interests. Likewise, and per the Judeocentric rampage in the Middle East, a denuded, defeated Islam (No headscarves! Wear mini-skirts.) is also very good for Jews. Here we have another article about the rich, powerful Jewish victim who is forced by a bigoted society into Jewish tribal private schools.]
Anti-Semitism infuses scarf debate, French schools fight deeply rooted racism,
by Thomas Fuller, International Herald Tribune, February 10, 2004
"Head scarves were banned by administrators at the public school in this Paris suburb long before France began its current round of tortured debate on the issue. While the public discussion focuses on France’s vaunted secularism, on women’s rights and the definitions of Frenchness, racism is a silent but powerful undercurrent propelling the debate. It’s an undercurrent that Sarah Aguado, a precocious 13-year-old, knows well. As the only Jew in a school with a large Muslim minority, she was repeatedly insulted and attacked and finally forced to flee. Classmates called her a ‘‘dirty Jew.’’ One student slapped her and made a racist remark. Another asked whether her family in Israel ‘‘owned guns and killed Palestinians.’’ Sarah stopped eating and had nightmares, according to her mother. Five weeks ago, mother and daughter moved to the south of France, where Sarah enrolled in a new school, relieved to exit the ‘‘catastrophic’’ situation. . [On Tuesday, France’s lower house of parliament voted in favor of banning head scarves and other religious symbols from the classroom.] Teachers and Jewish groups said the larger problem of anti-Semitism in French schools remained deeply ingrained and would not be solved simply by banning religious headgear. Anti-Semitism is so prevalent in some of the housing projects that ring Paris and other major French cities that ‘‘it’s become infused into the language,’’ according to Barbara Lefebvre, a history teacher at a French public school. . ‘‘Just about every week I see students in my class — where there are no Jews — insulting each other by saying, ‘Stop it, you Jew.’ Or ‘No, you can’t borrow my pen, it’s not yours, Jew.’ Or if their pen is broken they’ll say, ‘What’s wrong with my pen? It’s a Jew.’ ‘‘When you point it out, they say, ‘This is just a way of speaking.’’’ France’s interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said last week that the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks in the country had declined 37 percent in 2003, with 125 incidents recorded by police. But teachers and Jewish groups say many incidents of harassment or anti-Semitic insults go unrecorded. . As part of the government’s campaign against anti-Semitism, the Education Ministry last year established a system of ‘‘surveillance cells’’ specifically to track anti-Jewish incidents. Officials will issue the first data from this effort sometime in the next few months. In the meantime, Jewish groups say, one measure of anti-Semitism in French schools is the number of Jewish students switching to Jewish private schools, Catholic schools or moving to different cities or neighborhoods ... Those who study anti-Semitism in French schools say the problem is not generalized throughout the entire French school system ... Private Jewish education in France was almost nonexistent a half-century ago, said Jean-Jacques Wahl, secretary general of Alliance Israélite Universelle, a French educational group. France’s public educational system was touted as the way to instill what the French call ‘‘republican values’’ — a sense of citizenship and national solidarity. ‘‘Jewish schools I would say were against the general spirit of France,’’ Wahl said. ‘‘The republican school was the foundation for the citizen and had an excellent reputation.’’ But today, Wahl said, ‘‘people are beginning to question the republican ideal.’’ Wahl’s organization manages a half- dozen private Jewish schools that have 2,000 students enrolled. ‘‘Demand is very, very strong for spots and we can’t fulfill it,’’ he said."

[There is always a Jew in the wings eager to be offended by anything, and he/she is even more eager to press charges about it. The Jewish censorial scam is to intimidate, making ANY critical comment about Jews by ANYONE a swamp of legal problems and difficulties. The best course then, Jews hope, is for the public world to self-censor in order to be spared the ceaseless whining and endless hassle Jews bring to the door.]
Death penalty reference not aimed at Jews, council finds,
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), February 13, 2004
"The Press Council has dismissed a complaint against The Sydney Morning Herald by Mark Braham, over the use of a biblical reference in a comment article about changing public attitudes towards capital punishment. The article, "Sentence that gives oxygen to the vengeful", appeared following suggestions by the Prime Minister that state leaders could reopen debate on the issue. Recalling the early history of the death penalty, the writer, referring to a passage from the Bible, wrote: "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the world of the Old Testament, killing, or putting out the eyes of, a vanquished foe was common." Mr Braham complained that in the context of the article, the reference amounted to "an attack on Judaism as a cruel and vengeful religion, the Jews therefore, as bearers of that faith, as a cruel and vengeful people". In the week following its publication, he wrote twice to the paper, claiming the use of the death penalty was far more circumscribed in Jewish tradition than the Bible passage suggests. Neither letter was published. The Herald dismissed Mr Braham's concerns, arguing that a fair interpretation of the article could not lead any reasonable person to the view that it was using the reference to propagate a view about Judaism or Jews. The Press Council agrees, noting that in recalling the history of retributive justice, the article spoke generally of "the world of the Old Testament" and did not single out the Jews as "cruel or vengeful". While publication of either of Mr Braham's letters might have contributed constructively to debate around the issue, the Herald has breached no Council principle in this instance."

[There are some things in this long article (this is an excerpt) of which we disagree, but its basic premise -- per Jewish defamation of Christianity -- is accurate.]
The Defamation of Christianity - Part 8027,
by Bruce Walker, Men's News Daily, February 11, 2004
"We all know that Christian anti-Semitism caused the Holocaust, right? The story goes something like this: (1) Christians, from the earliest days, were anti-Semitic; (2) Christians engaged in unprovoked persecution of Jews in the ancient and medieval world; (3) Christians encouraged massacres against Jews that desensitized Christendom to the Holocaust; (4) Men raised as Christians committed the Holocaust; (5) Christians ignored the Holocaust while it happened and denied the Holocaust after it happened. Baseball allows three strikes and “You’re out!” Football gives teams four downs to keep their drive alive. But let us be generous and give this particularly noxious defamation of Christianity five chances to be right. It is still defamation. Christians were anti-Semitic? Christianity has never been “anti-Semitic.” The first Christians were Jews. The next Christians were Semitic people, even if they were not Jews. The model of racial moral superiority adopted by the National Socialist German Workers Party resembled Judaism, not Christianity (although Nazi evil was as hostile and incompatible with the righteousness required by Judaism as with the tolerance required by Christianity.) Racism was condemned as sin in human history first by Christians. Outside Christian theology, racism was the norm. Why, then, describe the conflicts between Christians and Jews in the ancient and medieval world as “anti-Semitic”? Simple: it creates the false impression that differences between Jews and Christians sowed the seeds of Nazi racial policies. Christians engaged in unprovoked persecution Jews in the ancient and medieval world? The first three centuries of Christianity was one long religious holocaust by pagan Rome against Christians. When pagan Rome was scattering the Jewish people in the Diaspora, this vile though grand empire was torturing Christians to death. Seldom noted is that Jews, ten percent of the population of the Empire, sometimes helped persecute Christians. Constantine the Great may have been converted to Christianity on his deathbed, but he was profoundly influenced by Christianity years before, which led him to proclaim the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. This edict granted religious toleration to Jews, Christians and all faiths within the Roman Empire ... The first episode of religious genocide between these two great faiths took place in 614 A.D., when Jerusalem was captured by Persians and Jews, who together methodically tortured and exterminated more than 90,000 Christian men, women and children."

[Per the above article: Here's how Jews swarm behind the scenes to censor people. Granted, this may be small scale compared to the Jewish Lobby norm, but it's the usual METHOD. As noted below, volunteer representatives of the Jewish Lobby in academia are already trying to get the author of the above article fired. Note the Jewish censorial collusion at H-Antisemitism, which is a "discussion" forum of (mostly) narrow-minded, chauvinistic, bigoted, censorial Jewish "scholars" who are obsessed with stamping out "anti-Semitism." This is how the Censor Maniacs work all the time. Here we get a glint of the Way They Do IT, in process. Note that the guy who brags about contacting the editor of the "antisemitic website" never even read the article and acts like a regular reader of Men's News Daily.]
From: Arieh Lebowitz
Subject: "The Defamation of Christianity - Part 8027" - anti-Semitic website
"Friends: found the nasty item below, online, at http://mensnewsdaily.com -- what may be a well-trafficked website, specifically: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/walker/04/walker021104.htm Anyone interested can and should get responses going, yes? Thanks. Arieh
From: Robert Michael
Subject: The antisemitic article
"I complained to the publisher and he sent a good reply. I will keep the list informed. Below are a copy of my email and his reply. Collegially, Bob Michael "I'd been warned about Walker's antisemitic page by a friend. I could not link to his page at your website. Thank God. There's enough foolishness around without MND participating. Hope you stuck Walker's page where the sun don't shine. I look forward to reading MND without Walker's crap. Sincerely, Bob Michael" Mike LaSalle, the editor, replied: "I'll look into this. If true, he's out."

[Jews get their obligatory follow-up article to the above Bruce Wilson piece about their "defamation of Christianity" (i.e., they get to hose down the fire):" http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2004/shore021304.htm ]

[JTR Contributor's comment: "Jenny Tonge was recently sacked by Charles Kennedy. You can see her in a recent ''Question Time' here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/question_time/latest.ram (real video). Note the warm response of the audience to Jenny Tonge's empathy with the Palestinians plight (41 minutes and 10 seconds), compared to the audiences response to a pro-Israel member of the audience (45 minutes in). The media may try to give the impression that Israel can do no wrong, but the public knows better."]

The New Commissars/ Congress threatens to cut off funding to collegiate Mideast Studies departments that refuse to toe the neocon line,
By Anders Strindberg, American Conservative, February 2, 2004
"Universities are no strangers to disagreement and debate. In fact, the process of argumentation has always been an important way for academics to sharpen theories and refine analyses—be it in biology, economics, or political science. Not so in the field of international studies, claim the intellectual cadres of the neoconservative movement, who have long been bitter about the under-representation of their worldview within academia. This imbalance, they claim, is not due to any weaknesses in their arguments but to the fact that U.S. universities in general, and departments studying the Middle East in particular, constitute a monolithic cabal of America-hating left-wing extremists with whom debate is impossible. Academia must be brought to heel. Taking advantage of the fears and anxieties following 9/11, and their current political clout in Washington, neocon think tanks have waged a three-part battle against the academy. First it was necessary to popularize the view of universities across the country as an unmitigated breeding ground for “terrorist thought.” This was accompanied by the monitoring of scholars and institutions that expressed criticism of Israel and of U.S. foreign policy (i.e., “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American” views), “naming and shaming” them on the Internet and in columns and editorials. While thus “raising public awareness,” Congress was being lobbied for legislation to confront the threat from this enemy within: the fifth column in the ivory tower. The pieces came together on Oct. 21, when the House approved the International Studies in Higher Education Act, HR 3077. If passed into law, the bill would mandate the withdrawal of federal funding from international-studies departments that fail to display sufficient support for U.S. foreign-policy positions, do not contribute to homeland security, or fall short of federally mandated standards for “diversity” of political perspectives. The language of diversity may be a clever sales pitch, but HR 3077 is all about failure to tolerate disagreement. ... Stanley Kurtz has written extensively on the need to curb academia and was invited to testify before a congressional committee in June 2003 about the need for legislation. Virtually volunteering his services (and those of Pipes and Kramer, to whom he paid due homage), Kurtz expanded on his belief that academia is characterized by “intellectual failure and moral bankruptcy,” suggesting that, “instead of restricting the membership of [the congressional oversight] committees to scholars, policy makers and policy experts from think tanks need to be empowered to sit on such panels.” Congress bought it, passing HR 3077 unanimously. While there are doubtless problems in academia, that scholars have views is not one of them. HR 3077 talks of diversity but rather aims to mute criticism of the neocon agenda."

[Another professor in danger of losing his job for breaking the Great Taboo and daring to criticize Israel and daring to compare anyone elses' suffering to the Sacred Jewish Holocaust. The Usual Jewish Totalitarian Attack Dog is quick to pounce from the wings and quarantine the area.]
Anti-Israel rant, nuke ‘joke’ in student paper baffle Jews,
by Joe Eskenazi, Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, February 6, 2004
"Foothill Community College has issued an apology and launched an investigation following a profoundly anti-Israel Q&A with a political science professor in the Sentinel student newspaper. In the Jan. 28 article, Leighton Armitage, an adjunct professor at the Los Altos Hills college, compares Israeli activities to those of the Holocaust, and his interviewer notes, albeit jokingly, that the United States could “resolve this problem” by testing nuclear bombs on the Jewish state. “If you say that what they’re doing is something akin to the holocaust, what will they say? ‘You’re an anti-Semite … it’s so convenient. It allows them to do exactly what was done to them,” said Armitage in the article, titled “Good fences make good neighbors.” “And what are they doing with Palestinians every day? They’re killing them. They’re walling them in, they’re essentially doing the same thing that was done to them. Of course they’re not tattooing the numbers into the arm, and they’re not taking their glasses and their gold fillings, and everything else, as far as I know, but they’re still slaughtering these people. Now what’s with that? It’s exactly what Hitler did to the Jews.” The Holocaust, and its resultant 6 million dead Jews is not exactly “convenient,” answered Karen Stiller, the Peninsula director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, responding to Armitage’s assessment. “This really goes beyond reasonable criticism of Israeli policies and into hateful rhetoric about Jews,” she added. Armitage, a professor at both Foothill and the College of San Mateo, also accused AIPAC of funding the opponents of the pro-Israel lobby, adding, “and believe me, they have money to spare. The point is, the Jews have such a perfect position at this point.” Among other claims, he also accused AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, and Israel of “buying our elections, which pisses me off … Israel has a hammer lock on America.” Sentinel opinion page editor Collin Plehiers, who conducted the interview, compared the Israeli security fence to the Warsaw Ghetto in framing one question, and then casually suggested that the United States should test nuclear bombs by dropping them on Israel. Following this “joke,” he included the caveat that his nuke comments “WERE NOT made seriously and we apologize if this may have offended you.” Foothill President Bernadine Fong issued an apology regarding the article on Tuesday, Feb. 3, stating that “It is regrettable that this article appeared in our student newspaper, and I am asking our administration to conduct a review of the process that led to its publication.” Sentinel editor emeritus Scott Lipsig said he was certain newspaper adviser Paul Starer did not read the piece, and was unsure if it was even copy edited. Plehiers, however, claimed it was read by the paper’s copy editor, editor-in-chief and faculty adviser. Arlene Miller, executive director of Hillel of Silicon Valley, said Foothill’s Jewish club, Jews, Israelis and Friends, has started a letter-writing campaign, and will request meetings with Sentinel editors. Contacted at the Sentinel office, Plehiers apologized for the content of the article, stating that he didn’t realize the extent to which readers would be offended. He also noted that he had planned to run a pro-Israel Q&A as well but ran out of space. “See, I’m new at this. I assumed people would read it and say, ‘Oh, this is horrible!’ I didn’t think they’d be so angry about it. I’m not Jewish, so I don’t understand how it feels to be ‘discriminated’ against. I realize now people could be really offended by something like that,” said the 20-year-old junior. Armitage, who was surprised that people outside the Foothill College community had read the article, said it was intended to “spark people to think. A lot of people are taking this more seriously than I intended.”

[Jewish Jaws begin circling professor Leighton Armitage; the Anti-Defamation League smells blood with another of its prospective Thought Police crucifixions. Armitage's crime? Daring to criticize Israel, and particularly in terms unacceptable to the Jewish Lobby. Here too we find the usual collusion between the Judeocentric media (in this case the Daily Journal and the ADL.]
Rights group investigating professor’s news interview,
By Yunmi Choi, Daily Journal, February 14, 2004
"A political science professor who sparked a firestorm of controversy with what some say were anti-Semitic remarks at Foothill College could now be getting heat at the College of San Mateo, where he also teaches. The Anti Defamation League was unaware until contacted by the Daily Journal Tuesday that Leighton Armitage also teaches at CSM, said spokesman Jonathan Bernstein. Now Bernstein said the ADL plans to contact CSM officials to find out if Armitage’s attitude is affecting the campus atmosphere there. The controversy was set in motion when Armitage comments were printed in Foothill’s student paper Jan. 28. In an interview with the Sentinel, Armitage said of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, “And what they’re doing with Palestinians every day? They’re killing them. They’re walling them in, they’re essentially doing the same thing that was done to them ... It’s exactly what Hitler did to the Jews.” The ADL has been getting calls from faculty and students for more than a year about the intolerant political atmosphere at Foothill, Bernstein said. “People there feel they can’t be open about their Jewish background or their support for Israel,” Bernstein said. That’s why the ADL wrote Foothill President Bernadine Chuck Fong a letter several months ago asking her to meet with the group. Only after the Armitage incident blew up did she recently agree to meet with ADL representatives, he said. “We’re taught this lesson over and over again,” Bernstein said. “If these things are not addressed directly and openly, they fester.” And the problem isn’t just isolated to Foothill. “We’re primarily focused on Foothill, but the same things could be going on in San Mateo,” Bernstein said. “We’re going to look into the San Mateo situation.” Intolerance has become such a widespread problem on college campuses nationwide that the ADL has even developed a manual to help school officials deal with the problem, Bernstein said. “We want to create an environment that allows all viewpoints to be expressed,” he said. Foothill College spokesman Kurt Hueg said a protest by the Muslim Student Association about a year and a half ago also caused some concerns. Other than that, however, Hueg said he can’t recall any other incidents that might indicate there’s an anti-Semitic atmosphere on campus. School officials at Foothill are “reviewing” how the situation went down, said Hueg. That means Fong is meeting with Armitage, representatives of the student paper and the faculty advisor. In the meantime, he said Armitage will continue to teach at Foothill. Over at the College of San Mateo, school officials haven’t even heard of the matter. Regardless, Director of Human Resources Harry Joel said the district doesn’t comment on personnel matters."

[This article represents the usual Judeocentric, Judeo-fascistic, ahistorical, hysterical garbage. Why can't any author speak and be subject to critical debate in public forum? Why is the Jewish Lobby so afraid of this? Because it fears what the public will realize when the Jewish-inspired "Holocaust" of Ukrainians is allowed within the boundary of permitted discourse. The fascistic "International Anti-Fascist Committtee" below is the usual Judeocentric fake front whose method of operation is the monolithic suppression of free speech about Jews and Israel. The issue everywhere at stake is not 'free speech vs. anti-Semitism.' The issue, as always, CLEARLY SEEN BELOW, is free speech vs. CENSORIAL SEMITISM which prevents free discourse and open debate (the lifeblood of democracy), at any cost."]
Opposition parties face dilemma pitting free press vs. anti-Semitism,
By Sylvie Briand, Washington Times (from AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE), February 15, 2004
"Ukraine's liberal and socialist opposition is in the center of a political storm after leaping to the defense of a newspaper ordered to shut down by a Kiev court for publishing anti-Semitic articles. The incident highlights the tenuous position of the Jews in Eastern Europe after decades of repression, with undercurrents of anti-Semitism still running strong. The Silski Visti newspaper, which has a circulation of more than 500,000 and is affiliated with the opposition Socialist Party, is being sued by the International Antifascist Committee for "encouraging racial hatred," because it published two articles by professor Vasil Yaramenko. The author accused Jews of having organized the great Ukraine famine of 1933 that killed millions of people, and which historians blame on Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. He also claimed that Jewish agents made up 99 percent of the NKVD political police (later known as the KGB), which he said killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s and was run by a Stalin crony. Mr. Yaramenko went even further, claiming that "400,000 Jewish SS" invaded Ukraine along with German troops during World War II. For good measure, he attacked "Zionist oligarchs" (tycoons), including Viktor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. The discontent escalated when all three opposition parties — including the liberals — rose to Silski Visti's defense. The parties — the blocs headed by presidential hopefuls Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Timoshenko, and Olexander Moroz's Socialist Party — claimed the decision to shut down the paper was a ploy by the Kuchma administration to influence the next presidential election, scheduled for October. Liberal political commentators and Jewish community leaders said they were stunned by the opposition's position ... Eduard Dolinsky, deputy head of Ukraine's Jewish community council, said the shutdown of Silski Visti was "a great victory, something unique in Ukraine" — a country where anti-Semitic propaganda is freely available in most bookstores. "For years, this newspaper has disseminated its hateful propaganda. And the opposition has completely discredited itself," Mr. Dolinsky said ... . "This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism," said Socialist Party deputy leader Ivan Boky. "Mr. Yaromenko is a researcher who writes on complex historical issues. Saying that Jewish bankers reduced Ukrainians to utter poverty is a fact, not racial hatred," Mr. Boky said. "It is not the first time that the presidential administration has been trying to close this newspaper down," he added."

Scholars attacked for comparing Zionism to Nazism. Poet Amiri Baraka labeled anti-Semitic, ANC professor fired,
by Jeff Blankfort, San Francisco Bay View, February 18, 2004
"In the summer of 1983, Professor Fred Dubé, a former member of the African National Congress who had been imprisoned under South Africa’s apartheid regime, offered his students at the State University of New York several subjects on which they could write their term papers. One of them was to compare Zionism and Nazism as two forms of racism. The response from the Anti-Defamation League and the major Jewish organizations in New York was predictable. They demanded the head of Dubé - and Gov. Mario Cuomo handed it to them. Despite the campus-wide support that Dubé would receive, including from a number of his Jewish students, he was denied tenure and fired. The ADL has not forgotten Dubé. As recently as July 2003, in an attack on poet Amiri Baraka, its weekly newsletter cited as an example of Baraka’s alleged “anti-Semitic” activities his defense of Dubé when the professor came under attack: “The following is a compilation of anti-Semitic statements and writings of Baraka,” the ADL’s report began, and it opened with Baraka’s statement regarding the attack on the South African professor that appeared in The Statesman on Nov. 7, 1985: “Apparently these racists are in the same boat as the Boers. So exposed is their own fascism (no rights for Arabs in Israel, continued Israeli expansion (in) Arab lands, criminal invasion of Lebanon (which was going on at the time - JB), holding Lebanese civilians prisoners in Israel in violation of international law, the emergence of Hitlerian Meir Kahane as a potent force in Israeli politics, etc.) that they apparently feel, like the Boers, that they will not negotiate, but rather will go down to their destruction in flames!” The case of Fred Dubé came to mind last week when the ADL and Jewish community leaders set their sites on another professor, this time one closer to the Bay Area, who had the temerity to compare the Israel’s savage treatment of the Palestinians with what Jews had experienced at the hands of the Nazis. In an interview with the school paper, the Sentinel, Foothill College Professor Leighton Armitage reportedly said: “If you say that what they’re (the Israelis) doing is something akin to the holocaust, what will they say? ‘You’re an anti-Semite’ … it’s so convenient. It allows them to do exactly what was done to them. “And what are they doing with Palestinians every day? They’re killing them. They’re walling them in, they’re essentially doing the same thing that was done to them. Of course they’re not tattooing the numbers into the arm, and they’re not taking their glasses and their gold fillings, and everything else, as far as I know, but they’re still slaughtering these people. Now what’s with that? It’s exactly what Hitler did to the Jews.” Armitage also reportedly accused the benignly named American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, Israel’s official but unregistered lobby) of funding opponents of the lobby’s critics, adding, “and believe me, they have money to spare. The point is, the Jews have such a perfect position at this point.” He also accused AIPAC of “buying our elections, which pisses me off … Israel has a hammerlock on America.” “This really goes beyond reasonable criticism of Israeli policies and into hateful rhetoric about Jews,” said Karen Stiller, the Peninsula director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, told J (for Jewish), the recently renamed Jewish Bulletin of Northern California. But does it? Presumably, with regard to Israel, one can imply from her statement that, short of using gas chambers and cremating Palestinians in ovens, the Israelis can do anything they like to the Palestinians. While it would be expected that Professor Armitage’s responses would offend some Jewish sensibilities, a more important consideration is whether or not what he said was valid. With regard to comparisons between the behavior of the Israeli state towards the Palestinians and that of the Nazis towards the Jews, leading Jewish critics of Israel such as Professor Norman Finkelstein and the late Professor Israel Shahak, a survivor of World War II death camp Buchenwald, have frequently made such comparisons. Moreover, a little over a year ago, a group of Holocaust survivors living in Israel sent a petition to the Israeli government criticizing its treatment of the Palestinians and invoking memories of their experiences under the Third Reich. This was dutifully reported in Israel’s daily Ha’aretz, but thanks to the lobby’s intimidation of the U.S. media, their statement was never reported here. This is the excerpt of their statement published in Ha’aretz on Dec. 31, 2002: “(W)e cannot clear our conscience in light of the mass, arbitrary destruction of civilians’ homes, uprooted olive trees, and orchards shaved to the ground. We cannot accept the extensive disruptions of daily life and abuse, for its own sake or not, at the checkpoints.” Since the petition first began making the rounds on Dec. 15, dozens of Holocaust survivors and descendants have been adding their names daily. They agree that “Israeli society is descending into a quagmire of violence, brutality, disrespect for human rights, and contempt for human life.” They agree that “domination of another people against its will contradicts the lessons of the Holocaust, morally, humanely, and politically.” In its imitation of one of the more inhumane aspects of the Nazi regime - the systematic use of “collective punishment,” a clear violation of the Geneva Convention - Israel has far exceeded the record of any other country in modern times, including Nazi Germany, and has made no effort to hide its dubious accomplishment. In complaining about AIPAC’s influence on the elections, Professor Armitage was only stating what everyone in Congress knows and what Congressmembers Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard experienced in 2002. Challenging Israel is likely to be a career-ending decision. While serving as Israel’s main pressure group in getting Congress to do Israel’s bidding, AIPAC, technically, does not contribute to campaigns against Israel’s critics. What it does do is coordinate Jewish individuals and PACs (political action committees) looking to contribute their money where it can do the most good for Israel. In every tabulation of political contributions to national races - and several can be found on the internet - Jews are predominant. In the 2000 elections, according to the Mother Jones web site, eight of the top donors to both political parties were Jewish, as were 13 of the top 20 and approximately 120 of the top 250. While the majority of the contributions went to the Democrats, a significant amount went to Republicans heading key Senate and House committees, such as Appropriations, Armed Services, and the Middle East. How committed each and every one of the Jewish donors is to Israel is irrelevant, since members of Congress make no distinctions, viewing all of their contributions as supporting whatever Israeli party is in power. The White House is also Israeli Occupied Territory. ... The problem for the ADL is clearly how to silence our professors as they have silenced our Congress. We can’t let them."

Comedy show cancelled over Jewish joke,
By Alex Duval Smith, Independent (UK), February 20, 2004
"Dieudonné, the French stand-up comic who was due to perform tonight at the prestigious Olympia in Paris, has had his show cancelled after being accused of anti-Semitism. The lawyer of the half-French, half Cameroonian performer said yesterday that Universal Music, owners of the 2,000-capacity Olympia, had cancelled the show on the grounds that they could not guarantee the safety of the performer nor of his audience. Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, 38, has had six shows cancelled in France and Switzerland as a result of a sketch on France 3 Television in December. Dressed in military fatigues and a wide-brimmed hat associated with Orthodox Jews, he said: "I urge all of you [viewers] to convert like me [to Judaism]. Join the axis of Good, the American-Zionist axis." He ended his sketch with a Nazi salute and the cry "Isra-Heil". Several French comics, including Guy Bedos and Dieudonné's Jewish former performance partner, Elie Semoun, criticised the comic, saying he had gone too far. Dieudonné says he is himself of mixed race and knows no borders."

[Continued world Jewish censorship of art. Recall the Israel ambassador's physical attack on a painting in the Swedish museum last month. Want to succeed in any art or entertainment field? The Jewish Lobby has your script for you. Ask for it on your way out.]
'Nazi Jew' row comic takes show to Paris street,
Expatica, February 20, 2004 [See also this story by the BBC]
"A French comedian vowed Friday to perform in a Paris street after a venue cancelled his show because of threats made by people offended by a recent "Nazi Jew" skit he performed on national television. Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala - known simply as Dieudonne in France - told Europe 1 radio his impromptu routine outside the Olympia venue which scrapped his appearance was a protest in favour of artistic expression, and against the "censorship" he was facing. "This is the first time in France, I believe, that an artist has been banned from the stage like this," he said. The Olympia announced Wednesday it was reimbursing the 1,500 tickets sold for Dieudonne's show that was to have taken place Friday because of an apparently organised campaign of telephone calls and faxes opposing the performance. Some were sufficiently threatening that the police advised the hall would be jeopardising public safety if it did not implement onerous security measures, including X-ray machines and bag checks for explosives. A Paris judge Thursday rejected Dieudonne's bid to have the cancellation overturned. A French performers' union, the SFA, said it considered the Olympia's decision to be "an attack on freedom of expression". The uproar surrounding Dieudonne started December 1, when the comedian went on national television dressed as an Orthodox Jew and jokingly urged France's disaffected youths - many of them from Arab backgrounds - to "join the Axis of Good: the American-Zionist Axis." He finished the skit with a Nazi salute, saying "IsraeHeil". The incident elicited immediate outrage from French Jewish groups, a reprimand to the network from the broadcasting regulator, and a court hearing for Dieudonne that is yet to be set. Dieudonne, a 38-year-old atheist born in France of a French mother and a Cameroonian father, has repeatedly apologised to "people who might have been offended" by the skit, but insists he has always parodied various religious, political and ethnic groups in the name of humour but without malice. "I played an Israeli extremist - hey, they exist. I did not in any way talks about the Jewish community in France.... I spoke about Israel. But I think it's really tough to criticise the state of Israel today. That's the reality," he said. "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm not racist," he said, adding that his career was now slipping away from him as a result of the campaign against him. The attention given to his show and its cancellation underlined the sensitivity surrounding France's 600,000-strong Jewish population - the biggest in Europe."

[Two-faced Jews declare their community is not fascistic while enforcing fascist tactics. It's endless and it's everywhere: the Jewish Nazi campaign of Totalitarian Thought Control and Book Burning. Don't mess with the Boss. (Jewish dominance of the art world, here.) THE GREATEST TABOO in Western society is the depiction of Jews in an unflattering light and any artist worth his or her salt who truly seeks to deconstruct Insane Convention ought to know by now that Jewish Power, Jewish Hypocrisy, and Jewish Myth are the heart of the problem.]
Artwork removed from Oslo exhibition after outraging Jews,
Haaretz (Israel), February 20, 20043
"A Norwegian art gallery removed a painting Friday from its exhibition "Anti-Semite in the Name of God," saying it had infuriated Jews, including a Holocaust survivor. The painting, by Norwegian artist Chris Reddy, includes the text "Israel" and "USA," with each "S" replaced by a Nazi Swastika. Andreas Engelstad, owner of the Galleri A Minor in Oslo, said the Israeli Embassy demanded that the painting be removed, but that it was the reaction of other Jews that prompted his decision. "I took it down not because of the Embassy, but out of respect for victims of the Holocaust," he told The Associated Press by telephone. "One of the victims called me and said they were hurt by the painting." The decision made top news in Norway on Friday, partly because it came just a month after a furious dispute between Israel and Sweden over an exhibition in Stockholm that enraged the Israeli ambassador there. That exhibit showed the picture of a Palestinian suicide bomber, and so outraged Israeli Ambassador Zvi Mazel that he tried to damage it by throwing a light fixture at it. In Norway, Israeli Ambassador Liora Herzl sent a letter to the gallery, saying Reddy's painting was unacceptable because it linked Israel and the United States to Nazism. Norwegian news agency NTB said Reddy was furious at the decision to remove his artwork. "It is questionable that Ambassador Liora Herzl has taken the fascists' tool, censorship, into use," he was quoted as saying. He could not immediately be reached for comment by the AP. Engelstad said Reddy's exhibition seeks to use a variety of artworks to illustrate how political and religious forces influence a person's thinking. None of the other works was deemed offensive and will remain on display until March 7, he said."

French Law to Also Hit Pupils Denying Holocaust,
Yahoo! News (from Reuters), Feb 10, 2004
"France's coming ban on religious emblems in state schools will also affect pupils denying the Holocaust or refusing to take part in biology or physical education courses, Education Minister Luc Ferry said Tuesday. Speaking before the National Assembly was due to vote for the ban in its first reading, he said the preamble to the law would make clear pupils must follow the official curriculum. He told Europe 1 radio this meant that "they have no right to contest the contents of a course, for example the program on the Holocaust in history or human reproduction in biology or (attending) physical education." Teachers have complained in recent years of growing problems with Muslim pupils who interrupt history classes to deny the Nazis slaughtered Jews; boycott classes on human reproduction, saying they are immodest; or refuse to attend physical education. They have also reported that Muslim pupils sometimes repeat anti-Semitic themes they see on Arabic satellite television. Paris is trying to block transmission of the Al Manar station, run by Lebanon's Hizbollah party. Ferry said the passage recalling pupils' obligations would be in the preamble to the law, which aims to ban conspicuous religious emblems from state schools in order to keep religious tensions out of the classroom. The law "will keep classrooms from being divided up into militant religious communities," he said, noting there had been a "spectacular rise in racism and anti-Semitism in the past three years."

Police prepare to head off hate crimes and extremism,
Hudson Valley News, February 18, 2004
"Faced with an alarming rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2003, Westchester County has partnered with the Anti-Defamation League to ensure that those messages of bigotry and hate don't go any further. About 40 police officers from throughout the county took part in a new training program yesterday that addressed hate crimes and extremism, and specifically looked at how the Internet has encouraged the spread of such propaganda. Taught by national experts from the Anti-Defamation League, the course showed effective techniques for combating extremism and quelling the rise of white supremacist group activities in Westchester County . “We've seen a rash of hateful activities and anti-Semitic vandalism right here in our backyard, and that's something that simply won't be tolerated. One incident is too many,” said County Executive Andrew Spano. “We are going to do everything in our power to make sure that bigotry and hatred don't find a home in Westchester County . Specialized training for our police departments is a good place to start.”

[The struggle continues to pull Christianity from the suffocating Jewish stranglehold. A Jew physically censors a sign she doesn't like at a Christian church. Why isn't this defacement, and a "hate" crime? Church, press charges! Or does this mean it's free reign to start tearing down racist "Chosen People" pro-Israel signs at synagogues? The trumpet call is this: take back your religion from the Jewish censorship system. Jesus either stands for something real or he doesn't. He fought Jewish censorship too.]
Pastor Creates Furor With Sign Blaming Jews For Crucifixion,
WFTV (Denver, CO), February 26, 2004
"A pastor displayed the message "Jews Killed The Lord Jesus" in front of his church on a busy Denver thoroughfare Wednesday, prompting outrage from Jews and Christians alike. The sign in front of Lovingway United Pentecostal Church upset one passer-by so much she bought a ladder that afternoon to remove the first word. Church members later took down the rest of the words. Pastor Maurice Gordon said he was inspired by the intense discussion leading to Wednesday's release of the Mel Gibson film "The Passion of the Christ," which some have criticized as anti-Semitic and others have hailed as powerfully portraying the Crucifixion of Christ. Gibson has said the movie does not blame Jews for the death of Jesus. "I had been listening to debate back and forth on talk radio about who really did it," Gordon told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "What I did, right or wrong, was to give a citation from the Apostle Paul." "You only want to do this maybe once in a lifetime," Gordon said. "At least hopefully it will get people to go back and read the fine print in the Bible." The woman who altered the message board said she drove to the church after hearing about the sign at a Jewish education class. Ami Ship said she knocked on the doors and called the church's number on her cell phone. "No one would answer," said Ship, who is Jewish. "I just wanted to talk to them and see if they would take the sign down." She decided not to wait, buying the ladder and a tarp at a store across the street, intending to cover the sign. When that didn't work, she removed the word "Jews" from the message board. "I'm raising four Jewish little girls, and I would like the community to be a safe place for all religions," Ship said. "I felt it was anti-Semitic, incorrect, and a cowardly thing to do." Gordon's sign prompted a response Wednesday night from the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that urged Christian leaders in Denver to rebuke the church for posting the sign. "The Jewish people has suffered from the libel of deicide for nearly two thousand years," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the center. "We continue to look to our Christian neighbors and friends to rebuke those who would pass off this canard as theology."

[The struggle against coordinated Jewish Totalitarian Censorship is worldwide. Jews must be sacrosanct: that's the secular Law. Here Jews go after Muslims in South Africa the same way they trash Mel Gibson and Christianity.]
Jewish board in court bid over 'hate speech',
By Estelle Ellis, The Star (South Africa), February 26, 2004,
"After six years of legal battle, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies has taken a broadcasting regulator to court. The SAJBD is asking the Johannesburg High Court to force the regulator to have a formal hearing into a complaint about a radio programme they claim incited hatred towards Jews. But Radio 786, which aired the programme, continued in their defiance of the SAJBD. "They assumed there would be a hearing. Their letters (about the issue) combine ignorance with arrogance," legal team leader Jeremy Gauntlett SC said yesterday. In May 1998, a Cape-based community radio station known as Radio 786 broadcast a programme called "Zionism and Israel: An in-depth analysis". It consisted of an interview with one Dr Yaqub Zaki, who expressed a number of controversial views, including that Jewish people were not gassed in concentration camps during World War 2, but instead died of infectious diseases. The SAJBD then complained to the Broadcasting Monitoring and Complaints Committee (BMCC). The basis of its complaint was that the broadcast violated the Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Services as it was "likely to prejudice relations between groups in the population". After some legal wrangling, the Islamic Unity Convention - which ran Radio 786 - took the BMCC to the High Court. They asked the court to declare a part of the code of conduct unconstitutional as they believed it violated the right to freedom of expression."

[New dimensions to the Thought Police. The American Zionist-Occupied Government warns you about Iran. Iran, you'll recall, is the place the Jewish Neo-cons hope to bomb to set up a pro-Israel puppet government.]
Treasury Department Is Warning Publishers of the Perils of Criminal Editing of the Enemy,
By ADAM LIPTAK, New York Times, February 28, 2004
"Writers often grumble about the criminal things editors do to their prose. The federal government has recently weighed in on the same issue — literally. It has warned publishers they may face grave legal consequences for editing manuscripts from Iran and other disfavored nations, on the ground that such tinkering amounts to trading with the enemy. Anyone who publishes material from a country under a trade embargo is forbidden to reorder paragraphs or sentences, correct syntax or grammar, or replace "inappropriate words," according to several advisory letters from the Treasury Department in recent months. Adding illustrations is prohibited, too. To the baffled dismay of publishers, editors and translators who have been briefed about the policy, only publication of "camera-ready copies of manuscripts" is allowed. The Treasury letters concerned Iran. But the logic, experts said, would seem to extend to Cuba, Libya, North Korea and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license. Laws and regulations prohibiting trade with various nations have been enforced for decades, generally applied to items like oil, wheat, nuclear reactors and, sometimes, tourism. Applying them to grammar, spelling and punctuation is an infuriating interpretation, several people in the publishing industry said. "It is against the principles of scholarship and freedom of expression, as well as the interests of science, to require publishers to get U.S. government permission to publish the works of scholars and researchers who happen to live in countries with oppressive regimes," said Eric A. Swanson, a senior vice president at John Wiley & Sons, which publishes scientific, technical and medical books and journals. Nahid Mozaffari, a scholar and editor specializing in literature from Iran, called the implications staggering. "A story, a poem, an article on history, archaeology, linguistics, engineering, physics, mathematics, or any other area of knowledge cannot be translated, and even if submitted in English, cannot be edited in the U.S.," she said. "This means that the publication of the PEN Anthology of Contemporary Persian Literature that I have been editing for the last three years," she said, "would constitute aiding and abetting the enemy" ... In theory — almost certainly only in theory — correcting typographical errors and performing other routine editing could subject publishers to fines of $500,000 and 10 years in jail."

[More spreading of Jewish Totalitarianism. It's Judeocentric pro-Israel censorial Thought Control in increasingly subversive guises. The Jewish Lobby is ingenious in using claims to "diversity" as a tool to deeper entrench racist Zionism.]
Suppressing Diversity of Views on Palestine Issue – Zogby,
"The self-proclaimed major promoters of HR 3077 are none other than Martin Kramer, an associate at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center and Daniel Pipes,"
By DR. JAMES J. ZOGBY, Palestine Chronicle, March 4, 2004
"Given the Congress’ lack of real debate and lack of tolerance for a diversity of views on the Middle East, it is of interest to note a particular piece of legislation that the Senate is considering in this session. Passed overwhelmingly in the House, the bill is called the “International Studies Higher Education Act” (or House Resolution 3077). House Resolution 3077 requires universities receiving US government grants to promote international studies that “reflect diverse perspectives and represent a full range of views”. The Act further establishes a board to monitor these academic programs and report on whether or not they are complying with this “diversity of views” mandate. While all of this might sound harmless-since “diversity of views” is a good thing-the bill’s intent is far from innocent. The object of its attention is neither “diversity” nor is it “international studies,” in general. As the American Jewish Committee, a strong supporter of the legislation has written in a briefing paper they prepared on the bill, “today, almost all scholars at Middle East centers (are) hostile to American foreign policy and to Israel, and distortedly pro-Arab.” The self-proclaimed major promoters of HR 3077 are none other than Martin Kramer, an associate at Tel Aviv University’s Dayan Center and Daniel Pipes, the controversial anti-Muslim activist. Kramer’s book “Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America” was an indictment of academics as too pro-Arab and left-wing. It was Pipes’ obsession with all things “pro-Arab and pro-Islam” that led him to launch his “Campus Watch” website. Pipes has encouraged pro-Israel students to report on “pro-Arab” professor, making “Campus Watch” a type of “blacklist.” In a sense then, HR 3077 can be seen as an effort by Pipes and Kramer to institutionalize their efforts to intimidate and silence professors and Middle East programs that espouse divergent views on Middle East history and politics. Kramer, for his part, has boasted of this. He has been quoted as saying, “Academic colleagues get used to it. You are being watched. Those obscure articles in campus newspapers are now available on the internet and they will be harvested. Your syllabi, which you have posted, will be scrutinized. Your websites will be visited late at night.” For his part, Pipes has claimed that what he termed the muted response to the Iraq War on college campuses was probably due to the intimidation created by his “Campus Watch” effort. HR 3077, and efforts promoted by Kramer and Pipes have been denounced by the country’s leading Middle East studies programs and by liberal and conservative educators alike. They warn of the dangers to academic freedom posed by creating a governmental “watch-dog” entity. They argue that the legislation’s intent is not to promote diversity but to intimidate academics into conformity. One termed these efforts a “witch hunt”, while another denounced “right-wing thought police...sending spies into classrooms to report on what teachers are saying in class.” ... The fact is that this effort is not about creating balance or diversity in the marketplace of ideas. It is about silencing whatever diversity currently exists. What Kramer, Pipes and the sponsors of the HR 3077 seek to mandate in academia is the same lack of diversity of views that is in evidence in congressional hearings and debates on critical Middle East issues ...

[JTR Contributor's comment: "Alan Dershowitz – noted OJ Simpson lawyer, torture advocate and plagiarist – seems reluctant to hold onto his opinions when he's told that Jewish groups disagree with them. Take the case of House Resolution 3077, an effort to 'reduce bias' in Middle Eastern studies. The cheerleaders for this resolution are Tel Aviv's Martin Kramer and Anti-Muslim bigot Daniel Pipes." JTR comment: The subject here is Judeocentric propagandist Alan Dersholwitz, yet another two-faced, weasel-like Jewish hypocrite who makes ideological U-turns when he discovers the censorial, "repressive" Jewish Klan sanctions oppression he thought he didn't believe in. Here he discovers he steered afar from Jew Thought Central and begs his remarks be hidden from public view.]
H.R. 3077: The Education of Alan Dershowitz,
Martin Kramer on the Middle East, March 2, 2004
"On Monday of last week, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs plenum met in Faneuil Hall in Boston to honor Alan Dershowitz, renowned Harvard law professor. The JCPA is an umbrella for the nation's Jewish organizations. Dershowitz is highly regarded in the Jewish community, especially for his book The Case for Israel. He came to Faneuil Hall to accept the honor—and caused a stir with an inadvertent remark on H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act. That's the piece of legislation that would reform the Title VI subsidy program for area studies, and append to it an advisory board. After accepting the award, Dershowitz began to talk about issues of the day, and then spoke these words: "There is a far-right-wing effort underway to allow for governmental monitoring of Middle Eastern studies at American universities. I would strongly urge you to oppose all such efforts to allow government oversight of university curriculum." This was an apparent reference to H.R. 3077, which is supported by the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and several other national Jewish organizations. Richard Foltin, legal counsel for the American Jewish Committee, leapt to the microphone. Foltin assured Dershowitz that the bill was not the work of "far-right-wing" groups. He explained why his organization and others supported it, and stressed that it would not touch on university curricula. Dershowitz was plainly embarrassed. He admitted having no detailed knowledge of the bill, or any idea that major Jewish organizations supported it. "May I move for my comments to be removed from the record?" he pleaded. Now how in the world did Alan Dershowitz get misled about H.R. 3077? Where did he pick up the notion that the bill would empower government to police what is taught in universities? Certainly the notion is out there."

[A Jewish homosexual takes to task the censorial foundation of the Jewish Lobby and the Great Wall of Jewish Censorship.]
There Is Nothing Wrong With Giving Offense In Pursuit Of Truth,
by Jonathan Rauch, Ukrainian Archive
"So now the whole debate has been poisoned, and nothing whatever has been gained. Stop; enough. The time has come for a reevaluation and a decision. The time has come to look about us, collect our wits, and stand firm on these principles: No one is allowed the right to end any debate, or to claim special control over it or exemption from it. No one under any circumstances is exempt from criticism of any kind, however unpleasant. No one will be punished for the beliefs he holds or the opinions he states, because to believe incorrectly is never a crime ... Criticism, however unpleasant, is not violence. Except in cases where violence or vandalism is threatened or incited, the very notion of "words that wound" or "verbal harassment" is to be repudiated and junked. Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation. Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt, they will go into the business of being offended. We must all be sensitive not only to others' feelings but also to our obligations to liberal science: specifically, the obligation to put up with criticism — yes, offense — from any quarter at any time. We have a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned. When we do become offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution. If you are unwilling to shoulder that obligation, if you insist on punishing people who say or believe "hurtful" things (as opposed to telling them why they are wrong, or just ignoring them), then you cannot fairly expect to share in the peace, freedom, and problem-solving success that liberal science is uniquely able to provide; indeed, you are putting those very benefits at risk. Therefore, when offended people devote their energies to shutting someone up or turning him out or getting him fired, rather than trying to show that he is wrong or trying to be thicker skinned, we should be in the habit of telling them to grow up. That's all. No demands will be met, no punishments meted out. Competitive and consensual public checking of each by each through criticism and questioning is the only legitimate way to decide who is right. Just as we need not apologize for the unique status of democracy and capitalism in our society, so we need not apologize for the hegemony of liberal science, even though many people will prefer other systems and demand at least equal standing for them. No one who demands centrally enforced equal time or preferential treatment for his beliefs should be accommodated in the slightest, no matter how strong his political grievance. The fact that you're oppressed doesn't mean you know anything ... I mentioned that the French passed laws banning Holocaust "revisionism," which questions and often denies that Hitler's genocide ever happened. It so happens that I am a Jew. The idea of erasing the memory of 6 million dead horrifies me. The memory is all that stands in the way of Hitler's attaining his dream, which was not only to kill the Jews but to kill the very idea of them, to extinguish all traces, so that history would close up seamlessly around the gouge left by their extraction. It would be as though they had never existed. Nonetheless — how hard this is to say — if some people want to erase the memory, they should go ahead and try. Stopping them from trying won't make anything any better. The only way is to let them have at it — while insisting that the only way they can succeed is through an exhaustive public process of checking, a process which I believe will come as close as is humanly possible to sorting truth from falsehood. How can a Jew say that? In the Museum of the Diaspora in Tel Aviv, written in large letters on the wall, I saw the answer: "A rabbi whose community does not disagree with him is not really a rabbi, and a rabbi who fears his community is not really a man." The quotation is from Rabbi Israel Salanter, who died six years before Hitler was born; he flourished in Lithuania and Russia, so almost certainly some of his descendants died in the Nazis' hell fires. I don't know what he would say about Holocaust "revisionism" if he were alive today, but I do know that those words of his are displayed in the Museum of the Diaspora because the critical spirit they embody is the only spirit that can save the Jews, and the rest of us, from political meddling with history."

[In the Jewish Lobby's eyes, telling the truth is a Thought Crime. Here's the Englehart (Hartford Courant) cartoon they seek to censor. Folks, in Jewish eyes this is a manfestation of "anti-Semitism." Think about it. This little cartoon that dares to infer in the slightest that it's possible ANYTHING Jews do could instigate anti-Jewish hostility affords the Jewish Censorial Nuthouse to expound their usual inane "tolerance" lecture and look for Englehart's head on a pole.]

[More censorship from the Anti-Defamation League (which recently had to pay out $10 million to the Quigley family for calling them "anti-Semites"). The Jewish Lobby seems to have a special delight in censorsing cartoons. Mel Gibson got away, so they aim for smaller fry. The ADL doesn't even provide a link for you to see the object of their smear. Jews create "anti-Semitism" by their beliefs and actions -- always. Even by this stupid demand upon the Hartford Courant. Are Jews losing touch with reality? ]
Letters to the Editor. The Hartford Courant. March 3, 2004, [The ADL headline says: Hartford Courant Cartoon: a License to Bigotry]
Anti-Defamation League
"To the Editor: For more than 2,000 years, haters of Jews have never struggled to find a rationale for blaming their victims: the Jews are too rich, too poor, they are communists, they are capitalists, they are rootless, parasitic foreigners without their own land, they are nationalists (Zionists) with a country of their own. For anti-Semites and their apologists, the trouble with Jews is simply that they are. Englehart joins these misguided apologists with a cartoon that blames Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for contemporary anti-Semitism, while at the same time trivializing the concerns of Christians and Jews that the a-historic and stereotypical portrayal of Jews in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" could fuel anti-Jewish prejudice and reinforce anti-Jewish stereotypes. This linkage provides insight into Englehart's irrational thinking. The cartoon is not mere criticism of Israeli policy. Ariel Sharon has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that for centuries (during which the State of Israel did not exist) the charge that "the Jews" killed Jesus, most vividly expressed in Passion plays, was used by some to foment violence against Jewish communities. Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jews, has never been and still is not a result of the actions or inactions of the Jewish people. Rather, it is a cancer that attacks periodically and without reason. Providing justification for it is merely an attempt to rationalize the irrational. Anti-Semitism today is no more the result of Ariel Sharon's policies than the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was the result of Hitler's dislike of Albert Einstein's scientific theories."

[Why is Ernst Zundel in jail with no public charges? The Jewish Lobby. Zundel's principle crime? Apparently it's "spreading noxious opinions about Jews." Who next? You? Maybe you liked The Passion of the Christ a little too much to satisfy Jewish opinion. Or maybe you criticize Israel a little too loudly. Both are clear manifestations of "anti-Semitism," as you should know by now, and maybe you deserve solitary confinement. It's the ominous beginning of Orwell's Thought Police state where you're dragged away and never know the charges against you. Or Kafka's "The Trial."]
Zundel doesn't warrant a security certificate,
Globe and Mail (Canada) March 6, 2004
"Ernst Zundel has been in a Canadian jail for more than a year. Seized at his Tennessee home by U.S. immigration agents and delivered here, he is facing deportation to Germany on claims that he is a danger to Canadian citizens. In the meantime, he languishes in a tiny cell at Toronto's Metro West Detention Centre in solitary confinement. Tough luck, many will say. Mr. Zundel is depressingly well known to Canadians as a Holocaust-denier and extreme right-winger who spent decades here spreading his noxious opinions about Jews. We would all love to see the back of him. But is he dangerous? So dangerous, in fact, that we need to pen him up in an isolation cell for 12 months and counting? The federal government is holding Mr. Zundel on a national security certificate, a special procedure that allows it to bypass many of the standard rules of due process to protect public safety. Those cases almost always involve suspected terrorists. If two cabinet ministers decide that an individual poses a risk, they can have him locked up indefinitely pending deportation. The suspect is not allowed to see the precise evidence against him, and his odds of overturning the order in court are slim. The government must show only that it acted "reasonably," a preposterously low legal hurdle. These are extreme measures in a democratic society, and Ottawa should use them only if it believes a suspect is likely to do physical harm to people or property. Odious as he is, Mr. Zundel poses no such risk. He has never been charged with a violent crime and does not urge others to commit violence. He is a crank, not a terrorist. It is hard to know exactly how Ottawa defends its decision to jail Mr. Zundel, because, under the security-certificate process, it can keep most of its evidence secret -- a provision that severely limits Mr. Zundel's right to mount a defence. But a summary compiled by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service argues that even if he doesn't actually advocate violence, he is dangerous because of the influence he exerts on his followers. "By his comportment as a leader and an ideologue, the service believes Zundel intends serious violence to be a consequence of his influence." That, says Mr. Zundel, is guilt by association. He is right. It is precisely the sort of argument that was used to lock up leftists in the days of the Red Scare. You are a Communist and Communists advocate violent revolution; therefore you are conspiring to commit violence against the state. Guilty as charged. If Mr. Zundel can be jailed and deported for his "comportment" as an "ideologue," then every Greenpeacer and anti-abortion activist must fear imprisonment. Their rhetoric is pretty wild, too. Perhaps the anti-poverty campaigner with a nose-ring handing out pamphlets at the mall also "intends serious violence to be a consequence of his influence." Now that CSIS has the power to read minds, who knows where it may stop? The real danger to Canadians comes not from obnoxious nuts like Ernst Zundel, but from a government that casually discards their most precious rights."

Ernst Zundel, civil-rights champion? After more than a year in solitary confinement, Canada's most famous Holocaust denier is still fighting deportation, and he may rewrite the law in the process. All because he wants to know what the secret case is against him,
By KIRK MAKIN, Globe and Mail (Canada), March 6, 2004 - Page F3
"Ernst Zundel was framing a painting at his retirement home, high in the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee, when a van pulled into his driveway followed by three police cars. "It was a whole armada," he recalls. "I knew what was coming next." The van was from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. "They put me up against my pickup truck, spread-eagled me, and said I was being arrested and deported. Within five minutes, I was gone." That was Feb. 17, 2003. Since then, he has not seen his wife or his home. In fact, he has yet to get out of solitary confinement. Mr. Zundel was whisked back to Canada, the country he had abandoned to escape the 20-year series of prosecutions that had made him its most recognized extreme right-winger. Canada, in turn, wants to whisk him back to Germany, where he faces at least five years in prison. Ironically, the battle he is waging against that deportation could make the famed purveyor of Holocaust-denying, neo-Nazi material a champion of civil liberties. Mr. Zundel is confined to a Toronto detention centre because the government is holding him on a national security certificate -- the controversial and Draconian procedure usually reserved for terrorist suspects. Now, just as he once compelled Canada's courts to grant him freedom to express his views, he could again break constitutional ground. This spring, the Ontario Court of Appeal is to hear his bid under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash the certificate. Win or lose, its ruling will probably land in the Supreme Court of Canada, which could declare the certificate unconstitutional. If that happens, he will be a mixed blessing to rights advocates. He is now 64 and into his second year in jail, but Mr. Zundel seems every bit as unrepentant and provocative as when he first captured public attention in the early 1980s. "The Jewish community wants me on my knees," he says in an exclusive interview. "I am the last man standing who has not apologized. It would be the height of indignity for me to do that." A security certificate is signed by two federal cabinet ministers who, based on secret intelligence, decide that an immigrant should be deported as a danger to Canadian citizens. Even the alleged spies and terrorists normally targeted this way are not permitted access to the precise allegations against them. Of the 27 security certificates issued since 1991 -- just five since the 9/11 attack -- virtually all have involved suspected terrorists from such countries as Iran, Lebanon and Algeria. Why, then, use such an extreme measure against a Holocaust-denier? "It is tragic that the whole Western world has deteriorated," Mr. Zundel says. "We are going to be living in Stalinist-time dictatorships."

[A listing of which web sites the search engine google.com automatically censors in France and Germany (from the leftist Indymedia to rightist Nazi web sites). What's the probable common denominator across the censored political spectrum? Criticism of Jews and Israel. ]
Specific Sites Excluded from Google.fr and/or Google.de: User Testing Results Localized Google Search Result Exclusions,
by Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School

[The world Jewish Censorial Octopus deepens. What good is this Totalitarianism to "democracy," except to destroy it? All over the world the Jewish Lobby kills free speech in protecting Jewish Bigotry and Hellhole Israel. Jewish Money and Jewish Power rules all. Everyone fears the punishing wrath of the Jew Klux Klan. ]
University bans staff websites after anti-semitism row,
by Polly Curtis, The Guardian, March 11, 2004
"The Guardian Academics at Birmingham University have condemned moves by the university authorities to ban 300 of their personal websites. The university's decision to stop hosting staff websites on university computers follows a series of controversies over links to allegedly anti-semitic content. As at many other universities, staff have been able to set up sites on a university server on any subject they like. Under new guidelines, from March 31 they will have to demonstrate that content is "relevant and legitimate to their academic or administrative work". Among the 300 websites that will be taken down is one about air quality and another dedicated to genealogy; others are weblogs containing academics' CVs and publications and links to other sites. However, others have caused controversy. In October 2002 the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote to the university demanding that they sever the university's link to the website of Sue Blackwell, an English lecturer. They said links from her site led to images glorifying suicide bombing and comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Before this, Ms Blackwell came under attack when she severed all the links between her website and Israeli websites as part of an academic boycott of Israel. Ms Blackwell, who is leading a campaign to keep staff sites, said the move was draconian. "I am sure that the university considers my sites an embarrassment, but it should see them as an asset," she said. "I have had messages of support from all over the world." The Association of University Teachers at the university has also condemned the proposed policy. The union's web owners' group has asked for meetings with university administrators, but says its requests have been turned down. A spokeswoman for the university said: "It is important that our website accurately reflects the business of the university. Personal websites that are relevant and legitimate to academic or administrative work are being re-registered through a process of peer review." She added that staff were free to create websites using external internet service providers. The campaign has set up a website at web.bham.ac.uk/web_campaign - but as it is hosted on university servers, it is likely to disappear when the ban takes effect."

[Another Jewish attempt at censorial fascism:]
Department of Justice Petitioned to Evaluate Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" for Violations of Hate Crime Statutes. A new petition implores US Attorney General John Ashcroft to evaluate possible actions against the creators of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" for violation of state and federal hate crime statutes in the purposeful encouragement of anti-Semitic violence,
emediawire, UNION, NJ (PRWEB) March 10, 2004
" Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of the Christ," through purposeful rewriting of the Christian Gospel mythos has, itself, become an anti-Semitic diatribe which, since it’s February 25, 2004 release resulted in hate crimes against Jews, Synagogues and Jewish Cemeteries in cities throughout the US. Mel Gibson’s unbiblical and a-historical account of the "crucifixion" story has taken Hutton Gibson’s claims that the Holocaust is "fiction," even one step further. Just as Adolf Hitler described the 300th anniversary performance of the Oberammergau Passion Play as "a convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry" in 1934, Gibson and Writer/producer Tom Fontana’s 2004 use of extreme graphic and excessive violence set up and perpetrated at the urging of "the Jews" in their portrayal displays a clear prejudicial bent against the Jewish faith ... United State law defines "bias related" or "hate crime" to mean a "designated act that demonstrates an accused's prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibility, physical handicap, matriculation, or political affiliation of a victim of the subject designated act." Depending on the state, criminal and / or civil laws may apply, as well as recently enacted Federal statutes. A digital petition at www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/765533849 implores US Attorney General John Ashcroft and the US Department of Justice to evaluate the anti-Semitism clearly presented in Gibson and Fontana’s portrayal, and asks that civil, criminal, and Federal hate-crime laws, as appropriate, be utilized not only against the perpetrators involved in each and every act which it has encouraged, but against the directors, producers, and screen writers responsible for the work itself."

[Increasing Jewish world censorial hegemony. The Jewish Lobby intimidation factor censors more public discourse:]
CBC WEB SITE BARS USE OF WORD 'JEWISH',
by Brian Hutchinson, National Post (Canada), March 10, 2004
"Internet users who post messages on a CBC Web site have launched complaints that the Crown corporation routinely removes the words "Jew," "Jewish" and Israel from network chat rooms devoted to online discussion of news events. Meanwhile, vulgar expletives frequently appear on the same CBC discussion Web site. So do the words "Nazi" and "rabid Zionist." Even the incendiary phrase "red-neck greedy selfish Albertocentric money grubbing pig" passes muster with CBC censors, who use special software to seek and destroy postings containing words they have deemed "inappropriate." People wishing to discuss Israel and issues that relate to the Jewish culture must disguise their messages, complains Roy Wilson, a Peterborough-based realtor who regularly visits the CBC's message boards. "It's disgraceful," Mr. Wilson said. "If I want to initiate a serious dialogue about Israel, I have to modify the word. I have to type in "Isr*el or some such nonsense. If I don't change the word, my message won't go through. It is immediately filtered and it vanishes." The word "Palestinian" is also auto-filtered from the CBC's message boards, but the words "Arab" and "Muslim" are not. "Christian" is not filtered. Neither are the words "Buddhist" and "Hindu." No one at the CBC was available yesterday to explain. The person responsible for monitoring the CBC's message boards did not reply to e-mail queries. Those complaining about the censorship say their concerns have been ignored. A New York-based attorney who posts frequently said that the CBC began filtering the words "Jew," "Jewish" and "Israel" last year, after one of its message boards, devoted to Middle East issues, was deluged with anti-Semitic and anti-Palestinian comments. But such postings have not ceased entirely. "I've been called a "rabid Zionist," said the attorney, who posts under the handle JBG. "But if I decide to respond, even in the nicest, most polite way, I can't use the word "Jew." And I am a Jew. I have to make up a word instead. It's absurd." To prove his point, JBG attempted yesterday to post the following message on a CBC message board: "As the Jewish festival of Purim closes, I believe it is essential for the world to understand what it means. It is a joyous holiday, celebrating the triumph of the Judeans over Haman, an evil dictator. Israel has on numerous occasions supplied the world with what should be occasions for rejoicing. It has triumphed over tyrants such as Hafez Assad of Syria and Idi Amin of Uganda. Those triumphs, rather than being celebrated, are roundly condemned." The message did not make it past the CBC's auto-filtering system. JBG then substituted "Juwish" for "Jewish," and "Isr@el" for Israel. His post was accepted immediately. According to the CBC's own guidelines, posters may not launch personal attacks against others; ethnic and racial slurs are expressly forbidden. "Posts containing inappropriate words will be caught in an automatic word filter for screening," the guidelines note. But even a cursory search of the CBC's message boards turns up dozens of violations. Some offending posts have sat on the CBC's Web site for months. For example, the word "frog" is frequently used on CBC message boards to describe French-Canadians. In December, a poster using the handle of QCLIBRE wrote that "Canadian will not paid [sic] for bilingualist and Quebec French frogs again." The word "dyke" is regularly used on the CBC forum to dismiss certain prominent Canadian women, among them a senior CBC television personality. The racial slur "Chinaman" has also been successfully posted. "What do you get when you cross a Chinaman with a Rabbi?" one frequent contributor joked last May. His post is still contained in the CBC message board files. Anti-Americanism is common. Masturbation comes up now and then. The full range of curse words appear, from "prick" to much worse. Almost anything goes, said Mr. Wilson. "Someone can log on to a CBC board and accuse me of being a child molestor, which has actually happened, and that will get posted," noted Mr. Wilson. "And unless I launch a complaint, it will stay posted." No one will explain why the CBC tends to filter words related to Israel and Judaism have gone ignored, the Web site posters say."

Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal,
La Voz Aztlan, March 13, 2004
"Dear Readers and Subscribers: This morning I had a telephone conversation with a representative of PayPal concerning the sudden closure of La Voz de Aztlan's account that we were using to receive credit card donations. The young lady at PayPal said that the account was closed because our news and information service is antisemitic. We had been warned by hateful Zionists that they would do everything possible to shut our website down. Our readership is well aware of the constant harassment and attempts by Zionists as well as by Zionist organizations such as the ADL of B'nai B'rith and the Los Angeles based Wiesenthal Center to permanently silence us. These Zionists have sent us a constant barrage of threats through e-mail, U.S. mail and by telephone. They have created serious trouble for us with our Internet Service Providers and with companies we contract with to host our website. Recently, they also sabotaged Verizon Telephone Company equipment that resulted in knocking us offline for days. This time the Zionist have issued orders to PayPal to close our account resulting in our loss of a significant source of funds we utilize to remain online. La Voz de Aztlan must be quite a threat to the Zionists for them to go to such extents to destroy us. We are deeply sympathetic of Mr. Mel Gibson for the immense tribulations he went through due to his film "The Passion of the Christ". The same Zionists that went after Gibson and his father are the same ones that are going after La Voz de Aztlan. Shame on PayPal for bowing down to these sinister characters."

Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?,
by Kalle Lasn, AdBusters, March/April 2004
"One wonders what Israeli-American relations, and indeed what American relations with the rest of the world would look like if the neocon hawks who control Rumsfeld’s Defense Department were also in charge at State. A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals – labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq? Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up less than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East. Here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on and came up with a carefully researched list of who appear to be the 50 most influential neocons in the US (see above). Deciding exactly who is a neocon is difficult since some neocons reject the term while others embrace it. Some shape policy from within the White House, while others are more peripheral, exacting influence indirectly as journalists, academics and think tank policy wonks. What they all share is the view that the US is a benevolent hyper power that must protect itself by reshaping the rest of the world into its morally superior image. And half of the them are Jewish."

[Jews swarm as usual to silence the above author:]
The 'Why won't anyone say they're Jewish' Debate – Adbusters responds,
by Kelle Lasn, Adbusters (Canada)
"In a previous issue of Adbusters and on our website, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn wrote an article that asked a contentious question: "Does the Jewishness of the neocons influence American foreign policy in the Middle East?" Hundreds of responses flooded in -- postings on our site, letters, emails, faxes, threatening phone calls, cancelled subscriptions, and even talk of picketing stores that carry Adbusters magazine. Here, then, are some of those letters, and Kalle's response: “Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?”
I’m Jewish goddammit! It matters not what your good intentions are if you generalize an entire ethnicity like this. It’s some seriously hypocritical, self-righteous, fucked up shit you spew forth. Refund my subscription and fuck off until you get your priorities straight. Michael Weinerman via mail
F-U for the way your article points out that a “disproportionate” number of influential conservatives are Jews. That is the flipside of the same anti-Semitic screed promoted by Fascists, who selectively pointed out how a disproportionate number of influential communists were Jewish. Jews are frequently “over represented” in the vanguard of many political, cultural and artistic movements. David Goldstein Ventura, California You might remember me. My wife and I gave annual donations to Adbusters in the mid-90s. We also gave friends and relatives gift subscriptions for the holidays. Now I know you’re a piece of anti-Semitic shit. Fuck off, dangerous imbecile. name withheld via email Your Jew bashing is deplorable. I will never pay for your disgusting, hateful truct again. And I intend to destroy as many Adbusters as possible when visiting bookstores ... Kalle Responds: The list of Jewish neocons we came up with is a provocation, I’ll admit. And if it were a list of dentists or firefighters or stockbrokers, then that would indeed be very offensive. However, the neocons are no ordinary group – they are the most influencial political/intellectual force in the world right now. They have the power to start wars and to stop them. They are the prime architects of America’s foreign policy since 9/11 – a policy that is heavily weighed in favor of Israel and a key source of anti-Americanism around the world. So I think it is not only appropriate, but necessary to put them under a microscope. And if we see maleness, whiteness, Jewishness, Zionism or intellectual thuggery there, then let us not look the other way. On the ethnic question: Is it not just as valid to comment on the Jewishness of the neocons as it is to point out that the majority of them are male or white or wealthy or from the Western world or have studied at a particular university? If half the neocons were Palestinians, would the US have invaded Iraq? Kalle Lasn, Editor-in-Chief, Adbusters"

[JTR Contributor's commentf: "this disturbing news begs a question..... is it worthwhile to have a 'civil rights watch', listing current swarm attacks on the first amendment and free speech? may not be feasible as they are omnipresent occurring everywhere......"]
US Jewish Groups Back Congressional Bill to Monitor Universities,
by Barbara Ferguson, Arab News,19 March 2004
"Major Jewish organizations are lobbying the Senate to approve a bill that would authorize federal monitoring of government-funded Middle East studies programs throughout US universities. The bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives and is now before a Senate committee, would establish a federal tribunal to investigate and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses. On Sept. 17, 2003, the House Select Subcommittee on Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the “International Studies in Higher Education Act.” The chief sponsor of the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from Michigan. H.R. 3077 calls for the establishment of a seven-member advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities, which have offered a venue for academic and public debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the House, and three by the Secretary of Education — two of whom are required to be from US federal security agencies. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League, “made passing the bill a major goal,” according to Forward, a Jewish weekly based in New York, and “based their charges of bias at Middle East centers on some independent research and anecdotal complaints, but mainly on a book published two years ago by Martin Kramer,” a Middle East scholar at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies." [See also this Palestinian Chronicle article, an American Free Press piece, and a Yellow Times take on this subject]

[More Jewish revisionism of art and history, in a long, long line of it. One of the most famous Jewish characters in English literature is Charles Dickens' corrupt Fagin character (based on a real-life London Jew named Ikey Solomon) -- in Oliver Twist. Nowadays Jews forbid a portrayal of a Jew in anything less than a flattering light, so Charles Dickens would never recognize his own character in modern on-stage Fagin portrayals.]
New Twist,
Theatre: John Nathan on an adaptation of Charles Dickens's classic which evokes the cruelty of Victorian London,
Jewish Chronicle (UK), March 5, 2004, p. 41 [Offline paper edition]
"The most famous bit in Oliver Twist is Fagin, the 'villainous-looking' Jew. In 1854, the character led the JC [Jewish Chronicle] to ask: 'Why Jews alone should be excluded from the sympathising heart' of this great author. But Michael Feast has done a remarkable thing as the 'covetous, avaricious, insatiable old fence.' There is no stoop, hooked nose or greedy rubbing of hands here. Rather, Feast's Fagin appears, complete with black scarf wrapped tightly around his head, as a prodouct of criminal London rather than the offspring of his religion. And when Fagin announces his fiendish plans for Oliver, what Feast so brilliantly portrays is a man who knowingly undermines the stereotype by giving a mocking parody of the cliche. It is as if this Fagin has seen Alec Guiness's famously cruel version in the1948 movie, and turned the mannerism into his own private joke." Fagin It, [side-bar article on same page], "Not even Dickens knew this. Fagin was born in Poland and at the tender age of five was the victim of a pogrom during which his village was decimated and his parents killed. To escape persecution, his older sister took him on a trek through Europe to London where Whitechapel's Jewish community gave the siblings shelter, writes John Nathan ... Feast created Fagin's history in preparation for Neil Bartlett's new production of 'Oliver Twist' which opened this week at the Lyric Hammersmith. 'I wanted the chance to play a real person,' he explains during a break in rehearasal. "I'm not looking for sympathy for Fagin, but an explanation for why he does what he does.'"

[This Muslim stated that the Queen of England is afraid of the Zionist Lobby and Jews control the British government? Sure, that sounds good for prison time. Gosh. Why would he think Jews are so powerful when it's taking more than a weekend to get him jailed for criticizing them?]
Calls to Prosecute Hamza Over anti-Jewish Remarks, [Offline paper edition]
by Bernard Josephs, Jewish Chronicle, February 20, 2004, p. 5
"A radical Islamic preacher is facing calls for prosecution for inciting racial hatred over comments he reportedly made about Jews. MPs and Jewish leaders are demanding action against Abu Hamza over a sermon given outside Finsbury Park Mosque last week. Egyptian-born Hamza -- who is appealing against a Home Office decision to strip him of his British nationality -- is quoted as having told supporters that the Queen was intimidated by Zionists after having failed to visit a Holocaust memorial while she was in Germany. 'She did not visit the so-called grave of the Holocaust and there was a war against her,' Abu Hamza reportedly declared. 'The Queen in her palace shakes when she hears about Zionism.' Accusing Jews of controlling the government, he said that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Tory leader Michael Howard had 'anglicized' their names to disguise their Jewish origins. [Jewish] Board of Deputies director-general Neville Nagler called Abu Hamza's remarks 'shocking and appalling." He said that the board was writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and to Scotland Yard's head of specialist operations, Asssistant Commissioner David Veness, calling for the cleric to be prosecuted for racial incitement."

[Bill HR 3077: yet another angle on World Zionism taking over America. The U.S. Congress has become a Zionist whorehouse: You will soon be forbidden from criticizing the racist Jewish state at American universities. Then what? Jail for complaining about more Holocaust commemorations. And prison if you criticize your Jewish master.]
Burning Books Before They Are Written House Resolution 3077 Passed the House…Will the Senate Save our First Amendment, or will debate in our Universities become the Occupied Territory of a foreign government?,
By Laura Dawn Lewis, Couples Company
"Consider the ramifications of a foreign country dictating what you are permitted to learn about that country, what your children can learn and even what you can write and debate about that country in the United States. Your university's funding, its curriculum and even its ability to debate issues currently effecting our national policy, our tax dollars and our foreign policy gagged, banned and prevented from discussion. This scenario finds its origin in fact, not fiction. Republican Representative Peter Hoeksta of Michigan, the sponsor of HR 3077 serves our higher education system on a platter to the interests of a foreign country financing and lobbying this resolution. In effect, our education system becomes occupied territory and our professors the puppets of a foreign regime prevented financially from exercising free speech, effectively censoring the classroom, community and press. On September 17, 2003 the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act. Known as "Title 6," after the article in the Higher Education Act empowering the government to fund selected international studies and foreign language centers at universities. Its grants, up to $500,000 are used to train experts for national security, government service and educate the public on international affairs. This act advocates a seven-member advisory board, similar to a Warren Commission with the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of the foreign power lobbying this resolution. Simply put, if this foreign power finds the professor to be teaching anything failing to fit the agenda or cultivated image that country wants, the professor may be censored and the school eligible for fines through the removal of federal funds ... 1. Dual-loyalties: The House of Representatives is willing to strip Americans of their Constitutional Rights, transferring those to a foreign power with the ability to mold our opinions. This is not a grassroots resolution brought about by US citizens concerned over curriculum. Its supporters and underwriters are lobbying groups for a single foreign country. Our professors of political science, history and international law are bound by our own laws not to lie, defame or purposely mislead. We have laws that prosecute persons for this. The professors angering this foreign government speak and teach the truth based upon international law, documentation, footage and current events. It is a truth this foreign government does not like ... Like most attempts at control, this is about money, keeping it flowing into foreign coffers and back into the campaign funds of those serving our government unquestioning in their support with full solidarity to this foreign power. Our House prefers to relinquish American rights for foreign favor, an objective residing in anarchy: stifle public debate and discussion about its policies at the root thus eliminating criticism and investigation ... The question to our congress: Mr. Congressman, how does this resolution, which keeps information from the public, censors public debate and requires a foreign government approve our curriculum and opinions strengthen the United States and our people? We see how it strengthens this foreign country by letting them continue to hide the truth, but how does it help the American people if our future leaders in national security and government service are only allowed to learn what a foreign country wants them to learn? Whose interests are you protecting, theirs or ours? 2. Treason: Congress, the Senate and the President of the United States have one job and one job only: support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... . Any government official who sells our rights to others, whether for campaign funds, endorsements or favors neglects his office and places us as a nation in peril. This is treason. Why would a representative of our government care what is taught about other nations in this country? They do not represent that country. They are not employed by that country. An idea like this should not matter leaving one to ask, why does it to such an extent a resolution is drafted to curb discussion? Allowing another country or its proxy to mold our thoughts and what we learn is placing us as a nation at risk. Nobody has the right to tell an American how to think! Nobody has the right to tell us what or how we learn. ... The groups & individuals behind HR 3077 are: The Country: Israel. It's Lobbies in the US on this Resolution: Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, The American Jewish Congress, American Jewish Committee, Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies Tel Aviv University, Stanley Kurtz, a contributor: (anti-) Arab National Review Online, Daniel Pipes: Campus Watch (This group conducts witch hunts against professors. See our article: Killing the First Amendment for a graphic example of its purpose and what they want to censor). The Congressmen who drafted and Championed the Resolution: Rep. Peter Hoekstra (MI), Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), Rep. John R. Carter (Texas), Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma), Rep. James Greenwood (Penn.), Rep. Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.), Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio), Rep. Joe Wilson (South Carolina)"

[More Jewish Orwellian Totalitarianism, or Jewish Thought "Terrorism." What is "anti-Semitism?" Criticism of the world Jewish Lobby and Israel. What must be censored? The same thing. ]
Central Filter Against Web Hate for French Schools,
Reuters, March 18, 2004
"France plans to install a nation-wide Internet filter system in its state schools to deny pupils access to racist and anti-Semitic Web sites, the prime minister's office announced on Thursday. The system will be updated centrally on a daily basis, with input on anti-Semitic sites provided by the CRIF umbrella group of Jewish organizations in France, it said in a statement after a government meeting coordinating action against hate crimes. At the same meeting, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin warned against confusing "the criminal authors of the barbarous attacks in Madrid and the French of Muslim faith." "A direct Internet link will be established between the CRIF, Internet service providers (ISPs) and the Central Office for the Fight against Internet Crime to allow the immediate notification of racist and anti-Semitic sites and the launching of police investigations," the statement from his office added. France, home to Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish minorities, has been struggling to contain a flare-up of anti-Semitic violence in the past three years as Middle East tensions led to attacks on Jewish people and property here. Acknowledging that disaffected Muslim youths are often behind such attacks, Paris has sought to stem the spread of Islamist thinking by banning Muslim headscarves in state schools -- a controversial policy Muslims say is discriminatory. In another effort to fight resurging anti-Semitism, the education and urban affairs ministries announced they had ordered a study of how anti-Jewish cliches spread among young children, a phenomenon teachers report in surprising numbers."

Ukrainian articles lead to meeting, [In "Breaking News" section of JTA home page]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 24, 2004
"Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine and a Ukrainian Socialist politician met to discuss a newspaper shut down for anti-Semitic articles. Ambassador Naomi Ben Ami and Oleksandr Moroz, leader of Ukraine’s Socialist Party, discussed the issue of Silksi Visti on March 18. The court’s decision to close the paper for inciting ethnic discord led to some free-speech protests in the country. Israeli officials in Ukraine declined to comment on what transpired."

[The Internet is the last bastion of democracy and free speech at any meaningful level. The Jewish Lobby has created "filters" to censor the Web, but it knows it must devise a broader way (legislation, etc.) to censor it ALL, lest people read material beyond their censorial control. Below, Jews want the system to bend to their censorial interests, as always. ]
Jewish Groups Concerned Over Google Results,
WebProNews
"Searching the term “Jew” on Google has brought up some disturbing lead results. The number one listing is the anti-Semitic site, JewWatch.com. This news comes as a surprise to David Krane, director of corporate communications at Google. But, the search engine has no plans to manually change the listing. Krane stated in an article on TheJewishJournal.com that, “Google merely reflects what is on the Web and does its best to algorithmically rank pages. Unless [a Web page] violates a country or local law, we don’t make any tweaks.” When asked how the hate site can garner the number one position, Krane pointed to Google’s ranking algorithm that bases rankings on site relevancy, which is determined by the number of forwarding links to the site. While the ranking for the word “Jew” will not be manually changed, Krane stated that he would alert Google’s engineers to further refine the search algorithm, which might alter the results for the word."

[More Jewish swarming, seeking to censor the Internet, as usual. If your web site isn't kosher, if you're not on your knees to the Jewish Lobby, it's got to come down.]
Remove jewwatch.com

[JTR Contributor's Note: "Thought you might find it interesting to note that it seems Google (founded by Sergey Brin, who is a member of the tribe, and Larry Page, who with this recent press release -- http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/gmail.html -- seems to affirm his Jewishness by using 'kvetch' in his description of an employees response to the recent launch of gmail) has given into pressures to push JewWatch.com from the top of the rankings for the term 'jew'. This was a site, which has for years, been #1 for the search term 'jew' on Google. Not any more as the publicity, spin, censorship campaign you've reported on and being fueled by sites like http://www.removejewwatch.com/ has now pushed JewWatch to 3rd in the rankings for the term. Looks like the ZOG led censorship wave is now squarely targeting the Internet in a campaign to suppress access to the masses of any site which is even mildly anti-Israel/anti-Zionist Anyways, keep up the great work, you have one of the best resources on the web. -- A Supporter" Our comment: The Jewwatch.com traffic has soared since Jewish efforts to censor it (See alexa.com) There is no reason to slip in the Google listings. If anything, Jewwatch.com should be solidifying its #1 ranking. This just shows that the Internet is subject to Judeocentric manipulation, as everywhere else.]

[Now there is a gauge. When the website jewwatch.com doesn't come up anymore on a google search (or is even less than the first to come up under the search for "Jew"), we know the entire principle of free speech and democracy has been consciously subverted. The interesting thing is that so many Jews feel that it is their tribal prerogative to censor comments about them and that the mass media -- as here -- implicitly seems to endorse this censorship. The REAL news isn't that there is an "anti-Semitic" site at Google that should be censored. The REAL news is that there is a grassroots Jewish collective effort to ban it, opening the door to blatant Judeocentric Thought Fascism in the information realm. Note how this Jewish journalist below attempts to keep the censorial ball in the air. The Thought Police senator below, Charles Schumer, is also Jewish, as is the co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin. For the Anti-Defamation League's part, to actively endorse such naked censorship in a free society could be another public relations (per Mel Gibson) disaster. The ADL censors discretely, behind closed doors. Or, more often, it expertly propagandizes YOU to censor YOURSELF.]
Google won't dump anti-Semitic site,
by Lisa Baertlein, IOL (from Reuters), April 14 2004
"Google, under fire for refusing to exclude an anti-Semitic website from Internet search results, on Tuesday said it cannot deny users access because that would betray a vow to deliver unbiased information - no matter how it detests the site's message. The offending website, Jewwatch.com, shows up as the first search result when users type "Jew" into Google's popular Internet search engine. The site, which says its mission is to keep "close watch on Jewish communities and organisations worldwide," includes links to numerous hate groups and other anti-Semitic information. "I certainly am very offended by the site, but the objectivity of our rankings is one of our very important principles," Sergey Brin, who started Google with fellow Stanford University graduate student Larry Page in the late 1990s, told Reuters in a telephone interview. "We don't let our personal views - religious, political, ethical or otherwise - affect our results," said Brin, who added that he is Jewish. Several weeks ago, a New York-based real estate investor started an online petition urging Google to remove the site. As of Tuesday afternoon, the petition - at www.removejewwatch.com - had collected more than 50 000 signatures. Brin, who has received numerous emails from friends who oppose the site, said the decision to continue including it in search results is about maintaining editorial integrity at Google.com, where results are determined by complex computer algorithms. "We do not want to have people involved in showing the results for a query," Brin said. He added that most people searching for information about Jewish people or organisations use the term "Jewish" in their queries as opposed to "Jew," which is often used in an anti-Semitic context. A Google search using "Jewish" as a search term did not turn up hate sites in the top results. Prior to the current flap, the key word "Jew" showed up in about one of every 10 million queries, Brin said. "There are 100 times as many now," he said, mostly due to curiosity related to the controversy. The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors hate groups and anti-Semitic activity, has come down on the side of Google. "The ranking of Jewwatch and other hate sites is in no way due to a conscious choice by Google, but solely is a result of this automated system of ranking," the Anti-Defamation League said in a March 30 letter on its website. Meanwhile, US Senator Charles Schumer of New York has a different view and has sent Google a letter asking that it change its algorithm to make the site less prominent in its search results, a spokesperson for Schumer said. In the past, Mountain View, California-based Google has removed sites dealing with illegal activity, such as paedophilia, or sites that "maliciously" attempt to manipulate search results."

[Jewish censorial swarming bans another web site.]
WE WON!!!,
RemoveJewWatch.com
"From: "Abuse Team" <abuse@ev1servers.net To: , Subject: AUP/TOS Violation [207.44.248.188] Case #: 2601 It has come to our attention that your server located at [207.44.248.188] is in violation of our AUP/TOS by way of the following URL(S): www.Jewwatch.com The URL(S) stated above is in violation by way of this site violates our aup/tos and must be removed by friday April 16, 2004 at 08:00 CDT. We must demand that you take prompt action in the removal of the material in questionor we will be forced to take further action. The time is now 4/13/04 2:37:31 PM. Please email any correspondance to abuse@ev1servers.net. Also be sure to keep the case # in the subject line for quicker reference. Thank you in advance for your prompt cooperation. -- Regards, Abuse Team EV1Servers.net abuse@ev1servers.net"

Here's another way scheming Jewry seeks to subvert information. In this case again, the subject is Jew Watch (jewwatch.com). Someone has created a jewwatch. NET web site, ripping off the Jew Watch title in the hopes that readers might confuse the two. And here's Jew Watch NET's introduction, a quote by Holocaust guru speaker Elie Wiesel: "The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference."
But here's something else Elie Wiesel (who commands up to $25,000 per pop to talk to Jews about the Holocaust) said about hate: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate--healthy, virile hate--for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead." -- Elie Wiesel, Legends of our Time, by Elie Wiesel, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1968, p. 142]
Certainly from Jewwatch.COM's perspective, it's an old adage that any form of advertising is good in the long run, even if someone is ripping off the Jew Watch name. The committed audience to the original already exists. The idea is -- in any way -- to garner new readers. If Jewish censors can expedite that, bless 'em.]

[Anybody for Jewish Storm Troopers? Door to door, house to house, the Jewish Thought Police demand to patrol free speech.]
Jewish Brothers Seek French Ban on the Passion,
ABC News, March 26, 2004
"Three Jewish brothers urged a Paris court on Friday to ban Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" from French cinemas as anti-Semitic only days before the U.S. box office hit is due to open in France. The brothers -- Patrick, Jean-Marc and Gerard Benlolo -- said at a hastily-arranged hearing that they as Jews felt insulted by the film, which they had not seen, and were sure it would provoke anti-Semitic violence. Jewish critics in the United States, where the movie opened last month, have charged the film about Jesus Christ's suffering and death unjustly portrayed Jews as his killers, but this appeared to be the first attempt anywhere to ban it. "There is so much violent anti-Semitism in Europe that we cannot let this happen," said Patrick Benlolo, referring to rising anti-Jewish violence, especially in France. The brothers, lawyers for distributor Quinta Communications and the judge interrupted the hearing to see the film in a private showing at a nearby cinema. The Passion is due to open in France next Wednesday. The distributor urged the judge to throw out the case because the brothers could not use their religion as the basis for a complaint. Its lawyer also argued they did not show how the film could cause public disorder. The dossier the brothers submitted to support their request contained several legal errors and 15 of its 36 pages were quotes from U.S. movie reviews and an American book in English, which the judge said the court could not accept. "Everybody speaks English, don't they?" Patrick Benlolo replied. The court was due to issue its ruling on Monday."

[More Jewish swarming to silence, punish, and censor:]
Kerry aides plot Moran's defeat,
By Charles Hurt, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 26, 2004
"Three top advisers to Sen. John Kerry are helping to unseat Rep. James P. Moran in an unusual effort to topple the seven-term fellow Democrat from Northern Virginia, who is routinely re-elected by wide margins. The Kerry workers join numerous Democratic Party leaders in supporting Alexandria lawyer Andrew Rosenberg's effort to oust Mr. Moran in the June primary. Among Mr. Rosenberg's high-powered backers are Robert M. Shrum, Steven A. Elmendorf and Steven Grossman, all top advisers to Mr. Kerry. Mr. Shrum, a top Kerry media consultant, lists Mr. Rosenberg as a client, while Mr. Grossman and Mr. Elmendorf, both top Kerry campaign officials, have made financial contributions to Mr. Rosenberg. The Kerry campaign said it takes no official position in this or any other local primary. "We're focused on winning the White House and changing America," a campaign official said. The most recent complaint about Mr. Moran among many Democrats concerns a remark he made last year blaming Jewish Americans for the war in Iraq. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," he said at a gathering of antiwar activists in Reston a year ago. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should." The remark brought a stinging rebuke from reliable Democratic organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, which called the comment "pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism." "That's only the latest in a string of inappropriate statements and actions the congressman has made," Mr. Rosenberg said yesterday. "The people of Northern Virginia are aware of his background. They know, as a member of Congress, he has repeatedly displayed bad judgment and that has undercut his effectiveness." Past scandals involving Mr. Moran include a questionable loan by a bank that had pending legislation before Congress. He also has a penchant for fistfights, including a famous 1995 tussle on the floor of the House with Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, California Republican. After his remark blaming Jews for the war, Mr. Moran was stripped of his post as regional whip for members of Mid-Atlantic states and asked by several Democratic House members not to run for re-election in the fall. "I don't think Moran should take this challenge lightly at all," said Mark Rozell, professor of politics at Catholic University. "This is the first time when the disgruntlement takes place more from within the party than outside it." Indeed, a recent poll released by Mr. Rosenberg suggests some dissatisfaction among Mr. Moran's base, which in the past has re-elected him with 60 percent of the vote. The poll, conducted by Lazarus Strategic Services for Mr. Rosenberg's campaign, found 45 percent of Democrats in Mr. Moran's district approved of his job performance ... Asked how he responds to fellow Democrats who accuse him of attacking one of their own, Mr. Rosenberg says voters are "desperate for an alternative." "There's a tremendous appetite for change in Northern Virginia," he said. "We want to make sure that choice is offered by another Democrat."

[Lobotomies to cure "anti-Semitism?" This guy seems to be advocating TORTURE to get everyone to love Jewish power, bigotry, and racism. How about massive in-house Jewish REFORM to cure "anti-Semitism?" Wow! What a hateful idea! No, better we strap "anti-Semites" into chairs and force them to watch ADL "tolerance" lectures. Note: the modern racist state of Jewish Israel is founded upon "vandalism and grave desecration" (and much worse) -- obliterating hundreds of Muslim/Arab graveyards, complete with their villages. The childish smear of "hate" and "hater" is so ambiguous and overused by Jewish "haters" that the terms have become meaningless. This guy obviously forgot to take his OWN anti-hate pill. Jews like this, sad to say, are an enormous threat to democracy.]
Hate criminal needs deprogramming,
by ALAN YOUNG, Toronto Star, March 28, 2004
"Many afternoons while walking home from Hebrew day school, my best friend and I would have rock fights with some of the local kids. Before I even knew what anti-Semitism meant, our opponents would be throwing rocks while screaming anti-Jewish slogans. It was all very biblical. At the ripe age of six or seven we had no clue that our battles had deeper, more sinister implications. We were just playing a version of cops and robbers, with the Jews always cast in the role of robber. The rock throwing was fun, but we never seemed to have any clever names or slogans to throw back at our opponents. Our rocks were simply accompanied by ethnically neutral slurs like dirty, smelly and stupid. Turns out we were partly right. Toronto has descended into the ugly world of hate and bigotry with a recent flurry of anti-Semitic vandalism and graveyard desecration. The police, the politicians and the media commentators have been describing these Jew-hating criminals as cowardly, evil, low-life and cruel, but I think their descriptions miss the mark. The hate criminal is unique. The defining feature of the hate criminal is stupidity. It is a crime born of intellectual deficiency. Anyone who resorts to generalizations about the moral worth of every member of a particular ethnic, racial or religious group is an imbecile. These people turn off their brains and pay homage to half-baked philosophies based on nothing more than their own inadequacies and insecurities. The racist deliberately short-circuits his brain to massage a crippling and neurotic need to hate. They really hate themselves but they project the hatred on to historically well-recognized scapegoats. The psychological solace gained by projecting hatred outward comes at a great price — the destruction of the gift of rationality ... Once it is understood that the defining feature of bigotry of any sort is stupidity, then the administration of criminal justice faces real problems. In response to the recent wave of anti-Semitic vandalism, the Attorney General of Ontario has pledged rigorous enforcement of the law. But criminal justice actually can do very little to combat stupidity. In assessing the constitutionality of our hate literature law in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada struggled with the knowledge that pre-Nazi Germany also had hate literature crimes. We know that law can rarely change the way a person thinks, especially when thinking is all mixed up with delusion, and in trying to use the law as a tool of coercive persuasion there is always the danger we will elevate the stupid into the role of martyr for other stupid people. Although criminal justice is an ineffective response, we still need the symbolic denunciation of this hurtful irrationality of bigotry by invoking the criminal law. When we prosecute those responsible for the recent vandalism, it would be a mistake to think that a fine or imprisonment can address the problem of hate-driven criminality. The hate criminal probably needs rigorous deprogramming like the extreme measures taken by parents to counter the brainwashing of children by lunatic cults. It is bizarre that criminal justice officials try to do more to change the belief and behaviour of johns charged with prostitution than they do with the Ernst Zundels and Jim Keegstras of the world. We send the consumers of prostitution to "john school." We send the bigot to jail to sit and stew, and the suffering is just used by the bigot to reinforce the righteousness of delusional views. Just as some cancers require invasive surgery, the hate crime needs intrusive measures. The usual out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to modern punishment just won't work in this case. For crimes of supreme stupidity we need Clockwork Orange justice — strapping the hate criminal into a chair for an interminable period, and keeping his eyes wide-open with metal clamps so he cannot escape from an onslaught of cinematic imagery carefully designed to break his neurotic attachment to self-induced intellectual impairment. In the context of hate crime, I do have some regrets that we have a constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think coercive persuasion or deprogramming is necessarily cruel, but as a state sanction it is unusual. However, if the crime is unique the sanction should be also. Simply dishing out more prison time or a larger fine is a dead-end. We need a punishment that can kick-start a brain. Regrettably when it comes to punishment, our system rarely exhibits ingenuity, audacity and courage."

[More Zionist totalitarianism, in the very lifeblood of U.S. foreign policy, and strangling it.]
Short Cuts,
by Sara Roy, London Review of Books, Vol. 26, No. 7, April 1, 2004
"Recently, at Harvard University where I am based, a Jewish student, using an assumed (gentile) name, began posting anti-semitic statements on the weblog of the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice, an anti-war, pro-Palestinian group on campus. The student, it turned out, is the secretary of Harvard Students for Israel - which dissociated itself from the incident - and had previously accused the HIPJ of being too tolerant of anti-semitism. He now went undercover as part of a self-appointed effort to monitor anti-semitism on campus. In one posting, for example, he referred to Israel as the 'AshkeNAZI state'. Incidents of this kind, which are becoming commonplace on American campuses, reflect a wider determination to monitor, report, defame and punish those individuals and institutions within academia whose views the right finds objectionable. The campaign is directed at area studies generally but the most virulent attacks are reserved for those of us in Middle Eastern studies whose ideas are considered anti-Israel, anti-semitic or anti-American. The relationship between Israel's hardline supporters and the 'Arab professoriat', as we have been called, has been tense for a long time. After 11 September, the right accused Middle East academics in particular of extremist scholarship and intellectual treason. Defending Civilisation: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done about It, a report published in November 2001 by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a non-profit organisation founded by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, effectively accused the academy of being unpatriotic and anti-American, a fifth column providing intellectual support for global terrorism. In evidence it cited over a hundred statements by academics (and others) calling for a more critical examination of the causes of the events of 11 September and the role US foreign policy may have played. Another indictment of Middle East studies appeared in Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, published in October 2001 by the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Kramer, who teaches Arab history and politics at Tel Aviv University, claims that Middle East studies in the US are dominated - indeed, crippled - by pro-Arab and anti-American sentiment. The academy, he believes, failed to anticipate and may even have concealed the growing Islamist threat that resulted in the attack on the World Trade Center. Middle East studies, he claims, have devoted too much attention to historical and cultural subjects that are of no use to the state and its national security imperatives, and may even harm them. What is needed, he says, is a new approach to the study of the Middle East that has at its core 'the idea that the United States plays an essentially beneficent role in the world'. There is no let-up. September 2002 saw the establishment of Campus Watch, a website whose primary purpose is to monitor Middle Eastern studies faculty in departments across the US for signs of anti-American and anti-Israel bias. Campus Watch is the invention of Daniel Pipes, a colleague of Kramer's, and director of the Middle East Forum, a think-tank devoted to promoting American interests in the Middle East. 'I want Noam Chomsky to be taught at universities about as much as I want Hitler's writing or Stalin's writing,' Pipes said to an interviewer. 'These are wild and extremist ideas that I believe have no place in a university.' Not only does Campus Watch monitor universities for signs of 'sedition', i.e. views on US foreign policy, Islam, Israeli policy and Palestinian rights that Pipes considers unacceptable; it encourages students to inform on professors whose ideas they find offensive. Recently, Bush appointed Pipes to the board of directors of the US Institute of Peace, 'an independent, non-partisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts'. Given that the political climate here is in good part determined by an alliance of right-wing supporters of Israel and members of the neo-conservative establishment, it isn't surprising that the attack on area studies may soon be enshrined in law. On 21 October last year, the House of Representatives passed the International Studies in Higher Education Act, HR 3077. The bill is part of the Higher Education Act reauthorisation known as Title VI, which dates back to 1959 and mandates federal funding of international studies and foreign languages. Title VI renews international education and language-training programmes and has made several important improvements, but it also contains provisions that would impinge on curricula, faculty hiring and course materials in institutions that accept federal funding. A key figure behind HR 3077 is Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and an associate of Kramer and Pipes. Testifying before the House on 19 June 2003, Kurtz accused scholars of the Mid