Monday, May 11, 2009

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

by Paul Craig Roberts

On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby's bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.

To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.

Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn't been mopping floors at the White House. As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel's treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.

It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament's account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.

It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.

It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.

It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.

In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.

Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded investigations of Israel's military assault on Gaza's civilian population? Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of "excessive" criticism of Israel?

This is a serious question. A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety, blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises in Gaza. The Israeli government has responded by charging that the UN report is "tendentious, patently biased," which puts the UN report into the State Department's category of excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.

Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli invaders by rabbis. These acts are clearly war crimes.

It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli soldiers' T-shirts that indicate that the willful murder of women and children is now the culture of the Israeli army. The T-shirts are horrific expressions of barbarity. For example, one shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan, "One shot, two kills." These T-shirts are an indication that Israel's policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.

It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and Israeli peace groups. For example, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz and Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel's crimes are covered up and even praised.

Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Ha'aretz and Jeff Halper? Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but simply report what Ha'aretz and Halper have said be arrested for "spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act"?

Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel. These Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war on terror. They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.

A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel. American university professors have fallen victim to the well organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Now the Israel Lobby is after University of California (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson. Robinson's crime: his course on global affairs included some reading assignments critical of Israel's invasion of Gaza.

The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice (sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying. The Israel Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges. Yet, Larry Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.

The absurdity is extraordinary. The two Israeli agents are not guilty of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving secrets to them! If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin convicted of giving secrets to a spy?

Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American rather than Israeli interests. It eliminates any prospect of Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.

To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti-semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel. It is permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a universal hate-crime in the Western world.

Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust. It is a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less than 6 million Jews were murdered.

Why is the Holocaust a subject that is off limits to examination? How could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by alleged "kooks" and "anti-semites?" Surely the case doesn't need to be protected by thought control.

Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.

(Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.)


Anonymous brian boru said...

The hubris and overweening arrogance of the vampire race knows no bounds. They will have to create a world prison to keep the growing population of aware people under control. Otherwise, there will be a time of reckoning for kikey. One of the first laws passed by the Bolsheviks in Russia after they gained power was to make 'anti-semitism' a capital offence. Then they made private ownership of weapons a capital offence. After that kikey was free to kill at will. He is well on his way to achieving the same in the US. If he can disarm white Americans then we are facing doom.

8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It will also be a crime to own a copy of Yhe Passion Of The Christ, so get yours while you can.

Dave 05112009 / 1923

7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cartoon had me ROFLMWAO!!! I suspect that the origin of the "growing nose" subplot of Pinnoccio was a reference to Ukranian Hose Nose Syndrome (aka Mark of Cain) in the first place.

Ever notice how many famous Yids / Yentas can never seem to rid themselves of Hose Nose Syndrome despite multiple nose jobs? Streisand ring any bells? Less-famous Yids have the same problem. One (somewhat-local) Yid in particular, a former employee of a very close personal friend of mine (fired for laziniess and shoddy job performance by my friend) still has an exceptionally prominent beak despite FOUR nose jobs. This kike is currently facing criminal charges, revocation of state job certification, and possible jail time for a typical Yid offense ... submitting FRAUDULENT documents to a government agency. I'm sure the Yid must have failed to pay off the proper officials to get his case dismissed or reduced.


11:41 PM  
Anonymous A. Non said...

I am firmly against any law whose sole purpose is to stifle discussion on any historical event or document - no matter whose sacred cow gets gored in the process.

This along with the Fairness Doctrine (which is pulling a zombie act even now) will do nothing but slash deeply into the freedom of speech our forefathers died to earn.

2:08 AM  
Anonymous Jumping Jack Flash said...

The curious thing is that in the UK - criticism of Zionism and holocaust denial is not technically illegal. Organized Jewish lobbies rigged the race laws so they are classed both as a race and a religion and move between the two, as it suits. However, any criticism of Jews or blacks is deemed to be racial and in 1976 the law was changed so that there was a presumption of guilt (likely to stir up racial hatred).

Conviction is almost automatic as it assumed that ordinary white people are potential homicidal maniacs just waiting to explode in a frenzy of homicidal violence after reading a few words.

A whole range of racially aggravated offences were added in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (racially aggravated assault, harassment and criminal damage) and there are now religiously aggravated crimes since 2007, but intent still has to be proved.

The Heretical Two case is really the first time that posting on foreign servers has been covered by reinterpreting the existing law, and also mocking the holocaust has now, de facto, become an offence.

I am curious to know how Rahm Israel Emanuel's hate crimes prevention act can be reconciled with the First Amendment, but I dare say they will find a way. Your written constitution has merely delayed things - a Bolshevik revolution in slow motion.

Certainly in the UK the law has gradually been bent to THEIR will since the end of World War 1.

For instance, the 1936 Public Order act banned uniforms for political parties, i.e. the British Union of Fascists and permission had to be given for political marches and rallies - this process has marched hand in hand with incremental gun control .


10:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home