Government disappointed with journalists' Israeli boycott call

[oberliner]

LONDON (AFP) - The Foreign Office expressed disappointment and disagreement Wednesday with a National Union of Journalists vote to call for a boycott on Israeli goods.

The NUJ voted Friday to push for sanctions on Israeli goods in response to Israel's "aggression" in the Palestinian territories and last year's retaliatory attacks against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon.

"I was disappointed to hear that on April 13, 2007, the NUJ voted to boycott goods from
Israel," said Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells.

"The government believes that, as a friend of both Israel and the Palestinians, we can best exert influence by encouraging both sides to take the steps needed for progress toward peace through close engagement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070418/wl_uk_afp/britainisraelmediaboycottdiplomacy_070418141808

[Tom Joad]

1. Do we expect anything else?

.

[Tom Joad]

2. This is the same government guilty of 4 years of bloody war and occupation in Iraq.

what does one expect of such a lawless regime... support with other lawless regimes... Blair,Bush,Olmert.... we can reasonably expect their perverse support for each other. Didn't we just hear Olmert supporting the Cheney line at aipac a few months ago?

Among those who support human rights and nonviolent action, i expect this movement for divestment and boycott to grow.

[dottym]

3. support human rights and nonviolent action.

what do you call it when a suicide bomber kills innocents in israel? is that a nonviolent action?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

8. If you consider nations such as England, America and Israel lawless,

then what would you consider to be a law-abiding country?

Are there nations that have worse human rights records than Israel's and England's that you don't think we should be taking the same actions against? Or do you recommend sanctioning all of these nations as well? It presents a problem because, like it or not, those nations are among the most human-rights conscious, law abiding states in the entire world.

[Shaktimaan]

4. that's weird.

So let me get this straight. This Journalists' Union has officially taken a side in the Israel/Palestine conflict and are getting involved in trying to influence change via their governments accordingly. Wow.

Anyone else have a problem with this? It is one thing for journalists to have personal feelings and opinions about the events they cover. But once they professionally band together under the banner of journalism isn't it unethical for them to then use that unionized power to try and influence the very events that they cover in order to alter them more to their liking? They are using their position and the professional infrastructure available to them as journalists (not as citizens) to exert political influence on a matter unrelated to their industry. Aside from the fact that this calls into question their objectivity (disqualifies it actually, it turns them into participants) it puts them in the position of reporting on events that they are also helping shape behind the scenes which is a pretty serious breach of journalistic ethics as I understand it.

[msmcghee]

5. England's journalistic coverage of the conflict . .

. . is extremely one-sided.

Notice the Brit accents in this 60 Minutes segment "Pallywood".

www.tinyurl.com/onr3g

Of course, the French are way into Israel hate too.

[breakaleg]

7. Or perhaps it's not a matter is Israel hate but of hatred of injustice. nt

[Shaktimaan]

9. Unlikely cause for distorted reporting I think. n/t

[msmcghee]

10. Or, maybe it's just a love . .

. . of fake news accounts.

[breakaleg]

11. So, now you are accusing British and France of hating Israel?

[msmcghee]

12. Well, you think their journalists are doing a good job, don't you? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

13. The BBC certainly has a documented bias against Israel in their reporting.

In May 2001, BBC fabricated a film clip in an attempt to show Israeli brutality. When Israelis struck a Palestinian base in Gaza, there were no pictures of victims -- since Israel struck at empty buildings. But BBC editors inserted a film clip of Israeli victims of Palestinian terror arriving at an Israeli hospital, to suggest that these were victims of Israeli attack. The correspondent in London ended the segment with "These are the pictures from Gaza."


BBC's bias is perhaps summed up best by one of its own employees, Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years. Speaking at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, he declared:

"Journalists and media organizations waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."


http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/BBC_In-depth.asp

[breakaleg]

15. Well look at it this way. The bias towards Israel of other news sources can balance that out.

[Shaktimaan]

16. OK, such as...? An example would be cool. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Let me get this straight. You don't think Honest Reporting is biased??

Don't you find something just a bit ironic about a biased single-issue 'advocacy' group like Honest Reporting accusing highly respected and credible media outlets like the BBC of being biased?

[Shaktimaan]

26. Honest reporting

exists to expose examples of anti-israel bias. As such, sure, it is biased itself. But it is not supposed to be objective, it exists for a single purpose. It is not a highly respected media outlet and is not held to the same standard. It does not formulate its own reporting on the ME crisis for distribution to a wide audience.

If I were you I would focus on whether or not their charges are valid rather than try and attack them for their mission. There is nothing wrong with advocacy groups. There is something very wrong with the BBC acting as an advocacy group though. I am not attacking a pro-palestinian group here but the BBC. Comparing them to a pro-Israeli group is not a fair comparison. Compare them to another example of general media news that is as israel-biased as they are palestinian-biased to make a decent argument.

I listen to the BBC often and their bias is clear to me. The fact that I chose examples from Honest Reporting does not invalidate that in any way. I posted a few clear examples of BBC bias. Do you find those acceptable enough as news to actually defend them?

[Englander]

51. Another poisonous accusation?

Thinly disguised as a question?

I listen to the BBC often and their bias is clear to me. The fact that I chose examples from Honest Reporting does not invalidate that in any way. I posted a few clear examples of BBC bias. Do you find those acceptable enough as news to actually defend them?

_____

About HR, Are you seriously suggesting that an advocacy group, which you've already admitted is
biased, not objective & whose sole intent is to defend the actions of the Israeli govt/military
regardless of the legality, & whatever those actions are, has any credibility about making any
claims of bias in the BBC or any other media outlets?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. I'll agree that HonestReporting isn't objective, nor is it highly respected...

Which makes me wonder why some people take what it says as gospel and don't bother checking things out for themselves to find out if they're true or not? Have you focused on whether their charges are valid, Shakti? Or do you just believe it because HonestReporting says it's so? Just because a group uses the word *honest* in their name doesn't mean that they're not prone to being just a bit dishonest to further their agenda. Don't believe me? I've got plenty of examples to start giving you if you don't...

Yr claims as to their mission is a bit of a stretch as well. All it takes is a read through that site to realise that the mission is to try to exert pressure on media outlets to not criticise Israel at all, because the folk at HonestReporting are the sort of folk who believe that any criticism of Israel *is* 'anti-Israel bias'...

If you want to try to prove that the BBC is biased, then try finding some examples that don't come from an incredibly biased and less than honest source like 'Honest'Reporting. Try finding something for yrself and do some checking into the facts and then put up yr own argument as to why it's biased. I'll be waiting :)

[msmcghee]

72. You say HonestReporting is dishonest.

"Don't believe me? I've got plenty of examples to start giving you if you don't..."

OK - Let's see some.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. Here's the first of quite a few...

In this Flash presentation http://www.honestreporting.com/a/flash/twoSides.swf 'honest'reporting shows a BBC headline saying: Israel must halt Jerusalem dig' and falsely try to make out that the BBC is stating it's opinion rather than the BBC reporting that UNESCO had issued a report saying that, and then announce 'the only problem is: It Isn’t True.' No surprises that what the BBC reported was actually true and that 'honest'reporting were being dishonest in saying otherwise. Here's the UNESCO report and sure enough in the final section under final recommendations, it clearly states: '49. The Government of Israel should be asked to stop immediately the archaeological excavations, given that the excavations that had been undertaken were deemed to be sufficient for the purpose of assessing the structural conditions of the pathway.'

[msmcghee]

84. Ha ha. That's your example?

Not only is it inconsequential and obtuse - when examined it proves the opposite of what you say. It shows how carefully HonestReporting edited the presentation to not create a false impression.

The Flash presentation starts with two clips/views of large text:

1) Are there two sides to every story?

2) Or, can the media be so eager for news that they will report stories that are not true?

Notice there are no quotes around that text. Anyone viewing so far will see that this the question that HonestReporting is setting out to answer. Do the media report stories that are not true? There is no indication that HonestReporting is setting out to answer a different question - do media editorial writers have opinions that are not true?

They then describe the situation that will be used as an example - the excavation of the ramp leading the the al Aqsa mosque.

They then show a clip,

"The media report baseless claims".

Notice they do not say - the media report their own baseless "opinions". "Claims" are obviously made by others.

They then show a series of quotes (claims if you will) - from various media - with the media identified by actual logo above the quoted text.

Then - they say - without quotes:

The only problem is . . it isn't true.

There can be no possibility that the viewer now knows that HonestReporting has made the assertion that the media report stories, containing claims by others, that are not true. There's no way any other interpretation could be possible.

Next, they explain with annotated photos and diagrams, what is wrong with the stories that were quoted.

The final message clip/view starts with the conclusion,

Some in the media still insist on their own interpretation of the facts.

Then, under that assertion appears "BBC" in actual logo format and under that in bold quotes:

"Israel Must Halt Jerusalem Dig".

Why would you assume that HonestReporting has suddenly switched to quoting an editorial opinion of the BBC? Because that's the only possible way you could imply any level of dishonesty on their part? That's quite a stretch, even for you.

Nowhere previously have they alluded even once to editorial content or opinion. All reporting is referred to using quotes and the actual logo of the media immediately above the quoted text - so that no one can confuse what HonestReporting is saying and what are examples of what HonestReporting deems to be reporting of untrue claims.

And you call this an example of dishonesty? There is something very dishonest about your example. But it has nothing to do with the group, HonestReporting. But, since that is only "the first of quite a few", I guess you'll have no problem coming up with an example that actually proves your premise - rather than disproves it.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Yeah, and it's a good example...

'Honest'Reporting have been caught out being less than honest, though I expect that the flock of *Believers* who think that 'Honest'Reporting is beyond reproach, unlike that nasty international 'anti-Israel' media, and are not going to be swayed by mere facts, would use any excuse in the book to ignore that...

What should be clear to all but the flock is this:

The BBC had a headline of an article about the UNESCO investigation titled: 'Israel Must Halt Jerusalem Dig'. 'Honest'Reporting claim it's not true. The problem is that what the BBC was reporting was true, and that the UNESCO report called on Israel to halt the dig. Can't get much clearer than that. Maybe 'Honest'Reporting has a different version of the UNESCO report that only it and its flock know about?

And you claim that 'Honest'Reporting wasn't trying to make out that this was merely the opinion of the media source itself? Well, that claim is shown to be wrong by 'Honest'Reporting's own words that you reposted: 'Some in the media still insist on their own interpretation of the facts.' Well, in this case the FACTS were that UNESCO had called for Israel to halt the dig and the BBC reported that fact. 'Honest'Reporting doesn't like that fact, so they rename it 'baseless claim'...

As for yr last paragraph where you say that my example has nothing to do with 'Honest'Reporting. D'uh, I could have sworn I'd posted a link to a less than honest flash presentation from HonestReporting. Did I make a mistake and inadvertently post a link to an eBay auction for Smurfs? I'll have to go back and check! ;)

[bemildred]

85. Great example Vi.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

87. Honest reporting ain't nothing but s**t. nt

[pelsar]

89. only if you can refute it...

any examples?

VCs was clearly a failure

[bemildred]

90. I thought you just have to say it's "nothing but s**t" and that did it.

That the way it always worked before.

[pelsar]

94. standards have risen...

actually i've never understood/agreed with the "i dont like the sites political bent, therefore everything in it must be bad"...syndrome.

[bemildred]

95. Agreed. "Let them say what they want" is my bias.

Although this site does forbid certain sources, and I suppose they have their reasons.

[The Magistrate]

96. It Is Odd, My Friend, How These Things Blow Up From Practically Nothing

And run steadily downhill from there....

It would be hard to find anything more trifling than this 'boycott' that originates in an actual organization. It was passed by about a fifth of the delegates accredited to the conference: sixty six people voted for it, and there were three hundred attending delegates. This suggest to the connoisseur a clique of 'Old Labor Trots' operating in the wee hours as a wrecker's bloc: shanghia-ing meetings is about the only sphere of politics these people have ever shown any apptitude for. There does not even seem to be an official text of it in circulation, and the only comment on it from the Union is that it does not even bind the Union itself to boycott Israel or Israeli products. The organization has about thirty-five thousand members, and there is no reason whatever to suppose this vote reflects their majority view.

And yet, somehow, from this veritable mustard seed of insignifigance sprouts this days long wrangle over Anti-Semitism in Europe; whether it exists, is rising, declining, signifigant, or nothing to trouble over, or worse or more signfigant than European distaste for Moslems. Facts concerning this, determined by survey of incidents reported to police or government investigation, are adduced, but seem to have no effect on the conversation beyond serving as starting points for repeating the pre-existing beliefs of the various participants on the matter. Amusement, certainly, is where one finds it, but this is a damned thin gruel....

[bemildred]

97. When you want to have an argument, any pretext seems to do.

A "veritable mustard seed" is about right, and "damned thin gruel" too. We are all at liberty to "boycott" whomever we choose, and to tootle our own horn about it too, I suppose.

On the other hand, it would be a damned slow day if someone wasn't willing to pick up the cudgel over something. If nothing else, wondering which thread is going to explode into "debate" and which is going to sink like stone provides some dramatic tension.

[Violet_Crumble]

100. I kind of enjoy watching the meandering of some threads...

They tend to take on a life of their own and much of what's in the thread has little to nothing to do with the OP that started the thread. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned, as long as the tangents don't head off into thiny veiled attacks on one particular poster because of internal US political issues, as has happened here in the past :)

[The Magistrate]

101. My Preference, Sir, Is For Slow Days....

"Fishing, to me, has always been mainly an excuse to drink before noon."

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Yeah, I thought it was one of the more obvious ones...

There are others (not that this is the only example of dishonesty on their part) that I'd put in the category of mere stupidity andd pettiness, rather than outright dishonesty :)

[pelsar]

88. tsk tsk..

falsely try to make out that the BBC is stating it's opinion rather than the BBC

its written: "basless claims"......thats clearly not an opinon...

try again

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

35. Considering the current state of affairs in the OT, I'd say it's safe to say that the world

in general has a bias and it's not towards Palestinians. If it were, then the current situation would have been solved long ago.

You say the BBC is biased. I don't. I think it's refreshing to hear another point of view. Back when I read only US news sources I didn't have an accurate picture of what was going on. That's telling.

[Shaktimaan]

36. you consider the example I gave to be just

"an alternate point of view?"

Most would consider it "misleading" or "lying."

I have no problem with alternate points of view. But showing Israeli victims of terrorism being wheeled into the hospital while referring to them as Palestinian victims of the IDF is not a refreshing "take" on the situation. How can you possibly defend that?

I'd still like to see an example of this pro-Israel bias from a mainstream US news source that you keep talking about. And why do you assume that the BBC is giving you an accurate picture where as before your view was inaccurate? How are you measuring this "accuracy?"

Or is "accurate" just code for "news I prefer?"

[breakaleg]

37. which example?

If you are referring to the link, I didn't read it. I was responding to you condemning the BBC as a whole.

[Shaktimaan]

38. these examples

In May 2001, BBC fabricated a film clip in an attempt to show Israeli brutality. When Israelis struck a Palestinian base in Gaza, there were no pictures of victims -- since Israel struck at empty buildings. But BBC editors inserted a film clip of Israeli victims of Palestinian terror arriving at an Israeli hospital, to suggest that these were victims of Israeli attack. The correspondent in London ended the segment with "These are the pictures from Gaza."


BBC's bias is perhaps summed up best by one of its own employees, Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years. Speaking at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, he declared:

"Journalists and media organizations waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."


http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/BBC_In-depth.asp

But there's plenty, plenty others. I can list them if you'd like, but if you just google the subject you can find tons yourself. I used to listen to the BBC every morning and at a certain point I just got annoyed with all of the editorializing they passed off as news. The main news sources I use are the NYTimes, Salon, NPR and The Economist (for the non-retarded conservative viewpoint.) If I felt like any of them were nearly as biased in their news reporting as the BBC is on Palestine I'd be dissing them as well. They constantly do stuff like leave out important contextual facts from their reports or draw opinionated conclusions from the facts at hand. Here's an example of reports from the BBC website that leave out a critical bit of info.

"Israeli soldiers have shot dead three Palestinians, including a child, just one day after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat called for an end to violence and a return to peace negotiations." (BBC Website - 17 December)

"Israel and the United States have called on Yasser Arafat to follow up his words with actions, after the Palestinian leader gave a speech pledging to rein in militants and calling for a return to peace negotiations. But a few hours later, Israeli troops shot dead a member of the militant group Hamas..." (BBC Website - 17 December)

Here's what they left out. Israel was actually responding to a series of attacks carried out right after Arafat's speech pledging to reign in militants.

On December 16, Arafat made a speech calling for a cease-fire and a return to peace negotiations. Islamic Jihad and Hamas issued public statements defying the cease-fire, and immediately carried out a number of attacks. Within hours, a mortar was fired at a settlement in Gush Katif and an IDF outpost came under rocket grenade attack. Four Israelis were wounded in three shooting attacks in the West Bank and a roadside bomb went off near Nablus.

Now I'm not a freak about making sure every news story is free from inflection or the reporter's opinion. But you have to relate the context of events honestly. You can't talk about Arafat's speech and Israel's retaliation without also mentioning what happened in between or the reader ends up with an incorrect idea of the causes and effects. In this case Arafat's speech instigated terrorism against Israel (not that I am blaming him for it in this case) which then caused a reaction from Israel. But the BBC makes it seem like Israel was either reacting to Arafat's speech or at least disregarding it entirely and unilaterally attacking for no reason.

[breakaleg]

41. Check this out.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles554b.htm

The link you gave is 6 years old. It's interesting that the articles you posted are about the second intifada because this is the exact time I took an interest in the I/P situation. And the newspapers I read at the time were so biased, that's what inspired me to look into it myself. American news sources. Not the BBC.

[Shaktimaan]

43. OK.

But the OP is not. And it is a fine example of professional bias. As I said though, there are plenty if you need me to find them for you. Do you weant me to go grab you a few recent ones?

As for your example, I have never heard of settlements being described as "outposts" or "jewish neighborhoods." Nor have I seen a reluctance in calling Likud Right-wing.

For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all — so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

Actually, most of it is a fence. Very little of it is a wall. The Empire State Building is higher than the Berlin Wall also. But that does not make it a wall. But that doesn't matter here. What is important is that I see it referred to as a wall often anyway, despite what Mr. Fisk has said. I haven't seen anything he has described here. So we have a British correspondant exaggerating the situation of news in America here. Doesn't that help my argument as opposed to your?

In any case, can you please give me real examples, like I gave you. This is just a rant. And nothing he describes is an example of deception or a case where a reader could be led to misunderstand the events as they happened. I don't care that the BBC calls the security barrier a wall or that they refer to the territories as the occupied territories. That's not real bias, it's just terminology I disagree with. The important thing is that they report events clearly and the BBC (and apparently the telegraph) do not.

Do you have any examples like that?

[dottym]

14. i don't know about hating israel,

but from what i've read antisemitism is running rampant in many parts of europe -- france, britain and germany among others.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

40. I am equating protest of Israel's policies with protest of US policies under Bush

Bush/cheney and the rightwing mob always try to say that such protests are "anti-American" ... hiding behind common american's to deflect criticism of US policies that are really morally bankrupt.

Often times criticism of Israel is described as "anti-semitism" and are pointed as examples of "rising anti-semitism" when they are simply protest against policies that must be challanged by all people who believe in human rights and peaceful coexistence of peoples.

Real anti-semitic attacks, namely attacking people simply because they are Jewish, is never acceptable under any circumstances. Neither are attacks on Arabs/Muslims or any ethnic group. There is no justifying such behavior.

[Shaktimaan]

46. OK Tom,

I think this post of yours explaining yourself is actually very telling of how you see things. Moreso than your original post. And I think you are exhibiting a belief that I have been seeing more and more often lately, usually from the left. So I am going to reply as honestly as I can, without ridicule.

Dottym was specifically talking about anti-semitism in her post. She didn't qualify it in any way. And the truth of the matter is that there is indeed a big upsurge in anti-semitism in England and Europe now. REAL anti-semitism. Yet your knee-jerk reaction was to assume that it was nothing more than overblown examples of protests against Israeli policies. When there is actually rising anti-semitism, as in people getting hurt or killed, buildings being vandalized or destroyed and so on, I do not see why you would assume that "rising anti-semitism" could only be referring to peaceful criticism of Israeli policies. Even more strange, you assumed this to be the assumption of everyone else here as well, to the extent that you didn't bother explaining how you got from "rising anti-semitism" to "protesting Bush." You clearly thought that we all understood the connection well enough that we would get your sarcastic joke dismissing claims of anti-semitism as the equivalent of Bush's statement about anti-Bush protesters hating freedom.

I think there is a real inability for many people to draw a distinction between supporters of Jewish nationalism and supporters of right wing Israeli policy. Jewish and Israeli are one category to many folks out there, surprisingly even on the left. Some of the comments I've read on very liberal sites are blatantly anti-semitic and I doubt that their authors realize it, or even realize that their own views are discriminatory.

Anti-semitism is not just hating Jews because they are Jewish. Much in the same way that racism is not relegated to hating black people solely because they are black. We've all met the racist who has a million black friends, right? He may not even harbor any hate towards black people, or anyone for that matter, yet it does not mean his views are any less racist or dangerous. And I realize that you probably don't harbor any hate towards people just because they may be Jewish. But it does not excuse your assumption that any claim of rising anti-semitism must merely refer to the unfounded protestations of a right wing zionist with thin skin. Or that you would think it an appropriate topic to mock.

And that is the problem. What do we do when we have people such as yourself, who would never think of themselves as anti-semitic, making the kind of statements as you have here?

[Tom Joad]

48. The original post is about a protest against Israeli policies.

Feel free to reread it. right at the top of the page. It is about a journalists protesting Israeli policies, and the British government, guilty of crimes against humanity, of colluding with Bush and Olmert (e.g. Blair's regime being the only ally besides Bush's america to support Olmert's brutal war against the people of Lebanon, and of course blair's support for Bush's criminal attack on Iraq), condemning their principled stand.

What else would we expect from Blair's regime?

Any destruction of places of worship should be condemned, and i think you misinterpreted my statement, it was brief and perhaps could have been expanded in the first place.

But the stand the journalists took has nothing to do with anti-semitism, and everything to do with the indefensible policies of military occupation and the continual displacement of Palestinian people carried out by the Israeli government.

But all of us should also take action when homes of thousands of Palestinians have been destroyed (in just the last few years), with the use of US taxpayer funds, through the systematic policies of the Israeli regime. So i think the journalists are doing the right thing, i expect this form of nonviolent protest will grow.

[oberliner]

50. If occupation is wrong, it's always wrong, no?

Excerpt:

But then the NUJ is vulnerable to the same question put to British academics when they voted for a boycott of Israel. Fine, boycott Israel for its wars and military occupation, but why just Israel? Why not other international offenders, engaged in much more lethal conflicts? Sudan and Darfur come to mind, along with Russia and Chechnya. More to the point, surely the NUJ should boycott all goods from the US (and Britain for that matter), in protest at their - our - occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. If occupation is wrong, it's always wrong, no?

Source: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/04/jonathan_freedland_i_know_it.html

[Tom Joad]

59. I believe that the US should halt all military support for Sudan government.

Of course, the US does not give military aid to Sudan.
And there is a strong movement to take economic action against sudan. Interestingly, go to the Save Darfur page -- http://www.savedarfur.org/content -- and you see nothing about Chechnya. You see nothing about Palestine. You see nothing about Iraq. Does this mean that the people who created the page do not care about these other terrible conflicts? That they must have ulterior dark motives? I don't think it does.

during the struggle against South Africa, i believe the supporters of the apartheid regime also used quite the same defense "We aren't the only guilty ones" Of course that is true as far as it goes, but does that mean that no action can ever be taken against a particular country?

A side note. Many of us who support justice for Palestine have long been involved in other kinds of activism. Such as ending US support for genocidal regimes in Central America, the genocide in East Timor by Indonesia supported by several US presidents until Clinton finally, late in his term, ended US support for Indonesia and the occupation.

Adam Shapiro, who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, also went to Darfur, and made a powerful film on the experience.
http://www.darfurdiaries.org/

[oberliner]

60. This is about the boycott by British journalists, not US military support

In keeping with your attempt to refocus on the issue raised in the OP, the editorial excerpt posted is in relation to the NUJ boycott of Israel.

The point being: Why would the National Union of Journalists choose to boycott Israel and only Israel? How can this organization justify purchasing goods made in the US, Russia, and the UK itself while boycotting goods made in Israel?

[Tom Joad]

62. Why does the Darfur page not mention anything about Palestine?

Do you ascribe some dark motive there?

http://www.savedarfur.org/content

[msmcghee]

63. The Darfur page does not mention anything about Palestine . .

. . because its mission is to end genocide in Darfur. Serious organizations don't normally dilute their web pages with issues that detract from their mission.

The NUJ don't publish a mission statement but they explain themselves as a trade union supporting the rights of journalists in the UK and Ireland - and promoting respect for same. http://www.nuj.org.uk/

I guess if " . . Israel's aggression in the Palestinian territories and last year's retaliatory attacks against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon" had anything at all to do with the rights of journalists in the UK and Ireland - then it would be understandable for them to say something about that on their website.

However, since NUJ's stated purpose has nothing to do with that - one can reasonably wonder about their motives.

One could wonder, for example, if the NUJ have taken on all the situations in the world where innocent civilians suffer from the ravages of war. They don't say anything about that on their web page - but there's nothing inherently wrong with a trade organization taking on such issues. I would normally think that would be commendable.

But then, there are many places in the world where civilians suffer such ravages - some, like Darfur, on a far more horrendous scale than on the WB.

One could then reasonably ask, why does the NUJ single out Israel as the target for their boycott? Reasonable people could justifiably argue that the NUJ has not taken on the plight of civilian victims of war worldwide - but is only concerned with making a political statement that could damage the state of Israel.

This is especially true since the job of professional journalists is to report on conflicts - they are not supposed to take sides in them. The NUJ has not only taken on a political cause here - they have willingly damaged the professional reputation of their members in the process.

That makes them seem like a bunch of wing-nut ideologues. Of course, reading much of what passes for British journalism these days - it's not so hard to connect those dots.

[Tom Joad]

49. What is your definition of anti-semitism? How would you define it?

[Behind the Aegis]

83. Actually, I am curious as to what *your* definition of "anti-Semitism" is.

How do you define it?

[Tom Joad]

44. I also do not appreciate you twisting my post to mean what it did not,

either here or elsewhere on the web.

[cubs4life]

93. Self-deleted.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. whew, let me tell you about the antisemitism running rampant in many parts of europe...

frontpagemag and all those other american conservative sources have got it so right. and in europe they're really sneaky about it. when I was there, i witnessed bigoted attitudes and comments in france, germany and belgium aimed at asian tourists, but it was only one day when i missed the bus and got there just in time to watch it drive off without me that i heard a chorus of locals going 'the aussie tourists are gone! quick! let's resume the rampant antisemitism we were indulging in before they came along! anyone up for a pogrom or two?' I was so glad to catch up to the bus and enter the vacuum where rampant antisemitism wasn't rampant. And britain was even worse! Don't know if you've ever caught the tube in london, but my nearest stop was Glousester Road and I was initally impressed by the advertising in the station...y'know, advertising books and intelligent stuff and not the crap that is advertised in stations here and in the u.s. but as I was waiting for my train suddenly all the billboards rotated and the normal advertising was replaced by huge cartoons from der sturmer (sorry just like i've suddenly lost the ability to use caps anywhere in a post, i also can't locate the button to do umlaughts) and then i noticed that all the commuters on the train i was on were busy reading the protocols of the elders of zion. when i got off at my stop i suddenly realised that the warning 'mind the gap' inside yellow line on the platform close to the tracks actually was saying 'persecute the jews'. i thought it was all over when i hopped on the plane to go home, but i was flying british airways and all i got instead of the normal inflight entertainment was a 21 hour long monologue film by mel gibson blaming everything on the jews. i don't understand why no-one but those right wing american internet sources will believe me! ;)

[Englander]

23. Hey, that's nothing.

as a local allow me to expose the full extent of the conspiracy that every part of uk society is
active in, where do you think all those copies of the protocols come from? every bookshop in every
town & every village *must* give out copies of the protocols & every traveller on every bus & every
train & every aeroplane *must* carry a copy of the book at all times & every uk citizen must know
the protocols & be able to recite it, word for word. why else do the english football & cricket
teams play so badly? because they're too distracted being forced to learn the protocols!11! and the
antisemtism that runs so rampantly in britain doesn't end there, a famous tradition in england is
morris dancing, & buying sticks of rock at the sea side. and the secret behind it all is that the
morris dancers are really perfecting plans for a pogrom, and the writing that runs through every
stick of rock is actually the detailed plans for the pogrom!!11 ;)

[oberliner]

25. Hissing noises, songs about 'yids' and other offensive songs about Jewish people are unacceptable

I wonder why Chelsea felt the need to post that warning on their website before their recent match against the Spurs.

[dottym]

30. how about this?

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jan/05-93928.html


http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Fallaci-2002-04-12.asp


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/antisemitism/antisemitism_europe.htm



on edit: sorry this is in response to #25.

[Englander]

55. Oriana Fallaci?

Bloody. hell.

"Controversial Italian journalist famed for her interviews and war reports but notorious for her Islamaphobia

Liz McGregor and John Hooper
Saturday September 16, 2006
The Guardian

Oriana Fallaci, who has died of cancer aged 77, was a controversial Italian journalist and former war correspondent who, at her death, was facing charges of vilifying Islam under Italian law following the publication of her book, The Strength of Reason, one of three polemical works published since the September 11 attacks. Her Islamaphobic diatribes included comments such as Muslims "breed like rats".

>snip

Two years later, she was diagnosed with the cancer that had killed her father, mother and one sister and withdrew into reclusive exile in her flat in Manhattan. But after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, the editor of Italy's best-selling newspaper, Corriere della Sera, persuaded her to write a piece. Her 14,000-word article was, to say the least, a departure from the sober, moderate, intelligent conservatism for which Corriere is renowned.

"You ask me about the contrast between the two cultures? Well, to be honest, it annoys me even to talk about two cultures, to put them on the same plane," Fallaci wrote. "Let's be honest. Our cathedrals are more beautiful than the mosques and the synagogues." What readers got was far more than a cry of outrage. It was a rant that made no distinction between the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and the rest of the Muslim world.

Corriere's publishing arm, Rizzoli, turned the article into a book, La Rabbia e l'Orgoglio (The Rage and the Pride), and within little over a month it had sold 700,000 copies. Two further books were written in much the same vein. The most recent, Oriana Fallaci intervista sé stessa - L'Apocalisse, sold some two million copies globally.

Fallaci's diatribes prompted law suits in France and Switzerland, and last year a judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo committed her for trial on charges of offending Islam. The attacks, however, served only to reinforce Fallaci's view of herself as a courageous, reviled prophet. Indeed, in her second book, she identified herself with a 14th century heretic burned at the stake.

In Italy, her writings endeared her to the right wing - libertarians, keen to defend her right to free speech; campaigners against immigration (particularly members of the xenophobic Northern League), and - paradoxically, in view of Fallaci's atheism - some in Italy's influential "theo-con" lobby.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,1873911,00.html

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

33. Indeed. It's even in your Parliment!

Lord Janner of Braunstone gave evidence regarding anti-Semitic remarks made to him in Parliament. After the arrest of Saddam Hussein, for example, another peer approached him and said: "We've got rid of Saddam Hussein now. Your lot are next." When asked what she meant by "your lot," she replied: "Yes, you cannot go on killing Palestinians forever, you know." <113> Oona King, former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, gave evidence that many of her former constituents told her they could not vote for her because she was funded by the Israeli Secret Service.<113>

Labour MP Denis MacShane, who chaired the commission said: "The most worrying discovery of this inquiry is that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, appearing in the everyday conversations of people who consider themselves neither racist nor prejudiced" <2>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[oberliner]

24. I am not sure why global anti-semitism is dismissed and/or made light of

While you were in Europe, did you happen to attend a soccer match?

West Ham face investigation over anti-Semitic chants

LONDON, March 6 (Reuters) - West Ham United face a police and FA investigation after a video was released showing some of their fans singing anti-Semitic songs at Sunday's Premier League match against Tottenham Hotspur.

According to media reports on Tuesday, the video, which was aired on the YouTube Web site and later withdrawn, showed a group of West Ham fans singing a song referring to Tottenham's large Jewish fanbase.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6461174,00.html

Soccer-Chelsea warn fans against anti-semitic taunts with Spurs

Excerpt:

"The club has been praised for the huge strides made in tackling racism at Stamford Bridge and we want to ensure that any fans who use anti-Jewish abuse during the game are identified and appropriate action taken."

It added: "Hissing noises, singing songs about 'yids' and other offensive songs about Jewish people are unacceptable.

"Anybody caught chanting or making anti-semitic or racist remarks will be arrested and prosecuted by the police. Chelsea will also ban guilty offenders from Stamford Bridge."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17979635/

Football fan shot dead after racist mob attack

A French football fan was shot dead by a police officer after a mob of young white men, screaming anti-Semitic and racist insults, attacked a Hapoel Tel Aviv supporter outside the Parc des Princes in Paris late on Thursday night.

The plain clothes police officer, aged 32, was under arrest yesterday after shooting dead a 25-year-old man after a Uefa Cup game between Paris Saint Germain and Hapoel Tel Aviv.

Police and eye-witnesses said a mob of up to 300 white men chased a French Tel Aviv supporter after the game shouting "dirty Jew" and "fat Jew", making Nazi salutes and screaming "Le Pen president".

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2013261.ece

[Englander]

53. That wasn't the intention of the stream of consciousness stuff.

I am not sure why global anti-semitism is dismissed and/or made light of

But that isn't what was being ridiculed is it? The utterly ridiculous claim that it's running
rampant was the target of the ridicule, wasn't that completely obvious? In fact, I would suggest that
the target was so obvious, & the intent was so clear, that if anybody reading the comments failed to
understand what the intention was, & what the target was, I would feel justified in commenting on the
levels of literacy of anybody who read the comments & failed to comprehend what was being ridiculed.

[oberliner]

58. I don't think there is any failure of understanding

The post in question seems to be making light of the claim that anti-semitism is a worrisome problem across Europe.

If someone posted that anti-Arab racism was running rampant in Europe and a poster had responded with the same kind of dismissive sarcasm I think people would be justifiably angry and offended.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I can assure you there was a failure of understanding on yr part....

But given the tendency of some folk to tell me what I meant to say despite the fact that I'm telling them otherwise, why don't I just give you my username and you can sit there and tell people what I think? That's pretty much what yr doing right now and it's offensive and I'm getting just a bit pissed off at it...

[Violet_Crumble]

66. I'm not sure why people suddenly chose to overlook the word *rampant*

Well, I've got an idea, but I won't go into that. Maybe you can explain what the definition of *rampant* is and explain to me why suddenly that word seems to have vanished from the post I was replying to? I did NOT attempt to dismiss global antisemitism at all, nor did I at any point try to say that antisemitism doesn't exist. Why am I even having to point out the fucking obvious fact that I was reacting to the misuse of the word *rampant*? *Rampant* means uncontrolled and widespread. Or am I wrong and it actually means something else? I find it ludicrous that examples of the behaviour of soccer hooligans is used as an example of antisemitism being *rampant*. Do you know anything about soccer hooligans in Europe and the UK? Can't you see that to claim they are in any way indicative of behaviour in the broader community is incredibly offensive to both the Europeans and the British? Do you know that while they're only a small portion of the fan-base of clubs, the chaos, violence, and hatred towards anyone not like them (don't for a second think that they confine their hatred to only one ethnic or cultural group), their actions have a much larger impact than their numbers would suggest they should. Did you know that for a long time British soccer fans were banned from attending soccer matches in Europe because of the mob violence that they brought along with them? Does that mean you think that mob-violence is *rampant* in Britain?

[oberliner]

74. Antisemitic Hate Incidents at Highest Recorded Level

Quote from Community Security Trust’s spokesman, Mark Gardner:

“Antisemitic hate crime levels have more than doubled in the last ten years. This is unacceptable racism, that many Jews had hoped and believed was a thing of the past. Today’s antisemitism is a wave of hatred, intimidation and abuse against British Jews, who are stupidly blamed and randomly attacked over international tensions for which they bear no responsibility. We call upon the Police, Government, political parties and democrats everywhere to act loudly and clearly against this hateful trend.”

http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?Content=18

I don't see how the use of the word "rampant" led to such a sarcastic post.

Again, I would argue that if one were to post that anti-Arab racism was running rampant in Europe, and the response was similarly sarcastic in tone and content, people would be justifiably angry and/or offended.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Is there some reason you can't address what I said to you?

Do you even know what *rampant* means? Coz if you did, you'd understand my post and you wouldn't be continuing to be offensive by implying that I was trying to say antisemitism doesn't exist....

You can argue all you like how you think people think, but I for one would point out that anti-Arab racism is also not rampant in Europe or the UK...

[oberliner]

80. Adressing what you said

I agree with your definition of the word "rampant".

I appreciate the information about soccer hooligans. It is my understanding, however, from the articles I've read that anti-semitic taunting against Tottenham fans is not so limited.

I posted those links to demonstrate that one could find examples of incidents of antisemitism in the UK and Europe pretty readily.

I know you did not say antisemitism doesn't exist and I did not mean to imply that you believed that.

Your post did, however, not simply state your disagreement with the claim that antisemitism is rampant in those countries, but mocked that claim as being so ludicrous that it warranted a satirical response.

In my view, your post contributed to the sentiment that the problem of antisemitism in Europe is not as major a problem as some people would have you believe.

I found the flippant tone to be offensive, and I believe that antisemitism is a growing problem in the UK and elsewhere. Although "rampant" may be too extreme a term to describe the situation, I don't see that it is so far off the mark as to result in a post of that nature.

[pelsar]

81. i actually agree with you...yet.... (rampant lite)

i agree that anti semitism is not "rampant"......at least as i define it....yet i'm also recalling so many time israel's policies have been called "genocidal"...with "transferable traits", aparthied "lite

that they're are massive non violent protests

that israel needs the westbank to "steal the water"

and all those other accusations which were nonsense:

and you never wrote a word to correct those who wrote them (as much as i can recall). You would write a lot to explain why its "sort of true".....

why am I even having to point out the fucking obvious fact that I was reacting to the misuse of the word *rampant*?


So i guess for the DU we can say that: antisemtism is really rampant in europe (lets call it "rampant lite") and for those who dont agree, i guess they simply dont understand.....or have a problem with DUs new definition system

[mystikiel]

106. Probably because you can find pretty much any kind of racism you want in a soccer chant...

Israeli soccer chants

To the tune of "and Im glad to be alive"

Your mum's an Arab
your dad's an Arab
your dog's an Arab
so fuck off you c*nts and die! (clap clap clap clap)(repeat ad nauseam)

Death to the Arabs (clap-clap, clap-clap-clap) (repeat ad-nauseam)

these Arabs smell like camel shit
they havent got much class
they don't know that Muhammed's gay
he takes it up the arse!

etc...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

28. well it is good to see you are being more honest about how you really feel.

For anyone else on the board though who is interested in the rise of anti-semitism in europe, england in particular here is a link to a pdf.

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents_Report_06.pdf

You know it occurred to me that since I have been at DU I have seen many charges of racism, often false, leveled against Israel. Whether these charges are refuted, (as they often are when incorrect), or whether they are condemned, (as they are when accurate,) they are always taken seriously. I have never seen charges summarily dismissed or made fun of as though they do not exist until today.

For all the lip service you pay towards a universal hate of racism you seem to take some forms much more seriously than others, Violet. Speaking (proudly) as one of the more obnoxious and (often hilariously) acid voices on this forum I am nonetheless shocked at the casual attitude you seem to have at rising instances of anti-semitism. Both yourself and Englander have described my posts as "poison" in the past yet I have never written anything approaching the capriciousness that you have exhibited here. I honestly never thought you truly had it in you. Well, wrong again Shak... What can I say?

[breakaleg]

29. I'm sure violet will come an defend herself but you clearly missed the point of her post.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

34. i got it, hey did you hear about....

the palestinians in their "concentration camps?.......got a great joke about them "all being on diets"......how about those nazi idf guys always shooting indiscriminatly in to those massive non violent protests...hah hah...hah...

got lots more about all those palestenians running in to israeli bombs.....i mean israel sends a warning about where they're going to bomb...and what do they do?..they run over to the place?.....sure are abunch of "fun loving people over there......

i'm sure you got the point......just as i understand violets point......

[Englander]

54. More poisonous accusations?

And more evidence of a lack of basic reading skills?

The ridiculous claim that was being ridiculed;

15. i don't know about hating israel,

but from what i've read antisemitism is running rampant in many parts of europe -- france, britain and germany among others. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=172876&mesg_id=172891

[Violet_Crumble]

68. You have no clue as to what I think...

It's abundantly clear from yr post that you missed the entire point of my post. I was reacting to the word *rampant* and was NOT trying to dismiss antisemitism.

[cubs4life]

92. Self-deleted.

[rinsd]

102. "reacting to the word *rampant* and was NOT trying to dismiss antisemitism"

How lucky that word rampant was there, otherwise I would have missed this one time tutting of claims of anti-semiticism.

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

103. Try looking up the definition of the word rampant. It might help you out

Better yet, I'll do it for you just to make sure you know what it means...

Adj. 1. rampant - unrestrained and violent; "rampant aggression"
uncontrolled - not being under control; out of control; "the greatest uncontrolled health problem is AIDS"; "uncontrolled growth"


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rampant

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

22. Please define "running rampant".

Is that amount more, or less, than the amount of completely barking bullshit that gets posted on
American internet discussion forums? Is it more, or is it less? Less, or more? More, or less?

[dottym]

45. i did in post 34.

[Englander]

52. No, you didn't.

[dottym]

61. so oriana fallaci was islamaphobic? not

everyone feels that way, but you're entitled to your opinion.

how about these?

http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jan/05-93928.html


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/antisemitism/antisemitism_europe.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I'm sure other Islamophobes wouldn't feel that way...

..but I'm stunned that anyone else would think she wasn't a bigot. Are you aware of what she said about Islam? I'm guessing you mustn't be as I'm sure you wouldn't have claimed that she wasn't if you knew what she'd said. And if you have read what's she's said about Islam, could you explain why referring to Islam as a 'pool that never purifies' isn't an example of Islamophobia?

[dottym]

76. i think she was a very bright woman

who spoke her mind. so islamophobes are bad but antisemites are okay. back to my post where i cited other sources of antisemitism. do you choose to just ignore them?


http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Jan/05-93928.html

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/antisemitism/antisemitism_europe.htm

[dottym]

77. maybe oriana saw and heard about

too many cases like this.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OKGBA80&show_article=1


i'm not saying that islamophobia is right, but she was entitled to her opinion.

[dottym]

79. from 60 minutes. a jihadist reforms

take a look at this and you might understand why some people are paranoid (not necessarily islamophobic).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/60minutes/main2602308_page2.shtml

snip


The position of moderate Muslims is that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Do you buy that?" Simon asks.

"No, absolutely not. By completely being in denial about it's like an alcoholic basically. Unless an alcoholic acknowledges that he has a problem with alcohol, he's never gonna be able to go forward," Butt argues. "And as long as we, as Muslims, do not acknowledge that there is a violent streak in Islam, unless we acknowledge that, then we are gonna always lose the battle to the militants, by being in complete denial about it."

[dottym]

78. check the other 2 links. n/t

[oberliner]

47. US and Canada as well

These are some incidents from the past month or so:

Vandals strike Jewish cemetery

SAN BERNARDINO - Caretakers of a historic Jewish cemetery have seen a variety of vandalism over the decades.

Vandals have kicked over gravestones, etched swastikas and even left human feces inside mausoleums at the Home of Eternity Cemetery on Sierra Way.

But the damage hit home on Monday for Maurine Rothstein, who came to deliver flowers and discovered someone had smashed the crypt of her husband's grandparents.

The discovery came on Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day.

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5691791

Police investigating swastika graffiti as possible hate crime

The discovery of a swastika on a wall of San Francisco's largest synagogue on the eve of Passover is being investigated as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.

Someone apparently used blue spray paint to apply a 10-inch symbol on a wall of Temple Emanu-El on Lake Street as early as Sunday, said Rabbi Stephen Pearce, the congregation's senior rabbi.

A passer-by noticed the swastika Monday and notified the congregation at about 11 a.m. Temple officials called police, who took pictures of the swastika before it was painted over, Pearce said Monday evening, the first night of Passover.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/03/BAGJEP0J861.DTL

Richmond synagogue defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti

A Richmond synagogue was defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti Sunday while the Jewish community across Canada was marking Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Richmond RCMP and the B.C. Hate Crimes Unit are investigating the attack at the Beth Tikvah Synagogue on Geal Road.

The graffiti included a picture of a hanging man, with the word Jew written over it, as well as swastikas, and anti-Jewish profanity.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4b7831ab-58c4-4020-a5e4-b5c82a115208

Rabbi: Swastika painted on Yonkers synagogue a 'hate crime'

YONKERS - Jewish and Christian religious leaders decried the painting of a red swastika on a Yonkers synagogue today.

The swastika was discovered on an exterior wall at Temple Emanu-El, 306 Rumsey Road, at 5:24 a.m. The vandalism comes just five days before congregation members, along with Jews all over the world, begin observing the weeklong holiday of Passover on Monday.

Rabbi Allen Kaplan of Temple Emanu-El said that the congregation has experienced nothing like this during its 40 years in the building.

"This is a hate crime," he said. "They chose a swastika, a red swastika. That is a statement. This is a hate crime."

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/NEWS02/703280419/1018/NEWS02

Jewish Center In Montreal Bombed

Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - A small homemade bomb exploded outside a Jewish community center in Montreal Tuesday night, sparking increased fears among a Jewish community that already felt it was the target of escalating racial hatred.

The attack came amid the biblical Jewish festival of Passover, and just two days before the anniversary of the 2004 firebombing of a Jewish elementary school in Montreal.

Police officials told the AP that the bomb used in Tuesday's attack was relatively small and caused little damage. Security tapes are being reviewed in an effort to determine if the bombing was a racial hate crime, one police spokesman said.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006958508

Swastika found on Jewish frat

Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity members awoke yesterday morning to find a black swastika spray-painted on the back of their fraternity house.

State College police said they are investigating the incident but would not comment further. Fraternity members said police arrived at about 2 p.m. yesterday at the house, 240 E. Prospect Ave.

Alpha Epsilon Pi is a national Jewish fraternity. At Penn State, Alpha Epsilon Pi has both Jewish and non-Jewish members, according to fraternity members, who suspect the vandalism happened early yesterday morning.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/04/04-19-07tdc/04-19-07dnews-13.asp

[Lurking Dem]

56. Those were all valid protests against Israeli apartheid.

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Of course no-one else but you has made that sort of ridiculous claim n/t

[Lurking Dem]

105. .

[pelsar]

82. perhaps in stead of "rampant"

try using "rampant lite".......

The DU has a certain flexibility in using words to describe israel (concentration camp "like"...."apartheid lite", genocical characteristics. etc.....so i would guess it can go the other way as well.

dont know if you want to use "german 1930's like" for a description....or perhaps "potential genocidal actions" but i'm sure we can find the appropriate terminology.

[Tom Joad]

17. yeah... right. the intifidah has all been staged. Right.

just like the moon landing too. uh huh.

[henank]

19. British journalists themselves object to the boycott

Chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Israel, Simon McGregor-Wood agrees: "The resolutions seem to go against some of the core ethics of journalism that we are here to protect, such as balance and objectivity. I don't think any representative body of journalists should be taking a side."

Even the Guardian's own editor objects. From the same article:

"The Guardian disapproves of these kinds of boycotts and does not think they serve a useful purpose. It was a misguided motion."

Haaretz

Judging by the numbers involved in the vote, it was only a tiny proportion of the NUJ who took part in the vote and got the boycott passed.

The Jerusalem Post reports that most UK journalists are simply ignoring the boycott.

JPost

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cubs4life]

57. It's interesting how those that beat the drums most about

Israeli apartheid and the actions of the Israeli government always accuse others of "twisting" their words or lack of understanding and reading comprehension.

Why do you continue to dance around the issue of anti-Semitism when it involves violence against Jewish individuals that are not actively involved in supporting Israel or Israeli policies? You know, like say for instance, walking down a street in France while being Jewish? If you constantly have to "defend" yourselves one might come to the conclusion that you "doth protest too much."

As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant and Lord knows sunlight is needed regularly in the I/P forum.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Huh? Who are you talking to?

Maybe you should go and read the thread and then try to add something to it that makes a shred of sense?

[cubs4life]

91. Self-deleted.