Sunday, September 08, 2013

Another Judicial Victory for the Israeli Fascist Left

steven plaut
For years we have been relaying reports about the assault against freedom of speech by Israel's anti-democratic Left. We have also been reporting on the many incidents in which the Israeli judicial system operates out of political bias to suppress freedom of speech. In Israel a dual justice system is allowed to operate - one for leftists and the other for everyone else. But I doubt that any of those previous reports could have prepared anyone for the perfidious ruling by Judge Raphael Yaakobi in Jerusalem court this past week. Not only did Yaakobi defend the naked defamation of a Zionist student group by far-leftist anti-democratic radicals. The judge went beyond that and for all intents and purposes proclaimed Zionism a form of fascism.

The case in question involves a libel suit filed by the IM TIRTZU Zionist student organization in Israel against a gaggle of far-leftists who set up a facebook page, in which the leftists wrote that Im Tirtzu is a fascist and Nazi-like organization. When the case came to court, the leftists claimed that what they had written was factually correct and dragged in to court as their star witness the hardcore anti-Israel communist professor Zeev Sternhell. Sternhell is a leftwing fascist who opposes freedom of speech (see http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/HebrewU%20-%20Zeev%20Sternhell%20-%20defends%20Leftist%20McCarthyists.htm ). He also has a long history of calling for the suppression of Israeli sovereignty (see http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/HebrewU%20-%20Zeev%20Sternhell%20-%20Calls%20to%20Suppress%20Israeli%20Sovereignty.htm). Sternhell is so anti-Israel that he was granted the Israel prize (see http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/Editorial%20-%20Shaul%20Sadka%20-%20Sternhell%20Israel%20Prize.htm). He is best known for proclaiming that the children of Jewish settlers are Hitler Youth. In court Sternhell claimed that yes of course Im Tirtzu really IS a fascist and Nazi-like organization.

The judge tossed out the libel claim by Im Tirtzu. But he did NOT toss it out while posturing as some sort of free-speech absolutist, one who thinks the courts should NEVER issue judgments against libel. Rather, the politicized judge tossed out the suit because he says that yes Im Tirtzu is a fascist organization. His evidence? Leftwing fascist anti-democratic communist fanatic Zeev Sternhell said so in court! So did a few other far leftist "witnesses."

Now lest anyone mistakenly believe that Israeli courts believe in free speech, let us remind everyone of the court judgment against moi for claiming that the illegal infiltration of Ramallah by Neve Gordon, where he served as human shield for murderers and interfered illegally with Israeli military anti-terror operations while publicly embracing Arafat, made Gordon a judenrat-wannabe. The court, including the Supreme Court, ruled that one cannot use Holocaust era rhetoric in political discourse in Israel, as opposed to all democracies on the planet, and found against me. But when leftwing radicals call Im Tirtzu fascist, a term also from the Holocaust era, this is suddenly protected speech. So is Sternhell's calling settler children Hitler Youth.

In reality, Im Tirtzu is simply a non-partisan Zionist organization, and its activities include things like holding campus protests against pro-Hamas Arab student rallies or picketing the New Israel Fund and its leaders. Since it is simply a Zionist organization, this judge's proclamation that it is a "fascist" group is equivalent to a proclamation that this judge regards Zionism as a form a fascism.

The full story about the court case is here in English (I paste it below): http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.545657

And so one more nail is hammered into what is left of the coffin of freedom of speech in Israel. And once again it is the work of an anti-democratic judge with a selective sense of which freedom of speech deserves protection (that of leftists only!).

This was not the first outrageous court ruling by Judge Raphael Yaakobi. In a previous verdict he ruled that the state of Israel was legally responsible for the death and injury of Arabs involved in firefights with Jews, arguing that Israel inadequately protected the Arabs. See this: http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/terrorism-and-democracy/issue-no-2/damages-for-failure-to-protect-civilians-in-occupied-territories-from-vigilante-reprisals . Earlier this year he let an accused terrorist go scot free after he and his accomplice were arrested on arson and terror charges and his accomplice pled guilty. See http://megafon-news.co.il/asys/archives/133549. Last year after a street brawl involving some Jewish and Arab youths in Jerusalem's Zion Square, the judge sent a Jewish teenager girl to house arrest before trial. See http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/243238 . The girl claimed she had earlier been raped by one of the Arabs. When two Arabs attempted to lynch a religious Jew, the judge refused to watch the security tape of the event and set one of the lynchers free. See http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/212172.

Do not hold your breath for the judge to be impeached. The Netanyahu-chosen Minister of Law these days is Tzipi Livni and she no doubt approves of the verdict. Oh, and since anti-democratic judges in Israel are calling for the criminalization of criticism of court decisions, if you do not hear from me for a few years after this posting, please bake me a cake with a file inside.

Here is the full Haaretz story

Rejecting bulk of libel suit, court rules Im Tirtzu movement can be likened to Fascism

Extra-parliamentary Zionist movement sued a number of left-wing activists who described it a fascist movement in a Facebook page, demanding compensation of NIS 2.6 million.

By Nir Hasson | Sep. 7, 2013 | 9:58 PM |

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

A Jerusalem district court judge rejected the majority of the claims made by the extra-parliamentary Zionist movement Im Tirtzu, voiding null the bulk of charges it filed against five left-wing activists who described it a fascist movement in a Facebook page.

While clearing four of the five defendants (one of whom works at Haaretz) of all charges, the judge ruled one of the Facebook posts in question did constitue slander. Full responsibility for the post, which implied Im Tirtzu concurs with Nazi race theory, was claimed by one of the defendants.

The ruling stated one cannot interpret the phrase 'Im Tirtzu is a Fascist movement' – (a paraphrase of the activists' Facebook page title) as meaning a full correlation exists between the plaintiff and the Fascist movement in its entirety, but, rather, implies certain equivalents exist, and no more.

During the trial, various expert witnesses were called upon by the defense. These included Prof. Zeev Sternhell, who claimed several similarities exist between Im Tirtzu and the Fascist movement in its infancy, Hebrew language expert Rubik Rosenthal, who spoke about the usage of the term 'Fascist' in current-day Israeli discourse, and religions scholar Tomer Persico, who testified about a public talk in which he participated, where Im Tirtzu's founder Ronen Shoval admitted to drawing inspiration and ideas from thinkers such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the German romanticism ideologue regarded as among the precursors of European fascism.

In his final statement, Judge Raphael Yaakobi criticized Im Tirtzu's choice to file charges, opining that in order to ensure a healthy exchange of ideas, it is preferable to allow discourse between embittered political rivals to proceed with the ''least possible restrictions or sanctions''.

Im Tirtzu filed charges against the five some three years ago, demanding compensation of NIS 2.6 million. The movement styles itself as an "extra-parliamentary movement that works to strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel."

Saying it means to appeal in Israel's supreme court, Im Tirtzu issued a response to the court's decision through lawyer Nadav Haetzni:

"Firstly, one must note that one of the defendants was convicted of defamation due to serious incitement that accuses Im Tirtzu of Nazism. That said, this verdict is essentially flawed, and very odd, since it entirely fails to address a substantial part of the legal issues brought before it and presented with great detail during the trial. Choosing to ignore major, central legal aspects, the court got to a point that presents great danger to Israeli democracy; if the high court will not amend this decision, Israel will find itself a place that allows an extreme freedom to defame, a freedom that will allow incitement and delegitimization of public from both sides of the political spectrum. And worse, it will allow every Zionist to be labeled a Fascist. These reasons are why Im Tirtzu means to appeal this verdict in the supreme court."

--
Yisrael Medad

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk