ZGram - 6/27/2003 - "Raimondo Blasting the Permit Deniers" :)

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

June 27, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

It is time to feature Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com once more:

THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE

The campaign to criminalize criticism of Israel

Last week, after Israeli targeted Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi - 
and, instead, got a woman passer-by and a three year-old child, while 
27 others were injured. - George W. Bush came out with some very mild 
criticism of Israel:

"I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks. I 
regret the loss of innocent life. I also don't believe that the 
attacks help Israeli security."

From the hysterical reaction, one might have thought that he had 
uttered a blood libel, or suddenly taken to wearing a kaffiyeh. Such 
a commotion! House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), reportedly 
strode into the Oval Office and threatened to push a resolution 
through Congress offering unconditional support to Sharon and 
implicitly rebuking the President.

God forbid the President of the United States should mourn the death 
of a three-year-old child whom the Israelis say was inadvertently 
killed. That this troubles him troubles DeLay - and that is more than 
a little troubling. I mean, what are we talking about here: aren't we 
supposed to be against the taking of innocent life? And why, pray 
tell, shouldn't an American President forbidden say out loud what he 
really thinks about the immoral and self-destructive behavior of a 
foreign government, albeit one that is ostensibly our faithful ally?

We hear constantly about the supposed rise of anti-Semitic sentiments 
in Europe: this is not neo-Nazi activity, or the "old" anti-Semitism 
of the Protocols, but the "new anti-Semitism," which boils down to 
criticism of Israel and its supporters. As officials of the 
Anti-Defamation League recently put it in the Denver Post:

"Today's strain of anti-Semitism usually targets Israel in some form. 
The most socially acceptable way to vent anti-Semitism today is to 
criticize Israel, the only state controlled by Jews, by holding 
Israel to standards not applied to any other country. Of course, it 
is not anti-Semitic to express sympathy with the Palestinian people 
or to disagree with Israeli government policies. But a hateful bias 
is revealed when critics subject Israel, and Israel alone, to 
invective and demonization, while human-rights abuses of other 
countries are overlooked or excused."

If you criticize "the only state controlled by Jews" you aren't 
necessarily anti-Semitic - but you probably are. And just what are 
these standards that Israel alone is held to? Any other country that 
separated out the majority of the population on the basis of 
ethnicity, and subjected them to draconian controls, controlling 
their movements, and keeping them penned up in special ghettos, would 
long ago have been declared an international pariah. How has Israel 
managed to get away with it - and, not only that, but how have they 
managed to go on the offensive, and target their critics as 'bigots"?

Make no mistake about it: they are indeed on the attack, and not only 
in the occupied territories. At a recent international conference on 
anti-Semitism called by the O.S.C.E. , addressed by former New York 
mayor Rudy Giuliani, a number of Orwellian proposals were floated

"Another idea advanced by some delegates that would certainly provoke 
disagreement if it ever became actual policy by O.S.C.E. governments 
was that ways need to be found to control publications and Web sites 
that promote anti-Semitism. One delegate, for example, Jean Kahn, 
president of the Union of French Jewish Communities, argued that the 
Arab television network Al Jazeera fomented anti-Semitism and that it 
should be suppressed."

The American representatives, far from dissenting, sat complicit with 
this totalitarian proposal, and hailed others just as bad if not 
worse. Giuliani, whose Mussolini-like reign in New York City made the 
trains run on time, endorsed the totalitarian spirit of the proposals:

"Words aren't going to suffice to turn the tide of anti-Semitism, 
which is once again growing in Europe and other parts of the world."

Israel's international amen corner is hoping that criticism of the 
Jewish state is now going to be made a "hate crime," at least in 
Europe. So that if harsh words for Ariel Sharon aren't accompanied by 
equally harsh words for, say, Yasser Arafat, the author may find 
him-or -herself fined, jailed, and silenced. The ever-expanding 
definition of "anti-Semitism" is certain to put a chill on Israel's 
critics, as the socialist EU imposes limitations on speech throughout 
the continent: even, now, in England. The campaign to stamp out all 
but the mildest criticism of Israel is also likely to impinge on the 
Internet, as the New York Times reports:

"That idea [the banning of Al Jazeera] was not challenged, given the 
nature of the conference proceedings, but it also did not become a 
main theme of the conference, though worries about the power of the 
Internet to spread anti-Semitism did. 'Hypertexts and cybertexts are 
mostly imitations through which the social deviancy present in 
society speaks,' Jacques Picard, a professor at the University of 
Basel in Switzerland told the conferees. His point was that the ideas 
being expressed on the Internet hate sites are imitations of old 
anti-Semitic notions but that they have gained new force both by the 
power of the Internet and by the anonymity of many of those who use 
it.

'What's new here is that the Internet disseminates these ideas with 
the protection of anonymity,' Mr. Picard said. 'Anonymity should be 
lifted.'"

This pompous frog flapping his lips about "hypertexts and cybertexts" 
is the voice of the new Euro-commies, at once absurd and deadly 
dangerous. "Hate speech" as defined by some committee of commissars 
is a crime throughout Europe, including the once-free British isles, 
as well as Canada. And our own would-be commissars on this side of 
the Atlantic are all too eager to start implementing the same 
totalitarian methods here.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, to its ever-lasting shame, has been 
especially active on this front, leading the charge to enforce and 
extend "hate speech" laws that could never be enacted in the United 
States without first overturning the First Amendment. That hasn't 
happened, as yet. They can get away with banning newspapers and 
prohibiting speech in Iraq on the grounds of an "incitement" to 
violence, but treating U.S. citizens like the inhabitants of a 
conquered province is still out of bounds. For how much longer is an 
open questionŠ.

What really disgusts me is the silence of the so-called 
"libertarians," who are so quick to pounce on instances of 
censorship, both real and imagined, especially when it comes to the 
Internet. Yet a campaign that seeks to ban plain speech about Israel 
and its supporters is ignored. If only Israeli radio had been 
forbidden to play the music of Eminem, perhaps then the gang over at 
Reason might have noticed what's up. And then there's that fearless 
defender of freedom, Glenn Reynolds, who hails the "liberation" of 
Iraq, but can't be bothered to notice a major American politician's 
endorsement of Ba'athist methods. As the Thought Police go after the 
Internet, the fake "libertarians" have nothing to say, because 
they're just soooo wound up over Senator Orrin Hatch's anti-"rave" 
legislation.

The goal of this O.S.C.E. initiative is to apply the same standards 
to criticism of Israel that have been enforced in regard to matters 
of race, religion, and ethnicity. Taki Theodoracopoulos, the British 
columnist and socialite, is now under "investigation" for his 
politically incorrect remarks in The Spectator on Britain's growing 
criminal underclass. In Europe, today, opposition to an open borders 
policy on immigration is for all intents and purposes an illegal act, 
along with displaying Nazi paraphernalia and denying the Holocaust.

The enemies of Israel are supposed to be infused with an ungodly 
hate, and in the socialist utopia of a united Europe, such nasty 
emotions are verboten. This has historically been a leftist idea: if 
we ban hateful expressions, we can socially engineer society in a 
less hateful direction. That's what campus "speech codes" are all 
about. But who really hates whom? Who is trying to shut up whom? And 
who has now arisen to parrot the politically correct thought control 
methods once confined to the multi-culti left? Giuliani is a 
Republican politician, albeit one from New York City, and not just 
any Republican, mind you, but one who has been prominently mentioned 
as a candidate for high national office - as a replacement for Cheney 
on the national ticket, if the Vice President should be felled by 
health problems, or even in the top spot in 2006.

The passage of a constitutional amendment forbidding Giuliani from 
holding any office higher than mayor is, perhaps, just a thought. 
Short of that, however, I cannot think of a single measure that would 
ensure us protection from the draconian designs of Manhattan's El 
Duce, unless it's an outcry from the supposedly oh-so-influential 
"blogosphere," whose yipping and yapping drove Trent Lott from the 
Republican leadership. If only we could somehow shame Giuliani into 
retracting or somehow modifying his rash endorsement of a radically 
anti-American proposal. After all, he's advocating the abolition of 
the First Amendment - and he did it on foreign soil! So, where's the 
outrage, bloggers?

The tactics of the pro-Israel crowd are bound to backfire. Americans 
don't like to be told what they can read, or hear, and they aren't 
easily intimidated, either physically or intellectually. Israel's 
amen corner can scream "anti-Semitism" all they want, but the actions 
of the Israeli government in the West Bank and Gaza are not winning 
them any friends in the U.S.

When the President of the United States can be forced to make an 
abrupt about-face, is it a "hate crime" to point to the power of the 
Israeli lobby? Is it "anti-Semitic" to wonder how and why Tom DeLay 
can threaten the President of the United States, the leader of his 
party - and win? Is it a "conspiracy theory" to observe that Israel 
always gets what it wants from the U.S. government, come hell or high 
water, and to wonder out loud: now, why is that?

Israel's supporters are well-organized and well-funded; what's more, 
they are strategically placed within the Republican coalition, with 
unconditional support for the policies of the ruling Likud party 
coming from fundamentalist Christians and the influential 
neoconservative faction, which dominates the making of foreign policy 
at the highest reaches of this administration. What amounts to an 
Israeli fifth column in the U.S. is not only well-placed, but 
exceedingly militant: they don't just attack their enemies, they go 
for the jugular, branding them with the stain of alleged 
"anti-Semitism" and cutting off all debate. Increasingly, they are 
seeking to use the power of the State to silence their enemies.

Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review, is right on the cutting 
edge of this battle: he recently testified before Congress that 
"one-sided" criticism of Israel in publicly funded institutions of 
higher learning must be banned. Mideast scholars are "anti-American," 
avers Kurtz, especially the followers of Edward Said, and he proposes 
nothing less than a "supervisory board" to conduct investigations of 
scholars who might be guilty of a "hate crime." Senator Rick Santorum 
is also on board this Orwellian campaign to purge the universities of 
voices not amenable to the Amen Corner.

Ruthless, single-minded, and increasingly desperate, Israel's lobby, 
in the U.S. and internationally, is a force for evil. In the realm of 
foreign policy, its advocates are the loudest and the shrillest 
calling for war. In the domestic policy arena, too, the pro-Israel 
camp is increasingly unafraid to call for outright repression. We all 
remember what the outspokenly pro-Israel New York Sun had to say 
about denying a parade permit to the anti-war protests: they opined, 
furthermore, that in the event the protest was allowed to proceed, 
the FBI ought to have shown up and started taking names.

As even a wartime President at the height of his popularity cowers 
before the power of the Lobby, it's almost as if the perpetrators of 
this dangerous nonsense realize that it will provoke real 
anti-Semitism, and fuel the fires of hate - to what end, is hard to 
say. But let them consider, for a moment, the possible consequences 
of their success. This kind of stuff can backfire all too easily on 
the would-be ayatollahs of Middle East scholarship and deniers of 
parade permits.