Will
Congress Criminalize Anti-Semitism And Israeli Criticism?
5 December 2009By Stephen Lendman
In the current climate, perhaps given:
-- America's police state laws;
-- no due process or judicial fairness for any state
target;
-- mass illegal surveillance;
-- targeting dissent; and
-- the power of the Israeli Lobby over Congress, the
media, academia, the clergy, and most anyone
confronting them.
During Israel's war on Gaza, only 5 of 535
congressional members dissented on pro-Israeli
resolutions.
On January 8, 2009, the Senate unanimously passed S
10: "A resolution recognizing the right of Israel to
defend itself against attacks from Gaza and
reaffirming the United States' strong support for
Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the
Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process."
On January 9, the House, by a 390 - 5 vote, passed HR
34 "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself
against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United
States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the
Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process." More on
this below.
Then on October 28, Obama signed the expanded 2009
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, some call a stealth war on
free expression and civil liberties. More on this as
well.
Also consider events in Canada, initiated by a body
called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat
Antisemitism (CPCCA), a voluntary association of 22
MPs investigating anti-semitism because, it says:
Its "extent and severity is widely regarded as at its
worst level since the end of the Second World War,"
despite contrary evidence and much to show how Israel
twists opposition to Zionism and its international law
violations to be an attack on Jews.
On October 29, in fact, Reuters reported that:
"Anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States are at a
historic low, with 12 percent of Americans prejudiced
toward Jews, an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey
found" based on polling done from September 26 -
October 4 with a margin of error of plus or minus
2.8%.
ADL said the level of anti-Semitism matched 1998's as
the lowest in the poll's 45-year history. Yet in his
2003 book, "Never Again? The Threat Of The New
Anti-Semitism," national director, Abraham Foxman,
said he's:
"convinced we currently face as great a threat to the
safety of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the
1930s - if not a greater one," contradicted by Cato
Institute research fellow Leon Hadar (writing in the
January 2004 Chronicles) that public opinion polls
"indicate anti-Semitism (both its racial and religious
versions) has been in steep decline in most of Western
Europe...."
Yet various Canadian Jewish organizations, including
Hillel, B'nai Brith, and the Canadian Jewish Congress
cite rising anti-Semitic incidents. On March 31, 2009,
for example, B'Nai Brith Canada claimed Canadian
anti-Semitic incidents rose 8.9% in 2008 over 2007,
with "more than (a) four-fold increase in incidents
over the past decade."
The result gets bodies like CPCCA to exploit it, with
disturbing implications of where this may lead,
including calling opposition to Zionism and Israeli
crimes anti-Semitism, and criminalizing them at a time
the global BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions)
movement is gaining traction in the wake of Operation
Cast Lead and 42 years of military occupation.
CPCCA's web site (cpcca.ca) says:
"In February 2009, parliamentarians from around the
world gathered in London for the inaugural conference
of the Inter-Parliamentary Committee for Combatting
Antisemitism." Over 125 legislators attended from
nearly 40 countries, after which "The London
Declaration for Combating Antisemitism call(ed) on all
governments to face the problem...."
CPCCA is a Canadian body, formed in March 2009 by 22
parliamentarians from all parties in the House of
Commons. An inquiry was begun on June 2 calling for
written submissions followed by public hearings
(excluding anti-Israeli groups) running from November
2 - December 8. When concluded, the Steering Committee
will produce a report for the government, anticipating
a response "no later than the fall of 2010."
Its web site asks: "What is the new anti-semitism,"
saying:
"Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is
always re-invented and manifested in different ways.
For example, while accusations of blood libel are
still being made against the Jewish people, instead
they are being directed against the State of Israel,
such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for
anti-semitism."
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
Founded in 2002, CJPME (cjpme.org) promotes "justice,
peace, prosperity and security for all peoples of the
Middle East," and believes "all positions should
respect international law....violence is not a
solution, (and) all parties in a conflict must be held
to the same standard."
On August 31, 2009, it issued a "Written Submission to
(CPCCA) Concerning Anti-Semitism in Canada," saying:
-- it opposes anti-Semitism;
-- Israeli criticism must not be linked to it; and
-- because of how it's vilified, CJPME fears it will
result in:
-- "a terrifying attack on civil liberties (and free
expression) in Canada, and
-- a total silencing of debate on Israel out of fear
of legal action."
Yet both outcomes would violate "fundamental
protections enumerated in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms," so efforts must be made to
prevent them.
Israel is a secular state, not a proxy for Judaism or
Jews. Many Jews globally, including Israelis, are
extremely critical of government policies with regard
to Occupied Palestine and its own Arab citizens.
According to Ryerson University's Social Justice and
Democracy Professor Judy Rebick:
-- equating Israeli criticism with anti-Semitism "is
based on a claim that the State of Israel is the
single outcome of the history of the Jewish people,
the final end of generations of diasporic existence.
It attempts to make the Zionist project of a Jewish
nation the only legitimate project for all Jews,"
when, in fact, many Jews publicly oppose Zionism and
Israeli policies. Doing so isn't anti-Judaic,
anti-Israeli, or anti-Semitic because they, like
Martin Luther King, believe that:
"True peace is not the absence of violence, but the
presence of justice," an element entirely absent in
how Israelis treat Palestinians and their own Arab
citizens.
Asking why Israel is heavily criticized, CJPME cites
the following:
-- its continued defiling of "the international
consensus for respect for human and humanitarian
rights - as reflected in international law....;"
-- its maintenance of "one of the longest military
occupations in modern history" over Gaza, the West
Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan, and Shebba Farms area
of Lebanon;
-- its repeated violations of international law and UN
resolutions; and
-- its imposition of "elements resembling those of
South African Apartheid."
As a result, it's unsurprising that anti-Semitism
accusations are made to stifle Israeli criticism as a
way to diffuse and perhaps criminalize them. The
possibility worries CJPME enough to say they can't be
used "to infringe on fundamental freedoms enshrined in
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms comprising
Part I of the March 29, 1982 Constitution Act. CJPME
formally petitioned to participate in CPCCA's inquiry
that so far excludes Israeli critics.
"America's Last Taboo"
It was distinguished Palestinian American
activist/scholar Edward Said's title for his New Left
Review November-December 2000 article citing the
"near-total triumph for Zionism in the United States."
Then and now, Israel is cast as victim in a dangerous
neighborhood acting only in self-defense against
"rock-throwing barbarians (comprising) what is
essentially an invasive force. (It's the) Palestinians
who are encroaching on Israeli territory, not the
other way around."
The message is so ingrained that the media repeat it
ad nauseam, and Said more than once said that the
entire US Senate can be marshaled in a matter of hours
to support Israel on virtually anything - even a
wanton attack as malicious as Operation Cast Lead and
numerous previous ones for many decades.
Exhibits A and B: S 10 and HR 34 with near-identical
language saying:
-- "Hamas was founded with the stated goal of
destroying the State of Israel."
Fact Check
Hamas was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada to
resist repression and occupation through negotiation
and international consensus, not war or terrorism as
falsely portrayed. Yet as international law allows, it
strongly defends itself when attacked.
-- "Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of
State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization."
Fact Check
True because any organization or group opposing
imperial aggression and dominance is so designated.
-- "Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements
of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union,
Russia, and the United Nations) that Hamas recognize
Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree
to accept previous agreements between Israel and the
Palestinians."
Fact Check
Hamas repeatedly called for peace and an end of
violence and expressed willingness to negotiate on the
basis of "hudnah" or temporary truce. Its founder,
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said Hamas would end its
liberating struggle "if the Zionists ended (their)
occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped
killing Palestinian women, children and innocent
civilians." More recently, Hamas offered peace and
Israeli recognition in return for a Palestinian state
inside pre-1967 borders, its Occupied Territories.
-- "in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked
Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit,
whom they continue to hold today."
Fact Check
On June 25, Palestinians, including Hamas, responded
to repeated Israeli attacks by striking an Israeli
military post near Kerem Shalom crossing, southeast of
Rafah, killing two IDF soldiers, injuring several
others, and capturing (not kidnapping) a third,
corporal Shalit. Israel's long-planned Operation
Summer Rain followed resulting in mass killings and
destruction ahead of its horrendous July war on
Lebanon, causing over 1,000 deaths and destruction
comparable to Operation Cast Lead.
-- "Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and
mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and
withdrew from Gaza in 2005."
Fact Check
Many dozens, not thousands, of crude homemade rockets
and mortars were used only in self-defense in response
to repeated Israeli attacks with the most
technologically advanced weapons, mostly from
Washington, including F-16s, helicopter gunships, and
powerful munitions, some clearly illegal.
House and Senate resolutions also cite, but don't
substantiate, Iranian help; Hamas locating "elements
of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population
centers, thus using innocent civilians as human
shields," a practice Israel has used for decades; the
threat "hundreds of thousands of Israelis" face from
rocket attacks, giving them no alternative but to
respond.
Dismissive about Gaza's two and a half year siege, the
resolutions stress how "Israel has facilitated
humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and
numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since
December 26, 2008."
It also says "the ultimate goal of the United States
is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that will allow for a viable and independent
Palestinian state living side by side in peace and
security with the State of Israel...."
Fact Check
After Hamas' democratic January 2006 election, Israel,
with Western support, collectively punished Gazans
maliciously. It denied all outside aid, imposed an
embargo and sanctions, and stepped up repression,
repeated attacks, killings, targeted assassinations,
and property destruction, followed by a medieval siege
since June 2007 causing grave humanitarian harm by
restricting essential to life foods, medicines, and
medical equipment as well as electricity, fuel,
construction materials, and virtually everything
needed to function normally.
Israel facilitates misery, not humanitarian aid, peace
or Palestinian self-determination it's spent decades
to deny through violence, intimidation, naked
aggression, confrontation over diplomacy and peaceful
coexistence, and what scholar Joel Kovel calls "a
machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses,"
facilitated by Washington's financial, military, and
political support.
Ending "America's last taboo" is the way forward
toward a viable, sustainable Middle East peace,
possible only when 42 years of occupation end and
Palestinians are again free - so far, what Israel and
Washington won't allow or even consider.
The 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act
The Department of Justice FBI web site (fbi.gov)
defines them as follows:
"A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a
criminal offense committed against a person, property,
or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by
the offender's bias against a race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national
origin."
On April 29, the House passed HR 1913: Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 "To
provide Federal assistance to States, local
jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate
crimes, and for other purposes."
On April 28, S 909: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes
Prevention Act was introduced "to provide Federal
assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian
tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other
purposes."
On July 15, 2009, the measure was adopted as an
amendment to S 1390, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. On July 23,
the full measure passed.
On October 8, the House passed HR 2647: National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
containing hate crimes prevention provisions.
On October 22, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.
Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed, then on October 28,
it became law after president Obama signed it. A same
day New York Times Jeff Zeleny article titled, "Obama
Signs Hate Crimes Bill" said it:
"expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes
to those committed because of a victim's (actual or
perceived) sexual orientation (or identity). Under
existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those
motivated by the victim's race, color, religion or
national origin," even though, short of reading an
offender's mind, there's no way to know if a crime was
committed for other reasons besides "hate."
Further, the bill doesn't repeal the "don't ask, don't
tell" policy, banning gays from the military if they
admit their sexual orientation, or the Defense of
Marriage Act, defining legal marriage to be between a
man and a woman.
In addition, it doesn't address universal civil and
human rights; patients' rights to effective health
care; students' rights to a good education to the
highest level; and everybody's right to the essentials
of life, including safe food, water, and clean air;
adequate shelter; full protection under the law; and
democracy for everyone, not just the elite few.
Nonetheless, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's
largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
advocacy group praised the bill as the "nation's first
major piece of civil rights legislation" for LGBT.
Others called it advancing civil rights, but critics
expressed concerns.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal
alliance partnered with over 300 ministries and
organizations, fears that pastors calling
homosexuality a sin may be linked to a hate crime if a
parishioner harms someone for their sexual
orientation. ADF says it's seen:
"evidence of where 'hate crimes' legislation leads
when it has been tried around the world: It paves the
way for the criminalization of speech that is not
deemed 'politically correct.' (These laws) fly in the
face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment,
which was designed specifically to protect unpopular
speech."
Others fear an attack on dissent against anyone
expressing politically unpopular views at a time of
disdain for human rights and eroding civil liberties
putting everyone at risk.
The new law, however, prosecutes "crimes of violence,"
defined by section 16, title 18, US code as:
(a) "an offense that has an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against the
person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by
its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical
force against the person or property of another may be
used in the course of committing the offense."
Whether new measures will follow bears watching given
a severe economic crisis and the fragility of American
democracy at a time it's transitioning toward a
full-blown police state with noted trends watchers
like Gerald Celente predicting the "greatest
depression" unleashing violence, street crime, and
mass civil unrest because "when people lose
everything, and they have nothing else to lose, they
lose it."
If so, government repression will follow with harsh
police state measures because when powerful people
fear losing what's taken them decades to achieve,
they'll do anything to defend it, including
criminalizing protected speech, dissent, and whatever
threatens their privilege or important allies, none
more valued than Israel.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre
for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and
can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to the Lendman News Hour on
RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US
Central time for cutting-edge discussions with
distinguished guests on world and national issues. All
programs are archived for easy listening.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/Global%20Research/index.php?cmd
=archives.year&ProgramID=33&year=9
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments