US State Passes Law Defining Any Criticism of Israel as ‘Anti-Semitic’ Just As They Kill 60 Civilians

israelisrael

The news that Israel killed more than 60 Palestinians on Monday alone, has sparked criticism from Americans who are frustrated with the United States’ failure to hold one of its closest allies accountable for the human rights violations it is committing—and individuals in one state will soon be labeled as “anti-Semitic” for openly voicing their opinion.

South Carolina will become the first state to legally define criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism” when a new measure goes into effect on July 1, targeting public schools and universities. While politicians have tried to pass the measure as a standalone law for two years, they finally succeeded temporarily by passing it as a “proviso” that was slipped into the 2018-2019 budget.

According to the text of the measure, the definition of “anti-Semitism” will now include:

  • a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
  • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
  • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
  • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  • multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

As can be determined by the long list of ways in which South Carolina will now define “anti-Semitism,” individuals will be forced to tiptoe around a legitimate subject, and expressing an opinion that is no longer considered politically correct can now be legally used against them.

Calling out this bill is not antisemitic, it is pro free speech. Criticizing the Israeli government as well as any other government is the right and duty of all free humanity. Just as TFTP advocates for the freedom of Americans, we advocate for the freedom of Israelis and the Palestinians. Only through discussion and peaceful criticism will peace ever be achieved.

What’s more, even the chief of the IDF would be considered in violation of this law because in 2016, he gave a speech comparing the “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

For as long as this bill has been proposed, it has been criticized by many who argue that it infringes on Americans’ First Amendment rights. With the measure currently focusing on public universities, it has left protesters concerned that it will hurt one group while allegedly helping another. Caroline Nagel, a professor at the University of South Carolina, told The State that she is concerned the law will discourage discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will hinder pro-Palestine student groups.

This bill, I fear, will silence professors and student groups who are trying to explain and to give voice to a diversity of opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am frankly baffled as to why any legislator would consider an ideal to curtail our freedom of speech,” Nagel said.

The United States is a country that prides itself on the “freedom and democracy” it has shared with other foreign nations over the years, and there is no doubt that if the governments in Syria, Iran or Russia were openly shooting and killing civilian protesters, the U.S. would be calling for war and championing a full-scale invasion.

But when Israel shoots and kills 60 civilians and injures around 1,700 in just one day, the U.S. responds to the bloodshed by blocking the United Nations Security Council’s attempt to push for an independent investigation into Israel’s actions.

Unfortunately, the idea that Israel should be exempt from criticism, and that all of its actions are automatically justified—when a very different standard applies to its neighbors—is nothing new in the United States.

As The Free Thought Project reported, 41 other members of Congress came together to champion proposed legislation in July 2017 that would “make literal criminals of any Americans boycotting Israel—a brazen, if not explicit, attack on the BDS Movement, incidentally exploding in popularity worldwide as the belligerent nation continues its occupation of Palestinian lands.”

Then when a hurricane caused massive destruction in Texas in October 2017, residents in Dickinson received a notice from the city that they would only receive funds to repair their homes if they agreed “not to boycott Israel.”

The new measure in South Carolina may focus on public universities right now, but it is setting a blueprint for other states to follow, and in addition to chipping away at the First Amendment, it is serving as a clear reminder that the United States only seems to care about oppressive governments who commit human rights violations when those governments are not considered “close allies.”

DASH cryptocurrency and The Free Thought Project have formed a partnership that will continue to spread the ideas of peace and freedom while simultaneously teaching people how to operate outside of the establishment systems of control like using cryptocurrency instead of dollars. Winning this battle is as simple as choosing to abstain from the violent corrupt old system and participating in the new and peaceful system that hands the power back to the people. DASH is this system.

DASH digital cash takes the control the banking elite has over money and gives it back to the people. It is the ultimate weapon in the battle against the money changers and information controllers.

If you’d like to start your own DASH wallet and be a part of this change and battle for peace and freedom, you can start right here. DASH is already accepted by vendors all across the world so you can begin using it immediately.

Source Article from https://thefreethoughtproject.com/israel-kills-dozens-civilians-state-passes-law-labeling-criticism-anti-semitic/

South Carolina passes law defining any criticism of Israel as ‘anti-semitic’ while Israel murders 60 unarmed civilians

US censorship israel

    

As many Americans criticize the number of civilian deaths on the Gaza Strip, a state has passed a measure labeling criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism.”

The news that Israel killed more than 60 Palestinians on Monday alone, has sparked criticism from Americans who are frustrated with the United States’ failure to hold one of its closest allies accountable for the human rights violations it is committing-and individuals in one state will soon be labeled as “anti-Semitic” for openly voicing their opinion.

South Carolina will become the first state to legally define criticism of Israel as “anti-Semitism” when a new measure goes into effect on July 1, targeting public schools and universities. While politicians have tried to pass the measure as a stand-alone law for two years, they finally succeeded temporarily by passing it as a “proviso” that was slipped into the 2018-2019 budget.

According to the text of the measure, the definition of “anti-Semitism” will now include:

  • a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
  • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
  • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
  • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  • multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

As can be determined by the long list of ways in which South Carolina will now define “anti-Semitism,” individuals will be forced to tiptoe around a legitimate subject, and expressing an opinion that is no longer considered politically correct can now be legally used against them.

Calling out this bill is not antisemitic, it is pro free speech. Criticizing the Israeli government as well as any other government is the right and duty of all free humanity. Just as TFTP advocates for the freedom of Americans, we advocate for the freedom of Israelis and the Palestinians. Only through discussion and peaceful criticism will peace ever be achieved.

What’s more, even the chief of the IDF would be considered in violation of this law because in 2016, he gave a speech comparing the “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

For as long as this bill has been proposed, it has been criticized by many who argue that it infringes on Americans’ First Amendment rights. With the measure currently focusing on public universities, it has left protesters concerned that it will hurt one group while allegedly helping another. Caroline Nagel, a professor at the University of South Carolina, told The State that she is concerned the law will discourage discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will hinder pro-Palestine student groups.

This bill, I fear, will silence professors and student groups who are trying to explain and to give voice to a diversity of opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am frankly baffled as to why any legislator would consider an ideal to curtail our freedom of speech,” Nagel said.

The United States is a country that prides itself on the “freedom and democracy” it has shared with other foreign nations over the years, and there is no doubt that if the governments in Syria, Iran or Russia were openly shooting and killing civilian protesters, the U.S. would be calling for war and championing a full-scale invasion.

But when Israel shoots and kills 60 civilians and injures around 1,700 in just one day, the U.S. responds to the bloodshed by blocking the United Nations Security Council’s attempt to push for an independent investigation into Israel’s actions.

Unfortunately, the idea that Israel should be exempt from criticism, and that all of its actions are automatically justified-when a very different standard applies to its neighbors-is nothing new in the United States.

As The Free Thought Project reported, 41 other members of Congress came together to champion proposed legislation in July 2017 that would “make literal criminals of any Americans boycotting Israel-a brazen, if not explicit, attack on the BDS Movement, incidentally exploding in popularity worldwide as the belligerent nation continues its occupation of Palestinian lands.”

Then when a hurricane caused massive destruction in Texas in October 2017, residents in Dickinson received a notice from the city that they would only receive funds to repair their homes if they agreed “not to boycott Israel.”

The new measure in South Carolina may focus on public universities right now, but it is setting a blueprint for other states to follow, and in addition to chipping away at the First Amendment, it is serving as a clear reminder that the United States only seems to care about oppressive governments who commit human rights violations when those governments are not considered “close allies.”

Rachel Blevins is an independent journalist from Texas, who aspires to break the false left/right paradigm in media and politics by pursuing truth and questioning existing narratives. Follow Rachel on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Steemit and Patreon.

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/385733-South-Carolina-passes-law-defining-any-criticism-of-Israel-as-anti-semitic-while-Israel-murders-60-unarmed-civilians

Knesset Endorses Bill Defining Israel as “Nation for Jews”



 


The Israeli parliament’s Ministerial Committee for Legislation this week approved the long-delayed “Nation State Bill” for its first reading, which, when passed, will further restrict immigration to Jews only, and enshrine Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.”

The bill will now go to the Knesset plenum for a preliminary vote, following which it will be combined with a Justice Ministry version of the bill. The ministry has 60 days to draft its own version of the bill.

The so-called Nationality Law will create a Basic Law, similar to a Constitutional law, stating that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Under such a Basic Law, Israeli law must be interpreted according to this principle.

The bill also would make Hebrew the country’s official language, with Arabic being given “special status.”

It also addresses such issues as national symbols including the flag and the national anthem, as well as the right of return for Jews, holy sites and the Hebrew calendar. It also calls for the government to work to strengthen ties between Israel-Diaspora Jewry.

Amir Ohana, the committee’s chair, called it the “law of all laws”, while a government minister termed it “Zionism’s flagship bill”.

The Basic Law also paves the way for the Israeli government to consolidate and expand the annexation of Palestinian lands under occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and stymie any legal moves intended to prevent such efforts.

The final version approved this week demotes the status of Arabic, the language of all “Israeli Arabs,” so that it is no longer an official language alongside Hebrew.

Tourism Minister Yariv Levin, said of the bill that “It will bring order, clarify what is taken for granted and put Israel back on the right path. A country that is different from all others in one way—that it is the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

Arabic is already almost invisible in most public spaces in Israel. Some 93 percent of Israel’s land is already reserved exclusively for the Jewish people around the world, not Israel’s citizens. The Law of Return already allows only Jews to immigrate.

At the same time, Israel is drafting legislation that would strip tens of thousands of Palestinians of their residency rights in occupied East Jerusalem, while annexing parts of the West Bank to Jerusalem to skew the city’s demography towards a solid Jewish majority.

The Knesset last week a law empowering the government to expel Palestinians from Jerusalem.

The new Basic Law includes all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and gives the Jewish people alone a right to self-determination in the region.

Source







RELATED ARTICLES


Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheEuropeanUnionTimes/~3/UKukOEv8Bzs/

Crying Wolf (Again): UN Chief Warns Global Warming Is “The Defining Threat Of Our Time”

Speaking to attendees at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (shown) warned that the world may have only five years to Doomsday, unless concerted action is taken to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. Climate change, said Guterres, is “the defining threat of our time,” and requires concerted action by the international community.

“There’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate,” he insisted. The UN honcho was addressing the 23rd annual “Conference Of the Parties”(COP23) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was scheduled to run from November 6-17. However, as with virtually all UN conferences and summits, it ran into overtime, wrapping up early in the morning on Saturday, November 18, around dawn.

Before ascending to his current position as secretary-general of the United Nations, otherwise known as the corrupt Dictators Club, Guterres had distinguished himself as a lifelong Marxist-globalist, becoming secretary-general of the Socialist Party of Portugal, prime minister of Portugal, and president of the worldwide Socialist International. As UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Guterres was a top architect of the disastrous (and still ongoing) “refugee” tsunami that flooded Europe with over one million (mostly Muslim) migrants from the Middle East and Africa in 2015.



If just a handful of our 600,000 monthly readers donated one dollar, I could easily crush my modest yearly fundraising goal of $10,000 by January 31 2018. If you value the information on this site and have the means, please consider making a donation below. Your support will help us expand, keep ads off the site and buy out any remaining advertising contracts we have with vendors. No contribution is too small and will undoubtedly go towards the many expenses this site incurs. If would like to learn more about our mission, please visit our manifesto here.

Thank you so much for your support,
Thomas Dishaw Editor @ Gov’t Slaves



Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/2017/11/crying-wolf-un-chief-warns-global-warming-defining-threat-time/

Sex CAN move mountains; salmon mating habits alter stream beds, defining the shape of the watershed

Image: Sex CAN move mountains; salmon mating habits alter stream beds, defining the shape of the watershed

(Natural News)
It turns out that sex – not love – has the power to literally move mountains.

Washington State University’s School of the Environment associate professor and researcher Alex Fremier has discovered that the mating habits of the fish species salmon can bring changes to the profiles of stream beds, thus altering the entire composition of a particular watershed.

The study is one of the first to show in a quantitative manner that the activities of salmon can have an effect on the geographical appearance of the land.

In the study that was titled “Sex that moves mountains: The influence of spawning fish on river profiles over geologic timescales” that was published in the journal Geomorphology, Fremier says female salmon “fluff” soil and gravel on a river bottom as they create their nests, or redds. Flooding then does away with the stream gravel, resulting in the underlying rock being open to erosion.

The salmon aren’t just moving sediment. They’re changing the character of the stream bed, so when there are floods, the soil and gravel is more mobile,” Fremier says.

In collaboration with colleagues at the University of Idaho and Indiana University, Fremier was able to analyze the physical profile of streams that have salmon in them. He noticed that over a period of five million years, those streams gradually started having lower slopes and elevation.

Any lowering of the streambed translates upstream to lower the entire landscape,” Fremier says.

In an article that was published in the journal Nature Geoscience in 2012, researchers gave a clear picture of how the banks of shallow rivers and streams in a certain landscape were easily eroded before the area was populated by trees more than 300 million years ago.

Fortunately, tree roots stabilized river banks, giving rise to narrow, fixed channels and vegetated islands. The new setting thereby brought forward “an increasingly diverse array of organisms”.

In the same manner, salmon can be giving rise to new stream habitats that facilitate the growth and development of new salmon species. This is why streams where the number of salmon have been constantly dropping may find themselves the subject of significant long-term changes in their profile and ecology.

The evolution of a watershed can be influenced by the evolution of a species,” Fremier says.

Different salmon species bring about different effects. Chinook salmon can move bigger pieces of material, while coho salmon gravitate towards moving finer material. This diversity in movement can lead to different erosion rates and changes to the landscape, Fremier says.

State of Alaska wants to scrap petition to ban projects on salmon habitats

The State of Alaska filed an appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court on Friday, October 20 over the proposed ballot initiative 17FSH2, which was filed by the non-profit organization (NGO) Stand for Salmon in May 2017.

Stand for Salmon said the proposed ballot initiative seeks to strengthen how salmon habitats are protected, noting, “The initiative proposes simple updates to Alaska’s 61-year-old fish habitat permitting law by establishing clear guidelines that would bring certainty and stability to the permitting process, protecting wild salmon habitat and promoting responsible resource development in a growing and changing Alaska.”

However, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott, as recommended by the Department of Law, refused to certify the ballot in September, saying that it is unconstitutional because “the measure precludes the use of even a single waterway for a major development project. Because waters and fish are state assets, only the legislature has authority to choose between conservation and development.”

Stand for Salmon sued the state after Mallot refused to certify the proposed ballot initiative. Anchorage Superior Court Judge Mark Rinder earlier this month sided with the NGO, saying that 17FSH2 was constitutional and ordering Mallott’s office to print petition booklets for circulation throughout the state “and make them available to initiative sponsors no later than Oct. 17, 2017.”

The state Department of Law was quick to say that petition booklets were printed and given to initiative sponsors. (Related: Wild Salmon to be Extinct in 10 Years.)

According to Alaska Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth, in answer to the superior court’s decision, “The question of whether a proposed ballot initiative makes an appropriation is an important constitutional question that should be answered by the Alaska Supreme Court.

We take no position on whether 17FSH2 is good policy. This is about the superior court’s legal conclusion and our duty to defend the Alaska Constitution, and we believe the superior court got it wrong.”

The Department of Law responded that the State “will request expedited consideration by the Alaska Supreme Court in order to provide clarity before ballots have to be printed for next year’s elections.”

Read more stories about ecological science at Ecology.news.

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

KTUU.com

 

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-22-sex-can-move-mountains-salmon-mating-habits-alter-stream-beds-defining-the-shape-of-the-watershed.html

Trump’s defining moments

By Lawrence Davidson

Moment one

In the last few weeks President Donald Trump has gone through a series of defining moments in which his disturbing rhetorical reactions to historical developments have opened a window on his sense of the world and the nation.

Let’s pick up the story on Friday 11 August. On that day the New York Times (NYT) announced “Conservatives relish the ‘fury’ in Trump’s talk”. A blurb for the article said, “Fans of tough rhetoric see a promised kept”. The reference was to Trump’s suggestion that he would respond to any North Korean aggression with a counterattack of “fire and fury”. Maybe he would even consider a pre-emptive strike.

The “fire and fury” talk seems to have been a spontaneous, uncensored display of what President Trump would do to North Korea if not precariously held in check by select others – perhaps certain Republican Party leaders and military advisers – who will now try to sublimate the president’s belligerency into a new strategy for Afghanistan. 

As is typical of spontaneous responses, the “fire and fury” outburst was contextualised not by historical facts or thought-out policy, but rather by the uninhibited personality of the responder.

At this point it should be noted that it has taken centuries to mature a set of diplomatic rules and practices which even now only just manages to keep the aggressive behaviour of most nation-states in check. To see the president of the United States treat that history as if it meant little is chilling. Just as chilling is the response of the president’s “base”.

… the “fire and fury” outburst was contextualised not by historical facts or thought-out policy, but rather by the uninhibited personality of the responder [i.e. Donald Trump].

Trump’s belligerent rhetoric exhilarated his “die hard” (pun intended) supporters, who obviously have the “bring ‘em on” attitude made famous by George W. Bush. The NYT kept referring to this group as “conservatives” who saw Trump’s aggressiveness as a “promise fulfilled”. Many of them proclaimed that they did not fear a nuclear war with North Korea because, living in places like Colorado, Arizona and Georgia, they saw themselves sufficiently isolated from the danger of nuclear attack and, apparently, to hell with other Americans – particularly those cursed city dwellers. Among those exhilarated by the president’s words was “the conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh”, who proclaimed that the US finally had a real man in the White House after eight years of Barak Obama, whom he referred to as a “pajama boy who wears mom jeans who can barely throw a baseball”.

The NYT is wrong in its “conservative” attribution. What is revealed here is not conservatism, which by definition implies a certain reserved and disciplined posture. What the NYT was really describing is the behaviour of right-wing extremists, from the president on down. This fact was confirmed on the following day.

Moment two

On Saturday 12 August, white supremacist groups ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to neo-Nazis showed up in Charlottesville, Virginia, to demonstrate against the removal of a Confederate monument, and ended up in violent clashes with counter-demonstrators. Both sides stand for easily recognisable, if somewhat stereotypical, opposing cultural programmes: the white supremacists demand a white-dominated America with archaic racist values, segregation and the elimination of any ethnic programmes of upper mobility or immigration policies that might cause a threat to white privilege. The counter-demonstrators stand for an America of greater diversity, equal opportunity, desegregation and an array of other progressive values. 

President Trump was slow to react to the Charlottesville violence. Perhaps he was initially rendered speechless at witnessing a truly “deplorable” subset of his “base” suddenly showing up at a broadcast riot in a Virginia college town. How would the real Trump respond?

He ended up hedging. Under great pressure from both Republicans and Democrats, Trump begrudgingly condemned klansmen and neo-Nazis as “bad people” but simultaneously insisted that (1) also demonstrating on the side of the bad guys were a lot of “very fine people” and (2) both sides must be blamed for the violence. Though he and his advisers might not have realised it, in the eyes of the greater public Trump’s position put him, de facto, on the side of the Klan and the neo-Nazis. 

The Ku Klux Klan and various similar groups have always been extremist expressions of a broader, historically rooted, racist expression of American culture. This cultural “ideal” is juxtaposed against a more cosmopolitan, open and liberal America. Up until the time of the US Civil War, racist culture predominated, with its most extreme expression being in the slaveholding south. After the Civil War, that territorial stronghold was destroyed, and despite the ultimate failure of “reconstruction” the culture of racism began a long and very slow decline. However, it has never disappeared entirely and what happened in Charlottesville tells us that this reactionary vision is capable of at least a temporary resurgence when given political encouragement. That is what President Trump’s this-is-the-real-me response has done. 

Conclusion

In the last few weeks Donald Trump has shown himself willing to almost offhandedly ignore 200 years of the world’s diplomatic history and decades of his own nation’s progressive cultural development. This display of historical ignorance and spontaneous stupidity reminds one of Edmund Burke’s warning against men with “intemperate minds”.

It has also drawn ever more sharply the cultural divide now facing the United States. Do Americans really want a return to the racism signified not only by the Klan and its ilk, but also by the ongoing upsurge in police violence against African-Americans? Do Americans really want a reaffirmation of a monopolistic white culture that, through Trump’s immigration policy, would destroy the historical contribution of numerous ethnic groups in making a progressive multicultural society?

Most Americans, if pressed to take a side, would probably stand against the real Donald Trump revealed by these recent defining moments. However, in order for them to effectively take that stand, there needs to be a political alternative – an institutional choice that allows for the political defeat of the right-wing radicals. When we look around for that alternative, all we find is a dysfunctional Democratic Party, which, under its present leadership, has proven incapable of checking the reactionary trend besetting the nation.

So, the US is in both political and cultural limbo. Its citizens are left asking if Donald Trump’s defining moments will also define their own future.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Source Article from http://www.redressonline.com/2017/08/trumps-defining-moments/