Saturday, September 25, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Obama goes to church to hear a Muslim speaker!
MSM is not reporting this. Not even Fox News. I fact-checked, and it is true.
WHY DOES THIS “CHRISTIAN” ALWAYS FLOCK TO HEAR THE "MUSLIM" MESSAGE? - by Brigitte de Maubec
Did Obama attend a Protestant church on Sunday because a pro-Palestinian Muslim was invited to speak?
(Sept. 20, 2010) — Yesterday, on Sunday, September 19, 2010, the Obama family attended church for only the third time in a year. They went on foot to the St. John’s Episcopal Church situated across the Lafayette Park.
But what is widely not reported by the White House and the MSM is that on that particular Sunday in that particular church, Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine (see also this), was the guest speaker. He was there to speak on the subject of “Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East.”
Obama goes to church to hear a Muslim speaker! | Read more at The Post & Email
WHY DOES THIS “CHRISTIAN” ALWAYS FLOCK TO HEAR THE "MUSLIM" MESSAGE? - by Brigitte de Maubec
Did Obama attend a Protestant church on Sunday because a pro-Palestinian Muslim was invited to speak?
(Sept. 20, 2010) — Yesterday, on Sunday, September 19, 2010, the Obama family attended church for only the third time in a year. They went on foot to the St. John’s Episcopal Church situated across the Lafayette Park.
But what is widely not reported by the White House and the MSM is that on that particular Sunday in that particular church, Dr. Ziad Asali, M.D., a Muslim, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine (see also this), was the guest speaker. He was there to speak on the subject of “Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East.”
Obama goes to church to hear a Muslim speaker! | Read more at The Post & Email
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
If An American President Were Muslim, Would we Care?
At eMunah Magazine
By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
So Brian Williams asks President Obama what he thinks of the fact that one fifth all Americans believes he is a Muslim. The President gets defensive and sheepishly responds that this issue was put to bed during the campaign.
But let’s ask ourselves an honest question for a moment. If he were a Muslim, would it matter?
If An American President Were Muslim, Would we Care? | eMunah Magazine Read this wonderful article by Rabbi Boteach at eMunah . Section above is just a teaser...
Thursday, September 09, 2010
The supporters of Israel can write for the enemy, but the supporters of "Palestine" simply cannot. According to Wikipedia "It is the mark of good Wikipedia editors to be able to understand and present various POV, including those they find distasteful." By that definition, there are damned few on that side today that can be considered "good Wikipedia editors" Ramallite, was a worthy advocate/adversary, that is, he fought fair. But he does not appear to be editing anymore. Today it is a battlefield. There is no way in hell that the atmosphere at Wiki will contribute to wikilove, let alone ''world'' peace. Do we really need another battleground?
Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to share, not just knowledge, but understanding. It has become anything but... and one of the worst sections of it has to be in what is called the Israeli-Palestinian section. The reason it is so bad is because of the quality of the editors. No longer satisfied to try to achieve high standards of neutrality and honesty, editors attempt to meet the propaganda of one side with the propaganda of the other. But the pro-Israel side is highly under under represented in the area. There may be a lot of Israelis at Wikipedia, as some have claimed, but they are certainly not all editing historical and political articles. In the Israeli-Palestinian area, we are a mere handful against the hoards. We try to edit fairly but are faced with a wall of anti-Israel editors. Further, they are emboldened since they are so numerous, that they are quite willing to let their bias be known without fear of repercussions. [1.] For some reason or other, pro-Israel editors, generally labeled "Zionists," are immediately treated with suspicion and attacked. How is this done? Based on my investigations:
Step one) Identify the enemy (anyone who might edit in the area who has the odor of "Zionism" about him)
Step two) Intimidate him using insults and belittlement, in edit summaries and on the talk page. Revert him or her, suggesting they are a troll, or vandals.
Step three) Initiate personal contact through warnings and threats
Step four) Revert virtually everything the opponent writes, accusing him of bias, ignorance, or poor sourcing
Step five) call in
Step six) With the help of your friends the enemy is hammered enough to make an error, which renders him vulnerable to an administrative process.
Step seven) At the administrative process, all the friends come in and speak to how bad you are, and one or two on your side come in to speak on your behalf. Some of these friends are of course administrators as well, who while they are supposed to be fair, are sometimes frankly biased. Unbiased administrators are mostly unwilling to get involved and those who do will often be intimidated or threatened as well. So there is a very good chance that the hoards will achieve a victory here, and the enemy will at least have a black mark, get a small ban, or better yet, a large one.
Step eight) Always keep your enemy under your watch, by following him or her to virtually every page, reverting and challenging every point. Eventually the enemy will slip up, and more administrative action can be taken.
Step nine) While the enemy is topic or article banned, you insert your POV into as many of the contentious articles as possible.
Step ten) If the editor comes back after this,
Eventually the enemy gets banned for contentious edits and you have the field to yourself! This is the situation these days. As shown by examples such as this, it is possible to delete any article that shows your cause in a bad light, or the other fella's (the I in the I-P conflict area) in a good light. This is just how it is these days.
I edited Wikipedia for a number of years, and the atmosphere now is the worst ever. Most honest warriors have given up and gone home on both sides. What is left is a handful of stalwarts and maybe one or two on their side (though frankly, not so sure about them) but in the main it is bunch of ideologues who battle people not ideas. It is fine to argue honestly, to make a real attempt to compromise to achieve neutrality. We cannot cherry-pick reality to make it fit our wishes. Using sources such as Finklestein to support a historical fact, is like asking that Amadinejad be considered an expert on the Holocaust. It is so bad there now, it is 1984 all over again.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Dershowitz on the Arab Lobby
How to win friends and influence politicians
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
03/09/2010
The Arab lobby, which has no popular support and makes little effort to woo elected officials, profoundly impacts decision-making in the US democracy.
HOW THEN does a lobby with no popular support manage to exert influence in a democratic country? The secret is very simple. The Arab lobby in general and the Saudis in particular make little effort to influence popularly elected public officials, particularly legislators. Again, listen to Bard: “The Saudis have taken a different tact from the Israeli lobby, focusing a top-down rather than bottom-up approach to lobbying. As hired gun J. Crawford Cook wrote in laying out his proposed strategy for the kingdom, ‘Saudi Arabia has a need to influence the few that influence the many, rather than the need to influence the many to whom the few must respond.’” The primary means by which the Saudis exercise this influence is money. They spend enormous amounts of lucre to buy (or rent) former State Department officials, diplomats, White House aides and legislative leaders who become their elite lobbying corps. Far more insidiously, the Saudis let it be known that if current government officials want to be hired following their retirement from government service, they had better hew to the Saudi line while they are serving in the US government.
read on here
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
03/09/2010
The Arab lobby, which has no popular support and makes little effort to woo elected officials, profoundly impacts decision-making in the US democracy.
HOW THEN does a lobby with no popular support manage to exert influence in a democratic country? The secret is very simple. The Arab lobby in general and the Saudis in particular make little effort to influence popularly elected public officials, particularly legislators. Again, listen to Bard: “The Saudis have taken a different tact from the Israeli lobby, focusing a top-down rather than bottom-up approach to lobbying. As hired gun J. Crawford Cook wrote in laying out his proposed strategy for the kingdom, ‘Saudi Arabia has a need to influence the few that influence the many, rather than the need to influence the many to whom the few must respond.’” The primary means by which the Saudis exercise this influence is money. They spend enormous amounts of lucre to buy (or rent) former State Department officials, diplomats, White House aides and legislative leaders who become their elite lobbying corps. Far more insidiously, the Saudis let it be known that if current government officials want to be hired following their retirement from government service, they had better hew to the Saudi line while they are serving in the US government.
read on here
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
The CAMERA decision on Wikipedia
This was written as part of the CAMERA accusation back in May 2008:
I will now rewrite it the way I (and some others) read this:
This was written as part of the CAMERA accusation:
"Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign is the latest, but as Wikipedians now have access to the entire Isra-paedia mail list archives, and plan to publish them more users will be revealed as belonging to this cabal that aimed to violate WP:CANVASS, meatpuppetry rules, and WP:NPOV to follow a pro-Israeli agenda. One admin has in turn threatened to block anyone who does so. Unlike the Durova/!! private mail scenario, these cannot be considered good faith emails in any capacity, but as evidence of planned assault on WP:NPOV. As this information is likely to published somewhere imminently, a lot of Wikipedia editors may be implicated here shortly. This needs review on this level now."
I don't believe these people made the case in the CAMERA case, excuse the pun. The decision ban people based on a private mailing list that was made public by the highly partisan group "Electronic Intifada" is really outrageous. The use of the word cabal is highly judgmental and ironic coming as it does from a group called the Electronic Intifada. It is also a highly charged word, but apparently the powers that were saw nothing offensive about it, seeing as how they were sitting comfortably in judgment, rather than being the judged. The group made an assumption about the original intent of the so-called "cabal" and they did not use the original CAMERA email which went out to ALL members of Wikipedia and was perfectly appropriate, just offering to help train people to help Israel get its voice heard in Wikipedia? What's wrong with that anyway? It is a party to a 2-way conflict, of course it is important that its voice is heard! Balance is part of NPOV.
There was never an assumption of good faith. Virtually all of the "offending" emails were written by one individual, yet any one who had edited Wikipedia was given long sentences. CAMERA and every editor that received an email after that first letter was held responsible for everything said in other peoples' emails. All sorts of people were "outed," as well as shamed for their views ("evidence of a planned assault on Wikipedia"). While some (more like 1) may have planned an "assault" - I don't think one recruit ever made it to Wikipedia. Too bad, since many were highly educated people who would have a lot to offer. People should be banned on the basis of their own behavior (at Wiki), not the basis of what they say off-Wiki, in privately leaked emails, on groups and forums, or with whom they associate. How chilling is that? That is what happened with that BAD CAMERA decision. I hope Wikipedia rethinks and reverses that decision.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign is the latest, but as Wikipedians now have access to the entire Isra-paedia mail list archives, and plan to publish them more users will be revealed as belonging to this cabal that aimed to violate WP:CANVASS, meatpuppetry rules, and WP:NPOV to follow a pro-Israeli agenda. One admin has in turn threatened to block anyone who does so. Unlike the Durova/!! private mail scenario, these cannot be considered good faith emails in any capacity, but as evidence of planned assault on WP:NPOV. As this information is likely to published somewhere imminently, a lot of Wikipedia editors may be implicated here shortly. This needs review on this level now. (found here)
I will now rewrite it the way I (and some others) read this:
This was written as part of the CAMERA accusation:
"Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign is the latest, but as Wikipedians now have access to the entire Isra-paedia mail list archives, and plan to publish them more users will be revealed as belonging to this cabal that aimed to violate WP:CANVASS, meatpuppetry rules, and WP:NPOV to follow a pro-Israeli agenda. One admin has in turn threatened to block anyone who does so. Unlike the Durova/!! private mail scenario, these cannot be considered good faith emails in any capacity, but as evidence of planned assault on WP:NPOV. As this information is likely to published somewhere imminently, a lot of Wikipedia editors may be implicated here shortly. This needs review on this level now."
I don't believe these people made the case in the CAMERA case, excuse the pun. The decision ban people based on a private mailing list that was made public by the highly partisan group "Electronic Intifada" is really outrageous. The use of the word cabal is highly judgmental and ironic coming as it does from a group called the Electronic Intifada. It is also a highly charged word, but apparently the powers that were saw nothing offensive about it, seeing as how they were sitting comfortably in judgment, rather than being the judged. The group made an assumption about the original intent of the so-called "cabal" and they did not use the original CAMERA email which went out to ALL members of Wikipedia and was perfectly appropriate, just offering to help train people to help Israel get its voice heard in Wikipedia? What's wrong with that anyway? It is a party to a 2-way conflict, of course it is important that its voice is heard! Balance is part of NPOV.
There was never an assumption of good faith. Virtually all of the "offending" emails were written by one individual, yet any one who had edited Wikipedia was given long sentences. CAMERA and every editor that received an email after that first letter was held responsible for everything said in other peoples' emails. All sorts of people were "outed," as well as shamed for their views ("evidence of a planned assault on Wikipedia"). While some (more like 1) may have planned an "assault" - I don't think one recruit ever made it to Wikipedia. Too bad, since many were highly educated people who would have a lot to offer. People should be banned on the basis of their own behavior (at Wiki), not the basis of what they say off-Wiki, in privately leaked emails, on groups and forums, or with whom they associate. How chilling is that? That is what happened with that BAD CAMERA decision. I hope Wikipedia rethinks and reverses that decision.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
CAMERA and Wikipedians for Palestine
What is going on is reminiscent and indeed references the CAMERA decision in which it was alleged that : "Wikipedia has been targeted by an off-site astroturfing campaign, to get stealth administrators in place to manipulate encyclopedia content." CAMERA , the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Affairs, had sent out a call for Wikipedia volunteers much like WikiBias has done. The volunteers started an email group, called Israpedia, which was open and an Electronic Intifada (their name says it all) member joined and they got the emails too, which they ''leaked'' to Wikipedia.
Oh the Horrors! It was "frightening" and "subversive" and intended to "harm Wikipedia."
But when it was discovered that there was another group of Wikipedians, about 12 of them, who called themselves "Wikipedians for Palestine" , no one seemed frightened or considered them "subversive," for some odd reason. This secret group had this to say about membership in it:
"In order to verify their status as both a Wikipedian in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Wikipedia user ID."
o.O They have to prove that they are "anti-Zionist"? But, apparently, there is nothing really wrong with that.
Andre Oboler at ZionismontheWeb.com investigated and wrote about it at the time. It is well worth reading and thinking about as this case is being discussed on Wikipedia here and now
Oboler notes:
Absolutely zero came of it. It was never investigated. One or two people were asked if they were members and they said no. That was that.
Oboler also exposed user: Bangpound in this excellent investigative article as the member of Electronic Intifada who outed the email group. Turns out this editor was in the employ of that organization. Some are arguing today that an employee of an advocacy group should not be editing in the area, but the editor called Bangpound still contributes a little these days, under that name.
The twelve members of the Wikipedians for Palestine with their self-proclaimed anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian bias are no doubt still at Wikipedia. Some of them are most probably fellow editors at the discussion board, urging sanctions against others; some may be administrators, checkusers, even arbitrators.
Oh the Horrors! It was "frightening" and "subversive" and intended to "harm Wikipedia."
But when it was discovered that there was another group of Wikipedians, about 12 of them, who called themselves "Wikipedians for Palestine" , no one seemed frightened or considered them "subversive," for some odd reason. This secret group had this to say about membership in it:
"In order to verify their status as both a Wikipedian in good standing and someone who is pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, those wishing to join this group will be asked to provide their Wikipedia user ID."
o.O They have to prove that they are "anti-Zionist"? But, apparently, there is nothing really wrong with that.
Andre Oboler at ZionismontheWeb.com investigated and wrote about it at the time. It is well worth reading and thinking about as this case is being discussed on Wikipedia here and now
Oboler notes:
"The penalties imposed on members of the CAMERA group were harsh in part because it was argued that this was a new threat to Wikipedia and an example needed to be made. The feeling was that recruiting people from within grass roots advocacy organisations, enlisting experienced editors to help, and having the discussions outside of wikipedia could all contribute in a way that went against the nature of wikipedia. This was naive. Our research shows past attenpts, by Palestinian advocates, some of whom commented and pushed for sanctions in the CAMERA case, that meet all of these criteria. The admins considering the case found some of this information too, their attempts to investigate did the equivalent of starting the shredding machines. "
Absolutely zero came of it. It was never investigated. One or two people were asked if they were members and they said no. That was that.
Oboler also exposed user: Bangpound in this excellent investigative article as the member of Electronic Intifada who outed the email group. Turns out this editor was in the employ of that organization. Some are arguing today that an employee of an advocacy group should not be editing in the area, but the editor called Bangpound still contributes a little these days, under that name.
The twelve members of the Wikipedians for Palestine with their self-proclaimed anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian bias are no doubt still at Wikipedia. Some of them are most probably fellow editors at the discussion board, urging sanctions against others; some may be administrators, checkusers, even arbitrators.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wikibias
Ha’aretz has noticed the need for more knowledgeable editors to work on Israel-related articles. They cite edit wars over whether the demonstrations against the security barrier at Bil’in should be described as “violent” and whether the Ariel University Center should be described as “the largest public college in Israel” or “the largest Israeli public college?” Or, at least, Ha’aretz has noticed that “the Israeli right” has noticed the need for better editing.
Arutz Sheva has the story, as does the New York Times. There is even a Youtube video.
Even The Guardian has the story, pointing out that the status of Jerusalem is “constantly altered” on Wikipedia. Is it or is it not the capital of Israel? (The best NPOV answer I have seen is that it is the de-facto capital of Israel. While I personally consider it the capital of Israel, the status is often challenged and showing both sides, as has been done in the past, is the only correct option for Wikipedia.)
According to The Guardian, “The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses are already planning a competition to find the “Best Zionist editor,” with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.”
check out the site @ wikibias.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Do Gaza Flotillas Provide Material Support to Hamas?: If so, should those U.S. funders of the flotilla be subject to prosecution?
Fascinating thought but not one likely to be supported by the Obama administration. After all, he is personal buddies with Rashid Khalidi.
Do Gaza Flotillas Provide Material Support to Hamas?: If so, should those U.S. funders of the flotilla be subject to prosecution?
by Jonathan Schanzer
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy recently argued at National Review Online that the federal government has reason to investigate Rashid Khalidi, an activist Middle Eastern studies professor at Columbia University. What prompted this? Khalidi's efforts to raise $370,000 for a new sea vessel (to be named The Audacity of Hope, after President Barack Obama's second book) designed to break the Israeli blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
As increasing numbers of pro-Palestinian activists try to break the blockade of Gaza, McCarthy's argument is worth exploring. Are these flotillas legal?
McCarthy notes that it is illegal for Americans "to furnish or fit out a vessel in the service of any foreign entity 'to cruise, or commit hostilities' against a nation with which the U.S. is at peace." Israel, of course, is an American ally that is imposing a policy in Gaza that Washington officially supports.
McCarthy also notes that the Logan Act prohibits U.S. citizens "from carrying on 'any correspondence or intercourse' with any foreign government… to 'defeat the measures of the United States.'" To this end, McCarthy then suggests that the Justice Department should investigate flotilla organizers' communications with the de facto Hamas government in Gaza, particularly if they seek to undermine U.S. policy.
In the end, it is McCarthy's third point that is the most convincing: The Justice Department, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, could also investigate American flotilla organizers for providing material support to a terrorist group.
Read full article
Do Gaza Flotillas Provide Material Support to Hamas?: If so, should those U.S. funders of the flotilla be subject to prosecution?
by Jonathan Schanzer
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy recently argued at National Review Online that the federal government has reason to investigate Rashid Khalidi, an activist Middle Eastern studies professor at Columbia University. What prompted this? Khalidi's efforts to raise $370,000 for a new sea vessel (to be named The Audacity of Hope, after President Barack Obama's second book) designed to break the Israeli blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
As increasing numbers of pro-Palestinian activists try to break the blockade of Gaza, McCarthy's argument is worth exploring. Are these flotillas legal?
McCarthy notes that it is illegal for Americans "to furnish or fit out a vessel in the service of any foreign entity 'to cruise, or commit hostilities' against a nation with which the U.S. is at peace." Israel, of course, is an American ally that is imposing a policy in Gaza that Washington officially supports.
McCarthy also notes that the Logan Act prohibits U.S. citizens "from carrying on 'any correspondence or intercourse' with any foreign government… to 'defeat the measures of the United States.'" To this end, McCarthy then suggests that the Justice Department should investigate flotilla organizers' communications with the de facto Hamas government in Gaza, particularly if they seek to undermine U.S. policy.
In the end, it is McCarthy's third point that is the most convincing: The Justice Department, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, could also investigate American flotilla organizers for providing material support to a terrorist group.
Read full article
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Turkey Gases Kurds and the World is Silent| Jewish News From WorldJewishDaily.com
Turkey Gases Kurds and the World is Silent|
While Israel is feeling the heat from multiple international probes into its May 31 commando raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, Turkey is now reported to have used chemical weapons against its Kurdish population, and yet the world remains silent.
Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper reports that German experts have confirmed Turkey’s use of chemical weapons against at least eight members of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighters in September 2009.
The story has been covered in the Israeli and Armenian media, but has attracted scant attention elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Kurds are being killed with the help of Israeli-made spy drones as Israel maintains its high-level military cooperation with Turkey.
Meanwhile, Turkey is reportedly planning to transfer weapons to Hezbollah. Since Turkey has access to the latest Israeli and NATO technology, the next Israel-Hezbollah war could be that much more devastating.
As of yet, no calls for an investigation have been heard from the Western media, governments or the UN.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)