Israeli Ambassador Calls For The Criminalization of Antisemitic Speech

In the aftermath of another tragic shooting at another synagogue, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has again called for the criminalization of antisemitic speech. I have previously written about such international efforts to criminalize speech, including a proposal supported by the Obama Administration. The implications of such laws for free speech are easy to dismiss amidst the sorrow of another attack. However, the free speech community must remain firm that free speech is not the cause of hate, it is solution to hate.

Danon declared “The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action – and now.”

Over the course of the last 50 years, the French, English and Germans have waged an open war on free speech by criminalizing speech deemed insulting, harassing or intimidating. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

Danon argues that “Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist; it will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed.”

The cause-and-effect relationship between speech and violence is increasingly claimed by those who want to criminalize speech. The effort of Muslim countries to create an international blasphemy law is an example of how new calls for censorship and regulation of speech is being repackaged. We have seen how these laws create insatiable appetites for greater and greater speech criminalization. These calls are the strongest after violent attacks when defending free speech can be easily misconstrued as a lack of sympathy or concern for the victims of hate. Politicians often seek responses to tragedies and limiting rights like speech can be remarkably easy. After all, free speech is an abstraction when an attack is a real and traumatic fact.

I readily admit to following the classic liberal view of free speech. The solution to bad speech — even hateful speech — to more speech. It is free speech that allows people of conscience to contest the flawed and hateful ideas of bigots. Germany has proven the fallacy of changing minds through threatened prosecution.  While I am certainly sympathetic to the Germans in seeking to end the scourge of fascism, I have long been a critic of the German laws prohibiting certain symbols and phrases, I view it as not just a violation of free speech but a futile effort to stamp but extremism by barring certain symbols. Instead, extremists have rallied around an underground culture and embraced symbols that closely resemble those banned by the government. I fail to see how arresting a man for a Hitler ringtone is achieving a meaningful level of deterrence, even if you ignore the free speech implications.

Ambassador Danon is right that we must all fight the scourge of antisemitism and recognize its rise around the world. The disagreement is only with the means used to achieve that worthy end. Criminalizing speech has never produced any results other than fostering even greater speech criminalization.

97 thoughts on “Israeli Ambassador Calls For The Criminalization of Antisemitic Speech”

  1. What about rich powerful Jews calling White Gentiles, “Nazi” or “racist” because we believe in immigration laws, limited government and borders? Is that hate speech?

  2. The Israeli ambassador is putting a rod in pickle for his country’s backside by choosing the United Nations as a forum to propose outlawing a particular kind of speech.

    The UN General Assembly has listened to such proposals with itching ears.The UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights are among the most candidly anti-Semitic governmental bodies on the planet – as well as the ones which nod and do not object when member nations outlaw free speech for their own people. Venezuela, China and Russia are prime examples..

    If the Israeli ambassador thought that, given the chance to outlaw any speech at all among its member states, the United Nations would not first outlaw speech objectionable to member nations with weak protections for political dissent and for individual human rights, he must have had a four-martini lunch before he spoke.

    A UN General Assembly on a tear to define “illegal speech” would, first of all, outlaw any defense of Israel’s right to exist, the way things are going.

    1. The motto is two words. The organization that goes by that name compresses the motto into one word. If you don’t believe me, then you could conduct a key word search on the name of that organization. Or you could just take my word for it. Ha-ha!

      Contributed by The L4D What’s It Mean Project

  3. L4D misspell the word “Psycho” when she signed this.

    Anonymous says: May 3, 2019 at 6:05 AM
    BTW, Estovir is an imposter. The professional Catholic organization that goes by the name Estovir would not approve of any of the comments that Estovir posts on this blawg. Not because they disagree with the positions that fake Estovir takes on the issues that fake Estovir obsesses over. They do agree with most of those positions. But because the real Estovir promotes Christian leadership amongst Catholic professional men through the use of public displays of the virtues associated with manliness so as to influence, inspire and lead the faithful back to The Good.


    1. I’m fascinated to know what is the backstory is between ‘Estovir’ and the sorosphere operatives who post here. Estovir hasn’t said, AFAIK.

      1. Funny stuff. No one would reasonably claim that absurd could get paid for the ….uh…. stuff he posts, nor the other righties here seeking to justify their apparent inferiority complexes while commiserating with the like minded.

        1. I can explain. [Paraphrase Alert]

          De Soros bone connect’d to de Brock bone. De Brock bone connec’t to de Clinton bone. The Clinton bone connect’d to the Steele bone. All George’s chillen gots to sing and shout.

          Now de Steele bone connect’d to de Ohr bone. De Ohr bone connec’t to de Mueller bone. De Muller bone connect’d to de L4D bone.
          All George’s chillen gots to sing and shout.

          Contributed by The L4D–That’s How Dumb It Gets Project. (In Memory of P. Hill.)

      2. About the original alumni association Agrupación Católica Universitaria – Wikipedia:

        The Agrupación Católica Universitaria (ACU) is a Christian life community (CVX- CLC) composed of professional Catholic men. It is based in Miami, Florida and …

        Estovir is the motto (Be a Man) of the original group. Most members were exiled to the U. S. after the Cuban revolution. More recently a new group has developed that calls itself Estovir (rather than ACU). The members of the new group are mostly native born U. S. citizens. Also, the ACU’s restriction of membership to doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers and the like has been eased under the new group. Home pages for the new group Estovir do not evince any of the incendiary rhetoric frequently posted by the Turley blawg’s commenter “Estovir”.

        Contributed by The L4D Scrolling Project

      3. Not that link; this link. Sorry about that.

        Agrupación Católica Universitaria > About the ACU > History of the ACU

        Explore a brief history of the ACU beginnings in Cuba, through the times of comunism, and to our role today in the third millennium.

        Contributed by The L4D Wrong Link Project

    2. Estovir is Latin for “Be a man.” Rather timely in today’s misandrist society. It is also the name of a Catholic male leadership organization. Posting as Estovir does not indicate that he officially represents a Catholic mentoring and leadership program’s public social media or internet presence.

      For instance, no one would think that an avatar as “Baptist” was representing the Baptist church in an official capacity.

      Perhaps she just now Googled the term and hit upon the organization.

        1. Whoa. Auto correct. Not only did it change Esto Vir to Virginia, but when I typed a correction it put it at the top of the blog.

          1. More evidence of the proprietary impulse running amok in the world. For instance, whenever Karen S. says the exact same thing that L4D said it supposedly means something different than what L4D said. Or, to put it another way, given that nobody would ever think that an impostor was not an impostor, it supposedly follows that fake Estovir is not an impostor.

            Contributed by The L4D That’s How Dumb It Gets Project

            (In Memory of P. Hill)

  4. Excerpted from the Wikipedia entry on Menacing (in the U. S.):

    In Ohio, the laws on Menacing read as follows:

    2903.22 Menacing.

    (A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.(…)

    2903.21 Aggravated menacing.

    (A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.(…)

    2903.211 Menacing by stalking.

    (A) (1) No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.

    (2) No person, through the use of any electronic method of remotely transferring information, including, but not limited to, any computer, computer network, computer program, or computer system, shall post a message with purpose to urge or incite another to commit a violation of division (A)(1) of this section.

    (3) No person, with a sexual motivation, shall violate division (A)(1) or (2) of this section.(…)

    In Oregon, the law on Menacing states:


    (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

    (2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor

    Contributed by L4D Scroll Project

    1. No takers yet? Intriguing. Maybe The Scrolling Project is working. There are some curious clauses in the Ohio menacing laws.

      Contributed by The L4D Close Reading Project

  5. Israeli Ambassador Calls For The Criminalization of Antisemitic Speech

    American citizen Calls For The Criminalization of Anti-Human behavior on part of an Israeli government that promotes the vile/contemptible and continued subjugation of millions of innocent Palestinians via an Apartheid social structure that is strictly enforced through the liberal use of state sponsored terrorism and collective punishment.

    1. 1. There is no aparthied

      2. The local population and the political class ruling over them are not innocent.

      3. Al-Fatah and Hamas have made it perfectly plain that no settlement with the Jews which leaves the Jewish state intact is acceptable to them

      4. You either don’t know that or you fancy Jews are dirt and are in the wrong defending themselves from displacement and death.

      5. You’re not in a position to issue animadversions against anyone. Pig ignorant people and malevolent people simply are not.

  6. Much as I dislike it I would reject it as immaterial in that context. My Citizenship reads United States of America. My allegiance and oath of office was and is to The Constitution of The United States of America. I hold no allegiance to any other.

  7. Since Palestinians and most Arabs are also Semites, the logical consequences would put the Ambassador in jail too.

    1. That Arabic is of the Semitic language group is of no consequence to anyone but twee fools.

      1. True. Those who would outlaw “anti-American” comment, then bloviate about evil Mexicans or nanny-state Canadians, or “corrupt banana republics” would outlaw their own remarks, too.

  8. That would constitute yet another unconstitutional amendment like the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments.

  9. Regarding Germany and the Germans. After WWII and the Holocaust, America and the Soviet Union occupied Germany and extending laws and provisions outlawing free speech it it mentioned Nazi and anti Jewish causes. It was important. To this day the Germans should not have free speech rights in this right wing regard. They are dangerous. Germans living in America had an organization in the 30s up until the war start in 1941 and it was called The German American Bund. Do you blog readers recall that one? Never heard of it have you? Went in dumb, come out dumb too, hustlin round Atlanta in his Turley shoes, he’s keeping the ….

    1. I disagree. Imprisoning people because they wave their hand like an ancient Roman is what the Germans do and it’s ridiculous. They should enforce real crimes not bother suppressing unpopular and perhaps even foolish or bad ideas. But if they want to do that, there’s a lot of places they can start and pick up a lot more commendable inmates for their jails then a few errant skinheads.

      Same goes here.

    2. @liberty2d

      Don’t worry sir, the United States will have its own “hate speech” laws in another 20 – 30 years as the demographics change and the state finds it necessary to enact such in order to keep a lid on things as ethnic conflict increases.

      I am just wondering when leftists will refer to defenders of traditional free speech (such as JT) as “Nazis” for doing so.

      I wonder how old school liberals such as Turley will react when called “Nazis”.

      I know how members of “Conservatism Inc.” will respond. As with every other leftist idea, they will accept it after the fact.

      And of course, as every leftist SJW knows, non-pc, dissident “speech is violence”, violence is a crime and thus constitutes a “hate crime” in this instance.

      So how can I commit a violent crime, here and now?

      I believe and state without hesitation:

      1. Marriage is between a genetic man and woman.

      2. There are immutable differences between the sexes that no amount of posturing, slogans, shout downs, or wishful thinking can change.

      3. Mass non-western immigration will irrevocably change the United States, making it more similar to a 3d world country.

      4. Diversity is not a strength but a source or tension and conflict regardless of race, religion or ethnicity. And no amount of posturing, slogans, shout downs or wishful thinking can make it one.

      4. The average IQ difference between American Blacks and Caucasians is about 1 standard deviation with an average IQ of around 85 for Blacks and 100 for whites. East Asians tend to score around 106-108 and Ashkenazi Jews around 115. These differences are both partly genetic and environmental. This is mainstream science and well known in psychometric circles.

      5. While equal rights and opportunity are good, sound principles, there are no 2 people who are equal, let alone groups.

      6. People are not a blank slate and evolution did not stop at the neck.

      7. Egalitarianism is creationism for leftists.

      How do you like me now lefties? Love triggering s@@tlibs.


      1. LOLZ antonio dont you know have the murray ornstein book “BELL CURVE” is thoughtcrime in itself?

        I telepathically see your library is well stocked with forbidden tomes.

        1. @mrkurtz

          I am well acquainted with The Bell Curve. Linda Gottfriedson of the University of Deleware has also written extensively on this subject.

          I have seen few leftists who will actually debate the merits of these issues, they just prefer to call their opponent a slur and try to doxx them.

          If views such as the above are so faulty and deficient, one should not be afraid of debate. I mean no one is trying to get flat earthers banned and doxxed.

          Could it possibly be that the emperor has no clothes?

          Reminds me of Communist ideology which was based on a faulty view of human nature. Multiculturalism and Egalitarianism are other such false ideologies based upon a mistaken, wishful view of human nature.


          1. Antonio, when I first bought the book and read it I saw a debate on TV between Charles Murray and a leftist. The debate was crazy because the leftist said things not in the book. He finally had to admit he never read it and that was obvious to anyone who read the book because the authors provided chapter summaries. I later had a fight with a University Professor about the book and I caught him in the lie that he read it. He didn’t even know about the summaries.

            Anyone who hasn’t read the book should.

      2. antonio:

        1. That’s false. For example Mayor Pete is married to another man. Or do you mean in the nation of Antonia?
        2. OK, not very controversial
        3. Who are these “non-western” immigrants you fear? Chinese (been here for almost 200 years), Pacific Islanders? Africans – have them already.
        4. We have been among the most diverse nations on earth for at least 100 years and have done pretty well for ourselves.
        4. (2nd #4) The greater part is environmental and thus amenable to change. That’s obvious and good news.
        5. OK, so what?
        6. OK, so what?
        7. Egalitarianism – “the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.” That’s a principle, not a superstitious belief in spirits.

        Your OK antonio, except for the delusion of grandeur.

  10. Free speech must be protected for any nation to remain free. It is a grim development that speech protections have eroded among Western countries. We must fight to protect our own rights, or lose them.

    1. Indeed, and your strong support for our free press is much applauded.

      1. Anon – I do support the press. My stating the obvious, that the mainstream media is a Democrat mouthpiece trying to affect the next election, does not mean they should not exist. They should be labeled op-ed, not news.

        1. Karen, no wonder you constantly repeat false right wing talking points like uranium one. You only pay attention to “news” you agree with.

        2. Karen, take note that Anon is acting just like I said in his response to you.

          “no wonder you constantly repeat false right wing talking points” To Anon, nothing said by anyone else can be true. That avoids all discussion. He is factless.

          “You only pay attention to “news” you agree with.” Once again he is using a variant of the phrase Fox News is bad. He cannot use facts unless they are fed to him. When he does he generally only has enough facts to go one level deep and then has to insult or change the subject.

          1. Allan, about a month ago I responded on point and in great detail to Karen’s erroneous postings about U-1. Anyone here who wants to try me on an issue will get a substantive response at least once.

            1. ” Anyone here who wants to try me on an issue will get a substantive response at least once”

              Anon, I don’t see it that way. Your answers that I have seen when you do answer sound canned frequently with soft or the wrong facts. I don’t know if you understand what proof is. At one time I started numbering things to make it clear what the different issues were. It didn’t seem to help and your follow through is terrible. Even when you are proven wrong you almost never admit it.

              There are issues with multiple sides and arguments but you hold so firm to an idea wrapped in at least some falsehood that one can’t find agreement on anything.

              I really don’t like politics. It’s too dishonest so I don’t actually support people rather I try and stay away from certain types and applaud success. All we hear from you is “Trump lies” which seems to be every headline in the MSM and seems to be what is said on most of the talk shows. I’m not sure what you call lying is even lying but in the broader sense no politician can get to a high position without lying. Trump is not a politician and has lied(in the broader sense) a lot less than most. He’s a promoter. You have to learn his vocabulary. To him almost everything is the greatest or the biggest or the best. That is mostly puffery. What you have to watch out for is substantive lying which Obama did a lot of. That is part of his life and how he got to be President. But, if he did a good job I would have cheered, but IMO he stank as a President and cost the people and our nation a lot. He had some ideas that I agreed with, but he carried them out terribly.

              If you wish to say Trump is a liar then say Trump is a liar and lied about 1., 2., 3,… and be prepared to prove it and defend your proof. Don’t exaggerate. Admit when you are wrong. Come to agreement when facts prove a point even though you don’t like to lose.

                1. Apparently Anon, you still don’t understand. Significant lies like lies to the American people to pass the healthcare bill. Look up the Gruber quote admitting this lie. Shall we count Obama’s misspeak of 57 states as a lie? That would be a bit ridiculous in a tabulation. That is what you are doing and in the process you are making yourself look ridiculous.

                  One of the lies highlighted in the WP piece was:

                  “The record attendance at Green Bay’s Resch Center was 10,414 when Elton John was there in 2003, according to the Green Bay Press Gazette. The Resch Center has an official capacity of 9,877 but it can grow according to layout. The Secret Service said only the first 10,000 people would be allowed inside for Trump’s rally, however, so it’s unlikely he broke Elton John’s record.”

                  Such trivialities are now attached to you because this is the garbage you quote. What they left out was that they only permitted so many in but how many were outside the stadium? That makes Trump’s statement true and them liars and by your continued use of such cr-p you a liar as well. I don’t want to call you that, but that is the logical extension. Take note of the WP words ” so it’s unlikely ” Unlikely means they couldn’t even prove this superficial lie and they knew he had more people attending then could be let in. This is one of the lies highlighted.

                  You tried to prove your case by saying how detailed you were in a discussion with Karen but you never really got into the specifics that made Hillary’s dealings look bad. Prove your case here and now. Provide 5 of the most important lies Trump has made (not mistakes, not puffery, not the garbage). Provide the proof and why it is a terrible lie. I can name a number of lies I think Trump has made so you should have no problem. The problem will be in finding significant lies. (Take note that the WP didn’t provide the details or the Trump statement so that you can’t even verify if the Trump statement was in context. That is how a cheap hooker works. All dressing, no substance…Is that what you are looking for?)

  11. “free speech is not the cause of hate, it is solution to hate.”

    Though I believe in free speech and using it as a solution I do recognize that free speech can cause hate and even death. That is a price we pay. Restriction of free speech is a tool used by those that wish to rule over us and have the ability to kill us. That is much worse. What are we seeing today on the campus’s? PC or an attempt by the left to restrict free speech in an attempt to gain power. That is what every horrid power of the 20th century tried to accomplish.

    1. You are right on target Alan. Free speech can cause mischief. But criminalizing it is probably even worse mischief.

    2. Up on

      ( FACEBOOK bans ‘dangerous’ Farrakhan, INFOWARS…

      Alex Jones Responds…)

      More Slander from Fakebook, the Shiiiit Site!!

      Phk those Commie/Fascist!

      Facebook/Apple/Google/Twitter/Paypal/etc., & their Globalist handlers hate it Alex Jones & Infowars is blowing their BS authorian crap out of the public commons.

      1. interesting the picked 3 men for their banning, all of whom have large followings: a not – PC black man, a not- PC white man, and a not-PC gay man.

        Interesting that no women got banned. I guess Facebook is a womanish, unmanly medium. Oh wait: I knew that years ago which why I don’t use it. It’s an annoying, trite, clutterly interface full of self promoting narcisissm and useless gossip.

        However it is the second biggest social network (after Wechat. Look it up) So it has some importance. Wechat of course outfit will ban whatever the CPC tells it to without hesitation. But who’s giving Zuck orders to ban? Just his own whims. Well, the whims of a capitalist can be as stupid as those of a communist oligarch. Which Zuck often resembles.

        And the message is clear. Conform to PC ideology or you will be “deplatformed” by the monopolistic facebook and its collaborators.

        These monopolies should be regulated as utilities from now on. High time.

        Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy all three of these for my personal amusement, from time to time, on Youtube. Yes, they often ban too, but they can’t make it stick for long. Youtube is a more manly medium and less thickly populated with panty-waists.

        1. The thing that Farrakhan, Jones, and Milo share is wit and humor. Different forms of wit. Farrakhan has the wit of a preacher. Milo the wit of an overly educated homosexual. and Jones has a kind of perverse wit, the sort of wit one might encounter at a gun shop, a sort of self parodying wit that is earnest and self-referentially ironic all at once. They all can evoke an easy laugh which changes the subject material from strident to amusing.

          Facebook is for witless, humorless dolts who can’t find pleasure in the mind which is why the boring is the norm. Idiotic pictures of boring vacations, slutty selfies, garbage like that.

          Whither facebook? It has its tombstone already placed right next to “Myspace”

          1. Mr. Kurtz,

            I forget the name on on analyst was saying a few years back how, i think facebook, google, were started by the CIA & other corps that by attacking Trump they were attacking Trump supporters that were their customers, “Were”.

      2. They’re just in a panic as Jones & thousands of others have gotten Prez Trump’s attention to old dying media’s censorship of different conservative voices.

        Now he’s having the FCC go after them for violating the FCC’s 47 U.S.C. sec230.

        Trump is also having the DOJ’s Anti-Trust Div look into those more company’s violation of laws.

        Some of us are watching for Trump’s actions against Obama’s Counter Disinfo & Propaganda Act.

        1. cda 230 is THE cornerstone of free speech but it operates in a way that simply limits the liability of ISPs and web hosts from various offensive materials like defamation, harassment, or other quasi criminal speech, …. the federal laws SESTA and FOSTA chip away of it in the name of combatting “human trafficking” which insofar as it is pimping was already a crime and insofar as it’s an exaggerated phenomenon is being used as an excuse to throttle off unsavory talk– and could be used a lot more and set up a lot of bad precedents

          kamala is one of its promoters of sesta and fosta ,too. some liberal she!

      3. Today a few of our biggest monopolies threaten our freedom of speech, privacy and eventually the security of the United States.

        1. Allan,

          Other’s/My problem is we don’t have time to thoroughly research & write about all of these important issues.

          But that seems to be these latest monopoly men’s plan, throw out as much of this bullcrap as they can so they can attempt to keep us from focusing on legally & politicly.

          But as some say necessity is the mother of invention.

          I’m following new start ups to replace those Anti-American corps.

          Gab, Brighteon, CloudTV, Bitchute & many more (record decode?)

          I heard this last week:

          See The Video That Got Steven Crowder Suspended From Twitter
          [Search domain
          Comedian and political commentator Steven Crowder has been suspended by Twitter, along with his producer and an intern. Crowder used a surrogate to troll a South by Southwest gender non-conformity meetup, after the festival banned him from attending due to crashing Cenk Uygur’s event last year.

          1. typo:

            But that seems to be these latest monopoly men’s plan, throw out as much of this bullcrap as they can so they can attempt to keep us from focusing on legally & politicly defeating them & help Trump & friends getting re elected/elected.

            Also I think it was Crowder’s paypal or another pay facility was shut down.

            I know they’ve been going it to others.

            For everyone’s info, I’m no fan of New York Times or Farrakhan buy they both should have the right to spew their anti-semitic crap.

  12. In the United States, much of our public life is in the hands of people who fancy they are in a tutelary role to the rest of society and think as if the social relations of an American high school are replicated in the larger society. They’re the school administrators and the rest of us are the pupils. Or, they’re the college faculty and administration and the rest of us are the students and the staff. ‘Free speech’ is for peers, and they do not consider ordinary people to be peers or to have any opinions worth bothering about. It appears you have the same mentality in Europe, though it also appears the legal profession is less prominent among people who hold to it, and senior government bureaucrats more prominent.

    I doubt that’s what’s up here, though. Danon grew up in Israel’s Sephardic working class. Before going into politics, he appears to have been something of a professional Jew, serving on the salaried staff of Betar and the Jewish Agency. It’s a reasonable inference he’s just being an ethnocentric twit with this.

    1. Not an ethnocentric twit, but a serious ethnocentric leader acting in what they perceive are their ethnic interests. Of course, I reject his assertion. But i am not sure he is a twit or not.

      There is a big difference between the American left liberal Jewish people in Diaspora, who have been champions of free speech, and the sabras, that is, Israelis born there. The sabras are a far less ideological group is my impression. They do not pursue ideas so much as they pursue interests. Of course, ideas can be used to protect interests; and then they can be tossed aside once the other end of the stick has been grasped.

      Ze’ev Jabotinsky is an interesting figure if anyone is interested in Israeli history. He was not what I would call a liberal. Perhaps illuminates the direction they are headed in, somewhat.

      1. Kurtz, you could say that the present leadership in Israel, Netanyahu is following the path of Jabotinsky.

        1. Exactly. His concerns were more those of a nationalist than what we would call a liberal or even a classic liberal.

          But, some people say he was a racist. this is similar to what they say about Likud today, which carries his legacy. And yet consider this what he said: (From wiki)

          “”We do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled.” Jabotinsky was convinced that there was no way for the Jews to regain any part of Palestine without opposition from the Arabs. In 1934, he wrote a draft constitution for the Jewish state which declared that Arabs would be on an equal footing with their Jewish counterparts “throughout all sectors of the country’s public life.” The two communities would share the state’s duties, both military and civil service, and enjoy its prerogatives. Jabotinsky proposed that Hebrew and Arabic should enjoy equal status, and that “in every cabinet where the prime minister is a Jew, the vice-premiership shall be offered to an Arab and vice versa. ”

          Perhaps that was just an ideal. but it sounds pretty fair to me. Hence, I am not sure the Israelis including the right wing ones, should be considered as racist as the BDS radicals accuse them. I think ethnocentric is a fair word, even nationalistic. I don’t fault people for that.

          1. “Exactly. His concerns were more those of a nationalist than what we would call a liberal or even a classic liberal.”

            There is nothing wrong with nationalism. It has kept the Jews in Israel alive. You like to play with matches while there is gas all over the floor. Not productive.

            “But, some people say he was a racist.” So what? Some people are stupid. Some people like ice cream.

            “Hence, I am not sure the Israelis including the right wing ones, should be considered as racist as the BDS radicals accuse them.”

            The BDS crowd that isn’t stupid are racists and dangerous ones. I wouldn’t use that type of crowd in the same sentence as any reasonable and decent people. My opinion has little to do with their boycott. It has a lot to do with exactly who they are.

            1. I was trying to illuminate different points of view. It’s not a conversation I need to own from one viewpoint or another. I enjoy history and that includes Israeli history

              I see that a lot of left wing Jewish people are part of BDS so it seems like a complicated phenomenon. I would not be the one to say they are all self hating jews but I have heard others say that.

              Jabotinsky was an energetic leader and I enjoy reading about his life and works. The history of Zionism is interesting. Especially if one is not all moralistic and negative about nationalism. One can admire the Jews for tenacity and bringing their Jewish state about, it took tons of money organization guts and collective will. Truly amazing. Of course they had to break some eggs to make the omelette. Some people have a hard time coming to terms with that.

              1. “I was trying to illuminate different points of view.”

                Kurtz, try doing so by not lighting matches in a room filled with gasoline.

                “I see that a lot of left wing Jewish people are part of BDS so it seems like a complicated phenomenon.”

                Many of these people are not attached to Judaism. Many are attached to left wing ideas. Jews have a tendency to side with the underdog and in this case that means those that are discriminated agains, poor, uneducated, etc. It might be partially inbred since Jews always lived on the perferal of society even when they existed within the power circle. They always recognized that at any moment they could be killed or thrown out.

                The ideas of charity are good ideas but the left has converted good ideas into an ideology of oppression.

                I suggested you read Start Up Nation and I suggest that book again. It will tell you more.

      2. No, an ethnocentric twit, who should be told to suck it up.

  13. Free speech scares extremists of every stripe. Forsake a little freedom for a little safety and you end up with neither. You think the Israelis would understand that more than anybody but alas people forget when they are scared. Losing your freedom is a lot more scary.

    1. “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

      Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

      In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million “unnatural deaths” during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

      In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.

      Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.

      Even some who have put out estimates based on research admit their calculations may be inadequate.

      In his acclaimed book “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties,” Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: “We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.”

      Quotes attributed to Stalin reflected his utter disregard for human life. Among other bons mots, he allegedly declared: “Death is the solution to all problems. No man — no problem,” and “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

      Part of the problem with counting the total loss of life lies with the incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records. A more troubling dilemma has to do with the fact that many some deaths – like starvation from famines – may or may not have been directly connected to Stalin’s policies.

      In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin’s horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during “peacetime”).

      If the lower estimate of 20 million is the true number, that still translates into 1,830 deaths every single day.”

    2. charlypriest:

      That’s what despots do. They give what sounds like good reasons for each individual right they take away, until his people are powerless against him. One day, the last speech to be criminalized will be “hate speech” against the government. It will be reasoned along the lines of, it’s hate speech, and has led to the overthrow of fair governments, to be replaced with tyranny, so criticism of the government should not be allowed.

      Being free to speak your mind, for good or for ill, is the most fundamental of human rights.

      1. I think Hitler would have not exterminated over 6 million Jews if the jews would had exercise their freedom of expression, that’s what good history books say. Hitler would have understood their ¨freedom of speech….Yep
        And keep on rolling, lets see next comment that comes.
        I´m going to write my. nutty poetry, keep on commenting, it´s actually fun, today is a slow day for me so….keep on rolling the good ideas from the beautiful heads

        1. charlypriest:

          It became illegal to criticize what Hitler was doing. Concentration camps had dissidents alongside the Jews he was trying to exterminate.

          There was a cascade of events that lead to the Holocaust, starting with the inception of the German Socialist Party Academics protesting the low standards of the publishing process were abler to get a portion of Mein Kampf published in a feminist magazine.

          That’s the thing. Hitler didn’t begin his political career discussing his plans to kill millions of Jews. He began with talk for giving up individual rights for the common good, as any Socialist-based ideology is. He gave such convincing reasons that he was able to grab power, and then proceed on his murderous way. The Germans had been disarmed. Hitler controlled the media, which became a propaganda disseminator for his party. Any information criticizing the Third Reich was suppressed. Hitler also placed the blame for his country’s problems on the 1%, the rich Jews who were taking success from other Germans. More and more, the rhetoric pitted people against each other. It is chilling to see the return of class and racial warfare in Leftist rhetoric.

          1. That was my whole point about free speech when I commented the first comment. What where Jews going to do at that time, say to Hitler… ¨Hey man, I think it wrong, lets sit down and talk…¨ really? Actually Hitler in his book Mein Kampf was already berating against the jews, blaming them for the lost of WW1, he was already planting the seeds. He talked from the beginning for his hatred of jews. Ofcourse the guy was no idiot and said he was going to exterminate all jews from the outset, he build it up not so slowly by the way.
            You said a key thing at the end, ¨It is chilling to see the return of class and racial warfare in Leftist rhetoric.
            I have to say that your comment is the only one that is coming from a logical mind. And you are right about that time in history. I´m a history buff so I won’t get serious with the others, I find it comments for dummies, so why respond. But you are right on mark.

            1. charlypriest – Thank you for your comment. I agree that no argument the Jews could have made would have convinced a homicidal maniac not to murder them. One wonders if the German people had access to accurate information, and the right to protest, if things would have turned out differently. Captain Hindsight may not save the past, but perhaps can prevent future mistakes.

              I have an interest in WWII, as my grandmother’s family immigrated from Germany prior to WWI. She was a German American through two world wars with Germany. My father said that she was brokenhearted. It was inconceivable to her how her country could have changed so much as to have committed such evil atrocities.

              My relatives fought for the US in WWI and WWII, and we have some artifacts from those wars. There were a lot of interesting stories passed down. I’ve really got to record them before they are lost.

              1. “My father said that she was brokenhearted. ”

                Karen, based on what happened in the Holocaust one would think Germans prior to WW2 were hostile to Jews. Anti-Semitism existed throughout Europe but Germany seemed to be one of the countries most accepting of Jews. In fact I recall reading that when WW1 came many German Jews now American citizens maintained an affinity to Germany with favorable publications about Germany, enough that the US government took excetion to what they were saying. Before WW2 it has been reported that many German Jews would not believe such attrocities would happen because they felt they were loyal Germans. The German Jew practiced a more reformed type of Judaism than the eastern European Jews and integrated into more developed countries on an easier basis..

              2. Remember that Hitler got into power through a democratic process, the German people did vote for him.
                We have something in common, your relatives fought in those wars and I fought in these two ¨modern¨wars, in the Spanish Legion that is. Long, 10 years ago that is. I know war, I also know that as an infantry man I don’t think we could creep up to the Talibanshit and hit them with a cup off coffee in the head and say, lets talk I disagree with you.
                All totalitarian governments and the Talibans did govern that region, have all one thing in common. The end justify the means. So talking at what I initially commented about WW2, the end was to wipe out the jews and quite some others since the end was for the Aryan German nation people were superior in the eyes of Hitler and a great part of the German population the superior race, that was their end to be superior so they had to kill anybody that they saw as a threat.

                1. Germany had a national-list PR system.

                  The one time the German electorate voted for Hitler as an individual (the 1932 presidential election in Germany) he won 37% of the vote to Marshal v. Hindenburg’s 53%.

                  In parliamentary elections in November 1932, the Nazi Party won 33% of the vote, a decline in its share in the July 1932 elections. The problem at the time hadn’t been that the Nazis or the Communists had been allowed to propagate their spew. The problems were (1) institutional defects in the Weimar Constitution, (2) 14 years worth of one bad policy decision after another by Germany’s establishment politicians – bad decisions which led to repeated blows to the country’s material well-being, (3) a financial and banking crisis erupting in 1929 (which successive ministries handled badly), (4) the senility of Marshal v. Hindenburg and the scamming around of the men in his camarilla.

                  What’s interesting about what happened in Germany in 1933 was how readily its establishment politicians folded their tents and faded away. They were, at this point, too thoroughly demoralized to resist. See Wm. Sheridan Allen’s Nazi Seizure of Power for how this worked on the local level.

                  1. Similar to 2016 here when a loser became president and except for a very few not in office, the GOP folded their tent.

                  2. You’re exactly right. Hitler didn’t win the majority of the votes, he got into parliament with a considerate percentage though. And you said it, ¨What´s interesting about what happened in Germany in 1933 was how readily it´s establishment politicians folded their tents and faded away.¨ I think that the President making Hitler the chancellor or number 2, giving him some sense or making him think he had power that would placate the little devil to be a bit more calm and it backfired BIG.

                  3. You’re also right about what the real problems were from 1 to 4. Nice to know another history buff, or maybe you are a real historian.

  14. Criminalizing speech is a slippery slope. We need to fight sleach we don’t like we countervailing speach.

  15. Agreed! And what better way to legitimize the hatred – based on fear of overarching control – than to criminalize the trivial movement and sound of breath between teeth! Idiotic!

Comments are closed.