Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (100851)	2/17/2005 7:45:46 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 793917

Rising Anti-Semitism Blamed on UK Media By Chris McGreal The Guardian \| February 17, 2005 Britain suffered the sharpest rise in anti-semitic attacks of any country last year, and British press coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a leading cause, according to an Israeli government report. Natan Sharansky, the cabinet minister responsible for the diaspora, said the report found that violent attacks on Jews in Britain rose by almost half. The government's global forum against anti-semitism, which wrote the report, said France again topped the list of anti-semitic violence with 96 attacks, but the number in Britain rose sharply to 77. The total number of incidents in Britain rose to 304 from 163 a year earlier when verbal assaults, damage to property and swastikas daubing were taken into account. The report has been relased as Israel focuses on anti-semitism to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Mr Sharansky attributed the British figures to "years of hostile reporting and commentary about Israel in the British press now spilling into the streets". His officials singled out the Guardian and the BBC, accusing them of "likening Israel to a Nazi state". The Independent was also criticised. David Weinberg, coordinator of the forum and an adviser to Mr Sharansky, said the report found that most acts of anti-semitism in Britain were carried out by Arabs or Muslims, but press coverage of Israel, and the actions of some politicians created a climate that encouraged such attacks. "Among west European countries there is a red flag flying over Britain and it's particularly disturbing because Britain is a country friendly to Israel and the British government takes anti-semitism seriously." He added: "Sharansky believes you have to look at the intellectual environment that has developed toward Israel in Britain and the effect that has on the broader public." He singled out the coverage of the Israeli army assault on Jenin refugee camp in 2002, in which 58 Palestinians were killed, mostly armed men. The attack was characterised as a "massacre" by some of the media. He said this was demonisation of Israel and anti-semitism. Tehila Nahalon, an adviser to Mr Sharansky on anti-semitism, said: "You can't brainwash people for four years that Israel is an illegitimate country and that Israelis are like the Nazis and that Israelis are monsters and expect that nothing will happen to Jews." The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is publishing its own statistics next month, supported the report's conclusions. Its spokesman, Jason Pearlman, accused the BBC of "unrelenting anti-Israel bias". "The British media has portrayed Israel in a very unfair light," he said. "It's what's not said as much as what's said: the fact that most Palestinian attacks on Israel are not reported in the British press, and the fact that almost all the attacks on the Palestinians are reported." frontpagemag.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (100851)	2/17/2005 8:47:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

"Whatta you mean "we", paleface? - Native Americans to Ward Churchill It's pretty amazing that Churchill has been able pull off a charade for so long given that so many Indians have been complaining about him for many years. It's important for Native mothers and fathers to speak out because pseudo-Indians do things that affect our children. Churchill will not be discriminated against on the basis of being Indian, but he is placing our children and grandchildren in harm's way by creating ill will and hostility against Indians. Native kids and elders who actually look Native are the ones who suffer from the blowback. It's important for Native people to speak out in order to counter the sort of thing that Churchill, even after being so very publicly unmasked, is now telling reporters: that he is Indian by virtue of community acceptance over a prolonged period. While some people in Colorado believe one or another of his stories, no Native nation and no Indian community of interest accepts him as one of their own. Native artists never knew nor embraced him, either as an artist or as a Native person. Churchill once worked for news outlets, but has not been accepted as a Native journalist, particularly by those he's viciously attacked after they reported what they found: that he could not substantiate his Indian claims. (This note is for any reporters and editors who are confused: Churchill is the Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley of American Indian studies, but without their talent. Churchill simply makes it up, too, plus he invents Indian credentials. Keep in mind that no one accused their papers of violating free speech when they fired frauds for cause.) Colorado and all universities should respect Native nations at least as much as they respect schools and other employers, but they don't. They frown on people who falsify their written material and wrongly claim degrees they did not earn and jobs they did not hold. But when people falsely claim to be Native, it is seen by some as less serious, less offensive and something anyone besides the Indians ought to decide. Churchill got jobs, promotions, tenure and the Ethnic Studies chair at the University of Colorado because he portrayed himself as American Indian. Now he's wrapped himself in the First Amendment, carefully draped over his Indian blanket. He's threatening to sue if he's fired for breach of contract or for the shameful things he said about the 9/11 victims. The university should fire him because he has perpetrated a fraud, and moral turpitude is a deal breaker. The university shielded him from those who tried to reveal the truth and looked the other way as he attacked a lot of decent Native people. ..... indiancountry.com Other Churchill articles: indianz.com indianz.com indianz.com