Facebook's war against Free Speech - How is accusing Israeli Settlers of Land Theft Anti-Semitic?

Banned by Facebook for Telling the Truth Support Richard Silverstein and Bombard Zuckerberg's Censors – PLEASE SHARE 

 

 It is a fact that Israeli settlers have been engaged for over a half a century, using one legal device or another, in stealing Palestinian land. Yet according to Mark Zuckerberg’s minions this is ‘hate speech’.

The means by which they steal the land and its resources vary but the end result is always the same. The dispossession of Palestinian families. The theft of land is always an accompaniment to colonisation, be it in America, South Africa or Israel.

To call criticism of racist colonisers ‘hate speech’ is a perversion of language. It is to make the victims of colonisation, mass murder and land theft the guilty ones. It is no different from saying, as for example Ronald Regan said at Bitburg, that the Nazis too were victims. 

Israel's land thieves and colonisers are not criticised because they are Israeli or Jewish but because they steal land. Even Facebook should understand that.  Unfortunately that simple fact has not penetrated the thick skulls of Facebook’s unaccountable and silent censors. That is why you are asked to share this post as widely as possible.

Governments the world over are attempting to censor social media and protect the powerful. Israel is in the forefront of such efforts.  Thousands of paid Israeli trolls swarm over social media, making concerted reports in order to silent the opponents of their warped racist viewpoints.  They use the language of anti-racism such as ‘hate speech’ in order to attack anti-racists. Unfortunately those who own and control social media are accomplices in this censorship.

PLEASE SHARE AND RETWEET

Tony Greenstein

Facebook Suspends Me, Calling Criticism of Israeli Settler “Hate Speech”

by Richard Silverstein

Facebook suspension notice displaying the "offending" post

Yesterday, I was using Facebook when a message popped on my screen saying that a post I'd published on the platform had been found to be "hate speech."  My account was suspended for seven days. I would have no access to publishing content or comments during that time.

The post consisted of a link to an Al Monitor article about a Palestinian family which had been defrauded of their land by a settler company using fraudulent documents which purported to convey ownership from the Palestinians to the settlers.  An Israeli court found the new deed contained forged signatures and was therefore null and void.  To the linked article I added the comment: "Israeli settlers steal the land."

Apparently, the Israeli troll army is active on Facebook and organized a mass reporting swarm of the post which labeled it hate speech.  Enough reports were received that the post was removed and my account suspended.  I promptly appealed the decision, which has been under review since yesterday.  I also sent the message below in this post to the Facebook press team protesting the warped logic of the decision.

Here is the Facebook definition of hate speech:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

...We allow humor and social commentary related to these topics.

So, making a true statement as determined by an Israeli court,  that settlers essentially stole this family's land, and in general use such fraudulent means to gain control of many other Palestinians' land, is a "direct attack" on settlers based on...what exactly?  Settlers are not a race, nor an ethnicity.  As for national origin, I specifically used the term "Israeli settler" and did not include all Israelis in my statement (though I easily could have since the Israeli state is party such theft on a much larger scale).  As for "religious affiliation," I did not note that settlers are Jews, and my criticism had nothing to do with the Jewish religion (though I have elsewhere criticized the settler political ideology which hijacks and warps Jewish tradition).

So how precisely is my comment "hate speech?" Clearly, it isn't.

A recent NY Times articles noted that the social media platform was clamping down on hate speech, by which the article referred to much more egregious examples than mine.  The report quoted the company's vice president for integrity, Guy Rosen.  So I tweeted to Rosen (using Twitter, of course) asking him to define for me how and why my comment qualified as hate speech.  Rosen has not replied.

This incident is a perfect example of the very perpetrators of hate and hate speech--settlers and their social media troll apologists--gaming the system.  They exploit the platform to suppress legitimate criticism of their oppression of Palestinians.  Facebook has allowed itself to be "taken" by these hoaxsters.  This shouldn't be terribly surprising given the close personal and business relationships both Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have cultivated with Israel.  As American Jews, they've each expressed their fondness for Israeli itself.  Their executives have also met repeatedly with Israeli ministers seeking to eliminate "anti-Israel" content.  The officials claim that Facebook and other social media companies have agreed to intensify their efforts to identity and censor such content.

I'd be grateful if you would promote this post on Facebook (in particular) and any other social media platforms you use.  Here is the message I sent the press team yesterday:

On June 7th, I posted to Facebook this article from the site, AI Monitor, which reported that Palestinian landowners who had lost their homes through fraudulent real estate transactions perpetrated by Israeli settlers had regained them.

I added to the article my own comment: "Israeli settlers steal land." The screenshot of my post and comment is attached.

Somehow my comment was flagged as violating Facebook standards.  Among the specific content which constitutes violating such standards, the rules mention comments that disparage ethnic or religious groups.

I would remind you that Israeli settlers are part of a nation. They are part of a right-wing movement within Israeli society.  Their views are highly controversial not only in Israel, but among Jews and non-Jews outside Israel.  They are not a religion or an ethnic group.  And if we determine that they are Jews and therefore criticizing them is criticizing Jews as a religion, I would remind you that I am a Jew.  My criticism of Israeli settlers has nothing to do with their religion (which I share). It is a criticism of the wholesale Israeli theft of Palestinians lands going back decades.  It is also a criticism of the common practice by Israeli settlers of presenting fraudulent property sale contracts and forged documents to authenticate their "purchase" of Palestinian lands.

I would be happy to produce media sources to document the claims I raised above.

My suspension from Facebook is a travesty.  I have asked for a review of this decision.  I hope you can expedite it.

I plan on approaching several of the media outlets where I publish to interest them in this story.  It would be great if I could also report that Facebook lifted the suspension when it learned about it.

Jonathan Hoffman and Damon Lenzner Convicted of Thuggery and Physical Intimidation of Sandra Watfa

Ex-Zionist Federation Vice-Chair and Board of Deputies Officer Hoffman forgot to Accuse the Police and CPS of ‘Institutional Anti-Semitism’

The solicitor for Daman Lenzner just happened to be Tommy Robinson's lawyer Daniel Berke

It is my sad duty to inform people that my old friend, Jonathan Hoffman was today, with another Zionist thug, Damon Lenzner, convicted of harassment and threatening behaviour.

I had intended to attend court tomorrow as two days had been set aside for the hearing but it would seem the pair decided that cowardice was the better part of valour as they agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charges in exchange for the CPS dropping the assault charges. Or maybe they had advance warning that I would be making an appearance!

Jeremy Newmark, ex-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and subject to corruption allegations came out in support of fascist Hoffman

Hoffman had originally faced an arrest warrant for not turning up in court

They were both fined, sentenced to community and restraining orders. Lenzner was subject to a curfew and an electronic tag. They were also barred from approaching Sandra Watfa, the woman they harassed or Mr Haverty-Stacke, whom Lenzner punched. Reports can be found in Electronic Intifada, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News.

Hoffman in the middle of Roberta Cooper and Robert de Jonge of the Jewish neo-Nazi Jewish Defence League

Hoffman with the EDL's Kevin Carroll

Judge Nigel Dean, said the pair’s actions amounted to “aggressive, bullying behavior.” Clearly he is a man who believes in understatement. It is a sad comedown for Hoffman who used to be Vice-Chair of the Zionist Federation and a senior member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and its Defence Committee. 

Zionist capitalist Micky Davies didn't take kindly to Hoffman and forced him to make a grovelling apology or face the libel courts

However Hoffman made the mistake of falling out with just about everyone and in particular criticising Mick Davies, Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, a rich capitalist and now Treasure of the Tory Party. Everyone who made, even the mildest criticism of Israel was an anti-Semite, including most of the Board of Deputies!

(left to right) Paul Besser of Britain 1st, Ambrosine Shitrit, Gormless Gemma Sheridan (Jewish Nazi JDL), KKK Klaff of South Africa and Hoffman

Hoffman in his element with fellow fascists - EDL in paramilitary fatigues

Hoffman with Neil Horan (green) who is a Hitler supporter

Asa Winstanley writes that ‘One supporter was absent though: former Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark. Writing sympathetically on a thread on Hoffman’s Facebook page in March, Newmark called the case “appalling.” 

Hoffman article defending Jeremy Newmark

You might find this surprising since Hoffman is someone who has worked openly with the far-Right – Tommy Robinson supporters and Britain First’s Paul Besser as well as Pegida supporters Ambrosine Shitrit and Sharon KKKKlaff and Kahanist David Collier.  Newmark is a Labour Zionist.

Hoffman with David Collier - well known Jewish fascist

Hoffman and Lenzner attacked the Inminds picket of the Puma Store in Carnaby Street

However this is not so surprising. The differences between Labour and fascist Zionists have always been tactical.  Hoffman went out on a limb to defend Newmark when the Jewish Chronicle accused him of corruption and trousering thousands of pounds from a Zionist ‘charity’, the Jewish Leadership Council.

Suffice to say I have enormous sympathy for Newmark because the money would otherwise have gone into anti-BDS activity so it’s probably best that it went on champagne, taxi bills (unpaid) and good meals (kosher one hopes).

Hoffman (left) going incognito to court!

A glum looking Hoffman in a not unusual pose

Hoffman on his blog today was unrepentant. He claimed that he and Lenzner had been acquitted of the assault charges.  This is a lie. The CPS had agreed to drop the charges in exchange for them pleading guilty to lesser charges.   However what is one small lie amongst many? Hoffman ranted that:

appallingly, the policeman on the case insisted that the case be tried as a racial and religious hatred case (Section 145, Criminal Justice Act).  In other words according to him we were there not because we found the antisemitic discourse of InMinds repugnant, but because we are Islamophobes.  What a disgrace:  the Court ignored it.

The message from this verdict is that neither pro-Israel advocates nor campaigners against antisemitism can trust the police or the CPS.

Hoffman finds it difficult to believe that his behaviour is Islamaphobic and probably believes that his fascist friends are also lovers of Muslims.

Hoffman placed this on his blog before taking it down on legal advice

When he was first informed that he was going to be prosecuted Hoffman accused the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police of ‘institutional anti-Semitism’ (in fact he called the CPS ‘institutionally anti-Israel but since all opposition to Israel in Hoffman’s book is ‘anti-Semitism’ then that is what he really meant).

One thing that seems to have escaped all other reporting of the case is that Daman Lenzner’s representative is Daniel Berke. By one of these coincidences that plague those of us in public life, Berke is also the solicitor to Tommy Robinson.  I guess it’s a question of Berke by name and Berk by nature!

Kevin Myers was the Sunday Times columnist who accused Jews of 'never knowingly underselling themselves' however Myers was a Zionist and Hoffman was happy to turn a blind eye to his antisemitism

We Are Witnessing the Slow Death of the Corbyn Project

Another Corbyn Own Goal

Labour Should Have Rejected the EHRC Investigation as Politically Motivated 

I sometimes feel that it would be both cheaper and more efficient if Jeremy Corbyn replaced his advisors, Seamus Milne and Andrew Murray, with a tape recorder with a few pre-recorded messages, ‘I surrender’ ‘I apologise’. ‘I promise to do better’.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission announced on the 28^th May that it was going to hold an investigation into the Labour Party under s.20 of the Equality Act. Its terms of reference are here.

It is a catastrophic mistake to have welcomed this ‘investigation’.  It is a politically motivated establishment attack under the guise of racism. The internal affairs of the Labour Party are none of the EHRC’s business. The allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, i.e. hatred or hostility to Jews and everything to do with Israel.

One of the major themes of the CAA, who made the complaint against Labour, is that most Muslims are antisemitic

That is why the main demand of the Board of Deputies and the two organisations who made the complaints that led to this inquiry – the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and the Jewish Labour Movement – was for Labour to introduce the IHRA definition of  ‘anti-Semitism’.

This is the racist stereotype that the Campaign Against Antisemitism featured

Instead of welcoming the investigation the Labour Party should have challenged it as politically motivated, biased and tendentious. Labour should have asked why there was no equivalent investigation into Tory party Islamaphobia or into the Tory party’s anti-Semitic partners in the European Conservative Reform Group, in the European parliament.

Nothing Corbyn says will ever convince his opponents - which is why he should stop appeasing them

At the very least the investigation should have been challenged legally. The pathetic gutlessness of Corbyn’s response may yet come back to haunt him.  However given that he has conceded all along to the bogus ‘anti-Semitism’ taunts it was all but inevitable that he would lie down and accept with grateful thanks the latest humiliation.

The CAA has run over 300 anti-Corbyn articles on its website

The only photo the CAA could find for their report on Muslim 'antisemitism' was of a dark person (Muslim?) holding a Hitler was right poster

There are numerous reasons why this ‘investigation’ should have been rejected.

i.                   The two organisations whose complaints led to the investigation are part of the Zionist/Israel lobby.

ii.                The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism in particular, a so-called charity, has waged a virulent and abusive campaign against Corbyn.  It has hundreds of articles on its web site attacking Corbyn.

iii.             The CAA is a deeply racist Islamaphobic organisation. One only needs to look at their racist profile of a male Muslim to see where their politics are coming from.

The Jewish Labour Movement Boasts that the Israeli Labor Party is their 'sister party' - we should believe them 

iv.             The Jewish Labour Movement which is the other organisation responsible for making the complaint is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party.  A party of ethnic cleansing and colonisation.  It is a party that has supported the deportation of Black African refugees from Israel because they are not Jewish.

Of course the real problem is that Corbyn should fought back against the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations, which were begun by the Daily Mail in 2015, when they started. Corbyn had enough experience in the Palestine solidarity movement to know that the standard accusation against all Palestine activists is that they are anti-Semitic. It is inexplicable that Corbyn is still incapable of understanding this simple point. 

That Corbyn did not question the motives behind this 'investigation' is inexplicable

Today denying that the Labour Party faces an ‘anti-Semitism’ problem is in itself proof of being an ‘anti-Semite.’ Yet the Zionists repeatedly allege that Corbyn is anti-Semitic and a racist. It should be abundantly clear even to the simplest mind that the ‘anti-Semitism’ allegations are motivated by the Zionist lobby yet Corbyn is incapable of speaking this simple truth.

Instead he and John McDonnell have behaved throughout the affair as if the Board of Deputies of British Jews were some benign organisation that was genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism, even to the extent of organising an ‘anti-racist’ demonstration outside parliament in March 2018.  This is the  organisation which has a history of telling Jews, from the Battle of Cable Street to the National Front, not to confront fascists and to keep their heads down and stay indoors.

Boris Johnson merits a slap on the wrist from this tame Tory body

Corbyn should have gone onto the offensive. The Tories are about to elect someone who believes that Black people are ‘picanninies’ with ‘water melon smiles’ and who refers to Muslim women wearing the burka as ‘letter boxes’.  This is the party of the ‘hostile environment policy’ and Windrush.  Yet it too has  condemned Corbyn as ‘anti-Semitic’.  Yet Corbyn is too spineless and feeble to rebut any of these attacks.

The real question is why, at no stage, has the EHRC not opened an investigation into the Windrush scandal and Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment policy’ If its concern is racism then how is it that hundreds of Black British citizens have been deported and this useless establishment body hasn’t stirred itself?  Or is it incapable of investigating the government that funds it?

The real reason is that the EHRC is not and never has been an anti-racist body. It is a body whose main purpose is to see that discrimination does not affect the workings of the market.  It is about incorporating the anti-racist struggle.  It is staffed by the great and good from the corporate world. There isn’t one trade union commissioner. In its current investigation it is using fake allegations of anti-Semitism in order to do the Establishment’s dirty work of attacking Corbyn.  And Corbyn is stupid enough to have given them a stamp of approval.

If you search the EHRC’s site under Windrush you come up with just one result which is one more than if you search under ‘hostile environment policy’.  So despite the major racist scandals of the past 5 years being none of the business of this so-called anti-racist organisation Corbyn and his supporters are incapable of calling this useless corporate ‘diversity’ organisation out.

Who are the great and good who make up the EHRC and its Commissioners?

Below are their profiles taken from the EHRC web pages:

David Isaac CBE (Chair)

David is a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons and was previously Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

Caroline Waters (Deputy Chair)

Currently Vice President of Carers UK and Founder and CEO of CW Consulting Box, Caroline Waters was also Director of People and Policy at BT She chaired, for example, Employers for Carers from 2001 to 2013, was founder and inaugural Chair of the Employers' Forum on Belief, and Chair of the Lone Parents working group.

She is a Director of Roffey Park and a member of the Whole Education Board.

Suzanne Baxter

Suzanne is an experienced board member, finance professional and Chair. 

Suzanne has extensive FTSE 250 board experience gained in executive and non-executive roles and is currently a non-executive director of WHSmith plc, where she is also Chair of the Audit Committee. She was formerly Group Finance Director of Mitie Group plc, and her earlier career was spent at Serco and in the accountancy profession with PwC and Deloitte, where she specialised in corporate finance and assurance. 

Her other roles have included Chair of BITC in the South West and Chair of the Business Services Association. 

Suzanne is Fellow of the ICAEW and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Pavita Cooper

Pavita Cooper has over 25 years’ experience as an executive talent leader across a range of multi-sector global blue-chip organisations, including Shell, Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group.

Pavita is a passionate advocate of greater diversity; she campaigns tirelessly to change the face of British business.

Alasdair Henderson

Alasdair Henderson is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, specialising in public law, human rights, employment law and equality law.

Rebecca Hilsenrath (Chief Executive)

Rebecca Hilsenrath joined the Equality and Human Rights Commission as Legal Officer in March 2014 and was appointed as Chief Executive in 2016.

Prior to that, she was CEO of LawWorks (the Solicitors Pro Bono Group), a national charity facilitating free legal advice to community groups and individuals in need.

After graduating from Cambridge, Rebecca trained and practiced at Linklaters, and then moved to the Government Legal Service, where she held roles in the then Department for Education and Skills and in the Attorney General’s Office.

Susan Johnson OBE

Susan Johnson was, until her retirement in July 2015, Chief Executive at County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, where she was the first woman and non-uniformed chief executive to lead a Fire and Rescue Service in the United Kingdom.

Helen Mahy CBE

Helen is chair of the Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited and deputy chair and senior independent director of Primary Health Properties plc, both of which are companies listed on the main market on the London Stock Exchange.

She is also a non-executive director of SSE plc and Bonheur ASA, the latter being listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. She was, until she retired in 2013, Group Company Secretary and General Counsel of National Grid plc for 10 years. At National Grid she was also executive sponsor of inclusion and diversity, about which she is passionate.

Helen has also been on the boards of Aga Rangemaster Group plc, Stagecoach Group plc and SVG Capital plc.

Mark McLane

Mark McLane is the Head of Global Diversity and Inclusion for Barclays PLC.

Prior to Barclays, Mark was the Director of Diversity and Inclusion for Booz Allen Hamilton, a professional services firm in Washington DC. 

He also held the position of Chief Diversity Officer for Whirlpool Corporation.

Dr Lesley Sawers (Scotland Commissioner)

Lesley is currently Executive Chair of GenAnalytics Ltd, a specialist analytical and market insights consultancy focused on business performance improvement linked to equality and diversity in the workplace.

Previously Lesley was Vice Principal and Pro Vice Chancellor for Business, Enterprise and Innovation at Glasgow Caledonian University and Chief Executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. She has also held senior leadership positions at Scottish Power, Royal Mail, CACI, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and VisitScotland.

Professor Swaran Singh

Professor Swaran Singh is Head of Division, Mental Health and Wellbeing, at the University of Warwick.

In short there isn’t a radical or grassroots antiracist amongst them.  They are all in favour of ‘diversity’ and incorporating struggles against the iniquities of capitalism but you won’t find them on a picket line or demonstration.  Most of them have a corporate background and that is the main purpose of the EHRC, to advise corporations on equality and diversity.

The EHRC is completely unfit to step into the middle of what is a political battle in the Labour Party between left and right under the guise of ‘anti-Semitism’.  All those alleging ‘anti-Semitism’ are also those who pushed the fake IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’.

However the result of accepting without question the EHRC investigation will be that if they come out, as is highly likely, with an adverse report then it is going to be one more potent weapon in the armoury of the Right. 

It is an own goal to have accepted or welcomed the Inquiry.  They should have been challenged legally and there should have been fierce resistance to this attempt to neutralise the left leadership of the Labour Party via bogus complaints of anti-Semitism.

As for the Jewish Labour Movement, they should be thrown out on their ear for having done their best to undermine and destroy the Labour Party at the very moment when the Tories are facing a political crisis.

But instead, when they engaged in some grandstanding and threatened to leave the Labour Party Corbyn begged them to stay!  They rewarded his idiocy with a motion of no confidence in him.

Tony Greenstein