It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rejecting US Anti-Semitism Act

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:55 AM
So ... these nations want to be free to put in their kindergarden
books 'Jews are apes and pigs' and 'kill the Jews and make Allah
happy'. They want to be free to indoctrinate hate into their

While I agree that everyone should be free to do what
they like, I would hope that they would rise to the occassion and
embrace tolerance in the name of world peace. Looks like you
can't force a bunch of people stuck in hate group-think to let go
of their hate and grow up. If they let go of that hate, they'd have
to look at their own situation and see what they have done to
themselves. I guess that would be too painful.

Oh well. Sometimes freedom bites you in the butt.

Al Ahram (Egypt)
March 10-16, 2005

Excerpt -

Rejecting the US anti-Semitism act

Egyptian and Arab legal experts said the US's new global anti-Semitism
monitoring law was biased, and illegitimate. Gihan Shahine attends the
first conference on the issue

Will the US global anti-Semitism act -- which requires greater US monitoring
of anti-Semitic acts worldwide -- muzzle freedom of expression in the Arab
and Muslim world? What is the US law's exact definition of anti- Semitism,
and why does it include criticism, or "demonisation", of Israel and Zionism?
How can Arab countries stand up to what they see as an "illegitimate"

These and other questions have recently provoked enough public anger
and heated debate to inspire a large number of legal experts, political
analysts, social activists, and media people from around the Arab world to
attend a three-day Cairo University conference on the repercussions of the
new US global anti- Semitism act.

"The law marks the peak of US dominance over the world," thundered
CPRS Chairwoman Nadia Mustafa, who is also a Cairo University political
science professor. "We have to find ways to stand up to the US clampdown
on freedoms in the Arab and Islamic world."

ESIL Secretary-General Salah Amer, a Cairo University international law
professor, called the new legislation "terror of thought".

By passing the new law, warned Palestinian political analyst Salman Abu
Setta, "the US is waging an unprecedented, relentless war on our rights,
creed and identity."

AAD Executive Manager Emad Gad said his organisation had already taken
steps in that direction. "There is considerable sympathy for the Arab cause
in the West, but it is our fault that we do not know how to use or present
our case in a way that reaches out to the Western mentality," Gad said.
To help bridge that gap, the AAD -- chaired by Nafie -- recently established
a branch office in Washington. "Experts, intellectuals, human-rights
activists and civil society should all join forces to find ways to stop this
clampdown on freedoms," Gad said


[edit on 3/12/2005 by FlyersFan]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:03 AM
Gosh, I dont know. It doesnt surprise me. Its a shame.

Question for everyone:

Excuse my ignorance but it seems like a lot of countries in the Middle East do not like Jews. Why is this? I dont understand why there is such a hate for these people. Did I miss something in history class?
It seems like they have always gotten the bad rap. All the way back to "jesus times."

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Event Horizon]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:04 AM
Yeah ive heard about this before,
i have a funny feeling this has been posted before or something along the lines of this.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
"We have to find ways to stand up to the US clampdown
on freedoms in the Arab and Islamic world."

... called the new legislation "terror of thought".

...."the US is waging an unprecedented, relentless war on our rights,
creed and identity."

As a practical note ... if these Egyptians want to continue to have
America give multi-millions of $$$ in aid and if they want to see
America continue to do business with Egypt - selling airplanes etc.
Then they'd better wake up and realize that thousands of years of
'let's hate the Jews and the infidels' has to come to an end. They'd
better bring themselves up to this reality or their country will degrade
into nothingness.

Heck. I'd be happy not giving them the multi-millions. I wish we hadn't
forgiven Egypt it's debts to American companies back in Gulf War I.
I'd have no problem cutting the purse strings to Egypt.

Oh .. and 'terror of thought'? Yep. I can see how taking 'jews are
apes and pigs' and 'kill all jews and infidels' out of school books is
'terror of thought'.
Taking the hate and calls for mass murder
and genocide OUT of school books is terrorism. Oh brother. If
government sponsored school books in America all contained
'muslims are apes and pigs' 'kill all muslims they are an abomination
before God' - I would think that Egpyt and the rest of the countries
over there would be (rightfully) having a fit.

[edit on 3/12/2005 by FlyersFan]

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:09 AM

Originally posted by infinite
i have a funny feeling this has been posted before.

Perhaps it's been discussed. BUT this is from Egypt and
it's posted for March 10-16. I think it's new.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:10 AM
I think it should be rejected.
It's sounds too broad judging by what they say in the quote below:

What is the US law's exact definition of anti- Semitism, and why does it include criticism, or "demonisation", of Israel and Zionism? How can Arab countries stand up to what they see as an "illegitimate" law?

They can't restrict criticism of any nation as all nations do things that are subject to criticism.

I would also like to know why this is restricted to anti-semitic comments and behavior instead of applying to acts or criticisms directed towards all minorites and countries.
They should not get special treatment.

Perhaps Israel didn't want it to apply to ctiticism of Arab/Muslim because they would get in trouble themselves.

Israeli Textbooks Incite Racism, Hatred

Anti-Arab Sentences

The Israeli textbooks also focus on attaching mean and derogatory descriptions to Arabs, the education expert told Reuters.

“The Arabs are given mean descriptions in the Israeli textbooks such as thugs and thieves,” she said, citing two examples of anti-Arab sentences in the Israeli textbooks to prove her case.

One such clause speak about the “sacrifices” made by early Jewish generations, “despite a harsh climate and an environment full of the Arab embezzlers, thieves and terrorists”.

A second refers to the city of Taparia as a place which is suffering from insecurity and fear from the Arab killers.

The Israeli textbooks also include anti-Arab sentences such as “Arab thieves”, “Arabs are bastards thirsty for the Jewish bloods”, and “underdeveloped Arabs”.

Negotiations are under way to translate the book into other languages in order to reveal the Israeli racist stances on the Arab peoples.

“Negotiations are under way with a European publishing house to translate the book to let the sympathizers with Israel know how the Israelis are implanting enmity and hatred against the Arabs and non-Jewish,” Mohamed Rashad, the book publisher, told Reuters.

Alternate source:
YnetNews, Israel

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:56 AM
come on its not like the jews are anymore of a racal taget then any other minority and arnt that special to deserve their own little law.
if they dont like it, I usnderstand that isreal will welcome them home with open arms and guess what? theres the door if you dont like it.

now if its a universal anti hate law then I may be for it but this specail law for 1 group is bs

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by noctu
now if its a universal anti hate law then I may be for it but this specail law for 1 group is bs

I totally agree.
If you are against hate, you should be against hate directed towards all people not one particular group.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:55 AM
Strange considering Egypt was the key figure in getting the latest peace between Israel and Palastine.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:15 AM
You'd think the anti-deflamation league, the ownership of our media, the ownership of our federal reserve system, and the billions raked in through 3/4 of all prepackaged foods being kosher would be enough for them, but apparently our ideas of spreading democracy to the middle east also include forcing them to embrace judaism as well. Let me put it this way, what if Iran passed a law saying you couldn't express anti-Iranian sentiments, would you be so quick to embrace that foriegn legislation? Would it bother to know that foriegn intelligence agencies were profiling you because you spoke harshly of Iranian policy? Israel owns the US, I think the rest of the world gets that message pretty clearly, why waste time and ink to exemplify it? Paranoia is one of the many symptoms of megalomania. If Jews are afraid Egyptians don't like them, then the simple solution is to stay the hell out of Egypt, isn't it? This is a ridiculous legislation which stands only to implicate our unilatteral support of Israel, regardless of the consequences. If the Jewish nation wants peace and equality, they can start by taking the Talmud out of the picture. I might be a lowly gentile, but I know hypocrisy when I see it.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:48 AM
Why is a simple principle such as "equal protection under the law," so difficult for Congress to understand? Why is such a thing difficult for other nations to understand? Why is it that only one country alone demands to be above criticism and that to criticize its government, unless you are an Israeli in Israel, is "anti-semitism," or even there considered the work of a "self-hating Jewish person?"

What if every "anti-Semitism," citation in the law were substituted by any and all groupings of people? Say it went historically? What if Gobbels passed a similar "anti-NAZI," law, while he was busy exterminating people? What if Stalin had an "anti-communist," law, or more selectively an "anti-Stalin law," while he was doing the same? Pol Pot? What if laws as citied applied to "corporate robber barons?"

So think about it, if some "anti-anything law," is far too broad, its interpretation could be anything and everything as applied by a group to the detriment of any and all others? Why is it that only within inductive and deductive logic, from general to specific, and specific to general, does one shed light on the whole matter at hand?

How about another concept such as "anti-mafia," and so compare it to J. Edgar Hoover being blackmailed by pictures of himself in drag, and worse. Subsequently he says "organized crime does not exist?"

Historically, is such blindness tied to blackmail, subversion, and duress? Is the existing order of things inconsistent with observation, and then pass a law against remedies to the problem? Talk about self-evident truth too much, and the IRS comes after you. Or for Galileo talks too much about the Sun being at the center of things, and then gets the inquisition. The pattern is the same while it takes another generation to escape an over-established and stereotyped paradigm. In this case it is selecting one group of people as having more rights than any other. Should hate laws be passed that grant groups more rights than other groups, or for that matter what essentially takes away any group association? Should one consider pretending to be gay, to obtain more rights?

Should I assert my Jewish identity because enough maternal ancestors were Portuguese Jews facing the inquisition, so becoming "catholic?" All of this is far too complicated in the face of preferring universal human rights, something granted by "the creator," not by governments. It is far simpler to respect one another, than to demand respect by force.

This thread is not about racism, it is about individuals acting sometimes badly on behalf of their groups while sheltering themselves within their group identity. The concept is not confined to Israel; it goes for Arabs as well. It is a shame on people who are unwilling to grant others essential humanity, those denying simple human rights and justice through a polity. This post is about universal brotherhood, not about selective brotherhoods exerting influence upon a mass of divided others. Consider reciprocity in a good light, human beings acknowledging their essential humanity and that of others as superior to even their own cultures. Such a thing cannot happen under existing plans for a new world order. In that you get an illusory and ill defined order after 100 years of useless chaos, something useless to everyone including the extreme rich who rule over a heap of ruins.

Again, why is it so difficult for people to understand so simple a concept as "equal protection under the law," verses the Orwellian Animal Farm, where "some animals are more equal than other animals?"

[edit on 12-3-2005 by SkipShipman]

top topics


log in