• Le Musée de l’Holocauste retire une étude sur l’inaction d’Obama en #Syrie | The Times of Israël
    http://fr.timesofisrael.com/le-musee-de-lholocauste-retire-une-etude-sur-linaction-dobama-en-s

    Le rapport [...] a déterminé qu’une intervention américaine après l’attaque chimique de 2013 contre Ghouta n’aurait pas réduit les atrocités dans le pays et aurait même pu y contribuer, selon Tablet.

    Un message publié sur le site du musée indique que « la semaine dernière, le Centre Simon-Skjodt pour la prévention des génocides du Musée mémorial de l’Holocauste a publié une étude qui examinait plusieurs décisions prises pendant le conflit syrien. Depuis sa publication, plusieurs personnes avec qui nous avons étroitement travaillé sur la Syrie depuis l’éclatement du conflit ont fait part de leur inquiétude au sujet de cette étude. Le Musée a décidé de supprimer l’étude de son site internet le temps que nous examinions ces retours. »

    Here Is the Syria Report the Holocaust Museum Unpublished
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/here-is-the-holocaust-museum-syria-report.html

  • Barghouti’s N.Y. Times article met by Israeli ritual of diversion and denial -

    Comparing article to terror attack and suggesting sanctions against the Times, as Michael Oren did, is more damaging to Israel’s image

    Chemi Shalev Apr 19, 2017
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.784060

    At the end of his opinion piece in the New York Times about the Palestinian prisoners’ strike, Marwan Barghouti was originally described as “a Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.” After 24 hours of outrage and condemnation, an editor’s note conceded that further context was needed, pointing out that Barghouti had been convicted on “five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization.” News of the clarification spread like wildfire on social media. It was described in glowing terms as yet another historic victory of good over evil and of the Jewish people over its eternal enemies.
    It was another example of the time-tested Israeli ritual of accentuating the insignificant at the expense of the essence, the results of which are well known in advance. First you manufacture righteous indignation over a minor fault in an article or the problematic identity of its writer, then you assault the newspaper or media that publicized it and cast doubt on its motives, then you demand to know how this was even possible and who will pay the price. In this way, the Israeli public is absolved of the need to actually contend with the gist of the article or public utterance, in this case Barghouti’s claims that he was physically tortured, that almost a million Palestinians have been detained over the years, that their conviction rate in the Israeli military court system is absurdly high, whether it’s really wise to hold as many as 6,500 security prisoners in custody at one time and so on.
    The guiding principle of this perpetual war waged by Israel and its supporters against the so-called hostile press - to paraphrase a legendary John Cleese episode about a visit by German visitors to Fawlty Towers - is “Don’t mention the occupation!” After one spends so much energy on protestations and exclamations of how unthinkable, how outrageous and how dare they, there’s very little enthusiasm left to consider eternal control over another people or the malignant status quo that many Israelis view as the best of all possible worlds or how is it even possible that someone who is defined by former Israeli Ambassador and current deputy minister Michael Oren as a terrorist and a murderer on a par with Dylann Roof, who killed nine African American worshippers in a church in Charleston, is considered by many people around the world, including those at the New York Times, as an authentic leader whose words should be read and heard.
    In an interview with IDF Radio on Tuesday, Oren put the ingenious diversionary strategy on full display. He described Barghouti’s op-ed as nothing less than a “media terror attack.” To this he added a pinch of conspiracy theory with a dash of anti-Semitism by claiming that the Times purposely published Barghouti’s article on Passover, so that Israeli and Jewish leaders wouldn’t have time to react. Then he approvingly cited the wise words of his new oracle, Donald Trump, describing the publication of the article and its content as “fake news.” And for his grand finale, Oren intimated that the proper Zionist response would be to close down the Times’ Israel office, no less.
    In this way, anyone who wants to address Barghouti’s claims substantively, even if it’s to criticize them, is seen as collaborating with a terrorist and enabling terror. It’s the same system by which anti-occupation groups such as Breaking the Silence are tarred as traitorous, backstabbing informants so that no one dares consider the actual testimonies they present about the hardships of occupation and the immorality of forcing the IDF to police the West Bank. What’s hilarious, however, is that so many Israelis and Jews are convinced that articles such as the one written by Barghouti, which most readers probably view as yet another tedious polemic about an intractable Middle East conflict, somehow causes more harm to Israel’s image than a senior government official who compares a news article to a terror attack and who recommends closing down the offices of the most widely respected news organization in the world, a la Putin or Erdogan.

    #Palestine #Israel #Barghouti

    • @intempestive oui, c’est bien ça :
      http://motherboard.vice.com/read/jews-are-taking-back-echoes-from-the-neo-nazis

      Après, il y a un petit côté Louis de Funès assez ridicule dans ces articles (il ne faut jamais passer à côté du ridicule de situation) :

      After Rosenberg and Goldberg tweeted about changing their names, dozens of other people on Twitter followed suit.

      et dans ton article :

      Par exemple, les noms de famille Cohen ou Rosenberg étaient réécrits pour apparaître comme (((Cohen))) et (((Rosenberg))).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1cJpcn3t-o

      Plus sérieusement, ce n’est pas l’aspect « religieux » en tant que tel que je considère comme débile. Je suis même persuadé qu’une bonne proportion de ceux qui mettent le noun ou les triples parenthèses sont des gens peu religieux, voire pas du tout.

      (1) Avant tout, il s’agit d’accepter la logique de l’ennemi : les propriétés des chrétiens marquées d’un noun par ISIS, les personnes de confession juive signalées d’une triple parenthèse par les antisémites. En le faisant, je ne vois pas qu’on fasse autre chose que ce pour quoi ces symboles ont été conçus par nos ennemis.

      (2) L’aspect « solidarité au-delà des confessions » de ces symboles est, en pratique, extrêmement faible. Je suppose qu’on peut toujours trouver trois contre-exemples, mais ce sont bien des chrétiens qui s’identifient d’un noun, et des juifs qui s’identifient avec les parenthèses. Si le motif politique est généralement mis en avant, dans la pratique on reste dans des marqueurs qui restent très confessionnels.

      (3) Wikipédia est déjà le meilleur outil pour, depuis des années, établir des listes de juifs, de chrétiens, de sunnites, de chiites… La religion des gens est systématiquement signalées dès la première phrase de leur biographie. Alors qu’on se signale maintenant soi-même en polluant Twitter de marqueurs confessionnels, c’est vraiment un sacré progrès de l’internet…

      (4) Puisque la justification prétend être un marqueur de solidarité avec les personnes persécutées (par ISIS, par les néo-nazis), on accepte bien l’idée de mettre en avant à chaque message posté une solidarité sur une base confessionnelle. Avec le noun j’annonce ma solidarité prioritaire avec les Chrétiens d’Orient (pas les Sunnites ni les Yazidis, pas les Syriens ni les Irakiens en général, etc.) Je ne vois pas plus terrible moyen de renforcer l’impression de classification et de concurrence confessionnelle des victimes et des solidarités. Quand on verra apparaître un marqueur de ce genre strictement sunnite et un marqueur strictement chiite, je pense qu’il ne fera aucun doute que l’effet est catastrophique, et enfin on verra des gens s’indigner d’une pratique dont la conséquence est, de manière tout à fait évidente, de provoquer cette catastrophe.

      (5) Et je pense qu’on a aussi besoin de se méfier des logiques politiques qui sous-tendent certaines de ces mises en avant (même si les causes affichées sont parfaitement légitimes). Le soutien affiché aux Chrétiens d’Orient n’est généralement pas neutre :
      http://orientxxi.info/magazine/une-compassion-tres-politique-pour-les-chretiens-d-orient,1300,1300
      et que Jeffrey Goldberg et Yair Rosenberg prétendent se sentir persécutés en tant que juifs, c’est tout de même un vieux thème sioniste, et ces deux personnes sont justement des acteurs politiques de cette cause (encore une fois, même si le refus de l’antisémitisme est légitime)... Tiens, pour être bien clair, qui associe systématiquement l’identité juive des gens à leurs activités politiques ?
      http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/111297/natalie-portman-and-scarlett-johansson-at-dnc

      While some commentators have already suggested that these picks are a clear attempt to appeal to young women voters, they’ve neglected another demographic being pandered to: Jews.

      After all, Portman and Johansson are two of Hollywood’s most prominent Jewish starlets. And both are renowned for their Jewish literacy and commitment. While an undergraduate, Portman served as a research assistant on Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s bestseller, The Case for Israel (she is credited under her real name, Natalie Hershlag). And Johansson is famed for her wide knowledge of Jewish ethnic foods and willingness to sing the Dreidel Song on MTV.

      C’est un des nombreux articles de Yair Rosenberg sur Tablet magazine (un magazine qui fait ça absolument tout le temps…).

    • @intempestive : oui et non. Je vois bien l’idée de l’inversion, c’est un peu mon point (1).

      (a) Mais je pense qu’en l’occurence, on joue sur une confusion entre identity politics et geste de solidarité. Je suis solidaire des racisés et des gays, mais je n’ai aucune légitimité par exemple à dire « nègre », « bougnoule » ou « pédé ». Or les chrétiens ne sont pas persécutés en occident (où s’affiche lourdement le noun).

      (b) Quant à évoquer la persécution des juifs pour jouer d’une identity politics qu’on prétend juive américaine (persécutée ?), alors qu’on est avant tout connu pour être un militant politique sioniste, ce n’est malheureusement ni nouveau ni original.

  • Un modèle d’affaire pour #seenthis - surtout pas !
    http://solidopinion.com

    GOT COMMENTS? GET REVENUE!
    With just a few lines of code add promoted comments and an entirely new revenue stream.

    Examples
    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/commenting-rules (en)
    http://www.tabletmag.com (en)

    Les publications envisageant des licenciments pour cause de perte de revenus
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-battle-falteringad-revenue-and-traffic.html (en)
    http://meedia.de/2016/04/25/alpha-medien-senden-notsignale-auch-financial-times-und-new-york-times-muesse (de)
    http://www.politico.eu/blogs/spence-on-media/2016/04/financial-times-we-are-facing-daunting-conditions (en)
    http://meedia.de/2016/03/17/guardian-media-group-streicht-250-stellen-um-profitabel-zu-werden (de)
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/23/new-york-times-plans-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-later-this-year (en)
    http://nypost.com/2016/04/23/new-york-times-plans-to-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-later-this-year (en)

    Kommentieren ist ein Privileg | Telepolis
    http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/48/48068/1.html

    Michael Robertson, einstiger Gründer von MP3.com, hat nun SolidOpinion.com ins Leben gerufen. Geschäftsidee: Die Forenbenutzung durch Gamification und eine Bezahlschranke zu Geld zu machen, indem Kommentatoren dafür bezahlen, im Ranking nach oben zu rutschen, während gleichzeitig die Qualität der Forumsbeiträge gehoben und Trollen das Leben schwerer gemacht werden soll: „Toxic commenters gone“ wird versprochen: „Your user base is your troll shield!“

    Der Verlag Tribune Publishing, der die Chicago Tribune oder die Los Angeles Times herausgibt, ist schon einmal eingestiegen. Vorsichtig und versuchshalber bei der Website der kleineren San-Diego Union-Tribune. Erst einmal können Nutzer sich im Forum Punkte verdienen, für die sie eine bessere Platzierung ihrer Kommentare erwerben können, wenn sie die Website regelmäßig besuchen und Kommentare schreiben. Sie können aber auch Punkte kaufen.

    Für den ersten Besuch gibt es 50 Punkte, für jeden weiteren Tag 5 Punkte, für das Sharen eines Links 2 Punkte, für den ersten Kommentar unter einem Artikel 3 Punkte. Für einen Kommentar 1 Punkt, für eine Antwort darauf 2 Punkte. Punkte verliert, wessen Kommentare wegen der Verletzung der Forumsregeln markiert oder gesperrt werden. Bezahlt werden muss mit Punkten das Posten von Fotos und Videos, das Ignorieren eines Autors kostet 20 Punkte, das Deaktivieren von Antworten zu einem Kommentar 30 Punkte.

    22 Punkte gibt es für einen Dollar, maximal kann man 880 Punkte für 10 US-Dollar kaufen. Mindestens 15 Punkte sind notwendig, um einen Kommentar weiter nach oben zu pushen. Dort sind drei markierte Plätze an der Spitze für „promoted comments“ reserviert, die die Leser als erstes unter den Artikeln sehen. Man muss freilich nicht seinen eigenen Kommentar puschen, man kann auch den einer anderen Person fördern. Wollen mehrere Leser ihre Kommentare oben sehen, dann gewinnt der Meistbietende. Zum Anreiz werden diejenigen gelistet, die am häufigsten kommentieren, und diejenigen, die am beliebtesten sind.

    Die ersten Plätze sind in den Suchmaschinen-Rankings heiß umkämpft und Gold wert, das will man nun auf die Foren umsetzen. Allerdings dürfte der Erfolg hier doch etwas bescheidener sein, denn ganz vorne werden eben auch hier Trolle und andere Aufmerksamkeitsjäger sein wollen. Gewiefte Leser werden die ersten Positionen daher eher außer Acht lassen. Sollten die gekauften ersten Positionen nicht wiederum viele Kommentare erhalten, dürfte sich das Geschäftsmodell schnell erledigt haben. Allerdings ist es auch eine Spielwiese, gut möglich, dass sich Leser herausgefordert sehen - und dafür auch zahlen -, um im Ranking oben zu stehen oder durch ihre Punkte Privilegien zu genießen. Wer 100.000 Punkte hat, wird zum Monitor - und so auch sichtbar ausgezeichnet - und kann Bemerkungen hinzufügen, mit 30.000 Punkten wird man zum Senior Editor und kann Antworten deaktivieren, als Editor kann man ein Video einbetten etc.

    Weiter getrieben hat das Geschäftsmodell das jüdische Magazin Tablet. Hier muss jeder Leser zahlen, der einen Kommentar schreiben will. Die Kosten gleichen einem normalen Abo. Die Freiheit zum Kommentieren kostet 2 Dollar pro Tag, 18 Dollar im Monat oder 180 Dollar im Jahr.

    #commerce #médias #forums #paywall

  • Journées contre l’islamophobie : Bruxelles, comme un écho
    http://contre-attaques.org/magazine/article/journees

    Les 11,12 et 13 décembre avaient eu lieu les journées internationales contre l’islamophobie en France et en Europe. Retour sur les évènements à Bruxelles qui nous racontent l’islamophobie vue de Belgique. Entre reconnaissance médiatique avec la Une du journal de référence belge Le Soirsur la montée de l’islamophobie et polémique infondée, les journées ont été placées sous le signe du rassemblement. Bruxelles a beau n’être qu’à 300 kilomètres de Paris, c’est un autre pays. Et c’est aussi une autre tradition (...)

    #Magazine

    / #carousel, #Analyses, #Lutte_contre_l'Islamophobie

    « https://www.facebook.com/957080974323338/photos/a.1008411199190315.1073741828.957080974323338/1059243130773788/?type=3&theater »
    « http://www.diversite.be »
    « http://www.tabletmag.com »
    « https://twitter.com/Aboujahjah »
    « http://www.standaard.be »
    « http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/195521/amnesty-international-sponsors-speaker-who-celebrated-911-denied-holocaus »
    « https://www.facebook.com/islamophobia.ccib.be »
    « http://upjb.be »

  • 24 Arrested in Protest Against Israel’s Gaza Campaign, Organized by Norman Finkelstein – Tablet Magazine
    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180812/24-arrested-in-protest-against-israels-gaza-campaign

    At noon on Tuesday, 24 people were arrested in Midtown during a protest against the ongoing Israeli offensive in Gaza. Over 100 people had gathered for the event, organized by professor and author Norman Finkelstein, who had posted a message to his website stating that if 100 people committed to an act civil disobedience, it would take place at the Israeli mission at the UN in New York City on Tuesday.

  • J Street Conference Attendees Applaud Fatah Representative’s Call For Right of Return –
    Tablet Magazine
    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/147016/j-street-attendees-show-support-for-right-of-return

    During an otherwise mundane session on new voices and perspectives in Israeli and Palestinian societies, Fatah’s Husam Zomlot controversially won the support of the floor for expressing the demand that Israel give “full recognition of the Nakba” and present the right of return as an option to Palestinian refugees.

    Describing the refugee question as the easiest issue to resolve, Zomlot, executive deputy commissioner for the Commission for International Affairs of Palestine, said:

    As for the refugee issue, how do you want me to sign a deal with my own hands that would compromise the rights of two thirds of the nation? How am I doing to build cohesion and eternal peace on such a compromise? Why do I have to compromise?

    …What do the refugees want? Some of them want to stay where they are. Some of them might want to resettle somewhere else in a third country. Some of them might want to come back to the State of Palestine. And some of them might want to return to their original homes. But all of them want one thing: full recognition of the Nakba that has befallen our people.

    Zomlot’s call received sustained and sure applause from the delegates in the hall. Zomlot got further affirmation for his argument when, while speaking about his father who resides in London, he stated that he “has a right” to return to his former home in Israel. “He has to be given that option.” The applause was lighter the second time around, however, but no less noticeable.

    Such approval for the right of return departs from J Street’s official position on the subject, which is in line with the Zionist mainstream. “The refugee issue should be negotiated and resolved as part of an agreement between official Israeli and Palestinian authorities and endorsed by both peoples. J Street would support the approach outlined in commonly accepted models of a two-state solution under which the vast majority of refugees would be resettled outside the internationally recognized borders of Israel, while receiving compensation.”

  • The Collaboration — Ben Urwand | Harvard University Press
    http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674724747

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_UJrSc4PXVM

    To continue doing business in Germany after Hitler’s ascent to power, Hollywood studios agreed not to make films that attacked the Nazis or condemned Germany’s persecution of Jews. Ben Urwand reveals this bargain for the first time—a “collaboration” (Zusammenarbeit) that drew in a cast of characters ranging from notorious German political leaders such as Goebbels to Hollywood icons such as Louis B. Mayer.

    At the center of Urwand’s story is Hitler himself, who was obsessed with movies and recognized their power to shape public opinion. In December 1930, his Party rioted against the Berlin screening of All Quiet on the Western Front, which led to a chain of unfortunate events and decisions. Fearful of losing access to the German market, all of the Hollywood studios started making concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, the studios—many of which were headed by Jews—began dealing with his representatives directly.

    Urwand shows that the arrangement remained in place through the 1930s, as Hollywood studios met regularly with the German consul in Los Angeles and changed or canceled movies according to his wishes. Paramount and Fox invested profits made from the German market in German newsreels, while MGM financed the production of German armaments. Painstakingly marshaling previously unexamined archival evidence, The Collaboration raises the curtain on a hidden episode in Hollywood—and American—history.

    • Le magazine Tablet publie une longue présentation des découvertes de Ben Urwand : New Evidence of Jewish Movie Moguls’ Collaboration with 1930s Nazis
      http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/134503/hollywood-nazi-urwand

      Urwand has titled his riveting book The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact With Hitler, and as you turn its pages you realize with dismay that collaboration is the only fitting word for the relationship between Hitler and Hollywood in the 1930s. Using new archival discoveries, Urwand alleges that some of the Hollywood studio heads, nearly all of whom were Jewish, cast their lot with Hitler almost from the moment he took power, and that they did so eagerly—not reluctantly. What they wanted was access to German audiences. What Hitler wanted was the ability to shape the content of Hollywood movies—and he got it. During the ’30s, Georg Gyssling, Hitler’s consul in Los Angeles, was invited to preview films before they were released. If Gyssling objected to any part of a movie—and he frequently did—the offending scenes were cut. As a result, the Nazis had total veto power over the content of Hollywood movies.

      What is shocking and new about Urwand’s account is its blow-by-blow description of Hollywood executives tailoring their product to meet the demands of the Nazi regime. While Hollywood’s relations with the Nazis is not a new subject, the inclination of previous historians like Thomas Doherty, author of Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1939, who did not have access to the documents that Urwand has uncovered, has been to let the studio executives off the hook. Like most historians before Urwand, Doherty seconds Jack Warner’s self-portrait as an ardent foe of the Nazis, who stopped doing business in Germany because he was appalled by the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. But as Urwand alleges here, it wasn’t Warner who rejected the Nazis; they rejected him: Hitler dumped Warner Bros. because the studio failed to make the substantial cuts demanded by his consul Gyssling to a movie called Captured!, set in a German-run camp for foreign POWs during World War I. By July 1934, Warner Bros. had been kicked out of Berlin, and the rest of the studios were running scared. Urwand details Hollywood distribution companies faced with having to fire half of their Jewish staff members in Germany and negotiating with the Nazis so that they could hang on to other half. In 1936, all Jews associated with the American film industry in Germany were forced to leave the country. Yet even after this, the studios eagerly kept up their profitable dealings with Hitler’s regime.

  • What would Chuck do?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SwqTY1oJcjs

    In an unprecedented move, the legendary actor, Mr. Chuck Norris, created this audio, showing his support for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and The Likud Party in the general elections in Israel : “Vote for Benjamin Netanyahu because a Strong Prime Minister is a strong Israel”

  • Saudi Media and Clerical Elites Are Waging Proxy War Against the Regime in Tehran – Joseph Braude – Tablet Magazine
    http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/116349/saudis-proxy-war-against-iran

    But activities in recent months prove that an equally important question is what Iran’s minorities and sympathetic neighboring countries are doing on their own. Extensive reporting from local sources in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states reveals that several countries surrounding Iran are beginning to back the country’s ethnic dissidents as a way of waging a proxy war against the mullahs. In Saudi Arabia, media and clerical elites recently mobilized to raise public awareness about the situation of Ahwazi Arabs, frame their cause as a national liberation struggle, and urge Arabs and Muslims to support them. Saudi donors are providing money and technological support to Ahwazi dissidents seeking to wage their own public information campaign, calling on Ahwazis to rise up against their rulers. The Saudi initiatives, in turn, join ongoing ventures by Azerbaijan and Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government to organize and train other dissident groups.