Israel's Indymedia censored. Palestine's Indymedia crippled.

by David from Co. Dublin Tue Jan 27, 2004 09:30

does anyone know when Indymedia Israel might be able to resume publishing? Any recent news on the government's intimidation campaign?

by avi H. Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:22

when Indymedia Ireland will stop deleting my postings just because it disagrees with my pro-Jewish viewpoint? Isn't this a form of censorship by the backdoor, known in the trade as gross hypocrisy.

by jams Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:19

Avi your regular zionist rants expose you for the apartheid supporting facist that you are. Supporting zionism does not equate to supporting jewism, I detest the apartheid Israeli state/U.S. colony, but have nothing against jews, despite the israeli reflex to always associate critisism with anti semitism.
Hence the israelis nazi like oppression of any sentiment opposing their brutal regime.
My jewish friends are in entire agreement with me, they arent all dupes of the nazi israelis.

by kokomero Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:27

Indymedia has a published set of guidelines for submission of postings and like any other medium are entitled to edit/delete non-compliant postings.

We've all had postings deleted at one time or other Avi including you and I so I don't understand your "surprise" at this move. You'll just have to learn to live within the rules like the rest of us.

It is quite another thing however when states such as the US which brought down Al-Jazeera's website during the war in Iraq.

This is a flagrant breach of the rights to freedom of expression they claim to uphold and is fundamentally undemocratic, and if Israel engages in the same behaviour it is also undemocratic.

by Mike Tue Jan 27, 2004 15:21

Look --- MOST IMC sites are subject to various control by the governemnts where they are hosted. AFAIK, the Israeli IMC folks decided to switch hosting away from a server within Israel at the same time they upgraded the software. The site hasn't reappeared yet which could mean any of a number of things but probably NOT interference from the ISRAELI government. Hasn't it occured to you that MAYBE the problem is that none of YOUR (European) servers wants to host a "Zionist" site?
In case you didn't know this, a hell of a lot of IMC sites are being hosted by a just a comparatively small number of servers. So before claiming the problems Israel IMC getting back up are from actions of the Israeli government please tell us which of the IMC hosting servers agreed to accept them.

IMC Palestine has been plagued by technical problems which probably means not "government interference" but lack of "techies" to fix things. Do you know who WAS maintaining their site befroe their problems hit? Is this person or persons still available to do the work? Many of our IMC sites have lots of "activists" but only a couple techies doing the tech work. Again, before blaming this on the Israeli government, please confirm that this IMC collective HAS a competent techie.

by kokomero Tue Jan 27, 2004 17:46

Obviously from the following quote IMC Israel don't realise that their problems are actually technical ones Mike so perhaps you'd like to write to them explaining what their problem ACTUALLY is?

''The investigation against Indymedia Israel has turned into intimidation, harming Freedom of Speech on the Internet.''

Translated from Hebrew

December, 26th, 2003
Police investigators are attempting to throw responsibility on Indymedia Israel’s operators, for publications appearing in the “open publishing zone” of the website. This is done illegally and against the recommendations of a professional committee of the Israel Ministry of Justice.

The Indymedia Israel website provides a free and open stage for surfers on the Internet. Approximately three weeks ago, a surfer outside of Israel published a caricature in the open publishing zone of the website, in which the Israeli Prime Minister is portrayed passionately kissing the leader of Nazi Germany. Subsequent to this, the Attorney General of Israel ordered the opening of an investigation against the website’s administrators, for incitement and insulting a public figure.

Today, attorney Avner Pinchuk of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) sent a letter to the Israel Attorney General demanding an immediate end to the investigation. Attorney Pinchuk claims that the moment the police realized the site’s operators did not publish the publication, it was illegitimate to harass them with an investigation. Worse than this, the police investigators are attempting to ‘convince’ the site’s operators to commit themselves to continual censorship over all publications in the open publishing zone of the site. By doing this, the investigators deviate from their authority in an attempt to impose on the Israeli Internet arena, norms which are against both the law and the position of most professionals working in the field, in Israel and abroad—including a special committee of the Israel Ministry of Justice.

Electronic billboards, like that of Indymedia Israel, are very common on the Internet and are used by many individuals and communities wishing to exchange information and opinions freely. As opposed to the global process of concentration of the media and debate in the hands of a few, the public platform of the Internet provides a unique ground for free, democratic dialogue. Indeed, in the open publishing zone, some offensive expressions might appear, such as slander or abuse of privacy. However, the general opinion of judges and legislators from all over the world holds that, in almost all cases, responsibility should not be laid upon the providers of Internet services—website operators that allow an open publishing zone for the entire surfing public. This is also the opinion of a special committee of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, which presently discusses this issue.

Now however, when legislators and judges around the world deny that website operators have civil responsibility for ''guest'' publications, and at the very moment that the Ministry of Justice committee discusses the design of legal arrangements that will explicitly anchor these conceptions in law, the police investigation team makes up its own norms, claiming criminal responsibility, and even worse, hurrying to impose them in practice using an harassing and bullying investigation against the website operators, demanding behavior according to a ‘legal policy’ that they made-up.

Attorney Pinchuk adds that making the website operators supervise and censor all publications that are published on the open platform will bring the majority of websites to extinction. Many websites that don’t posses resources can not fulfill the demands for pre-supervision and will rather cancel the open publishing system. Other sites attempting to avoid potential indictment and interrogation will act to aggressively censor, only to assure themselves against intimidation, indictments and other charges. Therefore, analogous to what happened in other public domains, dialogue on the Internet will be reduced to a domain controlled and supervised by and for the few.

Fear of abuse on the internet, says Attorney Pinchuk, must not bring about the destruction of the platform itself. We can assume that the invention of the airplane assisted criminals occasionally to escape, but the solution to this problem lies in the field of extradition law and international agreements, not in the destruction of airplanes or placing responsibility on pilots or stewardesses.

Therefore, Attorney Pinchuk requests a permanent end to the investigation and a cessation of harassment against the website operators for publications published by others on the open platform on the website.

Shamai Leibowitz, lawyer for Indymedia Israel, adds: ''This is a dangerous attempt by the Israeli government, to quash Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Disseminate Information. It uses fear and threats in order to suppress critique of the Israeli government and what is occurring in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This police investigation reminds us, to our deep regret, of the situation in the book 1984 by George Orwell.''

by David C. Tue Jan 27, 2004 18:31

Well I've never seen THAT error message before. Any diagnosis, Mike?

There is a very apparent trend towards zionists angrily lashing out at mere *discussion* of the occupation issue. In addition to shutting down Indymedia Israel, think about the ambassador's rant in Sweden, the foam-at-the-mouth response to the Geneva Accords and the organized campaign against the British woman who was organizing an alternative carol singing protest over christmas.

What all of these censorship attempts have in common is that they are attempting to muzzel *Jewish* protest against the occupation. Apparently the thought of Jews with opinions other that facist appals the hard-core zionists. There are many, many Jews in Israel and all over the world who are fighting the occupation in whatever way they can, in the face of officially-sancioned Israeli censorship and harrassment. They are heroic people.

by Mike Tue Jan 27, 2004 19:59

Look --- I am involved with an IMC site here in the states and WE moved to a server outside of US jursidiction. FOR THE SAME REASON. That decision was made in spite of inferior "libel" laws (we're on a GB server). Many US sites HAD been hosted on a server that would resist govt pressure but that was space/bandwidth donated to IMC for a specified number of years and time ran out (it was a substantial donation -- unfair to ask for more). It wouldn't have been bright of us to have moved to a server subject to pressure.

When pressure was put on the server owners upon which Israel IMC was hosted and they had to find a new server the Israel IMC collective decided it was high time to make sure the new server wouldn't be subject to Israeli govt poressure -- to move the site to a physical location "offshore". And BTW -- the whole thing began much earlier in December than the 26th.

The site hasn't reappeard -- NOTICE THAT. Well since they had decided to relocate on a server outside of Israel but haven't managed to finish the job which of these explanations you think most likely.
a) The Israeli military threatened to invade the European country in which was located the server that had agreed to host Israel IMC so they backed out..
b) The Israeli IMC collective lacked the technical expertise to to move their site. Everybody knows that Israelis couln't program their way out of a paper bag.
c) None of the European radical server operators were willing to host Israel IMC

Are you telling me that you think the answer is "a"?
You think it is "b"?

And as for Palestine IMC -- they SAY they are having technical problems. Do you imagine for one moment that if the Israeli government were harrassing their site they wouldn't have been tellign us all about it? That they would want to hide that? WHY? Besides -- the Israeli intelligence folks aren't stupid. I'm sure they'd prefer that that site be up and running so that they could identify and "snoop" on traffic to and from.

You care about the Plaestinians and their site? Then how about some of your techies offereing to help them out of whatever difficulties they seem to be having. Show you really care.

by David C. Tue Jan 27, 2004 20:24

So the Israeli indymedia site is basicaly a stateless refugee? Well thats ironic...

It still sounds like the site is off the air because of Israeli government harrassment. The Israeli indymedia site wasn't zionist (although many of its posters were), so if anyone is refusing to give the site a home on that basis then they're making a mistake.

Any volunteer techies willing to help out the palestinians? Avi? You up for it?

by Dr. Faustus Wed Jan 28, 2004 04:34

"Avi your regular zionist rants..."
This is a rant.

Avi is right. Irish are very racist and exclusivist by the back door. Let Avi speak.

Freedom of speech which does not include freedom to offend is not freedom of speech worthy of the name.

by David C. Wed Jan 28, 2004 06:56

I value Avi's contributions highly and I would be dismayed if we were being denied access to his views through censorship. On the other hand I too have had posts 'weeded out' through the Indymedia editing process, and it can be annoying sometimes. (Note: the vast majority of 'weeded out" posts are just cut-and-pasted into an existing thread elsewhere).

Keep posting, Avi. You are entitled to your views and we all benefit by reading them.

by kokomero Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:24

Correct me if I'm wrong Mike but on the face of the available information, ie the only operational page on the IMC Israel page, the reason for their difficulties would not appear to be one of hosting.

If the problem were due to hosting issues I would have expected this to be evident from their site.

Obviously if the problem is due to the lack of a suitable host, and I'm not denying that this is a possibility, then this is most regrettable and should be published in order to draw out potential host organisations.

by Palmiro Togliatti Wed Jan 28, 2004 18:46

Indymedia Palestine, as far as I know, was originally hosted by the Alternative Information Centre, an Israeli/Palestinian NGO. The AIC pulled out of the arrangement criticising 'sectarianism' on the part of Indymedia Palestine. The Indymedia Palestine site features a picture of Hanbale, a cartoon character created by Naji al-Ali, a famous Palestinian cartoonist and supporter of the PFLP, so maybe they felt it was PFLP-aligned. Just a guess though.

by Mike Wed Jan 28, 2004 19:34

Kokomero -- You are under the impression that because when you enter the "symbolic" address of the Israel IMC site you get to a page rather than an "unresolved" address error that they HAVE a site somewhere?

The symbolic name is still registered to them so it's still in the DNSs being translated to their address on the network of their previous hosting server. It is, customary , when a site leaves a server, for the ex-server to allow their previous client to leave behind a page like that. Sort of like the telephone company not immediately issuing your number to another customer till a certain time has passed. Remember, SOME people going to the site might be going by the actual address rather than asking for symbolic address translation and would need some notice of the move >

But it is NOT customary that the ex-clients be able to change that page once it has been put up. They no longer have an "account" with the old hosting server -- their techie couldn't log in and change the page. PLEASE -- I am NOT saying that you will never see one of these pages modified because a very friendly ex-host COULD allow it (or their techie could make the change for their ex-client). The Israel IMC folks would probably like to update that page to reflect the delay but can't get access to it.

And folks -- WHY the suggestion that Avi help out the Palestinian site? What is the moral obligation you envision? You may have a valid objection to what you perceive as IMPROPER actions taken by "Zionists" to HARM Palestinians -- but that's very different than claiming there is a moral obligation to HELP them. A website is not a living animal , not "your enemy's donkey stuck in a ditch" -- the obligation there is because the ass is an independent living being deserving of help and not JUST "enemy property".

by Palmiro Togliatti Thu Jan 29, 2004 00:50

You were the one that suggested that people should volunteer to help the Palestinian site. Kokomero was merely following up by trying to sound out interest.

by Net spy Thu Jan 29, 2004 05:31

surely is one busy little bee. He has a lot of time to spend on the net, rather like "Avi H.". I'd like Mike to explain what he means by putting "Zionist" in quotes. Does he feel that it's inaccurate in some way?

To me it looks like the Greater-Israel-Lebensraum project which involves the institutionalized racism of apartheid is an extension of the fascist ideas espoused by early Zionists.

Would you disagree with that Mike?

Also, (and honestly now by all that you hold dear and sacred) are you the same person as Avi H. or do you work with him?

Finally what is your proposed solution to the Israel-Palestine problem?

MIne is for the ZioNazis to get the fuck out of Occupied Palestine.

by Mike Thu Jan 29, 2004 15:29

a) Time on my hands
I happen to be retired. Oh, I'll still do a little "consulting" (free for non-profits) and I'm on the board of one, manage some orchards trying to breed American Chestnuts resistant to the blight fungus -- grow most of our food in a large garden. BUT IT'S WINTER.

b) "Zionists" in quotes because of the way it is being used to SUPPOSEDLY distinguish between jews and Zionists. The meaningfulness of that depends upon how one defines "Zionists" -- Too many of you seem to wish to use a definition "anybody who believes Israel and its people should exist" < at which point the distinction between Jews and Zionists vanishes>

c) My plan? Going to surprise you. I believe the Israelis should dismantle every settlement in the "territories", evacuate the "settler" population, pull back behind the "Green Line" (going to be problems over the "Old City"), and allow the Palestinians to form their own state -- and to choose to live in peace IF THEY CAN.

My concern here is that the horrible things which happen to the Palestinians not be the result of imroper ACTIONS of "my tribe" --- That is a VERY different matter than concern whether the Palestinians GET peace. For reasons internal to themselves, they may not be able to operate their new state so as to be able to live at peace, either among themselves or with their much stronger neighbor. But their fate in that case is of their own choosing, not the result of improper actions of the Israelis.

Let me ask YOU something. Assume the Israelis withdraw like I described. Should it come about the the Palestinians are unable to refrain from shooting at the Israleis across this border -- are you going to object if the Israelis shoot back? Because it's "unfair" -- they are so militarily so much stronger?

It is my personal belief that if the Israelis withdraw as I have indicated the situation for the Palestinians will be similar to the one your people faced in the 20's --- the sad choice between civil war as the new state puts down those who insist on carrying on the "war of liberation" or immediate losing war against the strong neighbor ending up right where we are now. Maybe that is why BOTH sides seem so reluctant -- perhaps, horrible as things are now, they could get worse and after much suffering lead back to where they are right now.

by kokomero Thu Jan 29, 2004 16:59

I agree with you that the Israelis should pull back to the green line. I also agree that many Palestinians will find even this concession difficult to accept and that there will be a rump of militants who will try to undermine the process.

Our own experience in Ireland tells us that a military solution is only part of the total package and that there must be a very strong economic element to a final settlement. At the end of the day if people are busy making money because they can now earn a living they have no time to cause trouble except in a political sense.

If what you advocate does eventually take place and the EU, US and rich Arab states kick in with cash there will be a big economic payoff for the Israelis and the Palestinians as a gateway to the surrounding economies. Let's hope the doves win out!

by kokomero Thu Jan 29, 2004 17:02

Avi is real and was in Ireland at least at one stage because I remember seeing him take part in a panel discussion (on RTE?) about a year ago.

by avi H. Sat Jan 31, 2004 17:24

We all have our specialities: I also know a couple of other countries on other continents rather well, but I have two crucial questions:

1. Is a Moro bar identical to a boost bar?
2. Why can you only still buy Moro bars in Ireland and New Zealand?