Haaretz.com promotes website advocating genocide and terrorism

[Violet_Crumble]

Haaretz.com, the website of the Israeli newspaper often cited as an example of Israel's liberal, critical media carries paid advertisements from a website openly advocating the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the murder of large numbers of Muslim civilians, the assassination of the family members of Arab rulers, and the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against dozens of countries.

The website, Samson Blinded, claims that Google banned its advertisements from its adwords program. If that is true, it would be consistent with Google's policy that prohibits advertising promoting violence or advocating against any group based on race, ethnic or national origin or religion. Yet the Samson Blinded advertisements appear prominently on the main page and article pages of Haaretz's website. For example the ad appeared on the front page of Haaretz.com on 1 June, and also prominently on an article page headlined "Who didn't attend New York's pro-Israel march? Israelis" on the same date.

Samson Blinded, whose publishers keep their identities secret, calls on Israel to eliminate all Palestinians from the territory it controls and to annihilate their culture. The site demands that Israel "destroy the Palestinian settlements and exile them far away -- not to refugee camps in neighboring Arab countries, or the conflict would be perpetuated." It argues that "Forced cultural assimilation of Palestinians should accompany deportation," adding that "With demise of Palestinians, Arab Israeli conflict would lose its impetus ."

The hate site advertised on Haaretz incites religious war, exploitation of children, and terrorism. It states for example that "Slavery is not an option in the modern world, but Israel adopting children from the poorest countries, indoctrinating them with anti-Islamism, and training them for low-rank military service in Israel Defense Forces may be feasible." It also proposes that "Israel could invite Western Christian radicals to police the Palestinian territories" as "they would be happy to get a training ground in Israel for their militia."

The site adds that "To succeed, Israeli violence against Arabs should be immediately overwhelming. Israel should show itself a bloodthirsty monster to scare the Arabs into submission." Among the violence advocated by the site is the unprovoked wholesale murder of relatives of the rulers of Arab countries, civilians, and prisoners of war.

The site even calls for nuclear strikes against neighboring countries: "Israel should legislate that a nuclear attack against her from whatever source means immediate, simultaneous nuclear destruction by Israel Defense Forces of everything Muslim -- capitals, temples, population centers -- by the hundred or so nuclear weapons in Israel's possession. Islamic terrorists who plan to use nuclear weapon against Israel must understand that the Jewish state will be commemorated with a really big bang."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9579.shtml

[dipsydoodle]

1. It's a sad fact of life

that all countries have there own bunch of complete nutters. I don't believe for one minute that the Israeli population in general are supportive of this.

edit misspelling

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I've got no doubts many Israelis would be sickened by SamsonBlinded...

From what I can work out it's a bunch of sick American wankers with way too much money to spend advertising their nasty poison. What upsets me is that Ha'aretz are allowing them to run their advertising through them, despite the fact that both Google and Amazon have banned SamsonBlinded due to the racism...

[LeftishBrit]

5. I'm sure most Israelis would be!

And much as I like freedom of speech, I hope Ha'aretz keeps them off their site from now on.

[aranthus]

8. It's not a freedom of speech issue.

Ha'aretz isn't the government. They have an absolute right to accept or reject whatever ads they want. The issue here is the judgment (or lack of it) of the ad executives at Ha'aretz. The paper is responsible for everything that it prints, and they should catch heat for this.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. You and I agree on this one...

The issue isn't freedom of speech, which doesn't apply when it comes to Ha'aretz, but the very poor judgement of Ha'aretz's advertising department....

[shaayecanaan]

3. No problems from my perspective...

Haaretz is a noteworthy publication not because of its leftism but because of its contrarianism, because it endeavours to encompass more points of view than most.

I read through some of the blog a short time ago. It is an interesting change from most of the three-cheers crowd (on this board and elsewhere) that insist on a flowers and chocolate view of history in the face of of overwhelming evidence. To take one example from the main page:- http://samsonblinded.org/shoher/shohers_musings.htm

Some rabbis, mostly Reform, tell us that Judaism is a religion of peace, and we should not introduce violence. My reply is, Read the Tanakh! Moses killed the Egyptian. Hebrews incessantly warred in Sinai, and Joshua exterminated the Canaanites. Prophets urged Jews for the utmost intolerance toward idolaters, and many respected Jewish kings led expansionist wars. Psalmist was much less than loving toward enemies (remember where that hate-no-one-love-your-enemies is from?) Maccabees were everything but nice to Jewish gentilizers, and neither was bar Kochba. Modern Israelis violently swept Arab enemies in every war, and only the pseudo-liberal government prevents the Jews from carving a decent state for themselves.

My only gripe is that they don't give this guy the opportunity to write an editorial from time to time.

[Lithos]

14. Sarcasm?

?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Well, it was literally dripping off the post n/t

[Lithos]

21. it's sometimes good to just stop and ask

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yeah, I just noticed this was one of those cases n/t

[shaayecanaan]

22. No

nt

[shaayecanaan]

25. I read some of his book...

http://samsonblinded.org/files/SamsonBlinded.pdf

He's actually pretty clear-eyed on some things, eg

I do not blame Gentiles for not helping the Jews; how
many Jews helped Rwandese?

Hopelessly deluded on others. For example, he has a tendency to vastly overestimate Israeli military strength, stating that the IDF should be considered the world's second most powerful military, rather than the fourth (which was already a fairly tenuous claim):-

The ramshackle Russian army lacks fighting capability, unless resorting to nuclear option which is unlikely: even without American military reprisal, economic boycott would ruin Russian economy hinging on oil and gas exports. Chinese forces are not tried in any major confrontation, and fared badly against Vietnamese. Chinese crude infantry power is of limited value. Chinese-made sophisticated weapons are as unreliable as Soviet. Many bad planes are worthless against few great ones Israel possesses.

Of course, the Chinese forces were not the only ones to fare badly against the Vietnamese.

[LeftishBrit]

4. While I don't automatically rely on everything in EI...

I looked up SamsonBlinded myself and WOW! Here is a choice gem:

'Permissive unto death

I love Canada and Netherlands. They are nice tolerant countries. It’s hard to explain to their tolerant Jews why should we rid Israel of Arabs and deviants. It’s like talking to people from another planet. Isn’t a tolerant all-permissiveness a better policy?

No. Permissiveness knows no boundaries. That’s especially a problem when tolerance is coupled with formal justice and moral subjectivism. Justices ask, Why not? and cannot find rational answer; irrational answers are not codified. Tolerance started with accepting other religions and not ostracizing homosexuals. The sphere of tolerance was continuously expanded. Tolerating all religions, why not tolerate Islam? Tolerating homosexuality, why not accept gay unions? Soon their countries are flooded with Muslim immigrants and the cornerstone institute of family is undermined by same-sex marriages. Judges will find no reason to prohibit polygamy and the only reason I’ve heard against bestiality is animal rights; shouldn’t rape a sheep, you see. Faced with obvious immorality, leftists either have to admit their policy of tolerance wrong, or embrace the deviations as beneficial. Sure they prefer the last option. Thus school courses on homosexuality and hysteria about AIDS frightening decent people out of single bars – for they don’t know that AIDS is restricted to homosexuals and drug addicts. Tolerance is a policy of no barriers, and such policies are prone to exploitation. Canada had no problem with massive immigration from many countries until Arabs flooded it.

...Israel tried tolerance with her Arabs – but the tolerance only provokes them. They exploit Israeli tolerance by massive illegal construction, tax evasion, crime, and disloyalty. The line between tolerance and weakness is too fine for a state to dance.
Israel cannot be tolerant. She must be a Jewish country. That’s her reason for existence. Think of it as a zoning regulation. Arabs, homosexuals, and Peace Now members can live thirty miles away from their current residences – in Jordan or Lebanon. Or in Canada, if it would have them.'


Sounds like a cross between the leader of the British National Party, Rick Santorum and Ahmadinejad!

How similar religious-righties are, whatever the religion. And of course they all unite in hatred for the eeeevil gays.

[pelsar]

7. good to read...

makes us jews a real part of the world today......

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Neither do I...

Because EI is an advocacy group and tends to be biased which leads to omissions and selective portrayal of things, I tend not to use them as a source if I can help it. But I found this ad when I was reading Ha'aretz the other day and when I googled it, the only article I could find about it was from EI, and the article's describing exactly what I found when I clicked on one of those ads. I think Ha'aretz's excuse that the ads themselves aren't racist and Ha'aretz itself doesn't have the time to check out what the ads are leading to is a very weak excuse. That'd mean they'd accept advertising from people like Stormfront as long as the clickable ad showing at Ha'aretz didn't display any racism...

[azurnoir]

6. I have to disagree that they should be banned

the more people that are aware of these sicko's the better, I think most of Haaretzs readers will be offended by them, not a bad thing at all. Why let them (Samson's publishers} skulk in the shadows and possibly gain momentum, when putting them in the light can shrivel them?

File under "how and on what does fungus grow best"

[Violet_Crumble]

11. They should be banned because they're advocating genocide...

Giving them attention gives them power and draws like-minded sickos to them. I think Google and Amazon did the right thing in banning them...

[notfullofit]

12. Plus

anyone who reads this thread can be directed to their website.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. What's that got to do with anything? n/t

[notfullofit]

24. Free advertising here. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

27. No, it's not n/t

[azurnoir]

13. I realize what they advocate

however every major genocide in the century at least and well before that has happened in the dark, so to speak, the Holocaust, Cambodia, more recently Darfur at least in the beginning, Rwanda, these things happened in part because no one knew, no coverage till afterward when it was too late.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic about humans in general but I believe the more light shown on these groups the better, if they are to be banned let it be because Haaretz's readers demand it, I have seen something like that happen with one of local papers in my area when they started running Ann Coulter, readers demanded they stop running her after her first column, and it was the Republican leaning paper at that, she had a trial run for 6 she only made 2 or 3 before the paper pulled it.

Perhaps also Haaretz could do an editorial about this group, it could help.

[pelsar]

15. yes and no.....

though i understand your concept...that once in the limelight people will be disgusted and "throw them out"...but then they'll just go back in hiding.


On the other hand, when i do hear their brethren on TV (those from Hebron)..and i get so fukin disgusted at what they have to say BUT....it does help in terms of me getting a better understanding of the situation and knowing just what the Palestinians in Hebron have to put up with (I havent been to hebron in over 20 years).... so there is in fact something to knowing they do exist.....and what they advocate.

lets face it, without that ad, none here would have even known about them...
____

on the other hand, they do get funding from jews in the US...perhaps this is a growth industry?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I kind of disagree on that...

I get what yr saying about understanding what the Hebron settlers advocate and do by seeing things on telly, but in this case with advertising in Ha'aretz, it's different. If Ha'aretz were to do an article about SamsonBlinded and pointing out what they advocate, I'd see that as a different thing than accepting advertising dollars from the same group to advertise on the Ha'aretz site. There's no warnings about what the ads lead to, even though the alarm bells were already going off for me when I saw that crude drawing that was the ad. I just think Ha'aretz is doing itself a grave disservice by accepting advertising from those lunatics. When loonytunes like these get to buy advertising, it feeds into their sense of validation and they get the impression that they're legitimate...

If you get a chance, take a look at how much ads cost at Ha'aretz and multiply that by the number of ads this bunch are running. It's an obscene amount of money...

[pelsar]

19. no ad....

got convinced.....i think your right...no ad....let haaretz do an editorial about them...like leftbrit wrote people do get influenced..better to keep them in the dark....
they wont go away, these groups never do, but on the internet they should if possible receive as little publicity as possible

whereas "my friends" in Hebron etc' should receive a helluva lot more....

[Dick Dastardly]

20. I agree. I think its better to let them be exposed for what they are than to hide them away which

can result in people not knowing what they are really about and being fooled when they are exposed to them.

I also get a bit stressed when I hear calls for anything to be banned. Its a slippery slope that leads to unintended consequenses, whether deserved or not. The next thing may be something that should not be banned.

The US does not have hate speech laws as Europe and other countries do. We are more tolerant of speech which I think is better.

[LeftishBrit]

17. I think that people should perhaps know about the existence of the site...

but it would be one thing to put it in a news report; another to give them advertising space. People do get influenced by hate-sites ("But I read it on the internet; it must be the TRUTH!!!111; let's beat up some of those eeeevil Arabs") and giving them business isn't such a great idea IMO.