Thursday, October 28, 2004
WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
Read Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 (of 10) in their entirety below
By SimShalom (Email: simshalom@att.net)
(Part 1 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO "JEW" ON GOOGLE?
Early in 2004 The Jewish Press (of March 19) (http://www.thejewishpress.com ) published a report pointing out that “an anti-Semitic website is the first result one gets when typing in the word ‘Jew’ on Google, the Internet’s number one search engine.”
Soon after that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press: “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
As a reader of The Jewish Press I followed up and signed the petition. I Emailed friends and associates to do likewise. I posted the message on a number of pro-Israel and Jewish discussion groups on Yahoo! and MSN, but what really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story:
The Online Petition
Within a very short period of time starting in March 2004, well-over 50,000 people signed the petition with many leaving their own personal protest comments addressed to Google. As would be expected, this unusual public cyber-protest against free publicity for anti-Semitism, involving something as well known and used as Google in the computer world, caught the attention of varied audiences, some friendly and of those that were not.
Technicians supportive of the offending website “jewwatch dot com” got wind of what was happening and early on hacked (a form of online vandalism) Weinstock’s first online petition placing an obscene photo and hate messages on it. Weinstein quickly found a more secure web host at “petition online” and restarted the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
This motivated even more people to sign the petition, which then topped over 100,000 signatures. An anonymous Internet expert contacted the web hosts of the offending site and argued that it should NOT be hosting a racist hate site. This resulted in “jewwatch” being kicked off its original web server and going off line for a few weeks. At that point Weinstock published a message on his “removejewwatch” site: “WE WON!” It was premature, to say the least.
Next week: Part 2: “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
-------------------
(Part 2 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net) http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary so far: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com/ [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 2 of 10) “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
The boiling anti-Semitism of “jewwatch (dot) com” is trumpeted on their site. Its goal (for now) is “Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide” but they have also moved on to classical anti-Semitic propaganda and “advocacy” such as providing form letters for their followers to write to the media. Their venom is directed at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) ( http://www.adl.org/ ) in particular for protesting pro-Nazi statements and activities.
Unfortunately it did not take long for the hate-mongers to find a new web host someplace unknown and “jewwatch” went back online. By that time events had caught the mainstream media’s attention. People on the pro-Jewish newsgroups began to report that, weirdly, one of the main anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” was being interviewed on radio talk shows and claimed to be the “victim” of a modern day “witch hunt”. Turns out that the group/s behind the hate site are connected with notorious neo-Nazi units such as the “stormfront (dot) org” a self-proclaimed “White Nationalist” site that promotes “White Pride World Wide” and without shame advertises KKK leaders such as David Duke and his ilk.
The Media gets involved
As articles were written and published, some were reported by Mr. Weinstock on his petition site with links to the sources see http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html : “Google slammed for anti-Semitic search…Google spokesman David Krane said the company's search results are determined by a complex set of algorithms that measure factors such as how many sites link to a given page. The company can't and won't change the ranking for Jew Watch, regardless of how many signatures the petition attracts…” (silicon.com April 7, 04); “…Google refused: "Unfortunately, no computer can assess the morality, tastefulness, or honesty of a site's content. Results are determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query…”(Jerusalem Post March 31, 04); “Google finds itself in controversy…The administrator of Jew Watch did not respond to an e-mail message requesting comment, the report said. Weinstock has launched an online petition, asking Google to remove the site from its index. He said if Google receives 50,000 requests to remove the site, it will comply...”(UPI, in The Washington Post April 7, 04) and more reported this subject.
Next week: Part 3:
U.S. Sen. Schumer and the ADL intervene: Google’s President apologizes.
Readers response to the previous Email and posting:
One person observed: “Google has added an "explanation" concerning the specific
search "jew" listed as the first "Sponsored Link" which usually appears at the top, or to the right of the search results (having a general label of "Offensive Search Results" but deals specificly with the results to the search on the word "jew"). The sponsored link goes to a page set up specificly to explain the results given by the search term http://www.google.com/explanation.html ”
Another person was critical: “Are you aware how absurd this email is? Do you know anything about Google? No matter how many petitions you sign, you will not change Google's ranking system. It is because of fools like you, that problems like this are played up and more serious concerns for the Jewish community are ignored.”
Here is what I wrote (addressed more to the latter irate person):
“Thank you for your Email although your tone could have been a little less insulting. But that does not worry me so much as your passive acceptance of "the way Google works".
1) Let me make clear that I was not the one who initiated the petition against Google. The original petition was started and is still maintained by a Mr. Steven M. Weinstock of New York and you can read what he says at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html The petition was signed by over 125,000 people see http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
2) For anyone who uses the World Wide Web on the Internet, the existence of Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, which even Google was forced to admit as it has added its own "apology" when searching for "Jew", see http://www.google.com/explanation.html
3) Unlike you, Google itself admits to the problem. Unfortunately they do not go far enough because the only reason that will force them to block a website is when “…The only sites we manually remove from our search results are those that contain illegal content or maliciously attempt to manipulate our technology…” (from Google's explanation letter).
4) Did you know that if you did a search for "Jew" on Google's GERMAN portal at http://www.google.de/ you would NOT find the "jewwatch" site? Why? Because Google itself has removed it since in Germany it is illegal to promote Anti-Semitism and racial hatred. Google also tries to exclude extreme child-pornography web-sites from its search engine because child pornogrophy is illegal in the United States.
5) Now I ask you, if Google can kick off "jewwatch" from its German site and edit out child-pornography from its US search engines, then why can't they do the same thing with similar sites IF THEY WOULD WANT TO ? And to add insult to injury, Google itself admits "The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results." Is not simple human decency and morality good enough for them to remove a website that is "monitering" Jews in Nazi fashion, and also linked to a network of Neo-Nazi websites that are pro "The Final Solution" (planning for the genocide of the Jews even now, G-d forbid)?
6) Should we as Jews just "accept" what Google is doing because it claims to be under the "control" of mathematical " algorithms" and is just an "innocent" object in cyber-space? Sounds like a variation of the old "I was only following orders" excuse. How naive it would be to believe that, because Jews will always be on the lookout for what Anti-Semites want to do.
7) You know, it reminds me of those Germans before World War II who thought it was OK for Hitler and the Nazis to be accepted as a "normal" political party and run for democratic elections and sit in the Reichstag (Germany's parliament). That was "before". History has already seen what happens "after", when the cunning Anti-Semites use the freedoms of a democarcy and of open communications, then once in control, they burned down the Reichstag declared a dictatorship and blamed it on the Jews.
8) One more point, a number of large Internet companies use Google's services, yet somehow they manage to squeeze out the Anti-Semitic "jewwatch" site when a search is done for Jew and give "jewwatch" a lower ranking. Why is that? Try doing a search for "Jew" on Yahoo for example, they use Google's search engine, you will get basically nice sites that deal with the subject of "Jew", yet they put "jewwatch" in twentieth place maybe. So many things could be done and are possible.
I hope that rest of the series on this subject will be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you again, and I promise that I will not be insulted if you insult me, as I believe in "Ahavat Yisrael" !
All the best and happy surfing!
Shalom!”
---------------------------
(Part 3 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net )
This series is being blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary, in Part 1: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 3 of 10) U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL Intervene: Google’s President Apologizes.
Google did NOT remove the offending website, but did place an “apology” of sorts at the top of the web page where the offending site showed up:
“Offensive Search Results: We’re disturbed about these results as well…If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically…Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. Sincerely, The Google Team. p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp In addition, we call your attention to both the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-semitism, at http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/ , and Google's search results (about anti-Semitism) on this topic.” (http://www.google.com/explanation.html )
Why did Google do all this? The answer is that there was enough of a public outcry and interest at the time to bring the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at http://www.adl.org/ and US Senator Schumer of New York, the state with the most Jews in America. Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html The ADL had undertaken its own investigation of the issues behind the controversy. When one clicks onto the ADL site it defends Google (even though very ironically the wrath of “jewwatch” and “stormfront” is constantly directed at the ADL).
In an open public statement still online at its website the ADL declares:
“An e-mail campaign suggests that Google intentionally lists a hate site as the first item that comes up when searching under "Jew" or "Jews." While it is true that hate sites do appear when certain search terms are used, their appearance and rank are not controlled by Google. Google employs technology that automatically ranks sites based on a complicated formula called an algorithm. The ranking of Jewwatch and other hate sites is in no way due to a conscious choice by Google, but solely is a result of this automated system of ranking. When searching under the term "Jew," the top result in Google at the time of this writing is the hate site "Jewwatch." This site is run by Frank Weltner, who also uses the online monikers "Von Goldstein Mohammad" and "Couch Potato." "Jewwatch" has been in existence since 1997. The longevity of ownership, the way articles are posted to it, the links to and from the site, and the structure of the site itself all increase the ranking of "Jewwatch" within the Google formula. (http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp April 22, 04).
An April 22, 04 press release by the ADL adds:
“…In a letter to ADL, Google President Sergey Brin apologized to users who found the search results for the word "Jew" upsetting and promised to work for a solution that would satisfy ADL's concerns and those of users offended by the #1 ranking of an anti-Semitic Web site…
‘We are extremely pleased that Google has heard our concerns and those of its users about the offensive nature of some search results and the unusually high ranking of peddlers of bigotry and anti-Semitism,’ said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. ‘Google has shown great responsiveness to this issue and a willingness to consider changes to better identify extremist Web sites, so that users can still have the benefit of Google's unique search technology while being alerted when they are about to enter into a hate zone’…" (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Internet_75/4482_75.htm )
The ADL has published Brin’s letter (quoted in full) on its website:
“Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, 94043 (April 21, 2004)
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director,
Anti-Defamation League,
Dear Mr. Foxman:
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns related to Google's site ranking technology. As a result of several constructive discussions with Senator Charles Schumer [Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ . Contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html ] , members of his staff, and based on input from you and your team, we are currently looking at various technical modifications - specifically for categories and other auxiliary information. This is clearly an issue that we care deeply about, and we plan to explore additional ways of addressing it in the future. We would also like to thank you for posting an explanation on your website noting that a site's ranking in Google's search results are automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. I have attached the text we have put on our website that gives users a clear explanation of Google's search results. And I would like to underscore how the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Thank you again for your letter and for your invitation to work with you in educating the public about how best to use web search technology and how we can improve our service.
Sincerely,
Sergey Brin,
President, Technology, Google Inc.”
(http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp )
Next Week: Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat
----
Readers’ responses to the previous Email and posting:
One reader wrote a one-line question:
“What happened to freedom of speech?”
And another reader wrote in a similar vein:
“I still don't understand what your point is in all of this. You even seem to show why they do what they do when you pointed out that Google has removed the link from the German portal because anti-semitism is illegal there. Here we have free speech. The same right that allows us to protest civil rights being violated also allows groups like the KKK to say what they want. Hate speech is not illegal in the US and any removal is a slippery slope towards banning things that the majority of people don't agree with. Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say? If you don't like the system, use another search engine or encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first. We hold the first amendment dear and I would hope the right of free speech would hold up on the internet as much as it does everywhere else.”
This was my reply:
“Thank you for your feed-back which I greatly appreciate.
As an avid Internet user and as someone deeply concerned with Jewish affairs both in real life as well as on the World Wide Web, I have been following the subject of "jewwatch" avidly this past year as a kind of primitive litmus test of how anti-Semitism functions and circulates on the web and what if anything can be done about it. I hope to discuss and bring to light various options in the remaining parts of my report on this subject.
I agree with you that the freedom of speech issue is important. You ask: "Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say?"
In point of fact, Mr. Steven Weinstock who was the originator of the online petition responded quite brilliantly when confronted with this issue:
"...Google has an extra responsibility, something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.” See http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html
Just as Google does abide by the codes imposed on it in Germany, it could, if it wanted to, act similarly in the United States VOLUNTARILY as that does NOT go against the law in any way. There is no reason why it cannot abide by "Corporate Responsibility", as does the mass media itself which is the life-blood of public opinion. No one is suggesting that the anti-Semitic websites should lose their freedom of speech on the World Wide Web if they choose to put forth their venom on their own websites, in fact it would be impossible to go around and shut down global anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred both in cyberspace or in real life (we can agree that that has to be a job for the Jewish Messiah to clean up the world in the future.) BUT corporations in the here and now, like Google (co-founded and headed by a Jewish young man who is its co-president: Sergey Brin), that are hopefully NOT affiliated with the hate-mongers ARE in a position to do something about it as Google has its OWN FREEDOM/S OF CHOICE and FREEDOM/S OF ACTION to block hate on their computer servers with the "click" of a few buttons or with some simple filters. If a major TV news-person would air objectionable content and because of that he would be shut down, fired and shunned, we would not accuse his corporate bosses of denying people their freedom of speech, on the contrary, we would be commending them for throwing such malicious trash out into the gutter where it belongs.
But the above is only one aspect of the total picture which is spread far and wide over the Internet. The neo-Nazis in cyberspace have plans they are following to ensure that sites such as "jewwatch" get as much free "publicity" as they can on the web, they have issued calls for their supporters to link to "jewwatch" and similar sites to increase rankings on Google and other search engines.
So in fact what you mention "encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first" has in fact been happening and utilized by all sides !
As concerned Jews, as a response, many Jewish bloggers (who maintain blogs i.e. "Web logs", that are very popular nowadays) have created links on their own blogs and websites to the article on "Jew" on the world's newest and largest Encyclopedia at Wikipedia: The multiple web-links to that article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew is what has pushed "jewwatch" down to number two spot when doing the search for the word "Jew" on Google. So that is another approach.
Hopefully this series of reports will energize more people who are both Jewish and/or favorable towards Jewish causes to become aware, interested and actively involved in ways to actively counter anti-Semitism on the Internet. The alternative is to sit around passively and do nothing as anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist websites proliferate on the web with impunity and that may yet come back to haunt us one day, G-d forbid.
I will discuss these and similar aspects in greater detail in the weeks to come, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
Best wishes!
Finally, one reader was extremely encouraging:
“Stay with this, what you are revealing is very very important. With great appreciation.”
-------
(Part 4 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom simshalom@att.net Blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Feed-back:
A number of readers have written to say that when they did a search for the word “Jew” on Google, at this time, the first result they get was the article about “Jew” at the new “Wikipedia’’ on-line encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew and then the second place (on Google) was taken by the Anti-Semitic hate site “jewwatch dot com”, so they are puzzled by why that is so, since it was claimed that “jewwatch” had come up first.
My response:
It is true that at the present time, due to a number of events and factors, “jewwatch” comes in second when searching for “Jew” on Google (or to use the idiom, when “Googling for Jew”). This in itself will be part of this detailed report of “What happened to ‘Jew’ on Google”, because until March of 2004 it was only the hate site “jewwwatch” that came up first and the “Jew” article from Wikipedia was nowhere in sight. Only AFTER the uproar and petition to boot “jewwatch’’ off of Google began to pick up steam (from April to June of 2004) was the “jewwatch” article “pushed down” from its first place ranking on Google. The reason this happened is similar to the reason “jewwatch” was first for so long: It was due to what is known in computer parlance as “Google-bombing” by means of a “Google-bomb”. This means that when many people who have their own websites and blogs place links on those sites and blogs to a particular website or article, then the more sites that link to it raise the mathematical chances that Google’s search engines will give the site that has the most links to that particular topic the higher ranking on its search results. So just as “jewwatch” was able to get many of its supporters to link to it, a number of Jewish bloggers set out to find an article dealing with “Jew” to link to (in order to “demote” the “jewwatch” article on Google), and the choice was to link to the more-or-less neutral and encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew Some Jewish bloggers chose to also link to the very informative pro-Jewish website known as “Judaism 101” at http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm which often comes in at third or second place itself when searching for “Jew” on Google. All these happenings and developments are part of this report and will be discussed more fully and individually in the remaining parts of this report.
Summary of this report so far:
In Part 1: It’s reported that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ): “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
In Part 3: U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL intervene and Google’s President apologizes (http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp )
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 4 of 10) Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat
In May 4, 04, Weinstock published a letter of explanation on his petition’s home page (now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ) :
“From: "Steven M. Weinstock" removehate@optonline.net
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:24 -0400: I want to say that I feel I've been misquoted...I am a big believer in the 1st amendment ... and I believe that a site like jewwatch.com has a right to exist, regardless of how horrific it is...I just don’t feel that a site like this should justify the #1 spot on Google...The fact that Google is the biggest internet brand it acts like a 'seal of approval' and even though I am grateful that Google added a disclaimer to the results it provides, I feel that is not good enough...I believe that Google has an extra responsibility , something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.”
Nothing more was posted after that, but the online petition was not stopped.
The Jew-haters gloated and were (pleasantly) surprised and amused by Google’s response, as mentioned on some web forums: “I am a moderator of the White Nationalist site Stormfront, and am also peripherally connected with the jewwatch controversy. We are interested in this for obvious reasons. Will the 'net allow itself to be censored? Our bet is that they'll install an optional "hate filter" on their results, defaulting to "on". In any case kudos to Brin, Jewish himself, for saying no to hacking the search engine. That is integrity!!!”
(http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/04/27/GoogleAndJewWatchReVisited.html May 5, 04)
Twists in the (Internet) road
By June 2004 Weinstock had collected over 125,000 signatures and more were coming in. What happened next is a little bizarre. For an unknown reason, at some later point, the regular home page and its petition launched by Weinstock at http://www.removejewwatch.com/ was redirected to the home page of Yahoo! Giving the impression that the petition is perhaps over and the subject is maybe closed. However, after some searching I found that the petition is still able to take signatures and was technically active, but was nevertheless moved to a new website now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html without comment. The mystery continues because the site at http://www.whynotmedia.com has only one word on it: “Welcome” without further explanation. Further research shows that “whynotmedia” was the host site of http://www.removejewwatch.com/ in the first place. So far, even though I have sent out some Emails to find out why and how “removejewwatch” no longer appears at its old Internet location and why it redirects to Yahoo! instead of to its new home at “whynotmedia”, and why there has been no real effort to publicize the petition, no explanations or clear reasons have been established. Thousands of people could and would still be signing the petition, which stands at over 126,600 signatures, but for months it has been barely a trickle because no-one was informed that the page was moved and the petition’s redirect to Yahoo! home page is not explained. In addition, before moving the petition site into obscurity, a seemingly unrelated letter from a supporter was added negating the Democrats’ criticisms of President Bush’s handling of events leading up to Sept. 11th 2001 (http://whynotmedia.com/article1.html ) which probably alienated the more liberal supporters of the petition.
Next Week: The Anti-Semites get ugly and plot.
By SimShalom (Email: simshalom@att.net)
(Part 1 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO "JEW" ON GOOGLE?
Early in 2004 The Jewish Press (of March 19) (http://www.thejewishpress.com ) published a report pointing out that “an anti-Semitic website is the first result one gets when typing in the word ‘Jew’ on Google, the Internet’s number one search engine.”
Soon after that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press: “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
As a reader of The Jewish Press I followed up and signed the petition. I Emailed friends and associates to do likewise. I posted the message on a number of pro-Israel and Jewish discussion groups on Yahoo! and MSN, but what really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story:
The Online Petition
Within a very short period of time starting in March 2004, well-over 50,000 people signed the petition with many leaving their own personal protest comments addressed to Google. As would be expected, this unusual public cyber-protest against free publicity for anti-Semitism, involving something as well known and used as Google in the computer world, caught the attention of varied audiences, some friendly and of those that were not.
Technicians supportive of the offending website “jewwatch dot com” got wind of what was happening and early on hacked (a form of online vandalism) Weinstock’s first online petition placing an obscene photo and hate messages on it. Weinstein quickly found a more secure web host at “petition online” and restarted the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
This motivated even more people to sign the petition, which then topped over 100,000 signatures. An anonymous Internet expert contacted the web hosts of the offending site and argued that it should NOT be hosting a racist hate site. This resulted in “jewwatch” being kicked off its original web server and going off line for a few weeks. At that point Weinstock published a message on his “removejewwatch” site: “WE WON!” It was premature, to say the least.
Next week: Part 2: “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
-------------------
(Part 2 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net) http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary so far: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com/ [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 2 of 10) “jewwatch” Jew-hatred
The boiling anti-Semitism of “jewwatch (dot) com” is trumpeted on their site. Its goal (for now) is “Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide” but they have also moved on to classical anti-Semitic propaganda and “advocacy” such as providing form letters for their followers to write to the media. Their venom is directed at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) ( http://www.adl.org/ ) in particular for protesting pro-Nazi statements and activities.
Unfortunately it did not take long for the hate-mongers to find a new web host someplace unknown and “jewwatch” went back online. By that time events had caught the mainstream media’s attention. People on the pro-Jewish newsgroups began to report that, weirdly, one of the main anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” was being interviewed on radio talk shows and claimed to be the “victim” of a modern day “witch hunt”. Turns out that the group/s behind the hate site are connected with notorious neo-Nazi units such as the “stormfront (dot) org” a self-proclaimed “White Nationalist” site that promotes “White Pride World Wide” and without shame advertises KKK leaders such as David Duke and his ilk.
The Media gets involved
As articles were written and published, some were reported by Mr. Weinstock on his petition site with links to the sources see http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html : “Google slammed for anti-Semitic search…Google spokesman David Krane said the company's search results are determined by a complex set of algorithms that measure factors such as how many sites link to a given page. The company can't and won't change the ranking for Jew Watch, regardless of how many signatures the petition attracts…” (silicon.com April 7, 04); “…Google refused: "Unfortunately, no computer can assess the morality, tastefulness, or honesty of a site's content. Results are determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query…”(Jerusalem Post March 31, 04); “Google finds itself in controversy…The administrator of Jew Watch did not respond to an e-mail message requesting comment, the report said. Weinstock has launched an online petition, asking Google to remove the site from its index. He said if Google receives 50,000 requests to remove the site, it will comply...”(UPI, in The Washington Post April 7, 04) and more reported this subject.
Next week: Part 3:
U.S. Sen. Schumer and the ADL intervene: Google’s President apologizes.
Readers response to the previous Email and posting:
One person observed: “Google has added an "explanation" concerning the specific
search "jew" listed as the first "Sponsored Link" which usually appears at the top, or to the right of the search results (having a general label of "Offensive Search Results" but deals specificly with the results to the search on the word "jew"). The sponsored link goes to a page set up specificly to explain the results given by the search term http://www.google.com/explanation.html ”
Another person was critical: “Are you aware how absurd this email is? Do you know anything about Google? No matter how many petitions you sign, you will not change Google's ranking system. It is because of fools like you, that problems like this are played up and more serious concerns for the Jewish community are ignored.”
Here is what I wrote (addressed more to the latter irate person):
“Thank you for your Email although your tone could have been a little less insulting. But that does not worry me so much as your passive acceptance of "the way Google works".
1) Let me make clear that I was not the one who initiated the petition against Google. The original petition was started and is still maintained by a Mr. Steven M. Weinstock of New York and you can read what he says at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html The petition was signed by over 125,000 people see http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
2) For anyone who uses the World Wide Web on the Internet, the existence of Anti-Semitism is a serious problem, which even Google was forced to admit as it has added its own "apology" when searching for "Jew", see http://www.google.com/explanation.html
3) Unlike you, Google itself admits to the problem. Unfortunately they do not go far enough because the only reason that will force them to block a website is when “…The only sites we manually remove from our search results are those that contain illegal content or maliciously attempt to manipulate our technology…” (from Google's explanation letter).
4) Did you know that if you did a search for "Jew" on Google's GERMAN portal at http://www.google.de/ you would NOT find the "jewwatch" site? Why? Because Google itself has removed it since in Germany it is illegal to promote Anti-Semitism and racial hatred. Google also tries to exclude extreme child-pornography web-sites from its search engine because child pornogrophy is illegal in the United States.
5) Now I ask you, if Google can kick off "jewwatch" from its German site and edit out child-pornography from its US search engines, then why can't they do the same thing with similar sites IF THEY WOULD WANT TO ? And to add insult to injury, Google itself admits "The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results." Is not simple human decency and morality good enough for them to remove a website that is "monitering" Jews in Nazi fashion, and also linked to a network of Neo-Nazi websites that are pro "The Final Solution" (planning for the genocide of the Jews even now, G-d forbid)?
6) Should we as Jews just "accept" what Google is doing because it claims to be under the "control" of mathematical " algorithms" and is just an "innocent" object in cyber-space? Sounds like a variation of the old "I was only following orders" excuse. How naive it would be to believe that, because Jews will always be on the lookout for what Anti-Semites want to do.
7) You know, it reminds me of those Germans before World War II who thought it was OK for Hitler and the Nazis to be accepted as a "normal" political party and run for democratic elections and sit in the Reichstag (Germany's parliament). That was "before". History has already seen what happens "after", when the cunning Anti-Semites use the freedoms of a democarcy and of open communications, then once in control, they burned down the Reichstag declared a dictatorship and blamed it on the Jews.
8) One more point, a number of large Internet companies use Google's services, yet somehow they manage to squeeze out the Anti-Semitic "jewwatch" site when a search is done for Jew and give "jewwatch" a lower ranking. Why is that? Try doing a search for "Jew" on Yahoo for example, they use Google's search engine, you will get basically nice sites that deal with the subject of "Jew", yet they put "jewwatch" in twentieth place maybe. So many things could be done and are possible.
I hope that rest of the series on this subject will be of interest to you. I look forward to hearing from you again, and I promise that I will not be insulted if you insult me, as I believe in "Ahavat Yisrael" !
All the best and happy surfing!
Shalom!”
---------------------------
(Part 3 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom (simshalom@att.net )
This series is being blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Summary, in Part 1: A letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ) : “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 3 of 10) U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL Intervene: Google’s President Apologizes.
Google did NOT remove the offending website, but did place an “apology” of sorts at the top of the web page where the offending site showed up:
“Offensive Search Results: We’re disturbed about these results as well…If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically…Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. Sincerely, The Google Team. p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp In addition, we call your attention to both the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-semitism, at http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/ , and Google's search results (about anti-Semitism) on this topic.” (http://www.google.com/explanation.html )
Why did Google do all this? The answer is that there was enough of a public outcry and interest at the time to bring the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at http://www.adl.org/ and US Senator Schumer of New York, the state with the most Jews in America. Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html The ADL had undertaken its own investigation of the issues behind the controversy. When one clicks onto the ADL site it defends Google (even though very ironically the wrath of “jewwatch” and “stormfront” is constantly directed at the ADL).
In an open public statement still online at its website the ADL declares:
“An e-mail campaign suggests that Google intentionally lists a hate site as the first item that comes up when searching under "Jew" or "Jews." While it is true that hate sites do appear when certain search terms are used, their appearance and rank are not controlled by Google. Google employs technology that automatically ranks sites based on a complicated formula called an algorithm. The ranking of Jewwatch and other hate sites is in no way due to a conscious choice by Google, but solely is a result of this automated system of ranking. When searching under the term "Jew," the top result in Google at the time of this writing is the hate site "Jewwatch." This site is run by Frank Weltner, who also uses the online monikers "Von Goldstein Mohammad" and "Couch Potato." "Jewwatch" has been in existence since 1997. The longevity of ownership, the way articles are posted to it, the links to and from the site, and the structure of the site itself all increase the ranking of "Jewwatch" within the Google formula. (http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp April 22, 04).
An April 22, 04 press release by the ADL adds:
“…In a letter to ADL, Google President Sergey Brin apologized to users who found the search results for the word "Jew" upsetting and promised to work for a solution that would satisfy ADL's concerns and those of users offended by the #1 ranking of an anti-Semitic Web site…
‘We are extremely pleased that Google has heard our concerns and those of its users about the offensive nature of some search results and the unusually high ranking of peddlers of bigotry and anti-Semitism,’ said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. ‘Google has shown great responsiveness to this issue and a willingness to consider changes to better identify extremist Web sites, so that users can still have the benefit of Google's unique search technology while being alerted when they are about to enter into a hate zone’…" (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Internet_75/4482_75.htm )
The ADL has published Brin’s letter (quoted in full) on its website:
“Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, 94043 (April 21, 2004)
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director,
Anti-Defamation League,
Dear Mr. Foxman:
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns related to Google's site ranking technology. As a result of several constructive discussions with Senator Charles Schumer [Schumer’s web-site is at http://schumer.senate.gov/ . Contact at http://schumer.senate.gov/webform.html ] , members of his staff, and based on input from you and your team, we are currently looking at various technical modifications - specifically for categories and other auxiliary information. This is clearly an issue that we care deeply about, and we plan to explore additional ways of addressing it in the future. We would also like to thank you for posting an explanation on your website noting that a site's ranking in Google's search results are automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. I have attached the text we have put on our website that gives users a clear explanation of Google's search results. And I would like to underscore how the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Thank you again for your letter and for your invitation to work with you in educating the public about how best to use web search technology and how we can improve our service.
Sincerely,
Sergey Brin,
President, Technology, Google Inc.”
(http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp )
Next Week: Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat
----
Readers’ responses to the previous Email and posting:
One reader wrote a one-line question:
“What happened to freedom of speech?”
And another reader wrote in a similar vein:
“I still don't understand what your point is in all of this. You even seem to show why they do what they do when you pointed out that Google has removed the link from the German portal because anti-semitism is illegal there. Here we have free speech. The same right that allows us to protest civil rights being violated also allows groups like the KKK to say what they want. Hate speech is not illegal in the US and any removal is a slippery slope towards banning things that the majority of people don't agree with. Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say? If you don't like the system, use another search engine or encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first. We hold the first amendment dear and I would hope the right of free speech would hold up on the internet as much as it does everywhere else.”
This was my reply:
“Thank you for your feed-back which I greatly appreciate.
As an avid Internet user and as someone deeply concerned with Jewish affairs both in real life as well as on the World Wide Web, I have been following the subject of "jewwatch" avidly this past year as a kind of primitive litmus test of how anti-Semitism functions and circulates on the web and what if anything can be done about it. I hope to discuss and bring to light various options in the remaining parts of my report on this subject.
I agree with you that the freedom of speech issue is important. You ask: "Why should Google censor themselves because a large group of people don't like what they have to say?"
In point of fact, Mr. Steven Weinstock who was the originator of the online petition responded quite brilliantly when confronted with this issue:
"...Google has an extra responsibility, something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.” See http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html
Just as Google does abide by the codes imposed on it in Germany, it could, if it wanted to, act similarly in the United States VOLUNTARILY as that does NOT go against the law in any way. There is no reason why it cannot abide by "Corporate Responsibility", as does the mass media itself which is the life-blood of public opinion. No one is suggesting that the anti-Semitic websites should lose their freedom of speech on the World Wide Web if they choose to put forth their venom on their own websites, in fact it would be impossible to go around and shut down global anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred both in cyberspace or in real life (we can agree that that has to be a job for the Jewish Messiah to clean up the world in the future.) BUT corporations in the here and now, like Google (co-founded and headed by a Jewish young man who is its co-president: Sergey Brin), that are hopefully NOT affiliated with the hate-mongers ARE in a position to do something about it as Google has its OWN FREEDOM/S OF CHOICE and FREEDOM/S OF ACTION to block hate on their computer servers with the "click" of a few buttons or with some simple filters. If a major TV news-person would air objectionable content and because of that he would be shut down, fired and shunned, we would not accuse his corporate bosses of denying people their freedom of speech, on the contrary, we would be commending them for throwing such malicious trash out into the gutter where it belongs.
But the above is only one aspect of the total picture which is spread far and wide over the Internet. The neo-Nazis in cyberspace have plans they are following to ensure that sites such as "jewwatch" get as much free "publicity" as they can on the web, they have issued calls for their supporters to link to "jewwatch" and similar sites to increase rankings on Google and other search engines.
So in fact what you mention "encourage the 125,000 people to change which site appears first" has in fact been happening and utilized by all sides !
As concerned Jews, as a response, many Jewish bloggers (who maintain blogs i.e. "Web logs", that are very popular nowadays) have created links on their own blogs and websites to the article on "Jew" on the world's newest and largest Encyclopedia at Wikipedia: The multiple web-links to that article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew is what has pushed "jewwatch" down to number two spot when doing the search for the word "Jew" on Google. So that is another approach.
Hopefully this series of reports will energize more people who are both Jewish and/or favorable towards Jewish causes to become aware, interested and actively involved in ways to actively counter anti-Semitism on the Internet. The alternative is to sit around passively and do nothing as anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist websites proliferate on the web with impunity and that may yet come back to haunt us one day, G-d forbid.
I will discuss these and similar aspects in greater detail in the weeks to come, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
Best wishes!
Finally, one reader was extremely encouraging:
“Stay with this, what you are revealing is very very important. With great appreciation.”
-------
(Part 4 of 10): WHAT HAPPENED TO “JEW” ON GOOGLE?
By S. Shalom simshalom@att.net Blogged at http://simshalom.blogspot.com/
Feed-back:
A number of readers have written to say that when they did a search for the word “Jew” on Google, at this time, the first result they get was the article about “Jew” at the new “Wikipedia’’ on-line encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew and then the second place (on Google) was taken by the Anti-Semitic hate site “jewwatch dot com”, so they are puzzled by why that is so, since it was claimed that “jewwatch” had come up first.
My response:
It is true that at the present time, due to a number of events and factors, “jewwatch” comes in second when searching for “Jew” on Google (or to use the idiom, when “Googling for Jew”). This in itself will be part of this detailed report of “What happened to ‘Jew’ on Google”, because until March of 2004 it was only the hate site “jewwwatch” that came up first and the “Jew” article from Wikipedia was nowhere in sight. Only AFTER the uproar and petition to boot “jewwatch’’ off of Google began to pick up steam (from April to June of 2004) was the “jewwatch” article “pushed down” from its first place ranking on Google. The reason this happened is similar to the reason “jewwatch” was first for so long: It was due to what is known in computer parlance as “Google-bombing” by means of a “Google-bomb”. This means that when many people who have their own websites and blogs place links on those sites and blogs to a particular website or article, then the more sites that link to it raise the mathematical chances that Google’s search engines will give the site that has the most links to that particular topic the higher ranking on its search results. So just as “jewwatch” was able to get many of its supporters to link to it, a number of Jewish bloggers set out to find an article dealing with “Jew” to link to (in order to “demote” the “jewwatch” article on Google), and the choice was to link to the more-or-less neutral and encyclopedic article on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew Some Jewish bloggers chose to also link to the very informative pro-Jewish website known as “Judaism 101” at http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm which often comes in at third or second place itself when searching for “Jew” on Google. All these happenings and developments are part of this report and will be discussed more fully and individually in the remaining parts of this report.
Summary of this report so far:
In Part 1: It’s reported that a letter to the editor appeared in The Jewish Press (3/31/2004) (http://www.thejewishpress.com/ ): “Upon reading in The Jewish Press that an anti-Semitic website [“jewwatch dot com”] is the first result when typing in the word ‘jew’ on Google…I contacted Google and basically got a run-around. I was told that in order for Google to rectify the problem, I would need some sort of petition with at least 50,000 names. I’ve taken Google at its word and have set up an online petition for people to sign (IN THE PAST) at – http://www.removejewwatch.com [that page now goes to Yahoo] [ BUT NOW THE PETITION IS AT http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ] - and express their concern and disapproval. I hope the readers of The Jewish Press will help us come closer to realizing our goal. (Signed) Steven M. Weinstock (Via E-Mail)”
The petition is still live at http://www.petitiononline.com/rjw23/petition.html
In Part 2: The Anti-Semites behind “jewwatch” become aware of the efforts against them. The media notes that Google will not be moved by “petitions” in spite of criticism from some sources in the media. A flurry of behind the scenes activities takes place.
In Part 3: U.S. Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the ADL intervene and Google’s President apologizes (http://www.adl.org/internet/google_letter.asp )
What really happened, along the way, and in the end? Where do things stand now as 2004 draws to a close? Here’s the story continued:
(Part 4 of 10) Responses, and the Anti-Semites Gloat
In May 4, 04, Weinstock published a letter of explanation on his petition’s home page (now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html ) :
“From: "Steven M. Weinstock" removehate@optonline.net
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:24 -0400: I want to say that I feel I've been misquoted...I am a big believer in the 1st amendment ... and I believe that a site like jewwatch.com has a right to exist, regardless of how horrific it is...I just don’t feel that a site like this should justify the #1 spot on Google...The fact that Google is the biggest internet brand it acts like a 'seal of approval' and even though I am grateful that Google added a disclaimer to the results it provides, I feel that is not good enough...I believe that Google has an extra responsibility , something called Corporate Responsibility, where they have to be responsible for what they promote...The New York Times or CNN would never promote such material even though they have a legal right to...They are morally responsible...Google is in the same league as CNN and NY Times...And a simple disclaimer is not enough...A large percentage of Google searches are outsourced to Google's large corporate clients such as AOL, Netscape, and this disclaimer does not appear on these websites. Sincerely, Steven M Weinstock.”
Nothing more was posted after that, but the online petition was not stopped.
The Jew-haters gloated and were (pleasantly) surprised and amused by Google’s response, as mentioned on some web forums: “I am a moderator of the White Nationalist site Stormfront, and am also peripherally connected with the jewwatch controversy. We are interested in this for obvious reasons. Will the 'net allow itself to be censored? Our bet is that they'll install an optional "hate filter" on their results, defaulting to "on". In any case kudos to Brin, Jewish himself, for saying no to hacking the search engine. That is integrity!!!”
(http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/04/27/GoogleAndJewWatchReVisited.html May 5, 04)
Twists in the (Internet) road
By June 2004 Weinstock had collected over 125,000 signatures and more were coming in. What happened next is a little bizarre. For an unknown reason, at some later point, the regular home page and its petition launched by Weinstock at http://www.removejewwatch.com/ was redirected to the home page of Yahoo! Giving the impression that the petition is perhaps over and the subject is maybe closed. However, after some searching I found that the petition is still able to take signatures and was technically active, but was nevertheless moved to a new website now at http://www.whynotmedia.com/removejewwatch.html without comment. The mystery continues because the site at http://www.whynotmedia.com has only one word on it: “Welcome” without further explanation. Further research shows that “whynotmedia” was the host site of http://www.removejewwatch.com/ in the first place. So far, even though I have sent out some Emails to find out why and how “removejewwatch” no longer appears at its old Internet location and why it redirects to Yahoo! instead of to its new home at “whynotmedia”, and why there has been no real effort to publicize the petition, no explanations or clear reasons have been established. Thousands of people could and would still be signing the petition, which stands at over 126,600 signatures, but for months it has been barely a trickle because no-one was informed that the page was moved and the petition’s redirect to Yahoo! home page is not explained. In addition, before moving the petition site into obscurity, a seemingly unrelated letter from a supporter was added negating the Democrats’ criticisms of President Bush’s handling of events leading up to Sept. 11th 2001 (http://whynotmedia.com/article1.html ) which probably alienated the more liberal supporters of the petition.
Next Week: The Anti-Semites get ugly and plot.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Sudden End Of Iraqi Jewry: How 120,000 Jews were expelled in 1951-2
Article by Edwin Black (the award-winning author of “IBM and the Holocaust” (Random House). This article is adapted from his just-released book, “Banking on Baghdad” (Wiley), which chronicles 7,000 years of Iraqi history (in The Jewish Week)
The Sudden End Of Iraqi Jewry
Some 50 years ago, the Baghdad government expelled its 120,000 Jews, ending 2,600 years of Jewish life in the country.
"Suddenly the phones went dead in Baghdad.
The day was March 10, 1951. By the time the dial tone came back, within about 24 hours, some 120,000 middle-class and affluent Jews in Iraq, nearly the whole of Iraqi Jewry, would discover they were paupers.
Penniless, they were then expelled en masse to Israel, leaving behind property now valued at $1 billion by some and many billions by others.
Today, as attorneys, Jewish organizations and individual claimants prepare to launch a massive claim against Iraqi assets held in Washington, the question remains: How did it happen and why?
For 2,600 years the Jews of Iraq had dwelled successfully in the land of Babylon, achieving as much acceptance and financial success as a non-Muslim group could in an Islamic society that despised infidels. Iraqi Jews were well entrenched at all levels of farming, banking, commerce and the government bureaucracy. They virtually invented the modern Iraqi monetary and financial system after that nation emerged from the British mandate in 1932. Jews contributed vibrantly to the arts and were the heart of Iraq’s international commerce.
Indeed, Jews were among the best-educated people in the country, and fiercely loyal to a land they had thrived in for millennia. As such, they were the wealthiest and most assimilated Jews in the Arab Middle East. In many ways they resembled the middle-class and affluent, entrenched Jews of Germany who felt more German than Jewish. Likewise, Iraqi Jews, universally anti-Zionist, believed they were more Iraqi than Jewish.
But with the outbreak of World War II, it all began to change. On Oct. 13, 1939, just six weeks after the war began, the mufti of Jerusalem slipped into Baghdad to make Iraq his new base. From Baghdad, the mufti repeated his Palestine incitements, launching a venomous and unrelenting campaign against Iraq’s Jewish community, accusing them of a Zionist plot to dominate Iraq and the wider Middle East.
At the same time, the mufti sealed an alliance with Adolf Hitler personally, seeking Germany’s help in destroying the Jews of Palestine and Eastern Europe, from where the stream of emigrants were escaping. In return, the mufti promised Iraq’s abundant oil reserves, the fuel Hitler needed to conquer Russia and the entire East.
On April 1, 1941, just months before the long-anticipated Nazi invasion of Russia, the mufti and a fascist cabal of pro-Nazi Iraqi officers known as the Golden Square staged a coup. The British-appointed ruler, the Hashemite regent, fled for his life.
To keep the oil out of Hitler’s hands, the British invaded Iraq, and flew air missions day and night to defeat German bombers sent by Hitler to assist the Baghdad coup. Within two months, the British had ousted the Golden Square, whose leaders escaped to Iran.
But on June 1 of that year, in the last hours of the revolt, indeed even as the regent was returning to his Baghdad palace from the airport, a frenzied Arab mob unleashed a two-day Kristallnacht-style pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad. Women were raped and infants crushed in front of their terrified families. Jewish shops were looted and torched. A synagogue was burned and its Torahs ceremoniously destroyed.
British forces eventually broke through, shot dozens of rioters and restored order. A government commission reported that at least 180 Jews had been killed and 240 wounded, 586 Jewish businesses pillaged, and 99 Jewish homes burned.
The carnage of those 48 hours would be forever seared upon the collective Iraqi Jewish consciousness as “the Farhud,” best translated as “violent dispossession.”
From that moment Iraq’s Jews, once a settled and peaceful group within Iraqi society, would be systematically targeted for violence, persecution, commercial boycott and confiscation.
Cry To Battle
After the mufti had fled Iraq in 1941, Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler sponsored him in Germany, offering him lavish facilities. In regular radio programs, the mufti broadcast the Iraqi rallying cry to Muslim Nazi troops and to Arabs everywhere to fight the Allies: “O Muslims! Proud Iraq has placed herself in the vanguard of this Holy Struggle … It is the duty of all Muslims to aid Iraq in her struggle and seek every means to fight the enemy.”
As for the Jews, he exhorted, “Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history and religion. This saves your honor.”
So while Arab Jewish communities, such as those in Iraq, savored every day of seeming peace since the Farhud, the desire to see their destruction only ramified throughout the Arab world, particularly in Iraq. Moreover, the Jews were a convenient scapegoat for Iraqi politicians in the absence of any great industrial or national achievements.
Maj. John Glubb, the British officer who organized the Arab Legion, complained bitterly in a letter to Whitehall.
“We ... imagined that we had bestowed on the Iraqis all these blessings of democracy, which the British people enjoy with such relish,” he wrote.
“Nothing could be more undemocratic than the result. A handful of politicians obtained possession of the machinery of government, and all the elections were rigged,” Glubb lamented, going on to say, “In this process they all became very rich.”
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, Iraq retained its Nazified ideology. The situation escalated fiercely in February 1947, when the United Nations agreed to vote on the question of partitioning Palestine. Uniformly the Arab regimes, including the Baghdad government, officially threatened that if the UN dared vote “yes” to partition, the Arabs would exact reprisals against the 700,000 Jews who had dwelled in countries throughout the Middle East.
The day Israel declared its independence, the Arab League, including major units of the Iraqi army, invaded from all sides. The Arabs vowed an “extermination and a momentous massacre of the Jews.”
It didn’t happen.
Only Iraq refused to sign the armistice following Israel’s victory in 1948. Instead, it became convenient to again blame Iraqi Jews and “Zionist gangs” for this latest Iraqi military disaster.
On July 19, 1948, Iraq amended penal code Law 51, making Zionism itself a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. Although Zionism was never defined, every Jew was thought to be a Zionist, thereby criminalizing every Jew. Hundreds of Jews were arrested, tortured until they confessed, and sentenced to long jail terms.
By October 1948, all Jews holding government positions — an estimated 1,500 — were summarily dismissed. There followed an organized boycott and systematic expulsion of Jews from Iraq’s commercial and cultural mainstream. Many purged Jewish government employees, highly skilled and well paid. Now destitute, they were reduced to selling matches on the streets to avoid being arrested for vagrancy.
Citizenship Revoked
An estimated 130,000 Jews lived in the Iraq of 1949, half in Baghdad. The Baghdad Chamber of Commerce listed 2,430 member companies; a third were Jewish. In fact, a third of the chamber’s board and almost all its employees were Jewish.
Jewish firms transacted 45 percent of the exports and nearly 75 percent of the imports. A quarter of Iraqi Jews worked in transportation, such as the railways and port administration. The controller of the budget was Jewish; a director of the Iraqi National Bank was Jewish; the Currency Office board was all Jewish; the Foreign Currency Committee was about 95 percent Jewish. Over the centuries, Jews had become essential to the economy.
Now Jews began fleeing, mainly to neighboring Iran. They smuggled out whatever valuables they could to rebuild their lives. On March 3, 1950, to halt the uncontrolled flight of assets and people, Iraq passed a one-year amendment to Law 1, the Denaturalization Act. This statute revoked the citizenship of any Jew who willingly left the country. Upon exit, their assets were frozen but were still available to the emigrants for use within Iraq.
Thousands of Jews seized the opportunity to leave, believing at least that their assets, while frozen, would still be viable within Iraq until a better day. But when the one-year law expired, a successor anti-Jewish statute was enacted secretly on March 10, 1951. Law 5, known as the Law for the Control and Administration of Property of Jews Who Have Forfeited Nationality, permanently seized all the assets of Jews who had been denaturalized by the previous law and any others that would be pressured to leave the country.
The day the law was passed, the phones went down all over Baghdad to prevent panicked Jews from swiftly transferring their assets to safety. What’s more, the banks were closed for three days.
With Jewish assets prone and vulnerable, Regulation 3 of Law 5 was unveiled. Regulation 3 empowered Iraq’s custodian general “to lay hands on all property belonging to the person who has forfeited Iraqi Nationality and to administer, dispose of and liquidate it.”
Like the Nazis before them, the Iraqi regulations meticulously constructed an elaborate juridical structure for the confiscations. The hope was to shield the confiscations from the reach of international law or compensation demands.
From 1951 to 1952, approximately 120,000 desperate Jews were airlifted from Iraq to Israel in Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. The speed and heartlessness of the exodus was part of a calculated Iraqi government plan to flood the fledgling Israeli state with destitute Jews. The idea was to crack Israel’s already strained infrastructure. Defrocked of all jewelry and valuables at the Baghdad airport, the forlorn airlifted emigrants arrived at Lod Airport bewildered, with little more than the clothes on their bodies.
Israeli and Jewish officials vociferously vowed to one day seek justice and hold their compensation of Palestinian claimants in the balance. That determination faded over the years even as the Israeli Ministry of Justice quietly gathered thousands of files on what Israeli officials derided as “robbery by force of law.”
After Saddam Hussein was toppled last year, hopes of compensation revived, not only among the Jews but also among many groups. Indeed, to address the many compensation claims by any number of minorities, Iraq’s Governing Council has created the Iraqi Property Claims Commission, with offices in 10 cities. The IPCC intends to review claims by any Iraqi of any ethnicity or religion — Kurd, Assyrian, Christian or Shiite — unfairly deprived of his property by the Baathist regimes.
However, the Baath movement first came to power in 1968, 17 years after the 1951 law that rapidly liquidated 2,600 years of Jewish existence in Iraq. Hence, the massive confiscations inflicted on Iraqi Jewry will be unaddressed by the existing mechanism, a fact not lost upon those seeking alternative avenues of restitution.
Whether or not giant sums are won in any court of law or claims tribunal, no sum of dollars or dinars can make amends for the traumatic expulsion of Iraqi Jewry from a cradle of civilization that they helped nurture."
The Sudden End Of Iraqi Jewry
Some 50 years ago, the Baghdad government expelled its 120,000 Jews, ending 2,600 years of Jewish life in the country.
"Suddenly the phones went dead in Baghdad.
The day was March 10, 1951. By the time the dial tone came back, within about 24 hours, some 120,000 middle-class and affluent Jews in Iraq, nearly the whole of Iraqi Jewry, would discover they were paupers.
Penniless, they were then expelled en masse to Israel, leaving behind property now valued at $1 billion by some and many billions by others.
Today, as attorneys, Jewish organizations and individual claimants prepare to launch a massive claim against Iraqi assets held in Washington, the question remains: How did it happen and why?
For 2,600 years the Jews of Iraq had dwelled successfully in the land of Babylon, achieving as much acceptance and financial success as a non-Muslim group could in an Islamic society that despised infidels. Iraqi Jews were well entrenched at all levels of farming, banking, commerce and the government bureaucracy. They virtually invented the modern Iraqi monetary and financial system after that nation emerged from the British mandate in 1932. Jews contributed vibrantly to the arts and were the heart of Iraq’s international commerce.
Indeed, Jews were among the best-educated people in the country, and fiercely loyal to a land they had thrived in for millennia. As such, they were the wealthiest and most assimilated Jews in the Arab Middle East. In many ways they resembled the middle-class and affluent, entrenched Jews of Germany who felt more German than Jewish. Likewise, Iraqi Jews, universally anti-Zionist, believed they were more Iraqi than Jewish.
But with the outbreak of World War II, it all began to change. On Oct. 13, 1939, just six weeks after the war began, the mufti of Jerusalem slipped into Baghdad to make Iraq his new base. From Baghdad, the mufti repeated his Palestine incitements, launching a venomous and unrelenting campaign against Iraq’s Jewish community, accusing them of a Zionist plot to dominate Iraq and the wider Middle East.
At the same time, the mufti sealed an alliance with Adolf Hitler personally, seeking Germany’s help in destroying the Jews of Palestine and Eastern Europe, from where the stream of emigrants were escaping. In return, the mufti promised Iraq’s abundant oil reserves, the fuel Hitler needed to conquer Russia and the entire East.
On April 1, 1941, just months before the long-anticipated Nazi invasion of Russia, the mufti and a fascist cabal of pro-Nazi Iraqi officers known as the Golden Square staged a coup. The British-appointed ruler, the Hashemite regent, fled for his life.
To keep the oil out of Hitler’s hands, the British invaded Iraq, and flew air missions day and night to defeat German bombers sent by Hitler to assist the Baghdad coup. Within two months, the British had ousted the Golden Square, whose leaders escaped to Iran.
But on June 1 of that year, in the last hours of the revolt, indeed even as the regent was returning to his Baghdad palace from the airport, a frenzied Arab mob unleashed a two-day Kristallnacht-style pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad. Women were raped and infants crushed in front of their terrified families. Jewish shops were looted and torched. A synagogue was burned and its Torahs ceremoniously destroyed.
British forces eventually broke through, shot dozens of rioters and restored order. A government commission reported that at least 180 Jews had been killed and 240 wounded, 586 Jewish businesses pillaged, and 99 Jewish homes burned.
The carnage of those 48 hours would be forever seared upon the collective Iraqi Jewish consciousness as “the Farhud,” best translated as “violent dispossession.”
From that moment Iraq’s Jews, once a settled and peaceful group within Iraqi society, would be systematically targeted for violence, persecution, commercial boycott and confiscation.
Cry To Battle
After the mufti had fled Iraq in 1941, Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler sponsored him in Germany, offering him lavish facilities. In regular radio programs, the mufti broadcast the Iraqi rallying cry to Muslim Nazi troops and to Arabs everywhere to fight the Allies: “O Muslims! Proud Iraq has placed herself in the vanguard of this Holy Struggle … It is the duty of all Muslims to aid Iraq in her struggle and seek every means to fight the enemy.”
As for the Jews, he exhorted, “Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases Allah, history and religion. This saves your honor.”
So while Arab Jewish communities, such as those in Iraq, savored every day of seeming peace since the Farhud, the desire to see their destruction only ramified throughout the Arab world, particularly in Iraq. Moreover, the Jews were a convenient scapegoat for Iraqi politicians in the absence of any great industrial or national achievements.
Maj. John Glubb, the British officer who organized the Arab Legion, complained bitterly in a letter to Whitehall.
“We ... imagined that we had bestowed on the Iraqis all these blessings of democracy, which the British people enjoy with such relish,” he wrote.
“Nothing could be more undemocratic than the result. A handful of politicians obtained possession of the machinery of government, and all the elections were rigged,” Glubb lamented, going on to say, “In this process they all became very rich.”
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, Iraq retained its Nazified ideology. The situation escalated fiercely in February 1947, when the United Nations agreed to vote on the question of partitioning Palestine. Uniformly the Arab regimes, including the Baghdad government, officially threatened that if the UN dared vote “yes” to partition, the Arabs would exact reprisals against the 700,000 Jews who had dwelled in countries throughout the Middle East.
The day Israel declared its independence, the Arab League, including major units of the Iraqi army, invaded from all sides. The Arabs vowed an “extermination and a momentous massacre of the Jews.”
It didn’t happen.
Only Iraq refused to sign the armistice following Israel’s victory in 1948. Instead, it became convenient to again blame Iraqi Jews and “Zionist gangs” for this latest Iraqi military disaster.
On July 19, 1948, Iraq amended penal code Law 51, making Zionism itself a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. Although Zionism was never defined, every Jew was thought to be a Zionist, thereby criminalizing every Jew. Hundreds of Jews were arrested, tortured until they confessed, and sentenced to long jail terms.
By October 1948, all Jews holding government positions — an estimated 1,500 — were summarily dismissed. There followed an organized boycott and systematic expulsion of Jews from Iraq’s commercial and cultural mainstream. Many purged Jewish government employees, highly skilled and well paid. Now destitute, they were reduced to selling matches on the streets to avoid being arrested for vagrancy.
Citizenship Revoked
An estimated 130,000 Jews lived in the Iraq of 1949, half in Baghdad. The Baghdad Chamber of Commerce listed 2,430 member companies; a third were Jewish. In fact, a third of the chamber’s board and almost all its employees were Jewish.
Jewish firms transacted 45 percent of the exports and nearly 75 percent of the imports. A quarter of Iraqi Jews worked in transportation, such as the railways and port administration. The controller of the budget was Jewish; a director of the Iraqi National Bank was Jewish; the Currency Office board was all Jewish; the Foreign Currency Committee was about 95 percent Jewish. Over the centuries, Jews had become essential to the economy.
Now Jews began fleeing, mainly to neighboring Iran. They smuggled out whatever valuables they could to rebuild their lives. On March 3, 1950, to halt the uncontrolled flight of assets and people, Iraq passed a one-year amendment to Law 1, the Denaturalization Act. This statute revoked the citizenship of any Jew who willingly left the country. Upon exit, their assets were frozen but were still available to the emigrants for use within Iraq.
Thousands of Jews seized the opportunity to leave, believing at least that their assets, while frozen, would still be viable within Iraq until a better day. But when the one-year law expired, a successor anti-Jewish statute was enacted secretly on March 10, 1951. Law 5, known as the Law for the Control and Administration of Property of Jews Who Have Forfeited Nationality, permanently seized all the assets of Jews who had been denaturalized by the previous law and any others that would be pressured to leave the country.
The day the law was passed, the phones went down all over Baghdad to prevent panicked Jews from swiftly transferring their assets to safety. What’s more, the banks were closed for three days.
With Jewish assets prone and vulnerable, Regulation 3 of Law 5 was unveiled. Regulation 3 empowered Iraq’s custodian general “to lay hands on all property belonging to the person who has forfeited Iraqi Nationality and to administer, dispose of and liquidate it.”
Like the Nazis before them, the Iraqi regulations meticulously constructed an elaborate juridical structure for the confiscations. The hope was to shield the confiscations from the reach of international law or compensation demands.
From 1951 to 1952, approximately 120,000 desperate Jews were airlifted from Iraq to Israel in Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. The speed and heartlessness of the exodus was part of a calculated Iraqi government plan to flood the fledgling Israeli state with destitute Jews. The idea was to crack Israel’s already strained infrastructure. Defrocked of all jewelry and valuables at the Baghdad airport, the forlorn airlifted emigrants arrived at Lod Airport bewildered, with little more than the clothes on their bodies.
Israeli and Jewish officials vociferously vowed to one day seek justice and hold their compensation of Palestinian claimants in the balance. That determination faded over the years even as the Israeli Ministry of Justice quietly gathered thousands of files on what Israeli officials derided as “robbery by force of law.”
After Saddam Hussein was toppled last year, hopes of compensation revived, not only among the Jews but also among many groups. Indeed, to address the many compensation claims by any number of minorities, Iraq’s Governing Council has created the Iraqi Property Claims Commission, with offices in 10 cities. The IPCC intends to review claims by any Iraqi of any ethnicity or religion — Kurd, Assyrian, Christian or Shiite — unfairly deprived of his property by the Baathist regimes.
However, the Baath movement first came to power in 1968, 17 years after the 1951 law that rapidly liquidated 2,600 years of Jewish existence in Iraq. Hence, the massive confiscations inflicted on Iraqi Jewry will be unaddressed by the existing mechanism, a fact not lost upon those seeking alternative avenues of restitution.
Whether or not giant sums are won in any court of law or claims tribunal, no sum of dollars or dinars can make amends for the traumatic expulsion of Iraqi Jewry from a cradle of civilization that they helped nurture."
Thursday, October 14, 2004
France mulls ways to sanction Holocaust doubter
By Reuters
http://www.haaretz.com/
Thu., October 14, 2004 Tishrei 29, 5765
PARIS - France is checking whether it can take legal action against a leading far-right politician who has questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers in the Holocaust, Justice Minister Dominique Perben said on Thursday.
The University of Lyon has urged education officials to suspend Bruno Gollnisch, a professor of Japanese there, for questioning how the gas chambers were used in the wartime slaughter of the Jews and querying the death toll.
The president of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, also called for legal action against Gollnisch, a European deputy who is also the number two man in the National Front party of extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.
"Mr Gollnisch's comments are absolutely unacceptable," Perben told France Info radio in announcing the probe.
"In an affair like this, I think the response should not only be penal ... but it should be political and possibly also professional."
France anti-racism laws have made denying the Holocaust a crime, punishable by fines and even prison.
Gollnisch, who is known as the intellectual of the controversial party, said on Monday he recognized that the gas chambers had existed but thought historians still had to decide whether they were actually used to kill Jews.
He called for an open debate about whether the total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was actually 6 million as stated.
He also questioned the objectivity of leading historian Henry Rousso, who is investigating charges that certain Lyon lecturers were denying the Holocaust, by calling him "a Jewish personality".
The CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish organizations publicly condemned Gollnisch's comments at a news conference about Rousso's report on Holocaust denial at Lyon University.
European Parliament head Borrell said: "I would like to say clearly to public opinion in Europe and to all those who suffered from Nazi ethnic cleansing that the European Parliament will not tolerate this kind of statement."
At his Monday news conference, Gollnisch also said that serious historians no longer accepted that all the judgements of the post-war Nuremberg Trials of leading Nazis were fair.
"I don't know if I will lose my chair as professor of Japanese or even be put in prison for saying that, but I stand by it," he added.
Gollnisch, who studied law and political science at Kyoto University in Japan, holds a chair for Japanese language and civilization at the Lyon university named after Jean Moulin - the hero of the French Resistance murdered by the Nazis in 1943.
http://www.haaretz.com/
Thu., October 14, 2004 Tishrei 29, 5765
PARIS - France is checking whether it can take legal action against a leading far-right politician who has questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers in the Holocaust, Justice Minister Dominique Perben said on Thursday.
The University of Lyon has urged education officials to suspend Bruno Gollnisch, a professor of Japanese there, for questioning how the gas chambers were used in the wartime slaughter of the Jews and querying the death toll.
The president of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, also called for legal action against Gollnisch, a European deputy who is also the number two man in the National Front party of extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.
"Mr Gollnisch's comments are absolutely unacceptable," Perben told France Info radio in announcing the probe.
"In an affair like this, I think the response should not only be penal ... but it should be political and possibly also professional."
France anti-racism laws have made denying the Holocaust a crime, punishable by fines and even prison.
Gollnisch, who is known as the intellectual of the controversial party, said on Monday he recognized that the gas chambers had existed but thought historians still had to decide whether they were actually used to kill Jews.
He called for an open debate about whether the total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was actually 6 million as stated.
He also questioned the objectivity of leading historian Henry Rousso, who is investigating charges that certain Lyon lecturers were denying the Holocaust, by calling him "a Jewish personality".
The CRIF umbrella group of French Jewish organizations publicly condemned Gollnisch's comments at a news conference about Rousso's report on Holocaust denial at Lyon University.
European Parliament head Borrell said: "I would like to say clearly to public opinion in Europe and to all those who suffered from Nazi ethnic cleansing that the European Parliament will not tolerate this kind of statement."
At his Monday news conference, Gollnisch also said that serious historians no longer accepted that all the judgements of the post-war Nuremberg Trials of leading Nazis were fair.
"I don't know if I will lose my chair as professor of Japanese or even be put in prison for saying that, but I stand by it," he added.
Gollnisch, who studied law and political science at Kyoto University in Japan, holds a chair for Japanese language and civilization at the Lyon university named after Jean Moulin - the hero of the French Resistance murdered by the Nazis in 1943.
