Latest Abraham H Foxman News | Fox News

Time to fight the epidemic of online hate

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:30:09 -0400

Several women’s advocates recently put the spotlight on misogynistic postings to Facebook promoting and celebrating violent attacks on women. As a result of their pressure on advertisers and others, Facebook eventually responded -- admitting it could do better in policing online hate and outlining a series of steps that it planned to take to address hate speech.

That episode reflected a slice of a problem we have worked on for years -- an epidemic of online hate that is harming individuals and society. Today, the virus of Internet hate is metastasizing every day in ways that Hitler and his propagandists never could have imagined.

This scourge of online bigotry and its consequences are the subject of our new book, “Viral Hate,” which proffers an overview of the problem and looks to Internet providers, governments and society at large for creative new solutions.

Our book does not make the case for stifling free speech, nor is it an attempt to cast aspersions on the Internet itself for the problem. In fact, we celebrate and defend this wonderful tool for information-sharing, research and social networking, and conclude that one solution to the problem of online hate may be more speech, not less.

Some simply shrug off online hate as the inevitable effluent of Internet freedom and rationalize it as a problem too big to address. After all, every second on the Internet, there are more than 700 posts to Facebook, and 600 Twitter tweets. Every 72 hours of video are posted to YouTube.

Much of this content is harmless, and yet a disturbing amount of online content is anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic and misogynistic. It can overwhelm sites in seconds. Recently, YouTube was flooded with racist comments after an otherwise harmless cereal advertisement featuring a bi-racial child, her white mom and black dad went viral. The video site was forced to shut down the comments section until they had found way to stop the flood of racist invective from poisoning the discussion.

Hate has indeed gone viral.

Online hate traumatizes its targets. It also serves to rally and attract others who might share its bigoted message.

Hateful ideas have led some people to take action offline, in the real world. There have been widely reported attacks minorities and suicides that started with Internet hate speech or online bullying.

What is more, while the Internet is a terrific tool for gathering research, there are many instances where young children have turned to the Internet for a homework assignment and found themselves confronted with false “historical information,” such as racist sites purporting to tell the “true story” of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Holocaust denial sites masquerading as purveyors of truth.

Also disturbing is that many people react to the common appearance of online hate by treating it as the norm, and ignoring it.

The problem of scale -- the sheer volume of Internet content -- is no excuse for not trying to deal with online hate. When viruses causing disease spread, society responds even when the scale of the problem is daunting. Likewise, the virus of hate requires a broad response.

Internet hosts like Facebook and Google have joined with the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Defamation League in a working group that includes civil rights experts for an ongoing collaboration on ways to reduce hate speech. Terms of Service and their enforcement, tools for counter-speech as an antidote for hate speech, and education are the current focus.

All the while, the right to free expression always is in mind. And yet, more is greatly needed from the Internet community, especially the companies that knowingly or unknowingly play host to hateful content.

For starters, the companies need to learn why some content it is hosting -- like Holocaust denial -- is indeed hate speech, as are jokes using anti-gay epithets. And they need to put adequate resources in place to respond to complaints about the presence of hate-filled posts, and to take down those posts promptly.

And more is needed from parents and educators. Teaching kids about cyber-literacy and online civility is a start, and we do a woefully bad job of that in this country.

And as demonstrated by the women pushing Facebook to change, people who use the Internet need to speak up when they see online hate. “When you see something, say something” should not be restricted to unattended parcels. We each have a duty to speak out against online hate.

Edmund Burke’s pre-Internet warning still applies: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

It’s Iran, stupid -- how to guarantee US credibility remains after Syria crisis

Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:00:20 -0400

It has become conventional wisdom that the roller coaster of American decision-making on the Syria issue has dealt a significant, if not mortal blow, to American credibility and leadership in the world.

This perception is not without good reason.

When President Obama first established a "red line" in Syria on their use of chemical weapons, it was seen as a way to avoid or postpone any decision on U.S. intervention on the side of the rebels against the authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Then, after the chemical attack that left many dead, and the president’s commitment to military action in response, his sudden turnabout in going to Congress raised further questions.

Then followed a third twist in the road, with a difficult congressional vote looming, when the president announced qualified support for a Russian proposal to monitor, control and eventually dismantle the Syrian chemical store.

[pullquote]

All of which left many people questioning the administration’s ability to be taken seriously as a leader on many global challenges.

The ultimate test of this proposition, however, will not be on the Syrian matter, as important as it is, but on the Iran nuclear challenge.

While there is already much speculation concerning the impact on Iran of witnessing this American flip-flopping and uncertainty, there are things that the administration can do going forward to restore belief that America’s word is sacrosanct and that it is capable and willing to make tough decisions and take bold action when necessary.

It starts with the administration’s case that the Russian initiative on Syrian chemical weapons would never have surfaced in the first place and would never reach a satisfactory conclusion without the threat of U.S. military action.

This theme now needs reinforcement regarding Iran.

Despite all the talk of a more moderate Iran under the new president, Hassan Rohani, there is no tangible indication of any Iranian give on the nuclear issue. And Rohani himself said the other day that his government would not cede its “absolute right” on what he called “the nuclear issue.”

The U.S., therefore, needs to reiterate in even stronger terms than heretofore that the military option is not only still on the table but becomes more relevant the longer Iran stalls and the more it continues to enrich uranium and moves on a second front toward a plutonium bomb.

To those who would doubt the seriousness of such statements after the Syrian affair, several things need to be addressed by the administration:

First, the reason for bringing the Syrian issue to Congress -- the absence of a direct threat to the U.S. -- does not apply to Iran. In the case of Iran, unlike Syria, the development of a nuclear capability is a direct strategic threat to the United States and to its interests and values throughout the Middle East.

If the U.S. sees Iran reaching a point of no return on the nuclear matter, the administration will have to act, on its own if necessary.

Second, for those who would want to avoid a military confrontation with Iran, the best chance lies in making clear that continued Iranian obstinacy will inevitably lead in that direction.

Why should Iran believe in that threat after Syria? For several reasons:

• First, if the Russian initiative on Syrian chemical weapons does not work out the likelihood remains that the U.S. will attack after all.

• Second, simply because the implications of Iran having a nuclear weapon are so dramatic vis-à-vis security in the Middle East, the sustainability of the flow of oil, the threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others in the region, as well as the realization that extremist regimes such as that of Iran might actually use weapons of mass destruction however irrational such action may seem (think Syria using chemical weapons as U.N. inspectors were on the ground).

• Finally, the U.S. will now be aware of claims of a credibility and leadership gap and will be more eager to disprove the notion that the era of American global leadership was over, particularly in a case where the word of the president to prevent Iran from going nuclear has been a hallmark of his tenure.

There is no doubt that American credibility has been hurt. This is bad for the world and bad for America. As Robert Kagan has written, despite all kinds of criticism of American foreign policy, the world would be a far worse place if America was not there to lead.

The harm caused by American ambiguity on Syria can be undone.

Iran is the real opportunity to make things right once again. Iran is where American strength and leadership are crucial.

Iran is the elephant in the Middle East room

Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:25:54 -0500

The elephant in the Middle East room is Iran. Stopping the Islamic Republic of Iran from reaching a nuclear capability is the most important issue facing the international community. If we fail to do so, the implication on many issues, from energy to stability in the region to terrorism and to nuclear proliferation, will be profoundly negative and dangerous.

On the other hand, if the U.S. and others succeed in preventing Iran from going nuclear, as President Obama has committed to, then a series of positive developments could flow. Included are a strengthened American image in the region, a tilt away from the Islamic extremists, and possibilities for progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front.

We see this in microcosm when we look at what has been in happening in Gaza.

It is impossible to understand what’s going on in Gaza and with Hamas without recognizing Iran’s role. It is hard to comprehend Israel’s reaction to Hamas without seeing the role of the looming threat to Iran. It is impossible to find a solution in Gaza without taking Iran into account. And it is critical that very soon the world must move its attention from Gaza to Iran itself as the clock toward an Iranian nuclear weapon keeps on ticking.

When Hamas began to take control in Gaza, many took comfort that at least it was a Sunni regime that unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon, would not draw too close to the Shiite Iranians.

[pullquote]

It was false comfort. Iran has become the major supplier of weapons, increasingly sophisticated, flowing to Hamas. Iran provides full diplomatic support to Hamas. And Iran works to strengthen the Islamist Hamas against the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas.

The first necessity for the international community is to openly identify and expose Iran’s role in building up Hamas. The Palestinian terrorist group has now been able to launch missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and cause great damage simply because of Iran. Iran ships its Fajr-5 and many Grad missiles through Sudan and, in the words of the head of the Republican Guard, Major General Mohammad Ali Ja’afari, “we have given them (Hamas and others in Gaza) the necessary technology for the Fajr-5 and today mass quantities of this missile are being produced.”

And make no mistake about it: Iran is determined to up the ante, to increase both the weaponry and training for Hamas that will allow it to become the same level of threat to Israel from the south as Hezbollah is from the north.

Any solution to the threat of Hamas to Israel must provide a way to interdict that flow of arms from Iran. The cease-fire agreement reached through the good offices of the U.S. and Egypt and follow-up negotiations will focus primarily on what role Egypt will play to stop that arms flow. Based on past experience, even with a Mubarak regime that was far friendlier to Israel than the current Morsi government, stopping weaponry will at best be a sporadic business.

And so, inevitably, when it comes to truly reversing the dynamic in Gaza (Israel may have regained some deterrence and some reasonably quiet time, but it didn’t change the fundamentals) it is what takes place with regard to the Iranian bomb that could play the pivotal role.

First, as if we need it, the latest conflict in Gaza reminds us of what a priority it is to stop Iran from going nuclear. A resurgent Iran, after obtaining nuclear weapons, would undoubtedly multiply its destructive options manifold. Keep in mind the comments of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius about the Gaza conflict: “What’s new is that now there are long-range arms…and there are Iranian arms. Iranian responsibility is heavy in all of this.”

Second, preventing Iran from going nuclear, whether through diplomacy, sanctions or the military option, will embolden more moderate forces in the region to stand up to the extremists. Indeed, the balance of power within the Palestinian camp could shift toward the Palestinian Authority and away from Hamas.

All in all, it would make it less likely that Iran could see itself as the expansionist power arming its terror-prone allies and causing destruction everywhere.

So let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s encourage any agreement that in the short-term will stop the launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

If we truly want to change the dynamic in the long run, however, dealing with the main address -- Tehran -- is the way to go. That’s what “keeping your eyes on the prize” means in today’s Middle East.

Reporters Without Borders and the rush to blame Israel

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:23:54 -0400

Now that a United Nations report has cleared Israel in the death of an 11-month-old Palestinian infant in Gaza, a death widely attributed to the Israeli military at the time, we are confronted once again with a case where the news media reflexively – and as it turns out, wrongly – blamed Israel.

The infant was the son of a BBC journalist in Gaza, Hihad al-Masharawi. He joined with human rights organizations in blaming his son’s death and those of two relatives killed in a November 14 airstrike on an Israeli rocket assault.

The news media carried pictures of al-Masharawi holding the body of his dead son, and reported on the death as if Israel was responsible.

But a March 6 report by the U.N. office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has found otherwise. It concluded that al-Masharawi’s home was struck by “what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”

[pullquote]

Israel has long been a convenient target for certain international human rights groups who cast blame on Israel whenever there is military action involving the Palestinians. We have seen this over and over again: in the so-called Jenin “massacre” in 2002, the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012.

These groups rely primarily on reports from the Palestinians and they are unwilling to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. Unfortunately, even some mainstream media outlets publish stories based on these biased reports.

When the facts become fully known at a considerably later time and the story is no longer “news,” editors still have a responsibility to acknowledge the inaccuracies in the initial reports and they should be called on to do so. The Washington Post, which ran the original photo on their front page, issued a correction this week. The BBC needs to do so as well.

Another group that owes Israel a re-evaluation is the journalism and free speech advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders, which recently issued a report ranking Israel at 112 out of 179 countries when it comes to freedom of the press and the fair treatment of journalists.

Despite the fact that journalists in Israel “enjoy real freedom of expression” – their words, not ours – Israel dropped 20 places in the index due to what the Reporters Without Borders report termed “the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces in the Palestinian Territories.”

In the 2013 World Press Freedom Index, Israel ranks behind such bastions of free speech and democracy as Brazil (where five journalists were killed in 2012), Greece (where journalists are “exposed to public condemnation and violence” from both extremist groups and the police), Uganda (where the president has made open threats to several radio stations) and even Lebanon (where journalists are “exposed to arbitrary detention and mistreatment”).

This has understandably left many Israeli and American pundits, politicians and journalists scratching their heads. Yet it is hardly the first time Israel has ranked so low on the index. In 2012, Reporters Without Boarders ranked Israel at 92.

This bespeaks a fundamental problem. As we saw with the Gaza infant’s death, Reporters Without Borders appears to be engaging in the same reflexive rush to blame Israel and presumption of guilt before all of the facts are known and without considering of the complicating factors of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While it is critically important to our global society for journalists to be able to report the news without fear for their safety, and it is equally important for the public to know where journalists encounter danger and even intimidation, the measuring stick used by the World Press Freedom Index raises serious questions about its usefulness in accomplishing these purposes.

It is no secret that there is more criticism of Israel in Israeli society itself than in the rest of the world. The Israeli media are fiercely competitive, and since the founding of the Jewish State among the most important values undergirding Israeli society are freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Israel’s press is lively, often irreverent, spans ideological viewpoints and has perhaps the highest rate of readership by percentage of any country in the world.

But no matter: according to Reporters Without Borders, Israel must be held to a different standard. They single out Israel for, among other violations, targeting “journalists” in Gaza affiliated with the terrorist group Hamas.

Let’s consider this for a moment. We know that Hamas:

- Hides its terrorist activities in civilian areas, including near schools, government and broadcast facilities

- Engages in anti-Semitic propaganda against the Jewish state in its media, including appeals that glorify violence, terrorism and “martyrdom”

- Cynically masks its terrorist endeavors by establishing the appearance of democratic-style institutions, including television stations and newspapers.

Has Reporters Without Borders joined the legion of other international non-government organizations in unfairly applying to Israel a different standard? They concede as much in admitting that Israel would have ranked around 40th in the index had they not included Israel’s activities in the Palestinian territories.

Journalists expect fair treatment. Shouldn’t that standard also apply to countries?