The comparison stated by the title is like comparing apples with dates.

It should read "Zionists or Islamists". If your comparison feature is "Muslims" then the equivalent opposite word should be "Jews".

Its like asking whether its Communists or Christians who are for Free Speech.

Also, what a dilemma for a Muslim Zionist!

I remember that Melanie Phillips had problems in getting a publisher for Londonistan. Does that mean there is an Islamist Lobby denying Free Speech?

Zionists are a threat to free speech thats why they are not spoken against in the USA.

We all know what happens to American politicians when they try and question the unpresidented support Israel receives form the USA.

The zionist lobby works in a professional and united manner, where they will challenge, or slander anyone who criticises zionism or Israel.

In the past it was with letters from all zionist lobby members, these days it threatens withdrawal of any politicians financial campaigns and the power of the email where millions of emails can come through in a single day from VIP zionists. This practice is commonly used by AIPAC. They also support from the Christian zioninsts where the country has a majority Christian government.

The religion of the Jewish people has nothing to do with zionism and some jewish groups are against zionism. These jewish people are slandered again by the same zionists who will brand them "self hating Jew", a common phrase now used for any Jewish person criticising Israel.

An example of the zionists lobby here in the UK can be easily found on this MPAC website, where a few zionist members have been asked to challenge any arguement and always speak in Israel's favour. The result of this zionist method is the continous arguements and pro Israeli rhetoric sometimes given by some people in the comments section on this website.

There have been serious challenges to the quality of research relating to this book and whether some of the assertions are accurate. The issue for Michigan U as distributor for Pluto Press is whether by continuing to distribute the book they are validating the research and assertions. The value for Pluto Press of this distribution deal is that the university adds credibility to their publications as serious academic publications.
The question that is central is whether this book is a factual analysis of the situation or a political manifesto. The anit-book group assert that it is the latter, and that it is little more than a lengthy diatribe coloured by the authors Marxist politics.
Far from suggesting that the "Israel Lobby" is threatening freedom of speech, the current situation suggests that the "Anti-Israel Lobby" is able to impede the application of academic criteria that would be applied in every other situation.
IMO there are far too many publications about that claim to present the truth but in fact are distorted by prejudice.

THe proof whether zionists are agianst free speech or agasinst muslims can be viewed from diffrent angles.
it does not matter if a person is a muslim, jew or chrisitian anyone who stands up to their world view is attacked.
when jews say israel is wrong in its action,they are labelled self hating jews,when non jews criticise israel for its actions they are called anti-semites.
zionists are against freedom of speech that contradicts their world view and aspirations.

Wonderful @anti-zionist. Simply brilliant!

Let's see. The title of this thread is:-

"Are Zionists A Threat to Free Speech or Muslims? You Decide"

YOUR COMMENT IS:-

"An example of the zionists lobby here in the UK can be easily found on this MPAC website, where a few zionist members have been asked to challenge any arguement and always speak in Israel's favour. The result of this zionist method is the continous arguements and pro Israeli rhetoric sometimes given by some people in the comments section on this website."

Hence, you will be celebrating that in an open-invitation website you might get some comments that are not to your liking.

But hey! That's FREE SPEECH!

Then we have the ridiculous mutually exclusive example.

There are books (like Mearsheimer and Walt, or Jimmy Carter) that are highly critical towards "The Israeli Lobby". There are people like Finklestein and Chomsky who are critical of Israel. We have Daily Kos critical of Israel. We have Indymedia critical of Israel.

If the Israeli Lobby is against Free Speech then how come so many people are Freely expressing their negative opinions about Israel.

The fact is that this anti-free speech idea against Israeli Lobbies is completely fabricated.

When it comes to electing USa politicians its the Gun Lobby that dominates!!!

Sometimes people need to be injected with some truth and logic.

Very True

If the Gun Lobby were AGAINST the actions of Israeli barbarism, than maybe AIPAC would not be so powerful.

Maybe also think about the fact that Jimmy Carter has been branded IRRELEVANT by the Bush administration out of fear from AIPAC. Although they may have a limited amount of publicity for their criticisms, i don't however think any ex-president has been slandered in the same manner or ever will be because he excercised freedom of speech.

Point Made I think

@Dimwit Anti-Zionist

Carter talked a load of old tosh in his book - which was FULL of historical-factual inaccuracies. Only someone of very limited intelligence with a toal disregard for facts would defend him and is book. It's not that he repeats the same old 'powerful Israel lobby' balls (as if they are the only group not allowed to lobby US congressman) - it was full of mistakes. Half his staff resigned in disgust at his blindness and stupidity. What can you expect from a peanut farmer?
You made no intelligible point whatsoever, just assertions and opinions.

Peanut Farmer?

I know, lets just elect an drunk idiot who wasted all of daddies oil money on the high life and was than reformed by christian minister. The drunk than turned into a right wing christian and launched a new crusade against the muslim world...

Oh im sorry America already has elected him....

No assertions or opinions, Texas Police Department report confirms the number of nights the drunk has been picked off the streets and taken home in the 70's and 80's.

I agree - Dubya is no fit leader for the world's only superpower. Was the ejaculating Clinton any better? Or Bush Senior, or Reagan?
Still not sure what point you were trying to make.

I agree.....give me an American president who is not influenced by zionists.

Thats my point, he just simply won't be elected

I think you will find he was labelled as IRRELEVANT because he was the first ex-President to criticise a President in office.

The convention is that you don't do it - but he did. Hence his comments are IRRELEVANT.

Anyone who listens to the heavily Saudi-backed Islamist Lobby ex-President Carter cannot help be struck by how nutty he has become.

Perhaps some periphery reading might help you.

"70's and 80's eh?

Would that mean 37 and 27 years ago for the teetotal GWB?

Talk about scraping the barrel with insults. At least Carter's lack of intellect, accuracy and morals can be found this year, not 27 years ago.

Perhaps more relevant to this article than the comparitive merits of GWB & JC, might be some consideration of the position of the author. He is a Marxist academic who promotes secular internalist collectivist anti-capitalist environmentalist solutions to the world's problems. His views are of course entirely valid, and he has a right to express them.

However in relation to Zionism and Israel there is a complex history associated to his political faction going back nearly two centuries. The author cites his Jewish background as an influential factor though it seems that he does not regard himself as a Jew in the religious sense.

The "religious", "assimilationist" and "internationalist" Jewish factions were dominant prior to WW2, and as such they were anti-Zionist. They each offered various guidance to Jews prior to and during WW2, the result of which led in part to the extent of the Holocaust. As a consequence well into the 1980's these Jewish groups tended to hide themselves away due to the antipathy that the generality of Jews directed at them. Only as the Holocaust generation declined through natural causes did these groups begin to assert themselves. As they re-emerged they found a ready audience amongst the radical and later "liberal" left whom eulogised them as providing evidence that Zionism was not an authentic Jewish national expression. While they attained considerable credibility amongst non-Jews, they have done far less well amongst Jews whose collective memory is their betrayal of the Jewish people during their time of greatest need.

The author despite his apparent high ideals fails to offer any practical proposals of how the single state of Palestine will be obtained. This "pie in the sky" approach is both alluring and dangerous as it glosses over the real and present dangers for both nations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The author and his supporters etc forget that it is not their allies they need to convince of their proposals, but the Israelis.
Anyway this furore of Michigans stance towards the book will do more for sales than anything else. Even if Michigan ceased distributing Pluto Press' publications, people will simply buy it via the internet.

I am interested in this concept of what is Palestine. Listening to George Galloway in a maniacal rant last night he speaks of "The country of Palestine that has been wiped off the map".

But, surely there has never been a country called Palestine that had a recognised single government that ruled all people in a place called Palestine.

Surely, Palestine is/was a region in which various tribes and factions controlled large parts, namely Jews and Arabs.

It is the Jews of history who created a country called Israel within the region called Palestine. Due to the Old Testament and other historical documents it is possible to define the scope of what was Israel and controlled by The Jews and what was Arab.

Since anciant Israel was the only definable governance (after Romans and Turks had been repelled) it seems that the Mandate for Palestine gave all the region to be governed by the Jews BUT with provision for Arabs living under that governance.

When that didn't work, due to attacks on each other, so they decided to Partition the land into areas where Jews or Arabs had the population dominance.

In that sense Israel has as much claim to a State as do the Palestinians.

But to describe it as ALL stolen land from the Palestinians is plain wrong.

The reason Galloway wants this to be true is so that a single state can be persued, which is the effective destruction of Israel.

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

Sharvaz
Palestine has existed 3 times. 1st as a small enclave somewhere around Gaza and El Arish where the Philistines, Greek sea born nomads, had settled.
2nd as a political territorial entity created by the Romans after the AD76 Jewish Revolt with the object of destroying Jewish nationalism. 3rd as the League of Nations Mandate covering what is now Israel, West Bank, Gaza, Jordan and part of the occupied Golan Heights. Subsequently Transjordan created out of 80% east of Jordan River. Golan Heights border moved west by a small amount to inmprove security. Of remaining 20% of original 1919 Palestine, following 1948 war Israel is created out of about 3/4's with West Bank and Gaza being held by Jordan and Egypt, and Syria holding Golan Heights. Currently Israeli State claims Israel and parts of West Bank; some Palestinians accept division, while some reject it; Syria claims all of Israel, Palestine and Jordan citing historical claim.
The authors of the Mandate were spectacularly vague about they promised both sides, and both heard what they wanted to hear.
Re: G. Galloway - all single staters promote their vision of the future at the expense of the side they oppose. There can be little doubt that an enforced single state would result in a massive and bloody civil war.

RSD, you are brilliant. A concise description.

If there are people who want a single State then they are accepting the Jewish rights to live in the area as a continuation of their historical national right.

Isn't the key to this that the Israelites formed the first governance over the area known as Palestine (which I think was named by the Romans in order to fully eradicate the existence of a Jewish Nation, ie an ethnic cleansing).

The 'trick' that is played is to try and suggest Israel is a 20th century concept rather than the re-establishment of a 2000+ year-old country.

Also, the 'religious/ethnic purity" argument is false since Israel is a multi-religion and multi-ethnic country with equal rights.

Sharvaz, Israel does not have a right to exist because of some 3000 year old claim. It has a right to exist simply because that right has been successfully asserted. The Palestinians have been unable to date through both administrative, political and military incompetence to assert any right over their own lands.
Nations who have not been able to assert their "rights" have fallen by the wayside over the millenia. Look at the Native American nation states, or the Lemkes and Kashubians - where are they now? The Levant and Anatolia are not part of the Byzantine Empire because it lost the means to hold on to it, and with it Greek influenced declined permanently.
The Ottoman Empire was steadily whittled away because it lost the means to hold on to it.
Claims that some deity sanctions a claim upon a patch of land are fatuous assertions which are used by those who are not honest enough about their own actions.
Following WW2 there have been attempts by voices at the UN to deny nations that do not have a independent land of their own to a claim upon one. The motivation for this is rooted in a largely pathetic attempt by existing nations who have successfully seize land and assets prior to WW2 to prevent any challenges to their claim to that land. England denies the Wales the right of control over Welsh land and assets. If this were not the case then the Welsh would be free to charge the residents of Birmingham and Merseyside far more for the water they consume. We are after all beneficiaries of imperialism, colonialism, racism and ethnic cleansing.

RSD, I disagree on the right of Israel to exist being only a 20th century concept.

Unless one establishes the 3000 year-old reason why the Jewish Nation should be in this part of the World and not Iceland, then the false claim of a 20th century colonial action is allowed to perpetuate in its falsity.

Israel is where Israel WAS. Its the re-establishment of the Jewish National Home not a new home.

Mone of this denies the opportunity for Palestinians to have a state, now they are no longer under Jordanian or Egyptian control.

How come they never wanted a State or National identity when they were ruled by Egypt, Jordan and The Ottoman empire?