Israeli authorities have arrested an educator from northern Israel for posting a video on social media that initially appeared to celebrate the October 7 Hamas attacks, as the nation marked one year since the deadly assault, although this was later slammed as a misinterpretation of the meaning of the video.

The 41-year-old woman from Tamra, in the Lower Galilee, uploaded a TikTok video of herself dancing at a Nazareth school where she works to the song "Another Good Time," with a caption that reads, "On this day 7/10/23," but it then turned out that this video had in fact been uploaded well before the war broke out and may have just been simply reposted under the "on this day" option on TikTok.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir commented on the early morning arrest, stating: "A teacher from a Nazareth school uploaded a video to social media yesterday, showing herself dancing to the song 'Good Times' with the date 7.10.23 in the background. I forwarded the footage to the team I established within the Israel Police to handle online incitement, and she was promptly arrested at her home in Tamra. We have zero tolerance for incitement and terrorism supporters."

מורה מבי"ס בנצרת העלתה אתמול לרשתות החברתיות תיעוד כשהיא רוקדת לצלילי השיר זמנים טובים על רקע התאריך 7.10.23 העברתי את התיעוד לצוות לטיפול בהסתות ברשת שהקמתי במשטרת ישראל, והיא נעצרה מיידית בביתה שבטמרה.
אפס סובלנות להסתה ולתומכי טרור! pic.twitter.com/8kvTVryQsH

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) October 8, 2024

Knesset Member Limor Son Har-Melech (Otzma Yehudit) sent a letter to Education Minister Yoav Kisch demanding the immediate dismissal of the "educator." She wrote: "As the people of Israel attempt to heal from the horrors of the October 7 massacre, it's unthinkable that individuals within our education system would express joy and support for such atrocities."

Son Har-Melech added: "Terrorism supporters among us pose a clear and immediate danger and must be dealt with decisively. It's unacceptable for someone educating future generations to express support for such acts or convey any legitimacy for terrorism to their students. Such teachers cannot remain in our education system for even one more day. Given the severity of this act, I demand her immediate dismissal and an examination into revoking any dismissal benefits to clearly demonstrate that any support, overt or covert, for terrorism, will face the full force of the law. The education system must send a message of zero tolerance for terrorism supporters and their ideologies."

Kisch addressed the educator's arrest, writing: "I commend the Israel Police for their decisive action. This is what we expect and how they should respond to any display of incitement and support for terrorism. I want to clarify that this is not a teacher employed by the Ministry of Education, but an external instructor. While the investigation into her case is ongoing, and certainly if she is found guilty, she will not set foot in the education system again."

The suspect will be brought before the Nazareth Magistrate's Court, where authorities will request an extension of her detention.

The post Did Israeli Arab teacher celebrate Oct. 7? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A perennial discussion in the cauldron that is Middle Eastern politics concerns the degree to which a sovereign Palestinian state, should one ever be created, would be democratic.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The democratic character of any state is determined in the main by three elements. First, the frequency and transparency of elections; second, limits on the power of elected officials and defined boundaries between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; and third, the extent to which basic civil rights like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are respected.

An independent Palestine would probably host elections on a regular basis, although the integrity of these would always be a subject for debate, as would the ever-present prospect of armed conflict between rival Palestinian factions. As far as an honest, accountable government that subordinates itself to the rule of law is concerned, there is very little evidence to suggest that a future State of Palestine would be administered in this way.

To the contrary, throughout the existence of the Palestinian Authority – now in its 28th year – there has been a constant stream of news stories regarding corruption, political violence and violations of core civil rights by Palestinians against other Palestinians. The latest example occurred last week when the Yasser Arafat Museum in Ramallah removed artwork depicting the late PLO leader that loyalists deemed "offensive." The principle underlying this act of censorship is one that Arafat himself would have appreciated; a client of the Soviet Union who spent much of his time meeting with dictators in the Communist bloc and in the Arab world, Arafat was an admirer of those systems of government where the state is the ultimate regulator of what the people living under its jurisdiction see, hear and read.

In totalitarian states, artistic depictions of leaders are by definition sycophantic. From the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin to North Korea's Kim Jong-un, from "Chairman Mao" of China to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the official portraits of those who wield near-unlimited power invariably show them as steely-jawed and commanding the love of their people; as strong and paternal; and as courageously unwavering in their convictions. In Arafat's case, his 1974 address to the UN General Assembly, when he wore his pistol bolted to his waist, or any of the numerous occasions when he flashed a victory sign at photographers would be appropriate subject matter for this style of art.

Less so was the case with the portraits of Arafat chosen for display at the museum in Ramallah. Photographs of some of them were shared on Twitter by the Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and the selection on display might be described as underwhelming. There is a drawing of Arafat with an olive branch clenched between his teeth, another showing him adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and another of Arafat wearing a carefree grin beneath his keffiyeh. One might conclude that there is some gentle mockery in these caricatures, though nothing that could be considered insulting, and certainly nothing that could be construed as a slur on either Arafat's Arab nationality or his Muslim faith – a marked divergence from the antisemitic tropes and Nazi imagery that routinely accompanies Arab and even some Western caricatures of Israel's elected leaders.

But when the Ramallah exhibition, unimaginatively titled "Palestine and Yasser Arafat," opened to the public last Sunday, not all the works met the loyalty standard such art demands. The exhibition's purpose – "solidarity with Palestine and the roots of Yasser Arafat's memory in the international community" – didn't preclude less conventional artistic representations, but that made no difference. A row duly broke out, manifesting on ideological and party lines, and reflecting the fractured personal relations between some Palestinian leaders.

The exhibition lacked "honesty in representing Yasser Arafat," said Nasser al-Kidwa, a veteran Palestinian diplomat and former head of the Yasser Arafat Foundation before he was sacked last year following a bitter disagreement with the Fatah movement. On this occasion, though, Fatah agreed with al-Kidwa's assessment. "The insult to Yasser Arafat is an insult to all the Palestinian people," it declared, before delivering a threat: "We therefore call upon the Yasser Arafat Foundation to remove all the insulting works and apologize, or we will have to remove them ourselves."

Mohammad Sabaanah, a Palestinian cartoonist, told The New Arab media outlet last week that he had turned down an invitation to participate in the Arafat exhibition because he didn't trust the organizers. "When I found out that some prominent artists were not invited to participate, I doubted the criteria behind the exhibition, and I withdrew from it," he said. Sabaanah then explained that there was a "clear confusion" between political cartoons and caricature portraits, which are "basically a satirical representation of a personality." It was those latter representations of Arafat that were judged unacceptable, according to Sabaanah.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In its own statement, the Yasser Arafat Foundation, which staged the exhibition, forlornly insisted that the offending artworks did not "insult Yasser Arafat's personality or symbolism." However, it continued, "all works exhibited have been removed due to lack of acceptance by the Palestinian public." Unquestionably, what transpired in Ramallah was a victory for censorship.

It is also another strong reminder of the absence of a democratic culture in Palestinian politics. Even now, at a time when most Western societies are bitterly polarized and democracy is dismissed as overrated, our media outlets do not shy away from lurid cartoons of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci or any of the other personalities that have dominated recent news headlines. Western publics do not expect their leaders to be treated with respect all the time, nor do they demand limits on what can be said about them or how they are depicted. But among the Palestinians, anything other than uncritical veneration of their political leaders is regarded with suspicion. Those Palestinian artists who forget to censor themselves can expect a visit from Fatah's enforcers in the not-too-distant future.

Ben Cohen is a New York City-based journalist and author who writes a weekly column on Jewish and international affairs for JNS.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Brouhaha over Arafat caricatures explains a lot about Palestinian politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The boycott of Jews has a long and sordid history.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A classic weapon of antisemitism, the boycott ostracizes and disenfranchises Jews by depriving them of education, livelihoods, civil rights and camaraderie. Historic manifestations of the antisemitic boycott include barring Jews from practicing certain professions or holding agricultural leases, denying Jews membership in associations, societies and guilds, limiting the numbers of Jews allowed to attend universities, picketing Jewish businesses and pressuring people to reject Jewish services.

Boycotts against Jews have been historically employed to diffuse societal unrest and divert anti-government protests by turning the focus of blame onto the Jew. From the late nineteenth century onward, "Don't buy from Jews," "Buy from Christians only" and "Each to his own" were commonly heard slogans in Europe, as organized boycotts targeted Jews as the scapegoats for rising unemployment and poverty. Boycott organizers justify their anti-Jewish actions as a defensive tactic or as retribution for alleged wrongdoing by Jews.

No sooner had Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party risen to power in Germany in 1933, than they organized a boycott against Jews as retribution for unfavorable press and boycotts of Nazis that were occurring across the world. It marked the beginning of Hitler's campaign against Jews that resulted in the Nazi's so-called "Final Solution" – the genocide of European Jews.

Just months after the defeat of the Nazis and Hitler's suicide, and even before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Arab League launched its own boycott against Jews in Palestine. The December 1945 declaration stated that "Jewish products and manufactured goods shall be considered undesirable to the Arab countries."

After Arab League attempts to physically annihilate the newly established State of Israel failed, its boycott became an alternate instrument of war to bring about the demise of the state through economic means. The boycott consisted of three levels: a) barring commerce between citizens of Arab League countries and citizens of Israel or the Israeli government; b) barring commercial relations between anyone who does business in Israel; and c) barring commerce between Arab and companies that do business with Israel.

The latest iteration of the Arab boycott is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against the Jewish state, which, like previous boycotts, is recognized as an antisemitic tool of discrimination against the Jews. As a result, there has been a global backlash.

Parliaments around the world have passed resolutions condemning the BDS movement as antisemitic, including the Austrian National Council, the Czech Republic parliament and the Canadian parliament, which condemned "any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad." The German parliament designated the BDS movement as antisemitic, recalling "the most terrible phase of German history," and defunded organizations that "actively support" BDS. Britain has announced plans to outlaw the BDS movement and boycott of Israel. France's National Assembly adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism that considers BDS' anti-Zionism a form of antisemitism.

Anti-boycott legislation in the US

Long before the launch of BDS in 2005, the United States had condemned the Arab League's boycott of the Jewish state as religious discrimination and legislated against it. In 1975, the US Commerce Department included language in the Export Administration Act that banned religious or racial discrimination by exporters. The 1976 Ribicoff amendment to the Tax Reform Act targeted companies that participated in the boycott from enjoying international tax benefits. In 1977, legislation was passed making it illegal for US persons (individuals and companies located in the United States and their foreign affiliates) to comply with most aspects of the Arab boycott. That legislation formed the basis for Section 8 of the Export Administration Act of 1979.

Additional legislation has since been introduced, most recently with the Combating BDS Act of 2021, to combat the BDS campaign against Israel. These include the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 (Part II of the Export Control Reform Act) which created the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC) within the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security that administrates and enforces U.S. anti-boycott regulations. And in 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res.246  -- "Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel."

Thirty-five US states thus far have enacted laws against the BDS movement's boycott of the Jewish state – including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Promoters of anti-Israel boycotts denounce the resolutions that consider BDS a form of anti-Jewish bigotry to be penalized. They claim such legislation infringes upon their freedom of speech, violating their First Amendment rights under the US Constitution. They promote the movement in terms of Palestinian human rights and justice, using the pretense that the BDS campaign constitutes "non-violent" criticism of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, which is protected speech.

In fact, the violent and discriminatory nature of the movement is evidenced both by its targeting of the Jewish state alone for attack and by its leaders' and members' justification of and engagement in verbal or physical violence against Israelis, Jews, and Jewish supporters of Israel.

A recent effort to combat anti-boycott legislation in the name of the First Amendment's freedom of speech comes from Just Vision, a BDS-affiliated film team whose previous anti-Israel propaganda films include "Naila and the Uprising," "Encounter Point," "Budrus," and "My Neighborhood." Their latest film, "Boycott," takes aim at US state legislation against the anti-Jewish boycott campaign.

The heroes of the film are a lawyer from Arizona, a speech therapist from Texas, and a journalist from Arkansas who have sued their respective states over the right to freely participate in the anti-Jewish boycott without incurring any negative consequences. The film endeavors to convince viewers that while the BDS movement's discriminatory boycott is protected under the US.Constitution, attempts to boycott the boycotters are both unlawful and deplorable. Referring to "dangerous bills" that allegedly "remove the legal protection that has been awarded to boycotts for generations," the filmmakers make clear the partisan angle they take in their synopsis of the film:

"The film chronicles the courage of three Americans as they defend freedom of expression and lays bare what's at stake – our constitutionally-protected right to boycott – if they are defeated."

The New York Times

It is probably unsurprising, given The New York Times' propensity to whitewash BDS (see, for example, here, here, here and here), that the newspaper highlighted the views of Alan Leveritt, one of the film's protagonists and publisher of The Arkansas Times. Leveritt sued the State of Arkansas over its state-funded university's refusal to advertise in Leveritt's newspaper if he refused to sign a pledge not to boycott the Jewish state.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Leveritt's column, which was published first as an online op-ed and then as a guest essay in the Sunday Review section of the newspaper, expounded on an approach taken by the film to discredit anti-boycott legislation: He suggested that opposition to BDS and anti-Jewish boycott was predicated upon the "eschatological beliefs" about "the Second Coming and Armageddon" that "conservative Evangelicals" in his state hold. By depicting support for Israel and the rejection of those who discriminate against the Jewish state as the view of a minority of religious fundamentalists, the film and Leveritt attempt to marginalize the pro-Israel perspective of a majority of Americans.

What about the anti-boycott legislation in liberal states, like California and New York? Leveritt condemns them as "trading their citizens' First Amendment rights for what looks like unconditional support for a foreign government."

Leveritt argues that "boycotts have repeatedly been used as a tool of political speech and protest" and are part of America's "founding mythology." His view and that of the filmmakers and fellow BDS activists is that legislation against BDS's anti-Jewish boycott is unconstitutional in that it "strangl[es] free speech" by "allowing government to use money to punish dissent."

There is another perspective, however, that is less aired on the pages of The New York Times. It is the view of most Americans, who reject anti-Jewish/anti-Israel boycott and support legislation against it. The last time the Times featured an op-ed presenting this position was nearly three years ago, when Florida Senator Marco Rubio defended the Combating BDS Act that he introduced with others on the Senate floor in 2019. (Unlike the pro-BDS column, the senator's viewpoint did not merit guest essay status in the Sunday Review print section, only an op-ed in the Times' web blog.) At that time, the senator pointed out that:

"While the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to free speech, it does not protect the right of entities to engage in discriminatory conduct. Moreover, state governments have the right to set contracting and investment policies, including policies that exclude companies engaged in discriminatory commercial- or investment-related conduct targeting Israel….

"…Just as United States court rulings have repeatedly affirmed that states have discretion over whether to invest or contract with a company undertaking actions at variance with their laws or policies, companies remain free to bow to radical anti-Israel interests and engage in discriminatory economic warfare against one of America's closest allies."

George Mason Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert on international law, has similarly pointed out that the First Amendment allows state governments to place conditions, like anti-discrimination restrictions, on those with whom they engage in business and hence "if states can choose to not do business with South African companies because of their politics and practices (which BDS proponents wholeheartedly support), it also means they can choose to not do business with private companies because of other discriminatory policies – like a boycott of Israel."

As he explains: "The campaign to 'boycott Israel' in reality seeks to legitimize discriminatory refusals to deal with people or companies simply because of their connection to the Jewish state. This is a legitimization of bigotry, just as boycotts of people because of their race, sexual orientation, or national origin would be discriminatory."

In order to weigh both sides of the debate about anti-Jewish boycott and understand why so many seek to combat it, one must be familiar with the boycott's history and its inherent antisemitism.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post BDS: The latest chapter in the sordid history of anti-Jewish boycott appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A prominent Lebanese Shiite publisher who criticized Hezbollah was shot dead in a car in southern Lebanon on Thursday, the first such killing of a high-profile activist in years.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A judge said the body of Lokman Slim had four bullets in the head and one in the back. A security source said his phone was found on the side of a road.

They said the motive was unclear.

Slim, who was in his late 50s, ran a research center, made documentaries with his wife and led efforts to build an archive on Lebanon's 1975-1990 sectarian civil war.

He spoke against what he described as the Iranian-backed, Shiite Hezbollah's intimidation tactics and attempts to monopolize Lebanese politics.

His sister suggested Slim had been murdered because of this. He was last seen after visiting a poet friend. His wife said he had gone missing overnight.

Hezbollah said it condemned the killing, which Lebanese officials, including the president, called an assassination.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken termed it a "heinous assassination" and called for Slim's killers to be brought swiftly to justice.

"It is cowardly and unacceptable to resort to violence, threats, and intimidation as a means of subverting the rule of law or suppressing freedom of expression and civic activism," Blinken said in a statement.

Human rights groups, the United Nations and other Western diplomats all demanded an investigation. "We deplore the prevailing culture of impunity," EU ambassador Ralph Tarraf tweeted.

A Lebanese press freedom center, SKeyes, said it feared a cover-up of the crime and more attempts to eliminate "symbols of free political thought."

The center was founded after a car bomb killed journalist Samir Kassir in 2005, at a time when a series of assassinations hit Lebanon targeting critics of Syria's 15-year domination.

At Slim's family home in Beirut's southern suburbs, where Hezbollah holds sway, relatives sat in shock. Some wept in silence. One relative said they had found out about his death from a news alert while at a police station.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

"What a big loss. And they lost a noble enemy too ... It's rare for someone to argue with them and live among them with respect," his sister Rasha told reporters, without naming Hezbollah.

She said he had not mentioned any threats. "Killing is the only language they are fluent in," she added. "I don't know how we will go on with our work ... It will be hard."

In an interview last month on Saudi Arabia's al-Hadath TV, Slim said he believed Damascus and its ally Hezbollah had a role in the port blast that ripped through Beirut in August, killing 200 people and wounding thousands.

Hezbollah has denied any links to the explosion.

Lebanese President Michel Aoun, a political ally of Hezbollah, said he had ordered an investigation into Thursday's crime, which came exactly six month since the port blast. The official investigation into the explosion has yet to yield results.

Former premier Saad al-Hariri, whose father's assassination sparked regional turmoil in 2005, said Slim had been clearer than most in identifying the source of danger to the nation.

Slim's criticism of Hezbollah faced rebuke from its supporters, who called him "an embassy Shiite," accusing him of being a tool of the United States.

"His murder is a very big loss for Lebanon, for culture," said Hazem Saghieh, a well-known Lebanese journalist. "He was one of a few who only knew how to speak his mind."

The post Lebanese critic of Hezbollah found fatally shot appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The first Saturday night of 2021 opened with thousands of activists gathering protest against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanding that the long-serving leader resign over corruption charges against him and for allegedly mishandling the coronavirus crisis.

Holding signs reading "Go" and "Everyone is equal before the law," the demonstrators crowded Paris Square near the Prime Minister's Residence, where they have gathered for months to call for his resignation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Netanyahu is charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three cases involving billionaire associates and media moguls. He denies wrongdoing.

But the protesters say Netanyahu cannot properly lead the country while under indictment for corruption. His trial is set to begin evidentiary hearings in the coming weeks.

Israel is set to hold its fourth national election in two years in March, what will likely be another referendum against Netanyahu as he faces a challenge from defectors within his Likud Party.

The protesters also say Netanyahu and his government have bungled the coronavirus response. The country has seen its economy hit hard by virus restrictions throughout the year and is again under a partial nationwide lockdown amid surging infection rates.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Anti-Netanyahu protests continue into 2021 appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Saudi Arabia condemned cartoons offending the Prophet Mohammad, but held back from echoing calls by other Muslim states for action against images being displayed in France of the Prophet.

A foreign ministry official also said in a statement that the Gulf state condemns all acts of terrorism, an apparent reference to the beheading of a Paris teacher who showed cartoons of the Prophet in a class on freedom of speech.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"Freedom of expression and culture should be a beacon of respect, tolerance and peace that rejects practices and acts which generate hatred, violence and extremism and are contrary to coexistence," said the statement carried by state media.

Saudi Arabia's daily Arab News on Tuesday cited the head of the Saudi-based Muslim World League, Mohammed al-Issa, as cautioning that an over-reaction "that is negative and goes beyond what is acceptable" would only benefit "haters."

The cartoons depicting Mohammad were first published years ago by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose editorial offices were attacked by gunmen in 2015, killing 12 people. Since the beheading of the teacher this month, the cartoons have been displayed in France in solidarity, angering some Muslims.

Turkey's leader has called for a boycott of French goods and Pakistan's parliament passing a resolution urging the government to recall its envoy from Paris.

In Saudi Arabia, calls for a boycott of French supermarket chain Carrefour were trending on social media, though stores Reuters visited in Riyadh on Monday seemed busy as normal. A company representative in France said it had yet to feel any impact.

United Arab Emirates-based Majid Al Futtaim, which owns and operates Carrefour supermarkets across the Middle East, said the chain supported regional economies by sourcing most items from local suppliers and employing thousands of people.

"We understand that there is some concern among consumers across the region at present and we are monitoring the situation closely," it said in a statement.

In Kuwait, some supermarkets have pulled French products.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Saudi Arabia rejects terrorism, avoids backing action over Mohammad cartoons appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to National Press Club President Michael Freedman and president of the National Press Club Journalism Institute Angela Greiling, the Department of Justice's decision "effectively says that the US government views Al Jazeera to be a propaganda arm of the Qatari government rather than the independent news organization that journalists all over the world know it to be."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The statement from Freedman and Greiling points out that "FARA was developed during World War II to block Nazi propaganda from influencing Americans," and requires designated foreign entities to reveal their sources of funding and to file regular public disclosures about their activity.

"The classification of Al Jazeera under FARA seems wholly political. The Trump Administration has close ties to UAE and Saudi Arabia even as the United States shares long-term strategic interests with Qatar exemplified by the Air Force's reliance on the large air base at Al Udeid," the statement argues.

Freedman and Greiling's statement also calls the timing of the DOJ order, which was issued a day before the United Arab Emirates signed a peace agreement with Israel, "of note," and points out that the UAE has made it "one of its priorities" to "undercut Al Jazeera's journalism since it worked with Saudi Arabia in 2017 to impose a blockade on Qatar, which provide state funding to the news organization."

"We can only conclude that the Trump Administration is buckling to the demands of the UAE, which wants to suppress independent news gathering in the region – reporting that can expose the systemic inequality, corruption and incompetence of many of the region's rulers.

"While the Qatari government funds Al Jazeera, it does not control the network's editorial decisions," Freedman and Greiling said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Leaders of US journalists' group take stand in support of Al Jazeera appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"They are creating noise with insane, unprecedented backing from the media. In 2011 there were hundreds of thousands [of protesters], here there are barely enough to represent a quarter of a Knesset seat, and they're getting round-the-clock coverage. The link to coronavirus is incidental. There are repeated calls for murder," Netanyahu said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The prime minister went on to say that "the total enlistment by media outlets is characteristic of non-democratic regimes, and a danger to democracy."

"They are giving legitimacy to threats of murder and violence that come up not only on Facebook, but also at the demonstrations themselves. Opposition leaders, especially [Yesh Atid leader] Yair Lapid are giving this full legitimacy, rather than warning against incitement," Netanyahu said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu: Media failing to condemn incitement at protests     appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"I condemn any violence. It has no place, from any side, and we have zero tolerance for violence or threats of violence. From any side, toward any person. But here, in the name of democracy, I am seeing an attempt to trample democracy," the prime minister said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"These protests pervert all the rules. First of all, no one is limiting the protests. The opposite – they are accommodating them. They are a breeding ground for coronavirus. There are rules that are not being enforced, no one is limiting them and no one is trying to," Netanyahu said.

WATCH: #JerusalemProtests: i24NEWS Defense Correspondent @DanielTsemach's camera knocked down by members of the far-right extremist group 'La Familia' as they ran past him pic.twitter.com/I6Dza1eRmN

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) July 30, 2020

Netanyahu said that society was encouraging the demonstrations, particularly an "enlistment by the media" that he said was unlike anything he could remember.

"I remind you what former Chief Justice Aharon Barak said about the anti-disengagement protesters. He took a hard line against blocking roads, and said, 'Freedom of speech is not a license to riot. Freedom of speech is not a shield to shut down the mechanisms of law enforcement and bring them down. Freedom to demonstrate is not a shield with which to bring the country to a standstill and put individuals and the population in danger,'" Netanyahu said.

"When there is unchecked incitement, including daily calls to murder the prime minister and his family, the media ignores it, whitewashes it, and politicians are silent," Netanyahu continued.

Defense Minister and Prime Minister-designate Benny Gantz sided with the demonstrators, saying, "As a government, we have an obligation to listen to people. As the ones in power, we have a responsibility to allow the demonstrations to go on and protect the protesters, who I regret to say were attacked yesterday [Saturday] at a number of locations."

"The right to protest is the soul of democracy and violence eats away at the foundations of democracy. I spoke about this issue last week, with [Public Security Minister] Ohana. I am again calling on everyone to refrain from violence, and on the Israel Police to use minimal force and uphold the law while protecting protesters," Gantz said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu calls protests 'an attempt to trample democracy' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

It's a cat-and-mouse game that has become second nature in Iran, where the clerically-led government restricts access to popular social media sites and where US sanctions create other barriers.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"Every day I struggle for 40 minutes just to get connected to uncensored internet," Akbari, a 30-year-old software developer, told The Associated Press. "Even after I do, the internet is so slow that I have difficulty even watching a short video."

Iranian authorities have sought to limit Western cultural influence since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. They began blocking popular sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube when activists used them to organize mass protests and document a crackdown after a disputed election in 2009.

That hasn't stopped Iranians from accessing such sites through virtual private networks, or VPNs, and other services. It also hasn't prevented a number of top Iranian officials from using the sites to broadcast the official line. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif frequently tweets in English, and accounts believed to be run by the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani regularly post on their behalf.

Khamenei himself has urged the nation's youth to "smartly use the cyberspace to slap the enemy in the mouth," and pro-government accounts have proliferated on Twitter and Instagram.

Rouhani, a relative moderate in Iran's clerical establishment, vowed to expand internet freedom when he was elected in 2013 but has failed to fully deliver on those promises, in part because the judiciary and security forces are dominated by hard-liners. In 2018, authorities blocked Telegram, an app that had been used by tens of millions of Iranians to send encrypted messages, after it was used to organize protests over economic hardships.

YouTube also remains largely off-limits, as it's hard to download and view videos while using the workarounds.

"YouTube is like an online university, but it's blocked," Akbari said.

Hard-liners fear that full access to the internet would allow Western countries to penetrate the Islamic Republic and foment unrest against the ruling clerics.

"Cyberspace is controlled by foreigners," said Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahhedi Kermani, a hard-line cleric who leads Friday prayers in Tehran. "They want to make the people pessimistic about the government."

Authorities have developed their own closed system, known as the "national information network," that blocks many foreign sites and slows access to others. Some refer to it as the "halal net," applying the term used for that which is permitted under Islam. Officials say it is designed to protect the country from cyberattacks and US sanctions. Iran is also developing its own services for messaging, online banking and entertainment, part of a larger push for self-sufficiency amid Western sanctions.

The government has taken steps to expand access and widen bandwidths, with Rouhani claiming earlier this month that all towns and 78% of villages have access to high-speed internet. But many Iranians say surfing the web remains a disappointing experience.

"The number of users has grown at a much faster rate than the speed of the country's internet," said Danial Behzadi, an information technology expert. "In general, the internet in Iran is relatively slow, expensive and has poor neutrality."

The sanctions have also created barriers, with the US government barring many tech firms from providing services in Iran. The Trump administration has ramped up sanctions, including on the country's vital oil industry, since withdrawing the US from Iran's nuclear deal with world powers last year.

Users trying to download apps frequently encounter messages saying such services are prohibited, and some American companies suspend accounts when they realize the users are in Iran.

The sanctions also restrict the ability of Iranians to shop online.

Iranians are unable to use major credit cards or online services like PayPal because the country is cut off from the international banking system. Amazon refuses to ship to Iran because of the sanctions. In a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the online retail giant said it suspected Iranian embassies and diplomatic missions abroad had purchased more than $50,000 in goods, everything from books and apparel to toys and pet products.

Akbari recalls having to purchase a new keyboard for her laptop. When Amazon refused to send it to Iran, she asked a relative to buy one in Dubai.

"This is just an example," she said. "There are thousands of things you see on the internet you want to buy, but you can't."

Despite the limitations – or perhaps because of them – Iranians have become skilled at evading censors through proxy servers and VPNs.

Software developer Mehdi Beygi said he recently received an email from a popular coding platform saying that his account had been restricted because of US sanctions.

"It's normal," he said. "I'll bypass the ban, as always."

The post Iranians manage to surf the web despite tide of censorship appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.