Goodbye Democracy: My Political Analysis is Banned by a European Government Computer Program As "Hate Speech"

By Barry Rubin

I have just been informed that my PJ article, "Egypt: As Grim Islamists March Toward Power, The Naïve Dance in Tahrir Square" has been barred on sites used by officials of a European government--hint, they speak English there and it is the birthplace of modern democracy and free speech--on the grounds that this article is "hate speech."

What this means is that if you work for any institution that is part of this government--including the Foreign or Defense ministries--you cannot read this PJ Media column on your computer that's part of such a server.

The message reads: Access denied -- reason given : hate speech. 

My reader asks sarcastically if complaining about this action would constitute a "thought crime" on his part.

Update: A reliable reader reports the same thing happened on a business computer in the United States where the sheriff is apparently something called DansGuardian.

This is the first time ever that one of my articles has been so flagged. But it brings out an important point: A computer program that picks out "key words" can accuse you of a crime and block your free speech. If I had to guess at the phrase it would be my reference (that's a guess) to "Muslim [space inserted to avoid censorship] riots" in France several years ago. But they were riots by Muslims and that is not only factually correct but necessary for making an important point.

Apparently, this system has done the same thing to articles by other people before though I don't know the details.

So there are three problems here:

--Free speech is now conditional on someone's judgment of your viewpoint. This also has a chilling effect since the reader might say, "I'm not the kind of person who wants to see hate speech!" or frightened, "What if my employer sees that I'm viewing such material? I might be fired or not promoted!" 

--That judge isn't even a human being but a computer program that makes arbitrary selections out of context. Would the phrases "Christian riot," "Hindu riot," "Jewish riot," "Caucasian riot," etc., trigger an accusation of hate speech? Who decides? Where is this information available to the public?


--As far as I can see, all of the intimidation and censorship are in one direction. It's like in Lebanon where all these moderate politicians, judges, and journalists were attacked and assassinated while not a single supporter of Hizballah or Syrian-Iranian client was hit.

I've spoken at universities where people were practically trembling and the meeting was made pretty secret. My invitation to give a purely academic lecture at a state university in the United States that regularly features radical Islamists was barred by the department on flimsy grounds. I've had one noted university publisher change its mind on a book project because a board member objected to having an Israeli write about Arab politics and by another university publisher at the last minute--in violation of its own rules--for purely political reasons.

And that's nothing compared to what other people have suffered including less of employment, attacks by demonstrators, banning from social media, being on the continual receiving end of "hate mail," and so on.

Yet virtually nothing like this ever happens to those "on the other side." On the contrary, they are given every possible advantage and benefit despite the low quality of their work (ridiculously politicized and unproven theses; blatant classroom bias) and at times their inability to meet the rules (academic promotion without an impressive publications' record, for example).

Isn't this disparity significant? Are we dealing now with the sincere desire to make everyone love each other or a political tactic to benefit one side, movement, ideology, and to ensure the defeat of another one?


Are the messages of Hamas, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, groups that explicitly and deliberately call for genocide, ever blocked as "hate speech?" I've never heard of that happening.

I cannot even figure out who I am supposedly telling people to "hate" in this article. Is it "hate speech" to argue anything other than that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate pro-democratic group?

Well, Western democracies have finally accepted censorship based on the clever lie that they are only protecting people from racism and those who want to incite violence and murder.  The door that this is opened has now made possible what liberals and democrats have warned against for more than a century--even though people claiming such positions are responsible for this--giving authorities to block and ban political views that they don't like.

It's proper to defend the rights of those who are being provocative in some way. But we have gone far beyond that: the censorship of straight political analysis that conflicts with the "official line" and that's a line determined by a software program.

A lawyer points out that employers have a right to stop their workers from using official computers to play games or engage in personal activities. But blocking non-relevant sites is quite different from accusing people of crimes, censoring speech, having an official governmental standard of impermissible phrases, and blocking people from reading material that is relevant for their work.

Note: You can see that I have left in phrases like "Jewish riot" and "Christian riot" while altering the phrase "Muslim [Hi! Isn't the weather beautiful today?] riot." So let's see if this article gets censored. Do let me know.  

SUNNI VERSUS SHIA: THE MIDDLE EAST’S NEW STRATEGIC CONFLICT

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,589. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

A different version of this article appeared in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights. Please read and link only to this version.

By Barry Rubin

Of course, conflicts between Sunni and Shia Muslims are not at all new, but the fact that this is becoming a central feature on the regional strategic level is a dramatic shift. After all, as long as there were secular-style regimes preaching an all-inclusive Arab nationalist identity, differences between religious communities were subordinated. Once there are Islamist regimes, theology becomes central again, as it was centuries ago.

However, no one should misunderstand the situation. This is fundamentally a struggle for political power and wealth. When Sunni and Shia states or movements battle they are acting as political entities not pursuing old theological disputes.

The growing power and influence of Iran’s Islamist regime posed a tremendous problem for Arab Sunni Islamists. They generally did not like Iran because it was Persian and Shia, yet it was the only Islamist game in town. Thus, Arab Sunni Islamist Hamas became an Iranian client. The Iran-Iraq war reflected these antagonisms, as best seen in Iraqi propaganda. Yet Iraq’s regime was also able to keep the Shia majority there under control.

Saddam Hussein’s removal by a U.S.-led international intervention opened up the question of confessional relations in Iraq. The Arab Shia were inevitably going to win any election, given their three-to-one  advantage over the Sunni and the Kurds opting out for what is, in effect though not name, their own state in the north.  Despite the terrorist, anti-American, and al-Qaida elements of the Sunni insurgency, it was essentially a last-ditch attempt by the Sunnis to reclaim power. It failed and while violence continues, the main Sunni emphasis will be on negotiating the best possible division of power.

In Lebanon, the Shia triumphed too, led by Hizballah and aided by Syria and Iran.  But all of this was prelude to the year 2011. The “Arab Spring” was an overwhelmingly Sunni affair, their own equivalent in some ways of Iran’s 1979 revolution.  Only in Bahrain, where they were repressed, did the Shia take the offensive.

Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya all had Sunni insurgencies against Sunni Arab governments.  The situation in Syria is far more complex with an Alawite non-Muslim regime that pretends to be Shia Muslim and is allied with Iran, opposed by a variety of rebels. Nevertheless, in this context, the upheaval is a Sunni-led (though far from just Islamist) revolt against a “Shia” regime.

Here’s the bottom line: Sunni Arab Islamists no longer need Iran or even Turkey because they now have their own power. What is likely to emerge is at least a loose Sunni Arab and largely Islamist-flavored bloc consisting of Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Libya, and Tunisia along with the Muslim Brotherhood elements in Jordan and Syria.

 The key element here is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that doesn’t like Shia Muslims in general and Iran in particular. Little events, like Brotherhood guru Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s support for the Sunni regime in Bahrain against the Shia opposition, show the direction of their thinking.  The even more radical Salafists—a term now used for the small revolutionary Islamist groups, are even more anti-Shia. One factor here is the continued unwillingness of the majority of Arab states to welcome Shia-ruled Iraq into their ranks. Iraq is not going to become a satellite of Iran. It certainly feels more comfortable in a Shia bloc but will probably continue to be relatively uninvolved in regional affairs.   

Note, too, that to a large extent this situation leaves the Palestinian Authority as an orphan. While it can depend on very general Arab, Iranian, and Turkish support, the Islamists prefer to back Hamas, especially the ever-stronger Sunni Islamists. This, of course, encourages the Palestinian Authority’s (Fatah’s) alliance with Hamas while also weakening its leverage toward that Islamist partner. (And that means a continued disinterest in negotiating with Israel, much less reaching a negotiated solution with it.)  

Thus, despite appearances, 2011 was a defeat for Iran and Turkey because Sunni Arab Islamists are far less receptive to Tehran’s influence and view it as a rival, while Arab Islamists don’t want leadership from Turks either.

Can these blocs unite effectively against the United States, the West or Israel? In a word: No.  Their power struggles for regional power and for control of individual states (Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, and to a far lesser extent Iraq) will keep them in conflict. Even on the anti-Israel consensus each side will seek to exploit it for their own, often conflicting, interests.  

By the same token, however, the hope for moderation is minimal. In a region when regimes and movements are competing to prove their militancy and loyalty to a radical interpretation of Islam, nobody is going to want to make peace with Israel. And regimes will only work with the United States I they feel that America can and will protect them, a rather forlorn hope with an Obama Administration eager to make friends with Islamists.

There is also another aspect to this Sunni-Shia rivalry, the formation of blocs, the competition in militancy, and the battle for control of individual states. The region will continue to waste lives, time, and resources in political strife as the lure of ideology and power rather than pragmatism and economic productivity.   

Hamas Openly Joins Brotherhood; Brotherhood Openly Joins Hamas’s War on Israel

By Barry Rubin

Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group which rules the Gaza Strip and has been moving toward a partnership with the Palestinian Authority’s ruling Fatah party, has openly proclaimed itself the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This development took place during the visit to Cairo of Hamas’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. It should be remembered that Hamas not only calls for Israel’s destruction but for genocide against Jews generally. It was Haniyeh’s first trip abroad since Hamas seized the Gaza Strip in 2007.

In meeting Haniyeh at the Brotherhood’s new headquarters’ building, the Brotherhood’s leader Muhammad al-Badi, said that Hamas had been a role model for the Brotherhood. While this might be mere flattery it might be noted that Hamas first won an election, then went into a coalition with a “more moderate” partner (Fatah), and then staged a coup to seize complete power. That’s an interesting precedent for Badi to cite.

Haniyeh described Hamas as the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. Referring to their alliance Haniyeh said, “Our presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity." It certainly does since Hamas will enjoy the Brotherhood’s full support in its anti-Israel activities including the use of violence and, probably, in the event of any future war with Israel.

To read the full article click here

The Graduate: Why Should Everyone Else Pay for Other People's Dumb (and Hedonistic) Career Choices

By Barry Rubin

I’ve recently made the acquaintance of a young man who has a problem. He is 28 years old; smart, of good moral character, and willing to work hard at part-time jobs. He does not expect anyone else, including the government, to support him.   Yet he is puzzled an increasingly bitter that he cannot make a good living.

What’s his difficulty? It’s not the economy (in this specific case) but the fact that he has a degree in linguistics and is now studying Oriental philosophy at a fine university. His case is not altogether typical but is immensely revealing.

Here’s the secret: he cannot make a living because the market for people with degrees in linguistics and in Oriental philosophy is limited. He should have known that. Someone should have told him that. The calculation of practicality should have been made. It wasn’t.

As I said, this individual does not want hand-outs and he has not taken student loans. Many others have. A large proportion of the Occupy Wall Street-and-other-places movement seems to consist of those who have made similar “career” (or non-career) decisions but want others to pay for their pastimes and mistakes.

There are at least three important lessons here of the greatest importance.

First, young people should be taught that, as the old saying goes, the world doesn’t owe them a living. Nothing could seem more obvious yet this has largely been forgotten.  This is especially true in the United States, a country whose prosperity was built on understanding this point. Of course, telling them that the world does owe them a living can be rather popular and lead to one's election to public office....

Click here to read the entire article

Middle East Craziness: Some Personal Anecdotes

By Barry Rubin

I think if you haven’t had much contact with the Middle East it is hard to comprehend how loony a region this is and the magnitude of the lies told about it. I had to deal today with something relating to the presence of Egypt’s embassy in Israel and it made me think about some past experiences.

A few years ago I was giving a lecture at the Australian National University. It was a pretty routine and uncontroversial session when suddenly the question and answer period erupted into something close to a melee. One of the people in the audience was the wife of the Egyptian ambassador to Australia and she started yelling about how horrible a country Israel was, full of evil racists.

What was her grievance? She claimed that when she walked around the streets of Tel Aviv, people threatened and spat at her. This was thoroughly bizarre even beyond all the obvious reasons. She obviously dressed in Western clothes and was not identifiable as an Egyptian or Arab. I had never seen a picture of the ambassador or his wife in the Israeli media so nobody would know what she looked like anyway.

The Egyptian embassy is located near Basle, an upscale yuppie area of expensive cafes and not particularly politicized. I don’t think there had ever even been a demonstration there. So aside from the fact that Israelis have never harassed foreign diplomats as far as I know and that there had never been an article or protest about such alleged harassment, there was every reason to believe that the whole story was a fantasy.

Yet she spoke with such passion and certainty that I wouldn’t have been surprised if some, many, most of the audience completely believed her and felt sorry for the poor woman.....

To read the entire article click here