bedrog

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.

@ Roadmans "in what will hopefully be a final point": WHAT?? just when we having fun!!!

ContreMilice

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 6:47 a.m.

Roadman, you love to cite precedent. That King County, Washington's refusal to place a somewhat less distasteful ad on Metro Seattle's buses than the truly tasteless—as even you seem to admit—Blaine Coleman ad has been upheld, and the ACLU has failed to get that overturned should be a clear enough indication of how far Coleman's attempts will get.

ContreMilice

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 6:39 a.m.

Debling's demand that Israel start "to behave like a civilized nation, take…responsibility for it's [sic] actions, stop…committing human rights abuses, renounce…the use of violence and recognize…the right of Palestine to exist" is farcical especially given the neighborhood, where Israel is about the _only_ civilized country, respects human rights to a greater extent than most countries in the world, let alone in the Middle East, is the only place therein that has a free press and independent judiciary, and takes responsibility for virtually everything it does. On the other hand, Hamas, the PA/Fatah, Hezbollah, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and a host of Israel's neighbors commit continuous acts of barbarism and gross human rights violations including oppressing their fellow Arabs and/or Moslems, not to mention minorities—the Christians who are treated brutally in "Arab Spring" Egypt are only one of many examples—spit in not only the face of world opinion, but even the Arab League—as we see in Assad's Syria—use nothing but violence with no sign of letting up, etc. etc. To ignore all this and make spurious claims that Israel is some kind of monstrous, uncivilized land surrounded by "peaceful and tolerant" nation states and would-be nations is pure hypocrisy. And when Israel—as far back as 1947 and earlier agreed to the partition of Mandate Palestine—they recognized an Arab Palestine, which they confirmed again and again as when they signed the Oslo Accord in 1993. The more appropriate demand would be for Israel's neighbors to all recognize its right to exist as a Jewish State. When Hamas and even the PA still have charter clauses that call for the destruction of Israel, how disingenuous it is to demand that Israel recognize entities bent on its elimination even though it did so over 60 years ago but many—if not most—of its neighbors are still hell bent on its destruction.

Roadman

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 6:27 a.m.

I would like to make one (hopefully) final point on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. When the Phelps case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier, the plaintiff, a Radio Shack salesman whose son had been killed in Iraq serving in the Marine Corps, was clearly emotionally devastated and received professional care over the vicious statements that were issued by the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) led by the Phelps family. He was a sympathetic plaintiff and the attorneys general of 48 states filed briefs in support of his cause. The ACLU filed a brief in support of the defendants. Most legal scholars recognized the High Court had previously given broad protections to First Amendment assertions under the Free Speech Clause. Nevertheless, some felt this case would be blatant enough for the justices to support the plaintiff - but only one justice did - a very angry and sympathetic Justice Alioto. I would suggest that everyone read the full text of that case to understand the complex analysis employed by the Court in protecting the right of those who wish to speak and take unpopular positions on matters of public interest. I believe that Blaine Coleman's ad - however tasteless it may be - is far less offensive than the conduct of the WBC defendants. Given that case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision cited above, I believe he and the ACLU are on excellent legal footing to prevail over the AATA in a federal court action. The principle of freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our American democracy.

ContreMilice

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 5:48 a.m.

Isn't it remarkable that in Mr. Herskovitz's worldview, the Jews on the AATA Board should seriously be considered for removal from a decision on an offensive, hatred-inciting, highly biased ad to appear on AATA buses for the first time ever as if he and Blaine Coleman are neutral actors in this controversy. I suppose if the KKK wanted to place anti-Black ads on AATA buses with distorted images of African-Americans and there were African-Americans on the Board, Herskovitz would want them to recuse themselves from making that determination. It's not shocking that Herskovitz is so uncomfortable with the AATA's wise choice. On his own website he states that his synagogue stalking "Jewish" Witnesses for "Peace" and Friends has "a commonality" with the homophobic, antisemitic Phelps Family cult. Herskovitz proudly boasts that his group toasts the Supreme Court's decision on Snyder v. Phelps as he, like the Phelps Family, is a purveyor of hate every Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and other important Jewish holy days, by his tiny group's continued siege of a local synagogue with screaming signs accusing the congregants of all kinds of horrible crimes. Of course, this is par for one who has common cause with Charles Coughlin, a mouthpiece for Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s and early 40s: "We are once again reminded of _The Jewish Onslaught_ by Tony Martin, the 'dynamic silencing' of Fr. Charles Coughlin, and the repeated, but unsuccessful, attempts at silencing our own voices." Henry Herskovitz's shared aims with such hateful figures—and his citing a book with such odious subject matter as a source for guidance—should tell you all you need to know about his lack of credibility and justly marginal status even in the town he inhabits. If he's so troubled by the AATA's dismissal of his comrade's revolting ad, you know they are doing the absolute right thing, and his support for the ad is one of the best advertisements (no pun intended) for its rejection.

debling

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 2:52 a.m.

And yet the message still rings loud and clear folks. "BOYCOTT ISRAEL, BOYCOTT APARTHEID". Until Israel begins to behave like a civilized nation, takes responsibility for it's actions, stops committing human rights abuses, renounces the use of violence and recognizes the right of Palestine to exist, a boycott is an effective way of sending the message "we don't approve of your behavior". Forget about AATA. Fly your own banner in protest. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Speak up and speak out and refuse to be intimidated by the Pro Israel lobby and other 5th columnists that are sure to mobilize when Israel is criticized. They have a job to do no matter how shameful it may be.

Henry Herskovitz

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.

Hopefully the ACLU will challenge the possible conflict of interest visible in this case: at least two members of AATA's Board of Directors and it's Legal Counsel have direct ties to the heavily pro-Israel local Jewish community. AATA Legal Counsel Jerry Lax is active in the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, and has been seen from time to time entering Beth Israel Congregation - certainly no crime in itself, but Rabbi Robert Dobrusin has stated publicly that his entire Congregation supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state (a good definition of a Zionist). AATA Board Member David Nacht is a member of the staunch-Zionist Anti-Defamation League, former board member of Temple Beth Emeth, and also a member of the Federation. AATA Board Chair Jesse Bernstein is an active member of Temple Beth Emeth, according to its February 2011 Bulletin. As far as this writer knows, TBE still flies the Israeli flag in its sanctuary. The ACLU should not judge these men by their associations, but could ask them how they personally feel about Israel's claimed right to exist as a Jewish state, and if their feelings played any part in their vote, or in prior discussions.

bedrog

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 10:56 p.m.

The following was sent to the AATA: Some detective work by a friend turned up the inspiration for the loony hate ad proposal. <a href="http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/joseguad&CISOPTR=86&CISOBOX=1&REC=3" rel='nofollow'>http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/joseguad&amp;CISOPTR=86&amp;CISOBOX=1&amp;REC=3</a> may i suggest that if the ACLU gives you trouble you should threaten to contact a mexican &quot;brujo' ( witchdoctor) who could both sue the sumitter for copyright infringement and shrink his ( and the ACLU's) head.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.

Like Mr. Brown, Mr. Herskovitz accuses Israel of "murder" when there is no evidence that such occurred in the case of Rachel Corrie. How many times need it be repeated that as sad, tragic, and unfortunate was her death, she had absolutely no business being in what amounts to a war zone trying to interfere with Israel's legitimate razing of houses to destroy the tunnels that carried smuggled arms into Gaza. And, there is no evidence whatever that she was deliberately killed. Likewise, Furkan Dogan was on board the only ship that did not heed Israeli forces' repeated requests that it pull into the port of Ashdod for inspection of its cargo. And further, after such refusals by the crew of the ship in question to do so, Israeli troops lawfully boarded it as part of a legal blockade that even the not-exactly Israel-friendly UN approves. Upon doing so, those on board began to violently attack the Israelis who had every right to board and defend themselves with force when they were attacked. And, in the case of Cynthia McKinney who is not only vehemently anti-Israel but an on-the-record antisemite, she was taking part in another illegal attempt to run Israel's lawful embargo of Gaza. There is absolutely nothing for the US to protest here just as in other cases when our citizens commit crimes abroad. She was certainly not _kidnapped_ as was, however, the case with Gilad Shalit who was abducted across international borders and imprisoned for over four years. McKinney was lawfully detained and released after questioning after two days even though she had indeed taken part in a criminal offense. Such simplistic exaggerations as those of Mr. Herskovitz do not add anything of value to the arguments over the extremely complicated Middle East conflict.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.

While deliberate attacks and violent provocations against a neighbor and its civilian population—a neighbor who does not purposely target its neighbors' civilians—should definitely always be condemned, legitimate self-defense as is almost always the case with Israel is absolutely understandable and legitimate. It seems, of all the countries in the world, only Israel, according to Mr. Brown, Mr. Herskovitz, and those who share their views, should ever be condemned for defending itself and its civilian populations and according to such "logic," only Israel should never be allowed to defend itself and take military action under _any_ circumstances. Again, I rest my case.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.

I wonder whether Mr. Brown would consider that if missiles were regularly fired from Windsor with the full knowledge and support of the Windsor and Essex County governments and that these rockets killed and wounded even the occasional resident of Detroit and Ann Arbor, he wouldn't feel it justified for the US military to try to stop such attacks using force. And that he would expect that because such rockets were fired from civilian centers indiscriminately targeting civilians in SE Michigan, it would be most unfortunate but as a result of the missile launchers' locations, Canadian civilians would be harmed as part of such self-defensive retaliatory strikes. And, let's say the Israelis--not that they ever would--sent boats and/or trucks to Iraq and SE Turkey with weapons and armed thugs to equip the Kurds or even just to spite their longtime ally Turkey, would he not feel Turkey justified to search and disarm those trucks or boats and defend themselves with force? Also, if Kurds were smuggling rockets into Iraq and SE Turkey using tunnels with the weapons smuggled intended for strikes against civilians SE Turkey would Mr. Brown not argue therefore that the Turks would be justified in razing houses so they could destroy the tunnels that covered them? If Mr. Brown says says &quot;yes&quot; to any of the above posits and that he agrees that the US and/or Turkey should retaliate, he'd be a hypocrite regarding his stance on Israel's actions. If he says &quot;no,&quot; then I guess he feels unjustified attacks against a neighboring country or violent provocation of an ally are always excusable and should be ignored. Either way, his anti-Israel position falls to pieces.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.

Bedrog did such a masterful job of tearing down Mr. Brown's easy-to-discredit remarks that one need hardly add anything. Brown's comments are so obviously from an extremist standpoint that they leave no room for rational discussion. In addition, he has used inflammatory and ad hominem attacks on all supporters of Israel such as &quot;affluent, spewing sycophants&quot;--the &quot;affluent&quot; label is not only gratuitous, it truly smacks of very thinly-veiled antisemitism because he has no true ammunition in his polemical arsenal except the same tireless, boring, and constantly paraded tape loop that could have been written by the Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian, or Al Qaida PR machines. Heck, even the PA condemns almost all terrorist actions against Israel as did their late, duplicitous leader, Yasser Arafat, so the predigested one-sided attacks on Israel by Mr. Brown do absolutely lack any credibility. How often can it be explained that if ISM and Hamas didn't use Palestinian Arabs and inflamed and/or naïve Westerners like Rachel Corrie as human shields in war zones, that even Hamas admits those 1.300 were almost all combatants and not innocents; and indiscriminately launch rockets at Israeli civilians, etc., Israel would never have the need, much less the desire to make incursions in to Hamas Gaza and have to raze buildings that cover weapons-smuggling tunnels? if the people whose cause he says he champions can condemn wanton violence against Israel, isn't it at least a bit puzzling that Stuart Brown can never bring himself to do so? Will he deny that his great desire is to see the Jewish State completely destroyed? I support a two-state solution. Does he?

bedrog

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

Henry Herskovitz' above off the wall hyperbole ( note moderators: i got out my thesaurus to avoid using the deletable term &quot;lie&quot;) about the &quot;kidnapped Presidential candidate&quot; was excellently ( and wittily) addressed in a Washtenaw jewish News article from Feb 2010 on mr. Herskovitz synagogue harassing sect. In fact Ms . candidate Mckinney was part of a pro-Hamas attempt to breach israel's lawful ( per the U.N) blockade of Gaza. She was detained for a few days and sent home. &quot;Kidnapping &quot; is what was done to Gilad Shalit by Hamas ( the incident which instigated the Gaza war) or to the american hikers kidnapped by Iran, whose propaganda folks like herskovitz and AATA adboy regularly regurgitate.. Again, all facts necessary as context to Herskovitz' post ,so deletion as &quot;inappropriate&quot; would itself be inappropriate you will agree.

Henry Herskovitz

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.

Imagine the United States' reaction to murders of its citizens like Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan if ,say, the perpetrator were North Korea. Israel even kidnaps a 2008 Presidential candidate (Cynthia McKinney) and not a peep of protest from our government.

bedrog

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 11:20 a.m.

Stuart. I have already repeatedly addressed the &quot;disparity of casualty&quot; issue you tiresomly repeat . Once again: this reflects nothing more than the fact the Palestinian extremists are less competent at inflicting their random attempts at harm on israelis than the Israelis are at targeting such extremists ( not perfectly , mind you....hence some inevitable true civilian casualties.., but pretty good). As to parity in criticism of bothy sides: Groups like &quot;j-street &quot; do just that in their simultaneous support for the existance of Israel coupled with criticism of particular Israeli policies and concern for palestinian well being: My own views, while not precisely those of J-street, are not all that foreign to it and are informed by my professional background in middle east matters ( which, with all due respect to your cherrypicking of history is better than yours and your friends').. There may be similar co-existence advocates on the other side but you and your cronies are absolutely not among them and some that i'm aware of ( e.f Sabeel international) have grave disparities between their benign public faces and what they say to each other . i know this for a certainty. You and yours however have, by your infklammatory malice, repeatedly and flamboyantly shown yourselves unworthy of serious discourse with serious people of divergent views in this community: hence the treatment you receive on these threads and elsewhere.

Stuart Brown

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 10:27 a.m.

Bedrog said, &quot;But those who do not correspondingly , explicitly and repeatedly condemn ( and indeed idealize ) the indiscriminate terror tactics and ideology of Hamasniks, and who simultaneously call for the abolition of Israel itself, most certainly are both.&quot; Why is it critics of Israel are required to condemn instances of violence directed at Israel by Hamas when supporters of Israel are not required to condemn instances of violence By Israel directed at the Palestinian population? I have previously on this thread cited two examples of official state violence directed at Pro-Palestinian activists (resulting in death) and the response from the Pro-Israel side has been to justify the violence by blaming the victims of this violence (the violence was regrettable but justified, so they say). I would also like to point out that since Palestinians are 10-50 times more likely to die as a result of violence by the state of Israel then the other way around, I would expect our pro-Israel folks to be awfully busy condemning Israel for its use of violence in solving the problems in that part of the world; but we hear nothing but silence or blame the victim excuses.

Roadman

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 5:45 a.m.

One more final point on the recent Ann Arbor Chronicle article: The article noted that the AATA policy guidelines barred ads for candidates for political office, but the AATA apparently disregarded those guidelines when accepting advertising from judicial primary candidates Joan Lowenstein and Margaret Connors in the 2008 Ann Arbor District Court election. Joan Lowenstein was a sitting Ann Arbor City Council member at the time and openly opposed the passage of the People's Food Co-op boycott referendum against the purchase of Israeli products at that store. The referendum proponents and candidate Joan Lowenstein both lost in their electoral attempts.

Roadman

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 5:17 a.m.

The Ann Arbor Chronicle article by David Askins that was published this afternoon indictes that the AATA went into deliberatons for an hour over the ACLU letter and that the resolution affirming rejection of the proposed ad be folowed up with a meeing with Blaine Coleman and the ACLU. This makes me to conclude that the AATA decision was not a slam dunk and that the body was open to negotiations between themselves and the ACLU and Mr. Coleman. I believe the AATA may reaize that the ALCU may have a tenable case and wants to head off a possible federal court action. I certainly believe a lawsuit by Mr. Coleman would not be frivolous.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 4:31 a.m.

Roadman, exclude it they can, exclude it they have, and exclude it they will. Just as Seattle successfully kept unbalanced, hate-inciting ads off of King County buses and the ACLU couldn't reverse that decision, so shall AATA succeed in keeping such mind pollution of our buses. And these &quot;all kinds of political...messages&quot; you cite as being on AATA buses? I ride the buses all the time and hardly notice such ads and not a single one is as ugly, distorted, contorted, bilious, extremist, hate-filled, and targeting one specific nation as the one Mr. Coleman tried to foist on the bus riders and public in Washtenaw County. Sorry, there's no such precedent, and I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath until the day you see Blaine Coleman's message of hate on an AATA-sanctioned bus ad. If you think you will, dream on.

ContreMilice

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:08 a.m.

The ad submitted is truly not at all that unlike the outrageous, fanatically hate-filled, highly exaggerated caricatures of Jews in such Nazi organs as _Der Stürmer_ in Hitler's Germany. Similar grossly exaggerated, racist depictions of Jews and Israelis can be seen throughout the Arab world and in other Moslem-controlled lands as well as White supremacist websites and printed matter. If someone submitted an ad that attacked African-Americans or Africans depicting them with outlandishly misshapen physical features, would there be any doubt that the AATA and any other responsible organizations would reject them out of hand? Just as that would be the absolute right decision in such a hypothetical case, this resolution by AATA like their counterparts in King County (in and near Seattle) is faultless and completely correct. Bravo to King County Transit and the AATA for exercising such good judgment.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:07 a.m.

My suggestion for the appropriate advertising on the sides of these buses: &quot;AATA.&quot; Why should the city of Ann Arbor be cluttered up with a lot of ugly ads on the sides of buses? The income (even before legal costs) from the ads is negligible. Let's help keep Ann Arbor beautiful. Plain is good.

bedrog

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.

RE. stuart's straw man critique of Neal Elyakin: Indeed it is true that not not everyone who criticizes israel ( on a selective plicy basis) is automatically a terrorist supporter or. an antisemite. But those who do not correspondingly , explicitly and repeatedly condemn ( and indeed idealize ) the indiscriminate terror tactics and ideology of Hamasniks, and who simultaneously call for the abolition of Israel itself, most certainly are both. It is quite clear from this thread who is what in ann arbor . (And moderators: there is nothing to warrant deleting this and i trust you won't given what has been permitted thus far).

Stuart Brown

Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 12:51 a.m.

Neal Elyakin said, &quot;As others have stated here, it is especially troublesome that those in our community who support the terrorists in Israel who target civilian buses, killing the riders indiscriminately, have chosen our own city buses as their target to place ads denouncing Israel, the only democracy in the middle east.&quot; This statement is highly offensive in its own right; the fact it is stated by a public official is even more egregious. Mr Elyakin has demonstrated by this statement that he is unqualified to serve in his position on the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission. Mr. Elyakin is promulgating the hateful, intolerant and blatantly false claim that anyone who criticizes the State of Israel is essentially a supporter of terrorism and/or an anti-semite; justifying the termination of Free Speech rights. Israel is a major recipient of US foreign aid--this alone provides more than enough of a legitimate reason for people to justifiably criticize Israel's policies. Given the Patriot Act and the assaults on the Fourth Amendment we don't need more public officials &quot;protecting&quot; us by muzzling our Free Speech rights.

bedrog

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 7:29 p.m.

well, that was fun wasn't it?

rulieg

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 5:12 p.m.

hurray for the AATA! they made the right decision. as someone who works in advertising, I had to laugh at Blaine abdul-al-Coleman's &quot;ad.&quot; looks like he made a black-and-white xerox of that old Grateful Dead album and then had some kid draw in the letters. frankly, I'm surprised he spelled all the words right.

omniskeptic

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.

So not only does AATA feel free to congest the streets with oversized, unutilized buses, it reserves the right to decide what they say on them? How about it, folks; anyone with a reasonable - sized van willing to step up and carry these messages, perhaps on one side with the other side calling for the downsizing of the transit authority? AATA certainly wasn't averse, by the way, to running those huge ads for some marketing-focused christian church -- you remember, the ones with the models who looked like serial killers?

Ron Granger

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.

The topics of Israel - the billions of tax dollars we give them, their occupation, etc - are sacrosanct.

Albert Howard

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.

Good for AATA for making the right decision.

bedrog

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.

This thread in all its iterations demonstrates the wisdom of the AATA. It is clear that injecting this issue onto public buses will create an unpleasant -to-dangerous situation for patrons. Counter ads ( far more truthful and artistic) would proliferate, boycotts would ensue etc etc ( and one can read what one wants into the 'etcs.). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The involvement in this affair of the ad's initial advocate ( who was labeled &quot;an out of control buffoon&quot; in an editorial in A2.com's hard copy predecessor ) and Henry herskovitz ( and their usual groupies) is testimony to the toxicity of the message. Thes are people who have shown themselves incapable of discussion of the complexities of middle east history and political issues but instead are one-sided demonizers not just of particular israeli policies but of jews and judaism ...and are indeed open advocates for throwing the 1/3 of world Jewry that lives in Israel to the tender mercies of jihadist terrorists like Hamas . Nor have they EVER seen fit to condemn like extremists ( al shabaab, janjawid, the taliban, etc)--- the main victimizers of fellow Muslims---despite being repeatedly challenged to do so on these threads by me and others. Readers are invited to look at one of their allied websites: &quot;zionistout.com&quot; which promotes them and their activities to judge whether the harshest comments against them here are true. Indeed moderators ' deletions of some of contremilices apt , if strong, comments here really represent a surpression of truth on this matter.

Stuart Brown

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 10:12 a.m.

Daniel Soebbing said, '&quot;apologizing for terrorists and their enablers&quot;???????????? What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to insinuate that people that criticize the actions of Israel are enabling terrorism? Are people that promote boycotting Israel enabling terrorism?' That's right Daniel, the zealot supporters of Israel want people to believe that anybody who does not march in line with the Israeli government's version of reality is an anti-semite, and an enabler/supporter of Hamas. They've all learned their talking points and they are always the same, regurgitated here for our convenience. Study their claims and check them out for yourself--they don't add up.

Stuart Brown

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 7:39 a.m.

Contrimilice, You're a fountain of the Israeli Ministry of Information; everything you say is the Israeli government's talking points. Look at this gem, &quot;Funny how you're unwilling to point that out &amp; how barbarous and hate-driven the indiscriminate launching of 1000s of Qassam missiles at Israeli civilians including infants &amp; the old &amp; infirm is. &quot; Last I heard, about 8 Israeli civilians have died as a result of these rocket attacks while 1300 residents of Gaza (many of whom were, yes, infants &amp; the old &amp; infirm) died as a result of Operation Cast Lead. Given the illegal use of collective punishment and an illegal blockade on the residents of the Gaza strip, why cannot these rocket attacks be considered self defense by an objective observer? According to you, the Gaza strip is a war zone; are the Palestinian people not entitled to self-defense just as Israeli citizens are? Israel has lots of weapons including nuclear weapons but the Palestinian people cannot even have their own army? I am getting bored of hearing what the Israeli Ministry of Information has to say. I think what the Turkish government has to say is way more interesting. Turkey is demanding an apology for the attack of an unarmed ship in international waters by military commandos acting like pirates and backing up the demand by withholding military cooperation that was formerly given. Good luck apologizing for Israel, you're going to need all the help you can get--the facts just ain't on your side!

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 7:13 a.m.

Daniel Soebbing: &quot;Has anybody commenting on this article said anything in favor of the image?&quot; You basically said that you are in favor of complete freedom to exercise whatever speech (not discouraging images), no matter how hateful. even to you. You didn't irrevocably state that even hate-inciting ads y David Duke or the likes of Fred Phelps would bother you. You seem to indicate that anything goes. If I'm wrong, please let's hear from you what boundaries, if any, you have in the exercise of free speech.

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 7:09 a.m.

&quot;The people who claim that all Arabs are Hamas/Hezbollah supporters hell bent on a murderous Jihad of all Israels&quot; says Stuart Brown. Thanks for putting words into my mouth! There isn't 1 thing I said that indicates that kind of extreme view, so it's another disingenuous comment, not surprisingly. On what accurate, sound evidence do you base your claims? As unfortunate and sad as was Rachel Corrie's death, she had no business being in what amounts to a war zone. She was cynically manipulated into interfering with the demolishing of homes that covered tunnels where arms were being smuggled into Gaza to kill Israelis. Funny how you're unwilling to point that out &amp; how barbarous and hate-driven the indiscriminate launching of 1000s of Qassam missiles at Israeli civilians including infants &amp; the old &amp; infirm is. And, there is no conclusive evidence that the driver of the bulldozer saw Ms. Corrie before she died. You refuse to acknowledge that ISM &amp; Hamas love to use people as pawns and human shields. You ignore that not only were the flotilla ships trying to break a legal blockade, but deliberately provoking Israel into reacting. If they let the boats through, they risked more weapons getting into Gaza &amp; greater &amp; greater illegal incursions. The other 6 ships cooperated with the Israeli forces, and no one was even slightly hurt on them. In the case of the Mavi Marmara, however, the soldiers who boarded were immediately and violently attacked by the thugs on board that ship. They were struck with lead pipes, stabbed, and in some cases, tossed overboard. If these ships really were only carrying humanitarian aid, what did they have to hide? Had they been &quot;peace activists&quot; as some purport, they wouldn't have tried to kill the IDF members who—once again—were legally boarding the ship to enforce a legal embargo. I suppose if you were attacked in performing similar duty, you'd just turn the other cheek?!

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 6:56 a.m.

Stuart Brown claims&quot;When British colonial rule was coming to an end in the 1940's...the UN recognized Palestine as a Jewish homeland and gave a disproportionate share of the land to the Israeli state.&quot; Once again, an amazing distortion of the truth. British Mandate Palestine was to be divided into 2 states, 1 Jewish &amp; 1 Arab. Even though, as a matter of fact, the Arabs were offered somewhat more land than the Jews &amp; the Jewish State was originally quite discontiguous, the Israelis agreed to the compromise to share the land. Not only did the Arabs utterly reject the plan, but as soon as Israel was declared an independent state, she was attacked by the armies of 5 neighboring Arab states. Despite being vastly outnumbered in troops &amp; weapons, Israel prevailed as she did in numerous wars with her Arab neighbors. Nations that win wars—especially that they do not instigate—usually make territorial gains and rarely, if ever, return the land they won with their blood. Israel not only has made incredible concessions _after_ winning such wars, the territorial gains of no other country seem to bother most people in the world, only those of Israel. And, you also leave out the fact that many thousands of Jews were violently forced out of Arab lands in which they had resided for hundreds and hundreds of years, even before the onset of Islam. As to Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan, I will follow up in a separate set of comments as space is limited here.

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 6:31 a.m.

As others have said, there is a big difference between free speech and consequence free speech. The depiction of Israelis as bloodthirsty spiders is not all that different from antisemitic caricatures seen in Nazi propaganda. if you're OK with those kinds of violently distorted, hate-filled images, and you wouldn't mind David Duke or Fred Phelps advertizing hate on A2 buses, I guess there are absolutely no limits whatever on what you see as &quot;free speech&quot; including racist portrayals of, and incitement to violence against, Arab-Americans, Arabs, African-Americans, Africans, Native Americans, Jews, Italian-Americans, and any ethnic group or race. There _are_ consequences for unbridled portrayals of hate. Just as yelling &quot;fire&quot; in a crowded building when there is no conflagration, extremist racist polemics have more than once incited people to commit violence and even murder the targets depicted on the propaganda. But, I guess that's just fine with you from what you say. Gosh, I hope whatever group you're a part of never gets singled out this way!

Stuart Brown

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 6:28 a.m.

Contremilice said, &quot;How, pray tell, then are they the victims of genocide?!&quot; in referring to the Palestinian people. The over 500 Palestinian villages removed from the map right after Israel's founding attests to this fact. Also, Golda Meyer's famous statement, &quot;There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.&quot; They did exist, especially at places like Deir Yassin. Golda was playing on the fact that Palestine was ruled by foreign powers for centuries and treated like a back water province until the 20th Century. When British colonial rule was coming to an end in the 1940's, the majority Palestinian population hoped to win international recognition as a sovereign nation; instead the UN recognized Palestine as a Jewish homeland and gave a disproportionate share of the land to the Israeli state. It should be pointed out that Palestinians waged a long war of liberation against British colonial rule in the 1930's; the loss of this war of liberation by Palestinians set the stage for the eventual take-over of Palestine by Israel. I stand by my comment concerning Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan. The people who claim that all Arabs are Hamas/Hezbollah supporters hell bent on a murderous Jihad of all Israels never point out the barbarous conditions under which Rachel and Furkan were murdered. Rachel was run over by an IDF bulldozer while protesting the collective punishment destruction of a Palestinian home. Furkan was shot execution style on the Mavi Marmara by IDF commandos for taking pictures of there raid. These were actions subsidized by the American government.

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 6:21 a.m.

The very end of my previous remarks were still cut off, to wit: So, before making such wild accusations that defame people as &quot;murderers&quot; and practitioners of &quot;genocide/ethnic cleansing, kindly present all the facts not just polemics that uphold a monomaniacal, simplistic, distorted, single side of the story.

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 6:12 a.m.

As the last part of my most recent previous remark was cut off, here is the full thought: To label supporters of the world's only &amp; very tiny Jewish State as &quot;shrill verbal affluent spewe[rs]&quot; who are &quot;pro-Israel sycophants&quot; is utter hypocrisy &amp; even worse, defamation of character when one who claims that people who are pro-Israel &quot;are the same people who supported the brutal murders by the state of Israel of American citizens Rachel Corry [sic] and Furkan Dogan&quot; are outrageous. And his remarks re: Corrie &amp; Dogan show a crude one-sided propagandist &quot;skill.&quot; As unfortunate as were Corrie's &amp; Dogan's deaths, there is no shred of evidence that either was murdered. That is a gross and yet unproved claim. Corrie was exploited by the International Solidarity Movement, cynical anti-Israel activists who use sometimes naïve, sometimes hate-fueled, cognizant participants as pawns. Corrie who was inflamed by Hamas and ISM-induced hatred of Israel was in a war zone where she had no business. Her presence was obstructing the destruction of tunnels used by Hamas and other terrorists to funnel weapons into Gaza to use against Israeli civilians within the sovereign borders of Israel. Her death was sad, unfortunate, and totally unnecessary, but whether wittingly or unwittingly, her presence was indeed abetting terrorists. And, until, proved otherwise, her death was not intended by the driver of the vehicle that crushed her. Dogan was on board a ship that far from carrying any kind of humanitarian aid was dispatched from Turkey for the sole purpose of defying Israel's legal—even the UN affirms this—blockade of Gaza. When IDF forces legally boarded the ship with no weapons drawn (probably a stupid move), they were attacked by the thugs on board with lead pipes and knives and some of them were tossed overboard. So, before making such wild accusations that defame people as &quot;murderers&quot; and practitioners of &quot;genocide/e

Daniel Soebbing

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 5:55 a.m.

The only thing that an objective observer could complain about in the rejected ad would be the rather grotesque image. But I have a feeling that the same people who are commenting on here, complaining about the ad and the person who wanted to put the ad on a bus would be complaining just as loudly if the image hadn't been there in the first place and all the ad had said was &quot;Boycott Israel.&quot; Criticizing the actions of Israel does not equate to supporting suicide bombers! I don't see why that is so difficult for people to understad.

ContreMilice

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 5:36 a.m.

Just as the proposed ad campaign distorts the image of Israelis and Jews à la _Der Stürmer,_ all the ringing condemnations of this hate-filled ad are right on target. Mr. Elyakin has the right to express his views as a citizen, just as Mr. Brown does. There is a world of difference between supporting Palestinian Arab rights &amp; defaming Israel in the grotesque &amp; antisemitic portrayal of the proposed ads. And, from all the actions, signs, &amp; statements of the one who tried to foist these obscene ads on the public buses of Washtenaw County, it is not at all a deviation to state that he is a supporter of terrorism against Israel. And, Mr. Brown's claiming that Israel practices &quot;ethnic cleansing/genocide&quot; is not only way off the mark, it demonstrates complete ignorance of these terms. The Palestinian population, far from being either &quot;ethically cleansed&quot; or even worse, targeted for mass murder, is increasing exponentially. How, pray tell, then are they the victims of genocide?! On the other hand, Hamas, Hezbollah and other internationally branded terrorists whose charters not only call for the destruction of the State of Israel, but call for jihad against all Jews and infidels and teach their children to hate and dehumanize all _Jews_ and who indiscriminately attack Israeli civilians with rockets and bombs, are more accurately actors who can be described as wanting to practice genocide to eliminate all Jews and other non-Moslems from the Middle East and beyond. To label supporters of the world's only and very tiny Jewish State as &quot;shrill verbal affluent spewers&quot; who are &quot;pro-Israel sycophants&quot; is utter hypocrisy and even worse defamation of character when the person who makes such claims that people who are pro-Israel &quot;are the same people who supported the brutal murders by the state of Israel of American citizens Rachel Corry [sic] and Furkan Dogan.&quot; The lack of context re: the Corrie &amp; Dogan deaths shows t

Roadman

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 3:59 a.m.

One thing this does is put Blaine Coleman back on the map in the local media. Not since the People's Food Co-op boycott elections has he been in the limelight that he seeks. He may even have the last laugh against the City of Ann Arbor if he prevails either via ACLU persuasion or by judicial ruling. He has once again thrust the Israel/Palestine issue to the forfront of media attention.

demistify

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 2:21 a.m.

Freedom of speech means just that, the right to express oneself to anyone willing to listen. It does not abrogate the right of others to choose not to listen. The rights of the congregants of the synagogue are infringed when they have to pass a gauntlet of hate posters whenever they attend religious services. The rights of all citizens would be abridged if they had to confront a hate message every time a bus passed on the street. I would certainly never ride a bus if that meant that a sandwich board with a hate message was draped around me.

Henry Herskovitz

Sun, Nov 20, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.

Would it qualify as &quot;hate speech&quot; if one were to criticize the policies of Nazi Germany?

bedrog

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 10:57 p.m.

In the present &quot;bussy &quot;context ,it is worth noting that HONEST REPORTING ( an online moniter of bias in middle east reportage) has as a lead story in its latest issue the &quot;cause de nanosecond&quot; of the most vitriolic I srael bashers: i.e. the bogus claim that the Israeli bus system is discriminatory toward its non- Israeli ridership ( this in a country that has been welcoming not just to ethnically diverse jews from areas like ethiopia and yemen but to black muslim darfur refugees---far more welcoming than the their fellow Muslims, some of whom turned them into refugees in the first place!) . That the submitter of this wretched ad did so at this bus- focussed juncture in the middle-east conflict is thus no surprise whatsoever, given his notorious history as jihad's &quot;man in ann arbor'.

Roadman

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 10:51 p.m.

I would like to thank and congratulate David Askins and the Ann Arbor Chronicle for covering this story and by posting the links to both the prospective ad as well as the controlling U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that covers a similar case where a the court upheld the First Amendment right of a labor union to post advertising on a bus that the transportation agency felt was controversial and lacked in aesthetic quality. That particular case gives an even stronger argument that aesthetics are an irrelevant inquiry for a transportation agency to undertake. It is an excellent exposition on the First Amendment in a similr set of facts. One thing that I am on the same page on with my frequent interlocutors &quot;bedrog&quot; and &quot;demistify&quot; is the poor quality of the image that accompanies the &quot;Boycott Israel&quot; message. The skull, bones, and black background are gruesome and distasteful. I would have preferred a background of perhaps a portrait of Rachel Corrie, or a depiction of young Mohammed Al-Dura hugging his father; the latter was tastefully made a postage stamp by the Egyptian government. Dave Askins has in the past interviewed Huron Valley Greens activists on his teeter-totter series and has done a bang-up job in covering their positions and activities.

Neal Elyakin

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 10:40 p.m.

AATA did the right thing in denying the hate filled ads from being placed on our local buses. As others have stated here, it is especially troublesome that those in our community who support the terrorists in Israel who target civilian buses, killing the riders indiscriminately, have chosen our own city buses as their target to place ads denouncing Israel, the only democracy in the middle east.

demistify

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 10:04 p.m.

This is undoubtedly hate speech. Whether it qualifies as free speech is not so clear (the zealots of the ACLU notwithstanding). The Supreme Court has issued many rulings as to public expression and displays that can be barred on grounds of public safety and decency, from the classical shouting &quot;Fire!&quot; in a crowded theater, to inciting to riot (which extends beyond the orator rallying a mob for violence to taunting decent people to the breaking point), to pornography, etc. I would be deliriously happy about the state of civil rights in the US if I could believe (as the ACLU apparently does) that this is the leading edge of the limits on freedom.

Hannan Lis

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 9:22 p.m.

AATA should be congratulated for having the sense to reject an offensive advertising submitted by those who support bus bombers in Israel and their sponsors. Hundreds of Israelis, both Jews and Muslems have been killed in bus bombings in Israel undertaken by religious fanatics who are never shy about their final objective: removing all Jews from the middle east. It's amazing that supporters of such movements are trying to place ads on Ann Arbor buses in support of indiscriminate homicidal bombers on Israeli buses. Using free speech claims as a shield for their true identity and ultimate aim is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts style and tactics.

average joe

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.

With the revenue from these 'ads' only generating $80,000, which is a mere quarter of one percent of the budget at AATA, one wonders why they have them at all. The AATA will spend far more money in legal costs defending their (wise) decision to not accept the ad.

Macabre Sunset

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.

If the ad defamed any other group, this refusal wouldn't even be controversial. Is this the same group that has besieged an Ann Arbor temple for years?

bedrog

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

The ad was sick...pure and simple--and seems to have been designed with the same aesthetic as those who tatooed jesse james ( sandra Bullock's ex) or his pornstar gilrfriend. And it was submitted to the AATA by one of A2's most notorious antisemites, the cynically disingenuous comments here notwitstanding . Good call ,AATA, as approving even a milder version would guarantee an ideological ad war...something Seattle ( with proposed ads alot less extreme than the current one) wisely avoided recently.

Roadman

Sat, Nov 19, 2011 : 6:52 p.m.

Content neutrality is the key to passing First Amendment muster when the government elects to restrict free speech. If the government does not like the content of the message, the idea itself attempting to be communicated, then it likely runs afoul of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This governmental restriction is impermissible as long as the message itself is not unprotected for other reasons deemed so by the U.S. Supreme Court, e.g. exhorting imminent violence, committing libel etc. On the other hand, a time, place, manner restriction to free speech is constitutionally permissible. If the AATA wishes to reject or restrict legitimate free speech, for instance, to certain buses due to limited ad space, or does not like the color or design of an ad that has been proposed, this is permissible. But if they expressly or impliedly reject the ad because they want to stifle criticism of Israeli governmental policies, then the government likely is in violation of the Free Speech Clause. The chairman of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is a lawyer who should be well-versed in these precepts. The ACLU could have a field day with this case and are probably licking their collective chops.