Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article indymedia回应转移文章
Indymedia indymedia | Before turning to the article, it is worth noting that the issue’s Editorial makes similar allegations about Indymedia UK. |前谈到的文章，值得注意的是，这个问题的社论，使类似的指控约indymedia英国。 “For many of us,” it starts, “a visit to Indymedia UK is a frustrating experience.” “Most exasperating,” it then goes on, “are the countless posts obsessed with the Israel-Palestine conflict, which are telling of some of the political viewpoints we are happy to associate with.” Countless?! “对我们许多人” ，它启动时， “访问indymedia英国是一个令人沮丧的经验。 ” ， “最exasperating ， ”接着， “是无数的职位痴迷与以巴冲突，这是告诉一些的政治观点，我们对此感到高兴联想到与“无数的吗！ Obsessed?!痴迷吗！ Happy to associate with?!!高兴联系？ ！
During the 17 months since it was created in January 2007, the Palestine topic has had an average of less than one feature per month (0.8).在17个月，因为它是建立在2007年1月，巴勒斯坦的话题了，平均不到一个特点，每月（ 0.8 ） 。 While some months had no features at all about or related to Palestine-Israel (Feb 2007, Apr 2007, Sep 2007 etc.), others had two (May 2007, Jul 2007, Oct 2007 and Apr 2008).虽然有些个月没有的特点，在所有有关或相关的巴勒斯坦-以色列（ 2007年2月， 2007年4月， 2007年9月等） ，其他有两个（ 2007年5月， 2007年7月， 2007年10月和2008年4月） 。 Some of these were UK features, which appeared on the UK startpage, whilst some were only regional (eg about local protests or actions) which appeared on regional IMCs startpages.一些这些都是英国的特点，出现在英国起始页，而有些人只区域（例如对本地的抗议或行动）出现的区域法团校董会的startpages 。 The topic also attracted around 45 posts per month on average (ranging between 27 and 61, depending on the political weather in Palestine-Israel).这个专题也吸引了周围的45个职位的平均每月（介乎27和61 ，这取决于政治的天气在巴勒斯坦-以色列） 。 The only exception was March 2008 (after the escalations in Gaza), which saw 84 posts.唯一的例外是2008年3月（后升级在加沙地带） ，看到84个员额。 March 2008 was the only month when about 11% of all posts published on Indymedia UK had the Palestine topic ticked (84 out of 763). 2008年3月是唯一的一个月时，约11 ％的所有帖子发表的indymedia ，英国对巴勒斯坦的话题分（ 84走出763 ） 。 For all other months since January 2007, the percentage was somewhere between 5% and 10%.对于所有其他个月以来， 2007年1月，这个比率是某处之间的5 ％和10 ％ 。
Although the editorial admits that the “conflict in the Middle East” is “one of the major atrocities of our time, as the lives of ordinary Palestinians are being destroyed by the bulldozers of a well-equipped army,” it claims that “the issues that are driving this conflict” are “nationalism, religion [and] imperialism.” So the Palestinian liberation struggle is merely motivated by nationalistic and/or religious issues?虽然社论承认， “在中东冲突”是“其中一个主要的暴行，我们的时间，作为生命的普通巴勒斯坦人被摧毁，由推土机一个设备完善的军队， ”它宣称： “问题是驾驶这场冲突“是”民族主义，宗教[和]帝国主义“ ，使巴勒斯坦的解放斗争，只是出于民族主义和/或宗教的问题？ And the discriminatory and repressive Israeli policies are simply “imperialism”?和歧视和镇压以色列的政策根本是“帝国主义” ？
“But to have a radical critique of those issues,” the piece continues, “we need to see beyond Israel=evil and Palestine=good.” While no one in Indymedia is advocating or endorsing such simplistic views, there a is big danger in equating the oppressor and the oppressed. “但有一个激进的批判这些问题， ”一块继续说： “我们需要看到超越以色列=邪恶和巴勒斯坦=好”虽然没有人在indymedia是鼓吹或认同这种简单化的看法，有一个是大的危险等同于压迫者和被压迫者。 As a colonial, racist state, Israel, as a state/system/project, is inherently evil, in the same way that we say capitalism or imperialism is evil.作为一个殖民地，种族主义国家，以色列，作为一个国家/系统/项目，是内在的邪恶，在相同的方式，我们说，资本主义，还是帝国主义是邪恶的。 And the victims’ self-defence methods, however ‘uncivilised’, cannot be just dismissed because they do not fit our Western (liberal) activist models, when resistance for them often means fighting for their very survival.和受害者的自卫方法，然而' uncivilised ' ，不能只是被解雇，因为他们不符合我们的西部（自由）活动家模型，当阻力为他们常常意味着争取它们的生存。 “Mostly, however,” the editors then claim, “the opinions presented on Indymedia make the problems of the world seem like one big Jewish conspiracy,” ignoring the fact that such views are so obviously racist/reductionist and have been consistently challenged and hidden on Indymedia. “大多不过， ”编辑，然后声称， “意见，对indymedia ，使问题的世界好像一个大的犹太阴谋， ”无视事实，这种看法是如此明显的种族主义/简化，并已一贯的挑战和隐患对indymedia 。
Finally, the editors ask this loaded question, “What makes Indymedia UK so appealing to conspiracy theorists?” and argue that “it’s not just the open publishing format” but, rather, “it’s the familiarity of the view that the world is run by a few multinationals, Americans and Israelis.”最后，编辑问这个装货的问题， “什么使indymedia英国，所以呼吁阴谋论？ ”和认为“它不只是公开出版格式” ，而是“它的熟悉认为，世界是由少数跨国公司，美国人和以色列人“ 。
Indeed, conspiracy theories take a lot of activists’ energy and could be ‘harmful’, in the sense that they paint the ‘movement’ in a bad/mad way (as if its image, without that, is so clean and shiny!).事实上，阴谋论，采取了很多积极分子'能源和可'有害' ，在意识，他们涂料的'运动'在一个坏/疯狂的方式（如形象，不这样做，是如此的清洁和光泽！ ） 。 But it is crucial to remember that, in face of the states’ and mainstream media’s relentless efforts to conceal the truth, people, and especially activists, often find themselves forced to contemplate, speculate and doubt what they are being sold, because they have lost, over the years, all faith in what those in power tell them to believe to justify their crimes.但关键是要记住，在面对各国和主流媒体的不懈努力，隐瞒真相，人们，尤其是积极分子，经常发现自己被迫争议，猜测和怀疑，他们所出售的，因为他们失去了，这么多年来，所有的信念是什么当政者，告诉他们相信，以证明其罪行。 Conspiracy theories are thus an ‘act of resistance’.阴谋论，因此，一'法的阻力。 To argue that ‘we’ do not really need them to act and that they would not add anything ‘we’ do not already know, is ignoring the sad reality that people usually do not act out of general moral criticisms; they often need something shocking and disturbing to get off their bums.争辩说'我们'并不真正需要他们的行为和他们不会有任何补充'我们'不已经知道的那样，是忽略了可悲的现实，人们通常不采取行动，走出一般的道德批评，他们往往需要一些令人震惊和令人不安的下车，他们的烧伤。
It is important to stress here that Indymedia does reject all racially based conspiracy theories (eg ‘Jews control the world’, ‘Jews or Arabs did 9/11′ and the like).这是很重要的在这里强调， indymedia是否拒绝所有的基于种族的阴谋论（例如： '犹太人控制世界' ， '犹太人或阿拉伯人9 / 11 '等） 。 To argue whether 9/11 or the Iraq war were planned or utilised by some cynical politicians and intelligence services is a totally different argument.争论是否9 / 11或伊拉克战争计划或利用一些玩世不恭的政治家和情报服务是一个完全不同的说法。 After all, history is full of cases like this and it’s not like it hasn’t happened before and won’t happen again and again as long as a few morally corrupt and money-driven individuals and institutions have so much power over people’s lives.毕竟，历史是充分的案件一样，这和它的不喜欢，也没有发生过，并不会出现一而再，再而只要数在道义上的腐败和金钱驱动的个人和机构有这么多权力的人奇摩的生命。
Unprofessional专业
Turning to the article itself, the first thing one notices is its provocative and misleading title.至于文章本身，第一件事，一告示，是其挑衅性和误导性的标题。 It employs the largely Western mainstream media-constructed image of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and suggests that Indymedia blindly supports it.它采用了主要的西方主流媒体兴建的形象，哈马斯作为一个恐怖组织，并建议indymedia盲目支持。 The second bit of the title declares, without any evidence throughout the article, that Indymedia is “losing support” and promises its readers of explaining the reason, which does not really happen.第二位的标题宣称，没有任何证据，整个文章，认为indymedia是“失去支持”的承诺，其读者解释原因，这并没有真正发生。
“Go Hamas, Go!!!” “走出去哈马斯，去！ ” was, in fact, the title of a comment on an article published on Indymedia UK [是，事实上，标题评论对上发表的一篇文章indymedia英国[ 2二 ] about the ‘darkness scenes’ (candle-lit meetings) staged by the Hamas-led Palestinian government to highlight the suffering of Gazans due to the siege and sanctions imposed by Israel earlier this year. ]关于'黑暗场面' （蜡烛点燃了会议）由哈马斯为首的巴勒斯坦政府强调的苦难，由于加沙的围困和施加的制裁以色列今年早些时候。 The comment basically says that it is legitimate for Hamas to “utilise [Israel’s] war crime as a backdrop for a photoshoot.”评论说，基本上，这是合法的哈马斯，以“善用[以色列的战争犯罪作为一个大背景下为photoshoot ” 。
The SHIFT article starts with a quote by Naomi Klein that goes, “Every time I log on to activist news sites like Indymedia.org which practise ‘open publishing’, I am confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about September 11 and excerpts from the Protocol of the Elders of Zion.” While Klein is not actually talking about Indymedia UK but the global Indymedia site, which has far less and less active volunteers and moderators, as well as Open Publishing in general, it is worth noting that the quote is from an转移的文章开头引用了由娜欧蜜克莱说，有云： “每一次我登录到活动家新闻网站一样， indymedia.org实行公开出版' ，我面临着一连串的犹太阴谋论9月11日和摘录该议定书的长者锡安“ ，而克莱因其实不是谈论indymedia英国，但全球indymedia网站，具有深远的越来越少，活跃的志愿者和版主，以及公开出版的一般，值得注意的是，报价是从1 article文章 published in The Guardian back in 2002 [发表在卫早在2002年[ 3三 ]. ] 。 It is, indeed, one of Open Publishing’s problems that contributors can post all kind of rubbish, but whether the admin collective endorse, or tolerate, that or not is a totally different question.它确实是一开放出版的问题，捐助者可以张贴所有种垃圾，但是否赞同政府当局的集体，或容忍，或不完全是一种不同的问题。
The first parts of the SHIFT article ‘borrow’ extensively from an Indymedia UK第一部分的转变，文章'借用'广泛，从1 indymedia英国 feature特征 [ 4四 ] on the ‘Atzmon-Greenstein affair’, which the article discusses in some detail drawing on that feature. ]对' atzmon -格林斯坦内政' ，而本文论述了在一些详图就这一功能。 It is, however, surprising and unprofessional of the author that it does not mention the feature.然而，它令人惊讶的和专业的作者，它没有提及该功能。 The reason is perhaps best understood when one tracks down the ideological/editorial twists in the article and the differences between it and the feature.原因是，也许最好的理解，当一个轨道下降的思想/编辑曲折，在文章中和之间的分歧，它和功能。
Misleading误导
Without any warrant or hesitation, the author declares from the beginning that “in the past few months the site Indymedia.org.uk has lost support from many activists for letting anti-Semitic posts go unchallenged.” Not only does the author not cite any evidence that Indymedia UK has “lost support”, s/he also claims, without giving any examples, that “anti-Semitic posts” went “unchallenged”.在没有任何保证或犹豫，作者宣称从一开始就认为， “在过去数个月的网站indymedia.org.uk已失去支持，许多活动家，让反犹太主义的职位去质疑” ，不仅没有作者没有举出任何证据表明， indymedia英国已“失去支持” ，他/她还声称，没有给予任何的例子，即“反犹太主义的职位”到“质疑” 。
The average for hidden posts out of all posts published with the Palestine topic ticked is 12% (95 out of 811 for the period Feb 2007-Apr 2008).平均为隐藏的职位，退出所有职位，出版与巴勒斯坦的话题分是12 ％ （ 95出811期为2007年2月- 2008年4月） 。 This is more or less the same as with other topics, such as Iraq (also 12%), and is not very far from the UK hiding average (19%), taking into account that a lot of spammers (mere links, commercial ads, announcements etc.) usually use the UK publish form and do not always tick topics.这是更多或更少，同时作为与其他议题，例如伊拉克（也占12 ％ ） ，而不是很远，来自英国的藏匿平均（ 19 ％ ） ，同时考虑到有很多垃圾邮件发送者（仅仅是链接，商业广告，公告等） ，通常使用英国出版的形式和并不总是剔主题。
The only instance the article mentions is Gilad Atzmon’s controversial article “Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath”, which generated a lot of discussion and disagreement exactly because moderators could not agree that it was anti-Semitic.唯一的，例如文章中提到的对手是atzmon争议的文章“ ，说没有向猎人的巨人” ，产生了很多的讨论和分歧，正是因为版主不能同意，这是反犹主义者。
A few lines later, the author again claims that “the Atzmon affair, as it has become known, led to heated discussions, personal accusations, and a loss of credibility for UK Indymedia amongst some of its moderators, in activist circles and even in the wider leftist movement.” Could it just be the case that the author him/herself is generalising, or projecting, his/her own opinion onto the “wider leftist movement”?几行后，作者再次声称： “ atzmon内政，因为它已成为众所周知的，导致了热烈的讨论，个人的指控，丧失信誉，为英国indymedia当中，它的一些版主，在活动家和各界人士，即使在更广泛的左派运动“ 。难道只是个案，就是作者对他/她是generalising ，或预测，他/她自己的意见上”更广泛的左派运动“ ？
The article then continues with some distortion and/or misrepresentation of what happened: “At the height of the affair, three active Indymedia moderators resigned from the collective [they were, in fact, two; the third had nothing to do with this affair] giving many readers [which readers?] the impression that the obsession [what obsession?] with the Palestine-Israel conflict had gained the upper hand [how exactly?文章然后继续与一些失真和/或失实陈述，到底发生了什么： “在高度的内政，三，积极indymedia版主辞职，由集体[他们，事实上，两个;第三无关，与这件事]让许多读者[读者？ ]的印象是，痴迷[念念不忘的是什么？ ]与巴以冲突得到了占了上风[究竟如何呢？ Wasn’t the issue anti-Semitism?].”是不是问题反犹太主义？ ] “ 。
As a retraction, perhaps, the author then admits that “Indymedia.org.uk has been the target for anti-Semitic posts before and many have been hidden straight away with reference to the guidelines.” However, s/he follows that with another misrepresentation: “In this latest affair however the guidelines did not seem conclusive enough to judge what is anti-Semitism and what isn’t.” Again, the author fails to grasp the fact that the racism guideline already covers anti-Semitism but the issue here was that not all moderators agreed that the article was anti-Semitic, and hence racist.作为一个退缩，也许，作者，然后承认， “ indymedia.org.uk一直的目标，反犹太主义的职位之前，和许多人被隐藏的直线距离与参考指引” ，但他/她跟随与另一失实的陈述： “在这个最新的内政，但该指引似乎没有定论，足以判断什么是反犹太主义和什么是不”再次，作者未能掌握的事实，即种族主义的指引，已经涵盖了反犹太主义，但问题在这里，是不是所有的版主一致认为，这篇文章的反犹太主义，因此，种族主义者。
The article then dedicates a 6-paragraph section to discuss “The Atzmon Affair”.文章然后专6段第讨论“ atzmon的内政” 。 The ’summary’, however, is clearly biased and misrepresenting (it is worth comparing it with the Indymedia feature mentioned above). [摘要' ，不过，显然是偏颇和歪曲（这是值得比较，它与indymedia功能如上所述） 。 For example, the author (intentionally?) misinterprets a statement by Atzmon, which s/he wrongly ascribes to an audio interview conducted by a UK Indymedia activist (it is actually from an article by Atzmon entitled举例来说，作者（故意？ ）曲解的声明atzmon ，他/她错赋予的音频进行面试由一名英国indymedia活动家（它实际上是从一篇文章，题为atzmon “On Anti-Semitism” “反犹太主义” , published in December 2003 [刊登在2003年12月[ 5五 ]). ] ） 。 The quote reads: “There is no anti-Semitism any more.报价写着： “有没有反犹太主义的任何更多。 In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-Semitism has been replaced by political reaction.” The author claims that, by this statement, Atzmon, “once again, affirmed that the hatred of Jews and Israel is simply caused by themselves,” without explaining to us how “political reaction” to Israel is the same as “hatred of Jews”.在破坏性的现实所产生的犹太国家，反犹太主义已取代政治反应“ 。作者称，通过这项声明， atzmon ， ”再次申明，仇恨犹太人和以色列只不过是自己所造成的， “没有解释我们如何”政治反应“以色列是一样的”仇恨犹太人“ 。
Lies?谎言？
In a section supposedly about the “Resignations and resolution attempts” (following the Atzmon-Greenstein spat), the author claims that “many more articles appeared, some promoted, some not, that attempted to prove that Jews had built ‘the last openly racist state on the planet’ or that ‘the situation of the Palestinians is little different than the situation of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII’.” A few lines later, s/he adds, “Blog reposts about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict multiplied and have since taken up a large part of the newswire.” But since the author does not reference any of these “many more articles” that were allegedly so obviously racist but were not only kept showing but also promoted, it is difficult to respond to such allegations.在一节假定有关“辞职和决议的企图” （继atzmon -格林斯坦吐口水） ，作者声称： “许多更多文章出现，促进了一些，有些不是，企图证明犹太人建立了'最后公开的种族主义国家对地球'或'的情况，巴勒斯坦人是有点不同，比犹太人的情况，在华沙犹太人区在二战期间“ 。几行后，他/她补充说， ”博客reposts关于巴以冲突乘以并自采取了一个大型的一部分，该社“ ，但由于作者并没有提到任何这些”多条“据称，如此明显的种族主义，但不是只有不断显示，但也促进了，是很难作出回应这类指控。
In the period between 14 Feb and 31 Mar 2008, there were 220 posts on Israel-Palestine.在这段期间2月14日和2008年3月31日，共有220个员额对以色列-巴勒斯坦问题。 Of these, 31 were IMEMC reports, 22 on UK actions and events and 12 reports from inside Palestine.这些， 31人imemc报道， 22日对英国的行动和事件的12份报告，由巴勒斯坦内部。 That’s almost 30% and most of these were promoted/promotable.这几乎占30 ％ ，大部分这些被提拔/ promotable 。 Some 65 appear to come from a persistent disinformation troll and were mostly hidden; another 30 were posted by a user who posts a lot of Israle-Palestine material to Indymedia sites worldwide, usually reposts of corporate coverage with commentary; and 13 were complaints about moderation, which should take place on the moderation list.大约65个看似来自一个持久造谣Troll公司和大多隐藏;另一个有30人张贴由用户谁的职位有很多israle -巴勒斯坦材料indymedia全球网站，通常reposts公司的覆盖范围与评论;和13人投诉放缓，其中应考虑的地方，就温和的名单。 Together these three categories constitute almost 50% of the total.连同这三类构成几乎总额的50 ％ 。 The rest (20%) was divided between Latuff cartoons, commentaries and reposts from blogs or other media.其余的（ 20 ％ ）分之间latuff漫画，评论和reposts从博客或其他媒体。 So the claim that “blog reposts […] have since taken up a large part of the newswire” is totally unfounded.因此，声称“博客reposts [ … … ]自那时以来所采取的占了很大的一部分，该社”是完全没有根据的。
As to the two quotes above (still without any referencing or context), the first is apparently from an至于两个引号以上（还没有任何参照或上下文） ，第一次显然是从一 article文章 [ 6六 ] about the Israeli policy in Gaza, which the author says is “as evil as it is self-defeating”. ]关于以色列的政策在加沙，作者说是“邪恶，因为这是弄巧成拙” 。 The article is reposted from a blog called文章是收到从博客的所谓 “The Vineyard of the Saker” “葡萄园的saker ” [ 7七 ] by someone describing him/herself as “a ‘legal alien’ currently living in the Imperial Homeland.” The context within which the quote appears is this: “The main, over-arching, issue Israel, as a self-described “Jewish state”, is facing today is not terrorism or Iranian nukes but demographics. ] ，有人形容他/她“ '法律的外国人'目前居住在帝国的家园”的背景下，其中引述似乎是这样的： “主要的，过度拱，以色列的问题，作为一种自我描述的”犹太国家“ ，是今天所面临的不是恐怖主义或伊朗的核武器，但人口统计数据。 Israel, as the last openly racist state on the planet, considers it vital to keep a Jewish majority within its borders.以色列，作为最后的公开种族主义国家对地球，认为它非常重要的保持犹太人的多数在其边界内。 This is why a council of rabbis gets to decide who qualifies as “Jew” and who does not, and why the so-called law of return makes any Jew on the planet eligible for relocation to Israel and Israeli citizenship (even if this Jew is non-religious, does not speak Hebrew or Yiddish, and does not care in the least about Israel) while those Arabs who were born in today’s Israel and who were expelled from their homes and towns are not allowed to return even though such a right is enshrined in international law.” This is hardly racist or anti-Semitic unless one regards any criticism of Israel’s racial policies as racism.这就是为什么安理会拉比得到来决定谁的资格为“犹太人”和谁不，为什么那些所谓回归法作出任何犹太人于这个星球的资格搬迁到以色列和以色列公民身份（即使这是犹太人非宗教，不说话希伯来语或意第绪语，不照顾，在至少对以色列） ，而那些阿拉伯人谁出生在今天的以色列和谁被驱逐从各自的家中和城镇是不容许的回报，即使这种权利是体现在国际法上“ ，这是很难的种族主义或反犹主义者，除非有人对于任何批评以色列的种族政策，作为种族主义。
The second quote is from a short第二次报价是从短期 comment评论 [ 8八 ] on an article about the UN condemning the Israeli collective punishment of Gaza (the brutal siege and sanctions). ]对一篇文章，关于联合国的谴责以色列的集体惩罚加沙（野蛮围困和制裁） 。 The comment says that “the situation of the Palestinians in Gaza (and even in the West Bank) is little different than the situation of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during WWII.” Now this might be an exaggeration and it is not really funny seeing people ‘competing for victimhood’, but ‘monopolising victimhood’ the way Zionists do, for example, is not funny either (see the following comments on the same thread).评论说： “局势的巴勒斯坦人在加沙地带（甚至在约旦河西岸）是有点不同，比的情况犹太人，在华沙犹太人区在二战期间” ，现在这可能是一种夸张，这是不是真的看到搞笑人民'的竞争受害者' ，但'垄断受害者'的方式犹太复国主义者这样做，举例来说，是不搞笑要么（见以下的评论就同一线程） 。
It is worth noting that both articles/comments were published in January 2008, ie during the Israeli siege of Gaza and the worldwide protests condemning it.值得注意的是，双方的文章/评论发表在2008年1月，即在以色列围攻加沙和世界各地的抗议活动，谴责它。 So, to respond to the SHIFT article’s complaint that posts about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict “multiplied”, this can be explained as the site users’ reacting to world political events, which is pretty normal and true of all other topics on Indymedia UK.因此，要回应的转变，文章的投诉，指员额约巴以冲突“乘以” ，这可以解释随着该网站的用户作出反应，世界的政治事件，这是相当正常的和真正的所有其他议题indymedia英国。
That month (January 2008), the Palestine topic saw 51 posts, slightly above the average (45).本月（ 2008年1月） ，巴勒斯坦的话题看到51个职位，略高于平均（ 45 ） 。 The number increased steadily during the following months, with the Gaza crisis unfolding and protests taking place throughout the world, culminating in 84 posts for March 2008.人数稳步增加，在随后的几个月里，与加沙地带的危机展开的抗议正在发生的整个世界，最终在84个员额为2008年3月。 The same is probably true for comments but, unfortunately, we do not have any statistics for these at the moment to back that up.同时可能是真正的评论，但不幸的是，我们没有任何统计数字，这些目前以收回。
The SHIFT article then goes on to complain that “comments such as ‘Long live Palestine’ or even ‘Go Hamas Go’ were no longer hidden,” without enlightening us when they used to get hidden and why they should be.转移的文章接着就抱怨“的意见，如'巴勒斯坦万岁' ，甚至'去哈马斯去'不再隐藏， ”没有启发我们，当他们用来取得隐藏的，为什么他们应该的。 As mentioned above, the “Go Hamas Go” comment mainly argued that it is legitimate for Hamas to “utilise [Israel’s] war crime as a backdrop for a photoshoot.” It does not suggest any support for Hamas or cheering for the killing of Israelis.正如上文所述， “走出去哈马斯”的评论，主要是认为它是合法的哈马斯以“善用[以色列的战争犯罪作为一个大背景下为photoshoot 。 ”这并不意味着任何人支持哈马斯或欢呼，为被杀害以色列人。 As to the SHIFT author’s rant about Hamas, one can probably only raise eyebrows at how a supposedly radical, alternative writer in a supposedly radical, alternative magazine could reiterate such mainstream propaganda crap, with a typical Western activist’s patronising value-judgement that takes ‘others’ struggles out of their political/historical contexts.至于转移作者的rant约哈马斯，人们可以大概只有提高眉毛，在如何假定激进，另类的作家在一个假定激进，另类杂志可重申这样的主流宣传crap ，与一个典型的西方活动家的光顾价值判断采取'其他'的斗争，指出他们的政治/历史背景。
The second ‘worrying’ quote第二个'令人担忧的'引 (”Long live Palestine”) （ “巴勒斯坦万岁” ） [ 9九 ] seems to come from a ‘Western’ activist and merely concludes with that slogan (almost like a signature) after congratulating the author of a report (incidentally about an Atzmon event in Brighton) on the “great summing up of the background to this latest debacle in Greenstein’s vicious campaign.” ]似乎来自一个'西方'活动家和得出结论，只是与口号（几乎就像一个签字）后，祝贺的作者的一份报告（顺便约一atzmon事件在布赖顿）对“大总结的背景，这一最新的格林斯坦在崩溃的恶性运动“ 。
The article further claims that “many” of these comments “were posted [by] agitators based in Canada and the US, who have recognised Indymedia UK’s willingness to host their posts.” Besides asking the author how did s/he got to know this, given the near-total anonymity of posters on Indymedia, one cannot help wondering what s/he understands from Open Publishing?文章进一步声称， “许多”这些意见“张贴[ ]煽动者总部设在加拿大和美国，谁承认indymedia英国的愿意主办他们的职位。 ”除了要求作者怎么他/她到了知道这一点，鉴于近全不愿透露姓名的海报就indymedia ，一不能不禁要问，是什么他/她了解，从公开出版呢？
“‘Nazimedia’?”? “ nazimedia ” ？ ？
In fact, the author does appear to understand that well but seems to have other things in mind.事实上，在作者看来要明白，良好，但似乎有其他的东西，在铭记。 In a section provocatively titled “Nazimedia”?, s/he declares, “It thus became evident that the problem did not just lie with the open publishing format.在一节挑衅名为“ nazimedia ”吗，他/她宣称， “因此，它成为可见问题并不只是在于公开出版的格式。 Some Indymedia activists began to pursue an agenda that belittled anti-Semitism.” And what is this agenda that “belittled anti-Semitism”?一些indymedia活动家开始追求一个议程，贬低反犹太主义“ ，这是什么议程， ”贬低反犹太主义“呢？ Well, the publishing of a feature about the siege on Gaza titled那么，出版的一个特点有关的围困加沙地带的标题 “Israel keeps its promise of a ‘Holocaust’ in Gaza” “以色列不断的承诺， '大屠杀'在加沙” [ 10 10月 ]. ] 。
But before we go into that, it is worth mentioning that the total number of Palestine-related features during the 17 months since the topic was created is 15 out of 134 UK startpage features or, more accurately, out of 324 UK and regional features.但之前，我们到这一点，值得一提的是总数的巴勒斯坦相关的功能，在17个月以来的主题是创造，是15出134英国起始页的特点，或者更准确，出324 ，英国和区域特点。 That is just 4.6%.这只是4.6 ％ 。 In comparison, the Iraq topic, for example, has received 20 features during the same period.相较之下，伊拉克的话题，例如，已经收到了20个功能在同一时期。
The feature’s title was somehow turned in the article to “Israel keeps its promise of a Holocaust upon the Palestinians”.该功能的标题是有点把在文章中以“以色列不断的承诺，大屠杀后，巴勒斯坦人” 。 Not only is this a careless mistake, the omission of the quotation marks surrounding the word “Holocaust” -which indicate the feature’s authors’ reservation and the fact that it was the word used by Israeli deputy Defense Minister threatening Palestinians before the escalation in Gaza in February this year- that omission might well be ill-intended and in line with the image the author has been trying to paint of Indymedia UK throughout the article.这不仅是一不小心的错误，遗漏了引号周围的字“大屠杀” -这表明该功能的作者保留和事实，即它是所用的字眼是由以色列国防部副部长威胁的巴勒斯坦人之前的升级加沙地带在今年二月，即遗漏，很可能是不明智的打算，并符合形象，作者一直在试图涂料indymedia英国整个的文章。 The full paragraph where this is explained in the feature reads: “On February 29th, the Israeli deputy Defense Minister provoked outrage after threatening Palestinians with a “holocaust”.充分段的地方，这是解释的功能如下： “就2月29日，以色列国防部副部长挑起的愤怒威胁后，巴勒斯坦人与一个”大屠杀“ 。 Matan Vilnai told the Israeli army radio that “the more [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” The same twisted logic is used by the far-right and Holocaust deniers to blame Jewish people for the Nazi Holocaust.” matan vilnai告诉以色列军方电台说： “更多[火箭]消防加剧和火箭队达成一个较长的范围内，他们[巴勒斯坦]将带来自己更大的大屠杀，因为我们将使用我们所有的可能，以保卫自己” 。同时，扭曲的逻辑是：所用的极右派和大屠杀deniers归咎于犹太人民为纳粹大屠杀“ 。
The article (intentionally?) misrepresents both what happened in Gaza and the feature itself.文章（故意？ ）歪曲双方所发生的事情在加沙和功能本身。 The feature, it claims, “argued that Israel’s deadly military raids aimed at some Hamas officials and Gaza gunmen amounted to plans to unleash a ‘Holocaust’ and a ‘full-scale war’ on Palestine.” It also does not support with any evidence its claim that the feature was published “despite obvious discontent amongst many Indymedia users.” The feature was的特点，它声称， “有人认为以色列的致命的军事行动，目的是在一些哈马斯官员和加沙地带的武装分子达计划释放'大屠杀'和'全面战争'关于巴勒斯坦问题” 。它也没有与支持任何证据证明其声称的特点，发表了“尽管很明显的不满，其中许多indymedia用户”功能 proposed建议 on 4 March 2008 [对2008年3月4日[ 11十一 ] and not a single objection or reservation was posted to the imc-uk-features list, so it was published the following day after the usual 24 hours waiting period. ] ，而不是一个单一的反对或保留意见是张贴到IMC -英国-功能列表，所以这是出版翌日后，一般24小时的等候期。 Of course, the feature, like anything else about Palestine, did attract quite a few comments later on (36 in total), 10 of which were hidden as complaints about moderation, which should take place on the moderation list, or simply because they were abusive or discriminatory, which breach the Editorial Guidelines.当然，功能，像其他任何关于巴勒斯坦，却吸引了不少意见，稍后（ 36 ，在总） ， 10 ，其中隐藏的投诉，中庸，其中应考虑的地方，就温和的名单，或者干脆因为他们虐待或歧视性，违反编辑指南。
The suggestion in the subtitle that Indymedia has become or is becoming “Nazimedia” is cheap and defamatory, to say the least.建议在副标题说， indymedia已成为或正在成为“ nazimedia ”是廉价的和诽谤性的，至少可以这样说。 To put that word in quotation marks and follow it with a question mark does not really spare the author or editors the responsibility, especially that none of the comments, showing or hidden, on that particular feature used the word “Nazimedia”, although it has been used by some把这个词在引号，并按照它与一个问号并没有真正备件的作者或编辑的责任，尤其是没有评论，显示或隐藏，就这一特定功能使用的单词“ nazimedia ” ，虽然它一直采用一些 trolls巨魔 in the past [在过去的[ 12十二 ]. ] 。 And despite ‘assuring’ readers that “Indymedia Uk is not run by a collective of anti-Semites”, the article further claims that the collective has tried to “redefine the Holocaust” and that comments supporting that “remained on the newswire”, while “all complaints were hidden within minutes.”尽管'保证'的读者认为“ indymedia ，英国是不是由一个集体的反闪米特人” ，文章进一步声称，集体曾试图“重新界定大屠杀”和评论，支持“留在社” ，而“所有的投诉都是隐藏在几分钟内” 。
It is also worth noting that most of these allegations/accusations were posted by well known trolls/disinfo agents who get hidden straight away all the time.这也是值得注意的是，大部分的这些指控/指控张贴人所共知的巨魔/ disinfo代理商谁获得隐藏的直线距离，所有的时间。 So the whole theory in the article that Indymedia UK has “lost support” seems to be based on hidden disinfo posts and comments (see the Atzmon-Greenstein feature mentioned above for more details).因此，整个理论在文章中指出， indymedia英国已“失去支持”似乎是基于隐藏disinfo职位和评论（见atzmon -格林斯坦功能如上所述，了解更多详情） 。 As an edited print magazine, the editors of SHIFT and the author of the article haven’t probably had much experience with full-time trolls and organised disinformation campaigns, which they simply dismiss as another conspiracy theory by some Indymedia admins with a secret agenda!作为一个杂志编辑打印，编辑的转变和文章作者有没有可能有很多的经验和完整的时间，巨魔和有组织的造谣宣传，他们根本解雇的另一个阴谋论的一些indymedia管理员与秘密议程！
Yes, really, what is anti-Semitism?是的，真的，什么是反犹太主义呢？
Towards the end of the article, the author contends that there is “nothing new” about the allegations against Indymedia admins of “being blind to anti-Semitrism.” S/he further concludes that “the Indymedia UK collective is unlikely to agree whether Atzmon or Latuff are anti-semitic” and that “in many ways it would be a futile endeavour.” More important, s/he continues, “is the question why controversial and provocative posts that compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany find their way onto Indymedia newswires in the first place” and “what attracts anti-semites to the website?”在接近年底的文章，作者认为，有“无新意”关于指控indymedia管理员的“盲反semitrism 。 ”他/她进一步得出结论认为， “ indymedia英国的集体是不可能同意是否atzmon或latuff是反犹太主义“ ， ”在许多方面将是徒劳的努力“ 。更重要的是，他/她继续说： ”问题是，为什么争议性和挑衅性的职位比较，以色列的政策对那些纳粹德国找到出路上indymedia通讯社摆在首位“和”是什么吸引了反闪米特人到网站“ ？
After repeating the problem with Open Publishing and that the Editorial Guidelines might not be “up to date with current developments in radical politics,” s/he has this to say: “Sadly, Indymedia offers a platform to invent caricutures of the Israeli state and of its policies.之后重复的问题与开放的出版和编辑指南未必“直至目前为止，与目前的事态发展，在激进的政治” ，他/她有这样说： “可悲的是， indymedia提供了一个平台，以发明caricutures的以色列国和它的政策。 Instead of recognising the political context, it helps to perpetuate an image of Israel, and of Jews, as sinister conspirators with a secret plan to turn the worlds into one massive settlement.” Really?!而不是承认的政治背景，它有助于延续的形象，以色列和犹太人，险恶的阴谋与秘密计划把世界变成一个大规模的解决办法。 “真的吗！ Where did Indymedia UK do that other than some anti-Semitic posts that get “immediately hidden or deleted”, in the author’s own words.哪里indymedia英国这样做以外的其他一些反犹太主义的职位得到“立即隐藏或删除” ，在作者自己的话。
Perhaps the author of the article, along with the SHIFT editors, need to sit down (after也许是文章作者，随着转移的编辑，需要坐下来（后 publicising their magazine on Indymedia!宣传他们的杂志上indymedia ！ [ 13十三 ]) and reread the ‘Holocaust’ and Atzmon features carefully without prejugements and hasty accusations. ] ）和重读'大屠杀'和atzmon特点仔细没有prejugements和草率的指责。 Or better even, post their complaints to the appropriate lists and join the collective discussions about what is anti-Semitism and what is Zionism and how to deal with them.或更好，甚至，他们的投诉后，以适当的名单和参加集体讨论什么是反犹太主义和什么是犹太复国主义和如何处理他们。
Notes:注释：
[ 1 ] ： http://www.shiftmag.co.uk . 。 The full text of the article is available here该文章的全文是可在这里 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398746.html?c=on#c196133 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398746.html?c=on ＃ c196133
[ 2二 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/390275.html?c=on#c188459 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/390275.html?c=on ＃ c188459
[ 3三 ] ： http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/25/comment.guardiancolumnists
[ 4四 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392188.html
[ 5五 ] ： http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html http://www.gilad.co.uk/html ％ 20files/onanti.html
[ 6六 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389886.html
[ 7七 ] ： http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com
[ 8八 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389757.html?c=on#c187974 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389757.html?c=on ＃ c187974
[ 9九 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388930.html?c=on#c187195 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388930.html?c=on ＃ c187195
[ 10 10月 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/393065.html
[ 11十一 ] ： http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-March/0304-cv.html http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2008-march/0304-cv.html
[ 12十二 ] ： http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-it-called-nazimedia_12.html
[ 13十三 ] ： http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/398746.html
[14] All the site statistics and figures above were gathered by IMC UK techies on 20 May, 2008, for the purpose of this article. [ 14 ]的所有网站的统计和数字以上所收集的法团校董会的英国技术人员对2008年5月20日，本文的目的。
See More: 看到更多的： UK News 英国新闻Have Your Say: Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article 你说： indymedia回应转移文章
Please note, only selected comments will be published.请注意，只有选定的评论将出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或讨论这个报告在我们的我们的新论坛
This entry was posted on Monday, May 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm and is filed under 此项目被张贴在周一， 2008年5月26日在下午8时54分，并提交下 General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反应，此项目通过 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 喂养。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回应 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 从你自己的网站。
Free Newsletter 免费通讯 
Related News 相关新闻
- Attempted citizen’s arrest on Ken Livingstone企图公民的逮捕对利文斯通
- Indymedia and Anti-Semitism indymedia和反犹太主义
- DEPLETED URANIUM Outrage is Sweeping Hawai’i贫化铀的愤怒正在席卷夏威夷
- Police Harass a Peaceful Protest警方骚扰的和平抗议
- Police Operation Failed: 1000 people injured警方的行动失败： 1000人受伤
Email This Page To A Friend 电子邮件此页给朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新闻标题
- Amnesty urges next US president to ban torture特赦组织敦促下一任美国总统，禁止酷刑
- Ireland accused of failing on flight rendition爱尔兰被告未对航机飞行的移交逃犯
- Brown: To Be More Than an Accessory to War Crimes布朗：要一个多配件的战争罪行
- UK ready to scrap killer cluster bombs英国准备放弃杀手的集束炸弹
- Report: US cluster bombs were faulty报告：美国集束炸弹故障
- Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs by $6 Trillion伊拉克战争可能会有所增加的能源成本由六○○○○○○○○○○○○美元
- A Real Inside Job; Anthrax一个真正的内就业;炭疽
- Orwellian Ubiquitous Computing?奥威尔普适计算？
- Appeal from Tony Benn / Stop the War Coalition上诉由托尼本/停止战争联盟
- American Psychological Association Supports Torture美国心理协会支持酷刑
More更多 Breaking News突发新闻
Archive 存档
