Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article indymedia回應轉移文章
Indymedia indymedia | Before turning to the article, it is worth noting that the issue’s Editorial makes similar allegations about Indymedia UK. |前談到的文章，值得注意的是，這個問題的社論，使類似的指控約indymedia英國。 “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?! “對我們許多人” ，它啟動時， “訪問indymedia英國是一個令人沮喪的經驗。 ” ， “最exasperating ， ”接著， “是無數的職位痴迷與以巴衝突，這是告訴一些的政治觀點，我們對此感到高興聯想到與“無數的嗎！ Obsessed?!痴迷嗎！ Happy to associate with?!!高興聯繫？ ！
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個月，因為它是建立在2007年1月，巴勒斯坦的話題了，平均不到一個特點，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).雖然有些個月沒有的特點，在所有有關或相關的巴勒斯坦-以色列（ 2007年2月， 2007年4月， 2007年9月等） ，其他有兩個（ 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.一些這些都是英國的特點，出現在英國起始頁，而有些人只區域（例如對本地的抗議或行動）出現的區域法團校董會的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).這個專題也吸引了周圍的45個職位的平均每月（介乎27和61 ，這取決於政治的天氣在巴勒斯坦-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（後升級在加沙地帶） ，看到84個員額。 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月是唯一的一個月時，約11 ％的所有帖子發表的indymedia ，英國對巴勒斯坦的話題分（ 84走出763 ） 。 For all other months since January 2007, the percentage was somewhere between 5% and 10%.對於所有其他個月以來， 2007年1月，這個比率是某處之間的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?雖然社論承認， “在中東衝突”是“其中一個主要的暴行，我們的時間，作為生命的普通巴勒斯坦人被摧毀，由推土機一個設備完善的軍隊， ”它宣稱： “問題是駕駛這場衝突“是”民族主義，宗教[和]帝國主義“ ，使巴勒斯坦的解放鬥爭，只是出於民族主義和/或宗教的問題？ And the discriminatory and repressive Israeli policies are simply “imperialism”?和歧視和鎮壓以色列的政策根本是“帝國主義” ？
“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. “但有一個激進的批判這些問題， ”一塊繼續說： “我們需要看到超越以色列=邪惡和巴勒斯坦=好”雖然沒有人在indymedia是鼓吹或認同這種簡單化的看法，有一個是大的危險等同於壓迫者和被壓迫者。 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.作為一個殖民地，種族主義國家，以色列，作為一個國家/系統/項目，是內在的邪惡，在相同的方式，我們說，資本主義，還是帝國主義是邪惡的。 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.和受害者的自衛方法，然而' uncivilised ' ，不能只是被解僱，因為他們不符合我們的西部（自由）活動家模型，當阻力為他們常常意味著爭取它們的生存。 “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. “大多不過， ”編輯，然後聲稱， “意見，對indymedia ，使問題的世界好像一個大的猶太陰謀， ”無視事實，這種看法是如此明顯的種族主義/簡化，並已一貫的挑戰和隱患對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.”最後，編輯問這個裝貨的問題， “什麼使indymedia英國，所以呼籲陰謀論？ ”和認為“它不只是公開出版格式” ，而是“它的熟悉認為，世界是由少數跨國公司，美國人和以色列人“ 。
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!).事實上，陰謀論，採取了很多積極分子'能源和可'有害' ，在意識，他們塗料的'運動'在一個壞/瘋狂的方式（如形象，不這樣做，是如此的清潔和光澤！ ） 。 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.但關鍵是要記住，在面對各國和主流媒體的不懈努力，隱瞞真相，人們，尤其是積極分子，經常發現自己被迫爭議，猜測和懷疑，他們所出售的，因為他們失去了，這麼多年來，所有的信念是什麼當政者，告訴他們相信，以證明其罪行。 Conspiracy theories are thus an ‘act of resistance’.陰謀論，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.爭辯說'我們'並不真正需要他們的行為和他們不會有任何補充'我們'不已經知道的那樣，是忽略了可悲的現實，人們通常不採取行動，走出一般的道德批評，他們往往需要一些令人震驚和令人不安的下車，他們的燒傷。
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).這是很重要的在這裡強調， indymedia是否拒絕所有的基於種族的陰謀論（例如： '猶太人控制世界' ， '猶太人或阿拉伯人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.爭論是否9 / 11或伊拉克戰爭計劃或利用一些玩世不恭的政治家和情報服務是一個完全不同的說法。 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.畢竟，歷史是充分的案件一樣，這和它的不喜歡，也沒有發生過，並不會出現一而再，再而只要數在道義上的腐敗和金錢驅動的個人和機構有這麼多權力的人奇摩的生命。
Unprofessional專業
Turning to the article itself, the first thing one notices is its provocative and misleading title.至於文章本身，第一件事，一告示，是其挑釁性和誤導性的標題。 It employs the largely Western mainstream media-constructed image of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and suggests that Indymedia blindly supports it.它採用了主要的西方主流媒體興建的形象，哈馬斯作為一個恐怖組織，並建議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.第二位的標題宣稱，沒有任何證據，整個文章，認為indymedia是“失去支持”的承諾，其讀者解釋原因，這並沒有真正發生。
“Go Hamas, Go!!!” “走出去哈馬斯，去！ ” was, in fact, the title of a comment on an article published on Indymedia UK [是，事實上，標題評論對上發表的一篇文章indymedia英國[ 2 ] 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. ]關於'黑暗場面' （蠟燭點燃了會議）由哈馬斯為首的巴勒斯坦政府強調的苦難，由於加沙的圍困和施加的制裁以色列今年早些時候。 The comment basically says that it is legitimate for Hamas to “utilise [Israel’s] war crime as a backdrop for a photoshoot.”評論說，基本上，這是合法的哈馬斯，以“善用[以色列的戰爭犯罪作為一個大背景下為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轉移的文章開頭引用了由娜歐蜜克萊說，有雲： “每一次我登錄到活動家新聞網站一樣， indymedia.org實行公開出版' ，我面臨著一連串的猶太陰謀論9月11日和摘錄該議定書的長者錫安“ ，而克萊因其實不是談論indymedia英國，但全球indymedia網站，具有深遠的越來越少，活躍的志願者和版主，以及公開出版的一般，值得注意的是，報價是從1 article文章 published in The Guardian back in 2002 [發表在衛早在2002年[ 3 ]. ] 。 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.它確實是一開放出版的問題，捐助者可以張貼所有種垃圾，但是否贊同政府當局的集體，或容忍，或不完全是一種不同的問題。
The first parts of the SHIFT article ‘borrow’ extensively from an Indymedia UK第一部分的轉變，文章'借用'廣泛，從1 indymedia英國 feature特徵 [ 4 ] on the ‘Atzmon-Greenstein affair’, which the article discusses in some detail drawing on that feature. ]對' atzmon -格林斯坦內政' ，而本文論述了在一些詳圖就這一功能。 It is, however, surprising and unprofessional of the author that it does not mention the feature.然而，它令人驚訝的和專業的作者，它沒有提及該功能。 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，也許最好的理解，當一個軌道下降的思想/編輯曲折，在文章中和之間的分歧，它和功能。
Misleading誤導
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”.在沒有任何保證或猶豫，作者宣稱從一開始就認為， “在過去數個月的網站indymedia.org.uk已失去支持，許多活動家，讓反猶太主義的職位去質疑” ，不僅沒有作者沒有舉出任何證據表明， indymedia英國已“失去支持” ，他/她還聲稱，沒有給予任何的例子，即“反猶太主義的職位”到“質疑” 。
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).平均為隱藏的職位，退出所有職位，出版與巴勒斯坦的話題分是12 ％ （ 95出811期為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.這是更多或更少，同時作為與其他議題，例如伊拉克（也佔12 ％ ） ，而不是很遠，來自英國的藏匿平均（ 19 ％ ） ，同時考慮到有很多垃圾郵件發送者（僅僅是鏈接，商業廣告，公告等） ，通常使用英國出版的形式和並不總是剔主題。
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，例如文章中提到的對手是atzmon爭議的文章“ ，說沒有向獵人的巨人” ，產生了很多的討論和分歧，正是因為版主不能同意，這是反猶主義者。
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”?幾行後，作者再次聲稱： “ atzmon內政，因為它已成為眾所周知的，導致了熱烈的討論，個人的指控，喪失信譽，為英國indymedia當中，它的一些版主，在活動家和各界人士，即使在更廣泛的左派運動“ 。難道只是個案，就是作者對他/她是generalising ，或預測，他/她自己的意見上”更廣泛的左派運動“ ？
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?文章然後繼續與一些失真和/或失實陳述，到底發生了什麼： “在高度的內政，三，積極indymedia版主辭職，由集體[他們，事實上，兩個;第三無關，與這件事]讓許多讀者[讀者？ ]的印象是，痴迷[念念不忘的是什麼？ ]與巴以衝突得到了佔了上風[究竟如何呢？ Wasn’t the issue anti-Semitism?].”是不是問題反猶太主義？ ] “ 。
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.作為一個退縮，也許，作者，然後承認， “ indymedia.org.uk一直的目標，反猶太主義的職位之前，和許多人被隱藏的直線距離與參考指引” ，但他/她跟隨與另一失實的陳述： “在這個最新的內政，但該指引似乎沒有定論，足以判斷什麼是反猶太主義和什麼是不”再次，作者未能掌握的事實，即種族主義的指引，已經涵蓋了反猶太主義，但問題在這裡，是不是所有的版主一致認為，這篇文章的反猶太主義，因此，種族主義者。
The article then dedicates a 6-paragraph section to discuss “The Atzmon Affair”.文章然後專6段第討論“ atzmon的內政” 。 The ’summary’, however, is clearly biased and misrepresenting (it is worth comparing it with the Indymedia feature mentioned above). [摘要' ，不過，顯然是偏頗和歪曲（這是值得比較，它與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舉例來說，作者（故意？ ）曲解的聲明atzmon ，他/她錯賦予的音頻進行面試由一名英國indymedia活動家（它實際上是從一篇文章，題為atzmon “On Anti-Semitism” “反猶太主義” , published in December 2003 [刊登在2003年12月[ 5 ]). ] ） 。 The quote reads: “There is no anti-Semitism any more.報價寫著： “有沒有反猶太主義的任何更多。 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”.在破壞性的現實所產生的猶太國家，反猶太主義已取代政治反應“ 。作者稱，通過這項聲明， atzmon ， ”再次申明，仇恨猶太人和以色列只不過是自己所造成的， “沒有解釋我們如何”政治反應“以色列是一樣的”仇恨猶太人“ 。
Lies?謊言？
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.在一節假定有關“辭職和決議的企圖” （繼atzmon -格林斯坦吐口水） ，作者聲稱： “許多更多文章出現，促進了一些，有些不是，企圖證明猶太人建立了'最後公開的種族主義國家對地球'或'的情況，巴勒斯坦人是有點不同，比猶太人的情況，在華沙猶太人區在二戰期間“ 。幾行後，他/她補充說， ”博客reposts關於巴以衝突乘以並自採取了一個大型的一部分，該社“ ，但由於作者並沒有提到任何這些”多條“據稱，如此明顯的種族主義，但不是只有不斷顯示，但也促進了，是很難作出回應這類指控。
In the period between 14 Feb and 31 Mar 2008, there were 220 posts on Israel-Palestine.在這段期間2月14日和2008年3月31日，共有220個員額對以色列-巴勒斯坦問題。 Of these, 31 were IMEMC reports, 22 on UK actions and events and 12 reports from inside Palestine.這些， 31人imemc報導， 22日對英國的行動和事件的12份報告，由巴勒斯坦內部。 That’s almost 30% and most of these were promoted/promotable.這幾乎佔30 ％ ，大部分這些被提拔/ 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.大約65個看似來自一個持久造謠Troll公司和大多隱藏;另一個有30人張貼由用戶誰的職位有很多israle -巴勒斯坦材料indymedia全球網站，通常reposts公司的覆蓋範圍與評論;和13人投訴放緩，其中應考慮的地方，就溫和的名單。 Together these three categories constitute almost 50% of the total.連同這三類構成幾乎總額的50 ％ 。 The rest (20%) was divided between Latuff cartoons, commentaries and reposts from blogs or other media.其餘的（ 20 ％ ）分之間latuff漫畫，評論和reposts從博客或其他媒體。 So the claim that “blog reposts […] have since taken up a large part of the newswire” is totally unfounded.因此，聲稱“博客reposts [ … … ]自那時以來所採取的佔了很大的一部分，該社”是完全沒有根據的。
As to the two quotes above (still without any referencing or context), the first is apparently from an至於兩個引號以上（還沒有任何參照或上下文） ，第一次顯然是從一 article文章 [ 6 ] about the Israeli policy in Gaza, which the author says is “as evil as it is self-defeating”. ]關於以色列的政策在加沙，作者說是“邪惡，因為這是弄巧成拙” 。 The article is reposted from a blog called文章是收到從博客的所謂 “The Vineyard of the Saker” “葡萄園的saker ” [ 7 ] 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“ '法律的外國人'目前居住在帝國的家園”的背景下，其中引述似乎是這樣的： “主要的，過度拱，以色列的問題，作為一種自我描述的”猶太國家“ ，是今天所面臨的不是恐怖主義或伊朗的核武器，但人口統計數據。 Israel, as the last openly racist state on the planet, considers it vital to keep a Jewish majority within its borders.以色列，作為最後的公開種族主義國家對地球，認為它非常重要的保持猶太人的多數在其邊界內。 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.這就是為什麼安理會拉比得到來決定誰的資格為“猶太人”和誰不，為什麼那些所謂回歸法作出任何猶太人於這個星球的資格搬遷到以色列和以色列公民身份（即使這是猶太人非宗教，不說話希伯來語或意第緒語，不照顧，在至少對以色列） ，而那些阿拉伯人誰出生在今天的以色列和誰被驅逐從各自的家中和城鎮是不容許的回報，即使這種權利是體現在國際法上“ ，這是很難的種族主義或反猶主義者，除非有人對於任何批評以色列的種族政策，作為種族主義。
The second quote is from a short第二次報價是從短期 comment評論 [ 8 ] on an article about the UN condemning the Israeli collective punishment of Gaza (the brutal siege and sanctions). ]對一篇文章，關於聯合國的譴責以色列的集體懲罰加沙（野蠻圍困和制裁） 。 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).評論說： “局勢的巴勒斯坦人在加沙地帶（甚至在約旦河西岸）是有點不同，比的情況猶太人，在華沙猶太人區在二戰期間” ，現在這可能是一種誇張，這是不是真的看到搞笑人民'的競爭受害者' ，但'壟斷受害者'的方式猶太复國主義者這樣做，舉例來說，是不搞笑要么（見以下的評論就同一線程） 。
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，雙方的文章/評論發表在2008年1月，即在以色列圍攻加沙和世界各地的抗議活動，譴責它。 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，要回應的轉變，文章的投訴，指員額約巴以衝突“乘以” ，這可以解釋隨著該網站的用戶作出反應，世界的政治事件，這是相當正常的和真正的所有其他議題indymedia英國。
That month (January 2008), the Palestine topic saw 51 posts, slightly above the average (45).本月（ 2008年1月） ，巴勒斯坦的話題看到51個職位，略高於平均（ 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.人數穩步增加，在隨後的幾個月裡，與加沙地帶的危機展開的抗議正在發生的整個世界，最終在84個員額為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.同時可能是真正的評論，但不幸的是，我們沒有任何統計數字，這些目前以收回。
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.轉移的文章接著就抱怨“的意見，如'巴勒斯坦萬歲' ，甚至'去哈馬斯去'不再隱藏， ”沒有啟發我們，當他們用來取得隱藏的，為什麼他們應該的。 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， “走出去哈馬斯”的評論，主要是認為它是合法的哈馬斯以“善用[以色列的戰爭犯罪作為一個大背景下為photoshoot 。 ”這並不意味著任何人支持哈馬斯或歡呼，為被殺害以色列人。 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.至於轉移作者的rant約哈馬斯，人們可以大概只有提高眉毛，在如何假定激進，另類的作家在一個假定激進，另類雜誌可重申這樣的主流宣傳crap ，與一個典型的西方活動家的光顧價值判斷採取'其他'的鬥爭，指出他們的政治/歷史背景。
The second ‘worrying’ quote第二個'令人擔憂的'引 (”Long live Palestine”) （ “巴勒斯坦萬歲” ） [ 9 ] 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.” ]似乎來自一個'西方'活動家和得出結論，只是與口號（幾乎就像一個簽字）後，祝賀的作者的一份報告（順便約一atzmon事件在布賴頓）對“大總結的背景，這一最新的格林斯坦在崩潰的惡性運動“ 。
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?文章進一步聲稱， “許多”這些意見“張貼[ ]煽動者總部設在加拿大和美國，誰承認indymedia英國的願意主辦他們的職位。 ”除了要求作者怎麼他/她到了知道這一點，鑑於近全不願透露姓名的海報就indymedia ，一不能不禁要問，是什麼他/她了解，從公開出版呢？
“‘Nazimedia’?”? “ nazimedia ” ？ ？
In fact, the author does appear to understand that well but seems to have other things in mind.事實上，在作者看來要明白，良好，但似乎有其他的東西，在銘記。 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.在一節挑釁名為“ nazimedia ”嗎，他/她宣稱， “因此，它成為可見問題並不只是在於公開出版的格式。 Some Indymedia activists began to pursue an agenda that belittled anti-Semitism.” And what is this agenda that “belittled anti-Semitism”?一些indymedia活動家開始追求一個議程，貶低反猶太主義“ ，這是什麼議程， ”貶低反猶太主義“呢？ Well, the publishing of a feature about the siege on Gaza titled那麼，出版的一個特點有關的圍困加沙地帶的標題 “Israel keeps its promise of a ‘Holocaust’ in Gaza” “以色列不斷的承諾， '大屠殺'在加沙” [ 10 ]. ] 。
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，我們到這一點，值得一提的是總數的巴勒斯坦相關的功能，在17個月以來的主題是創造，是15出134英國起始頁的特點，或者更準確，出324 ，英國和區域特點。 That is just 4.6%.這只是4.6 ％ 。 In comparison, the Iraq topic, for example, has received 20 features during the same period.相較之下，伊拉克的話題，例如，已經收到了20個功能在同一時期。
The feature’s title was somehow turned in the article to “Israel keeps its promise of a Holocaust upon the Palestinians”.該功能的標題是有點把在文章中以“以色列不斷的承諾，大屠殺後，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.這不僅是一不小心的錯誤，遺漏了引號周圍的字“大屠殺” -這表明該功能的作者保留和事實，即它是所用的字眼是由以色列國防部副部長威脅的巴勒斯坦人之前的升級加沙地帶在今年二月，即遺漏，很可能是不明智的打算，並符合形象，作者一直在試圖塗料indymedia英國整個的文章。 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，這是解釋的功能如下： “就2月29日，以色列國防部副部長挑起的憤怒威脅後，巴勒斯坦人與一個”大屠殺“ 。 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告訴以色列軍方電台說： “更多[火箭]消防加劇和火箭隊達成一個較長的範圍內，他們[巴勒斯坦]將帶來自己更大的大屠殺，因為我們將使用我們所有的可能，以保衛自己” 。同時，扭曲的邏輯是：所用的極右派和大屠殺deniers歸咎於猶太人民為納粹大屠殺“ 。
The article (intentionally?) misrepresents both what happened in Gaza and the feature itself.文章（故意？ ）歪曲雙方所發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的特點，它聲稱， “有人認為以色列的致命的軍事行動，目的是在一些哈馬斯官員和加沙地帶的武裝分子達計劃釋放'大屠殺'和'全面戰爭'關於巴勒斯坦問題” 。它也沒有與支持任何證據證明其聲稱的特點，發表了“儘管很明顯的不滿，其中許多indymedia用戶”功能 proposed建議 on 4 March 2008 [對2008年3月4日[ 11 ] 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. ] ，而不是一個單一的反對或保留意見是張貼到IMC -英國-功能列表，所以這是出版翌日後，一般24小時的等候期。 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.當然，功能，像其他任何關於巴勒斯坦，卻吸引了不少意見，稍後（ 36 ，在總） ， 10 ，其中隱藏的投訴，中庸，其中應考慮的地方，就溫和的名單，或者乾脆因為他們虐待或歧視性，違反編輯指南。
The suggestion in the subtitle that Indymedia has become or is becoming “Nazimedia” is cheap and defamatory, to say the least.建議在副標題說， indymedia已成為或正在成為“ nazimedia ”是廉價的和誹謗性的，至少可以這樣說。 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把這個詞在引號，並按照它與一個問號並沒有真正備件的作者或編輯的責任，尤其是沒有評論，顯示或隱藏，就這一特定功能使用的單詞“ nazimedia ” ，雖然它一直採用一些 trolls巨魔 in the past [在過去的[ 12 ]. ] 。 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.”儘管'保證'的讀者認為“ indymedia ，英國是不是由一個集體的反閃米特人” ，文章進一步聲稱，集體曾試圖“重新界定大屠殺”和評論，支持“留在社” ，而“所有的投訴都是隱藏在幾分鐘內” 。
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.這也是值得注意的是，大部分的這些指控/指控張貼人所共知的巨魔/ disinfo代理商誰獲得隱藏的直線距離，所有的時間。 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，整個理論在文章中指出， indymedia英國已“失去支持”似乎是基於隱藏disinfo職位和評論（見atzmon -格林斯坦功能如上所述，了解更多詳情） 。 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!作為一個雜誌編輯打印，編輯的轉變和文章作者有沒有可能有很多的經驗和完整的時間，巨魔和有組織的造謠宣傳，他們根本解僱的另一個陰謀論的一些indymedia管理員與秘密議程！
Yes, really, what is anti-Semitism?是的，真的，什麼是反猶太主義呢？
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，作者認為，有“無新意”關於指控indymedia管理員的“盲反semitrism 。 ”他/她進一步得出結論認為， “ indymedia英國的集體是不可能同意是否atzmon或latuff是反猶太主義“ ， ”在許多方面將是徒勞的努力“ 。更重要的是，他/她繼續說： ”問題是，為什麼爭議性和挑釁性的職位比較，以色列的政策對那些納粹德國找到出路上indymedia通訊社擺在首位“和”是什麼吸引了反閃米特人到網站“ ？
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.之後重複的問題與開放的出版和編輯指南未必“直至目前為止，與目前的事態發展，在激進的政治” ，他/她有這樣說： “可悲的是， indymedia提供了一個平台，以發明caricutures的以色列國和它的政策。 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?!而不是承認的政治背景，它有助於延續的形象，以色列和猶太人，險惡的陰謀與秘密計劃把世界變成一個大規模的解決辦法。 “真的嗎！ Where did Indymedia UK do that other than some anti-Semitic posts that get “immediately hidden or deleted”, in the author’s own words.哪裡indymedia英國這樣做以外的其他一些反猶太主義的職位得到“立即隱藏或刪除” ，在作者自己的話。
Perhaps the author of the article, along with the SHIFT editors, need to sit down (after也許是文章作者，隨著轉移的編輯，需要坐下來（後 publicising their magazine on Indymedia!宣傳他們的雜誌上indymedia ！ [ 13 ]) and reread the ‘Holocaust’ and Atzmon features carefully without prejugements and hasty accusations. ] ）和重讀'大屠殺'和atzmon特點仔細沒有prejugements和草率的指責。 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，他們的投訴後，以適當的名單和參加集體討論什麼是反猶太主義和什麼是猶太复國主義和如何處理他們。
Notes:註釋：
[ 1 ] http://www.shiftmag.co.uk . 。 The full text of the article is available here該文章的全文是可在這裡 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 ] 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 ] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/25/comment.guardiancolumnists
[ 4 ] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392188.html
[ 5 ] http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html http://www.gilad.co.uk/html ％ 20files/onanti.html
[ 6 ] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389886.html
[ 7 ] http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com
[ 8 ] 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 ] 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 ] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/393065.html
[ 11 ] 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 ] http://indymediawatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-is-it-called-nazimedia_12.html
[ 13 ] 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 ]的所有網站的統計和數字以上所收集的法團校董會的英國技術人員對2008年5月20日，本文的目的。
See More: 看到更多的： UK News 英國新聞Have Your Say: Indymedia Responds to SHIfT article 你說： indymedia回應轉移文章
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Monday, May 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週一， 2008年5月26日在下午8時54分，並提交下 General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- Attempted citizen’s arrest on Ken Livingstone企圖公民的逮捕對利文斯通
- Indymedia and Anti-Semitism indymedia和反猶太主義
- DEPLETED URANIUM Outrage is Sweeping Hawai’i貧化鈾的憤怒正在席捲夏威夷
- Police Harass a Peaceful Protest警方騷擾的和平抗議
- Police Operation Failed: 1000 people injured警方的行動失敗： 1000人受傷
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Amnesty urges next US president to ban torture特赦組織敦促下一任美國總統，禁止酷刑
- Ireland accused of failing on flight rendition愛爾蘭被告未對航機飛行的移交逃犯
- Brown: To Be More Than an Accessory to War Crimes布朗：要一個多配件的戰爭罪行
- UK ready to scrap killer cluster bombs英國準備放棄殺手的集束炸彈
- Report: US cluster bombs were faulty報告：美國集束炸彈故障
- Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs by $6 Trillion伊拉克戰爭可能會有所增加的能源成本由六○○○○○○○○○○○○美元
- A Real Inside Job; Anthrax一個真正的內就業;炭疽
- Orwellian Ubiquitous Computing?奧威爾普適計算？
- Appeal from Tony Benn / Stop the War Coalition上訴由托尼本/停止戰爭聯盟
- American Psychological Association Supports Torture美國心理協會支持酷刑
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
