How Zionist terrorism determined Palestine’s fate

https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-zionist-terrorism-determined-palestines-fate/19871

 

Israel’s propaganda playbook attempts to reframe the Palestinian liberation struggle as a question of terror, not territory. Thanks to a dutiful media, this effort to portray Palestinians as terrorists has had significant traction among some demographics.

But how did terrorism originate in Palestine and what was its outcome, both historically and today?

Thomas Suárez sheds much new light on those questions in State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel. He does this largely by mining previously neglected declassified documents from the British National Archives, covering the period of the British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948).

Suárez’s principal thesis is that Zionist terrorism “ultimately dictated the course of events during the Mandate, and it is Israeli state terrorism that continues to dictate events today.”

The author cautions that while he unequivocally condemns Palestinian terrorism against civilians, he recognizes that some were driven to extreme measures due to an asymmetry in power and in reaction to attempts to subjugate the Palestinian people and expropriate their resources, land and labor.

Zionist terrorism aimed to prevent Palestinian Arabs from exercising their right to self-determination, Suárez argues, and when an aggressor encounters resistance, it can hardly use self-defense as a justification for its own acts of violence. “Otherwise,” Suárez writes, “all aggression would self-justify.”

Suárez is not a professional historian. However, State of Terror has drawn praise from such figures as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe who – on the book cover – calls it a “tour de force” and “the first comprehensive and structured analysis” of the violence employed by the Zionist movement both before and after Israel’s creation. Indeed, Suárez’s scholarship is impressive and the book includes nearly 700 endnotes consisting mainly of original sources.

Insightful meditation

At its best, State of Terror is an insightful meditation on history. This is apparent especially in the opening chapters that cover the period leading up to the British Mandate and the issuance of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain decreed a “national home” for Jews in Palestine.

Suárez offers a penetrating analysis of the roots of Zionist ideology, showing not only its racist underpinnings and colonialist attitudes toward Arabs but also its attempt to exercise political, religious and cultural hegemony over the Jewish people. In a sense Suárez exposes political Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism and a kind of totalitarianism.

The Zionist mistreatment of Jews is a sub theme that runs throughout Suárez’s narrative. Early Zionist leaders tried to depict Jews as a “race” and “nationality,” rather than a people of faith and ethnic identity. Zionist leaders such as David Ben-Gurion also maintained that Jews were ”obliged to settle in Palestine.”

Suárez cites an early opponent of Zionism, the English Jewish journalist and historian Lucien Wolf who condemned Zionism as “a comprehensive capitulation to the calumnies of the anti-Semites” that would set back the Jewish struggle for equality in their home countries.

In support of this claim, Wolf notes that Arthur James Balfour, who was foreign secretary at the time of the declaration that bears his name, appears to have been motivated to promise a “national home” for Jews by classic anti-Semitism: as prime minister in 1905, Balfour had attempted to block Jewish refugees escaping Czarist Russia’s pogroms from immigrating to Britain, viewing them as an “undoubted evil.”

Suárez makes the dramatic claim that “most victims” of the targeted assassinations carried out by Zionist paramilitaries in Mandate Palestine were Jews, in part because these militias identified British Jewish soldiers and police as traitors. This was the case even during the Second World War when Britain was engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Nazi Germany.

Partition plan capitulation

State of Terror asserts that most acts of terrorism were directed at Palestinian Arab civilians. Both the Labor and Revisionist wings of Zionism engaged in terrorism and often colluded with each other in carrying out terrorist attacks, which escalated following the end of the Second World War, culminating famously in the King David Hotel attack in July 1946 that killed 41 Palestinian Arabs, 28 Brits, 17 Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian and 1 Egyptian.

Suárez maintains that the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 was largely a capitulation to this terrorism. Here his conclusion differs somewhat from that of other historians, including Tom Segev, who argues in One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (1999) that the exhausted and bankrupt British Empire was intent on leaving Palestine regardless of Zionist terrorism.

In Segev’s account the British departure was a foregone conclusion, and the terrorism of both the Labor Zionist and Revisionist-led militias represented a competition between them “for control of the state that would soon be established.”

“The British were not the real enemy,” Segev writes, “the Arabs were.”

The numerous acts of terrorism against Palestinian civilians during the Nakba of 1947-1949, such as the massacre at Deir Yassin, figure prominently in Suárez’s concluding chapters.

With the creation of Israel in 1948 paramilitary terrorism transformed itself into official state terrorism.

Suárez calls out the Orwellian newsspeak that statehood seemingly confers on acts of terrorism by contrasting the reaction of world opinion to Deir Yassin in April 1948 with the bloodier mass murder that occurred in the village of al-Dawayima in October 1948 after Israel had declared statehood.

That massacre, estimated at 145 people by the village mukhtar (chief), was regarded largely “as a military operation” at the time, according to Suárez, although recent scholarship has more accurately described it as an example of state terrorism.

Suárez devotes considerable attention to Zionist efforts to thwart Holocaust survivors from immigrating to countries other than Palestine and the kidnapping of young Jewish survivors from foster homes in Europe and their transfer to Palestine. In this, he relies heavily on Yosef Grodzinsky’s groundbreaking In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II (2004).

Suárez also recounts the false-flag terrorism in Egypt designed to win US support for Israel. Famous at the time, but largely forgotten since, Israel’s Unit 131 carried out terrorist bombings against civilian targets in Alexandria and Cairo, mainly cinemas frequented by US and British citizens, in what a Central Intelligence Agency bulletin, declassified in 2005, described as a bungled false-flag operation.

He also includes the shameful blaming of Holocaust survivors by Israeli and Zionist officials for acts of collective punishment carried out in secret by Israeli military forces, such as the massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya in 1953, led by Unit 101 under the command of Ariel Sharon.

State of Terror is a comprehensive guide to Zionist and Israeli state terrorism and one that sheds valuable light on today’s situation.

As Suárez concludes: “Terrorism … is the only means through which an indigenous population can be subjugated, dehumanized and displaced. This, stripped of all baggage, is the reality of today’s Israel-Palestine ‘conflict.’”

Rod Such is a former editor for World Book and Encarta encyclopedias. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and is active with the Occupation-Free Portland campaign.

Advertisements

The Carnal Jew

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1199

 

The sex scandals of Anthony Weiner come as no surprise to me.

Nor Eliot Spitzer’s midnight flings with call girls.

For like all Jews, they reject the messiahship of Jesus Christ.

You don’t reject ‘Life in the Spirit’ that the embrace of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ brings with impunity.

For in ‘living according to the flesh,’ the Jew remains trapped as a ‘carnal man’ held fast in the curse of corruption and death.

Mammon is their god, Prosac their sacrament, and self-worship their religion

No one portrays the ‘carnal man’ better than Jewish comedians.

Whether it’s Sarah Silverman sitting on a toilet, Woody Allen humping a shiksa, or Larry David urinating while blaspheming Christ, one sees the carnal Jew in full swing.

Even the promotion of homosexual sin by Jews on America’s highest bench parade the Jewish propensity for groveling in earthly carnality.

But there’s an added piece of the carnal trap that the Jew cannot escape, the ‘Deicidal Curse.’

“Crucify Him,” demanded the Jews of Pilate, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

This, the ‘Deicidal Curse’ the Jews called down on their children, presses upon the heads of every Jew.

Sarah Silverman brings The Curse center stage.

[Clip: “Everybody blames the Jews for, for killing Christ. And then the Jews try to pass it up on the Romans. You know I am one of the few people that believe it was the blacks. I don’t care, good, I hope the Jews did kill Christ. I’d do it again. I’d f-ing do it again in a second.”]

I’m not here to condemn anyone, especially those of my own race.

I only wish to help them…for where there’s life there’s a chance to repent.

Will Wiener, Spitzer, Silverman, Allen, David, Ginsburg and all the rest of the Jews repent?

I dare not say what will happen to them if they don’t.

Sweeping Federal Review Could Affect Consent Decrees Nationwide

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered a sweeping review of federal agreements with dozens of law enforcement agencies, an examination that reflects President Trump’s emphasis on law and order and could lead to a retreat on consent decrees with troubled police departments nationwide.

In a memorandum dated March 31 and made public Monday, the attorney general directed his staff to look at whether law enforcement programs adhere to principles of the Trump administration, including one declaring that “the individual misdeeds of bad actors should not impugn” the work police officers perform “in keeping American communities safe.”

As part of its shift in emphasis, the Justice Department went to court on Monday to seek a 90-day delay in a consent decree to overhaul Baltimore’s embattled Police Department. That request came just days before a hearing, scheduled for Thursday in United States District Court in Baltimore, to solicit public comment on the agreement, which was reached in principle by the city and the Justice Department in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Mayor Catherine E. Pugh said late Monday that the city would “strongly oppose any delay in moving forward.” Supporters of police reform called on Judge James K. Bredar, who is overseeing the negotiations between Baltimore and the Justice Department, to deny the request, arguing that Mr. Sessions was interfering with the will of the city.

“This has all been negotiated by the affected parties,” said Ray Kelly, president of the No Boundaries Coalition, a citizen advocacy group. Referring to Mr. Sessions, he said, “Now we have an outside entity telling us what’s best for our citizens and our community when he has no experience, no knowledge.”

Baltimore is one of nearly two dozen cities — including Ferguson, Mo., Cleveland and Seattle — that were the subject of aggressive efforts by the Obama administration to improve relations between the police and the communities they serve. That effort produced so-called consent decrees with 14 departments.

The broad review announced Monday could threaten some of those decrees if the Justice Department seeks to change its past stance about systematic police abuses in the affected agencies. But the Justice Department would not be able to unilaterally unwind the agreements without court intervention.

Vanita Gupta, who ran the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama and negotiated the Baltimore consent decree, said that it was unclear whether Mr. Sessions could withdraw from that agreement, which has not yet been officially approved by a judge.

Noting that Kevin Davis, the Baltimore police commissioner, had expressed strong support for the plan, Ms. Gupta questioned “whether the attorney general is really in sync with law enforcement.” She added that Monday’s announcement “signals an alarming retreat away from ensuring that police departments engage in constitutional policing.”

Beyond Baltimore, the most closely watched decision will come in Chicago, where the Obama administration, in its final day, issued a blistering report that found systemic racism in the Police Department after a series of police shootings of minorities. Negotiations have begun for a possible monitoring agreement, but Mr. Sessions has indicated that he thinks the Chicago report was shoddy, casting doubt on the prospect of a deal.

In Baltimore, a majority-black city with a long history of tensions between African-Americans and the police, the consent decree grew out of a federal review that followed the unrest in 2015 over the death of a 25-year-old black man, Freddie Gray, in police custody.

The review culminated in August, when the Justice Department issued a blistering report that found that the Baltimore police had engaged in a “pattern and practice” of discrimination that systematically violated the civil rights of black residents. In January, just days before President Barack Obama left office, Mayor Pugh and her Justice Department signed a broad blueprint for an overhaul.

In its court filings on Monday, the Justice Department noted that the Trump administration had “announced several new initiatives and policies that prioritize combating and preventing violent crime” in response to spikes in violence in cities across the country, including Baltimore.

Mr. Sessions has expressed deep skepticism about the value of consent decrees like the one planned for Baltimore, saying they vilify the police, and has indicated that he wants to scale them back.

In a speech in February, his first as attorney general, he said that the federal government’s role should be to “help police departments get better, not diminish their effectiveness.” Mr. Sessions said the agreements were demoralizing to the police and could be generating a spike in violence and murders in some large cities: a contention that has been challenged by a number of criminologists.

Kristen Clarke, who leads the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which has fought for greater federal oversight of troubled departments, said the request for a delay in the Baltimore case was deeply troubling.

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions is undermining and obstructing extensive efforts that have been made to promote policing reform in a small set of the most broken police departments in our country,” she said.

White House decries media ‘lack of interest’ in reports of Obama officials spying

The White House called on the media Monday to show more zeal in investigating allegations that Obama administration officials abused their access to intelligence to seek out and disclose potentially damaging information about Donald Trump’s campaign and transition.

Struggling to defuse ongoing investigations of alleged Russian interference in the election on behalf of now-President Trump, and to deflect reports of possible ties between Trump associates and Moscow, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he was “somewhat intrigued” at the media’s “lack of interest . . . in one set of developments versus another set of developments.”

But Spicer, in contrast to weeks of outrage he has expressed from the White House podium, said he would not comment on a new report that Susan E. Rice, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, had requested that the intelligence community provide her with names of Trump associates whose conversations with foreigners were incidentally intercepted.

Conservative social-media agitator Mike Cernovich reported Sunday that the White House counsel’s office had “identified” Rice as asking for the names of “incoming Trump officials,” during an internal review of document logs. The report did not indicate whether conversations with Russians were involved.

Rice could not be reached for comment on the report.

Information from the review, according to White House officials, was turned over to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Nunes subsequently announced that he had briefed Trump on the information.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees, along with the FBI, are investigating the reports of Russian interference and possible collusion. House Democrats have said that Nunes, who also served as a Trump transition official, should step down as chairman. The standoff temporarily froze the committee’s hearings. On Monday, Nunes said the panel could resume interviewing witnesses in two weeks.

The administration has pushed back on the reports of Russia contacts by saying they stem from efforts by Obama officials to undermine Trump. That, the administration insists, should be the focus of investigations, rather than the information. Trump has charged, without offering proof, that his communications were intercepted under orders from Obama.

In a Monday tweet, Trump referred to “Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us . . . ‘Spied on before the nomination.’ The real story.”

“Unmasking” refers to revealing a name that has been blacked out in an intelligence report on surveillance. The law does not permit surveillance of U.S. persons without a warrant; if one shows up in authorized surveillance of a foreign person, it is “masked.”

According to a former senior national security official, top aides in all administrations are assigned an individual intelligence “briefer” who gives them a curated report each morning, including foreign surveillance reports deemed of interest to them.

The former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, said that in a minority of cases, the recipient may determine that the context of a particular communication, especially if it deals with sensitive security or foreign policy matters, requires knowledge of the U.S. person involved. The official can ask the intelligence briefer to “unmask” that person. The request is considered and acted upon — or not — by the intelligence agency involved. The process is neither uncommon nor illegal.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he had no independent knowledge that Rice had unmasked Trump campaign or transition figures, but called the reports that she had “explosive” and called on her to testify before Congress. He also said he was considering a bill to reform the unmasking process to protect U.S. citizens caught in foreign surveillance dragnets.

Paul, who played golf with Trump over the weekend, said he raised the issue with Trump, but he did not detail the president’s views on the matter.

Four governors team up, urge feds to keep marijuana enforcement status quo

Governors in four states have joined forces with a marijuana message for two top officials in the Trump administration.

In an open letter, the governors on Monday asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to “engage with us before embarking on any changes to regulatory and enforcement systems.”

The signatories of the letter are Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska; Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado; Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon; and Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington. They lead the first four states to implement laws allowing recreational marijuana sales.

The letter dated April 3 urges Sessions and Mnuchin to maintain the current guidelines established under the Obama administration for law enforcement and financial oversight of states that have legalized marijuana for medical or adult use, and expresses concern about making major changes:

Overhauling the Cole Memo is sure to produce unintended and harmful consequences. Changes that hurt the regulated market would divert existing marijuana product into the black market and increase dangerous activity in both our states and our neighboring states. Likewise, without the (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) guidance, financial institutions will be less willing to provide services to marijuana-related businesses.

“Any forced change in federal enforcement policy will interrupt the collaborative approach we have taken with local law enforcement and the federal government,” Mark Bolton, Hickenlooper’s adviser on marijuana policy, said in a statement Monday. “Our hope is that we can continue working with the administration to build on a regulatory system that prioritizes protecting public safety and public health.”

In an interview last week with The Cannabist, Hickenlooper discussed the potential for enforcement changes in Colorado, which is now in its fourth year of recreational marijuana sales:

“I would argue to the attorney general that the country has potential benefit to be able to see this experiment through to a natural conclusion. Let’s go a couple more years and see and get more data and really see, “Are we worse off or better off than we were before?’”

Cannabis industry advocates supported the letter.

“It’s great to see governors of the four operational states work together and stand up for constituents,” Aaron Smith, National Cannabis Industry Association executive director, told The Cannabist.

In early March, eleven U.S. senators from eight states that have laws legalizing recreational or medical marijuana sent an open letter to Sessions asking for the Department of Justice to uphold the existing enforcement policy.

Extinct creature sightings are piling up in Australia

Multiple reports of Tasmanian Tiger sightings are starting to flow in from everyday citizens in Australia. Several people have recently claimed they’ve spotted the animal, which isn’t a tiger at all — and, despite looking very much like a species of dog, isn’t of canine lineage either — but a carnivorous marsupial. Spotting an interesting creature in Australia isn’t exactly a rare occurrence, but there’s one problem with these reports in particular: the Tasmanian Tiger is supposed to be extinct.

The last known Tasmanian Tiger was captured in its native Australia in 1933 and lived for a few years in a zoo before dying, and its death has long been thought to be the final nail in the species’ coffin. Australians have occasionally claimed to have spotted the dog-like animals over the years, but the sightings were typically rare and attributed to nothing more than misidentification. That’s all changed now, as several “plausible sightings” are beginning to give life to the theory that the animal never actually went extinct at all.

Now, scientists in Queensland, Australia, are taking action in the hopes of actually finding evidence that the Tiger is still around. If confirmed, it would be an absolutely monumental discovery, considering the animal’s history. The team plans to set up cameras in areas where reported sightings have taken place in the hopes of confirming the claims.

Floor & Decor is a hard surface flooring store with an incredible selection & everyday low prices. Explore the wide range of qu…

In the late 1800s there were actually bounties on Tasmanian Tigers in Australia, and the creatures were hunted to the brink of extinction before any action was taken. By that point, the species was thought to be doomed, and when the last captive animal died it was assumed that was the end of the road. Now, it appears that might not be the case after all.

Roman Polanski (Pedophile Jew, Kike) Denied Guarantee of No Jail Time in U.S. Return

Roman Polanski likely won’t be heading back to the States anytime soon, as a Los Angeles County judge has declined to assure the director that he has served his time for a 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl before he returns.

After multiple failed extradition attempts by U.S. prosecutors, the 83-year-old filmmaker asked the court to order the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office to state on the record whether it would seek to have him serve additional time if he returned to the U.S. Alternatively, he asked to be sentenced in absentia.

Polanski fled the country nearly 40 years ago, after he heard late judge Laurence Rittenband was going to change his sentence from 90 days of psychiatric evaluation to 50 years in prison. He served 42 days in jail before leaving the country and nearly a year in Swiss prison in the late 2000s before authorities there decided to reject an extradition request.

The L.A. Superior Court issued a statement on Monday, announcing that judge Scott Gordon denied Polanski’s motions. In a 13-page order, Gordon held that Polanski’s attorney Harland Braun cited no authority to support his granting a motion that would compel prosecutors to show their hand regarding custody.

“The People have unambiguously stated their desire to avoid discussing any substantive issues regarding Polanski’s case until he is physically present in the court’s jurisdiction,” writes Gordon. “The District Attorney is acting well within her discretion to decline to state a position to a defendant absent from court and in warrant status. … Additionally, Polanski is not entitled to avail himself of this court’s power to hear his demands while he openly stands in contempt of a legal order from this very court.”

Gordon denied Polanski’s request to be sentenced from afar on similar grounds, and added that the doctrine of res judicata bars one trial judge from reconsidering the order of another trial judge. Judge Peter Espinoza denied the director’s request for sentencing in absentia in 2010.

The L.A. district attorney’s office declined to comment on Gordon’s ruling, which is posted in full below. Braun has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Braun also asked the court to unseal the testimony of former Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson, who handled Polanski’s case decades ago. A hearing on that motion is set for April 26.

More Trouble at Fox News: Ailes Faces New Sexual Claims and O’Reilly Loses an Advertiser

The sexual harassment scandal that engulfed Fox News last year and led to the ouster of its chairman, Roger Ailes, continued to batter the network on Monday, as a new lawsuit described unwanted sexual advances by Mr. Ailes and a major advertiser pulled its spots from the show of its top-rated host, Bill O’Reilly.

Mercedes-Benz said it was withdrawing its ads from Mr. O’Reilly’s prime-time show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” after The New York Times published an investigation this weekend that found five women who made allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior against him. Those five women received settlements totaling about $13 million, The Times reported.

Together, the developments portray a network buffeted by allegations on multiple fronts, even as it draws record ratings with programming supportive of President Trump. Staff members remain anxious, some said on Monday, over questions about its workplace culture and its priorities.

If more advertisers abandon Mr. O’Reilly’s show, it would be a blow to Fox News, which provides billions of dollars in revenue each year to its parent company, 21st Century Fox. Mr. O’Reilly has long been the pugnacious face of a prime-time lineup that sets the tone for conservative commentary. His show attracts almost 4 million viewers a night, and from 2014 through 2016 it generated more than $446 million in advertising revenue, according to the research firm Kantar Media.

“Given the importance of women in every aspect of our business, we don’t feel this is a good environment in which to advertise our products right now,” Donna Boland, the manager of corporate communications for Mercedes-Benz, wrote in an email. Mercedes-Benz has spent an estimated $1.9 million in ads on “The O’Reilly Factor” in the last year, according to iSpot.tv, the TV ad analytics firm.

Despite Mr. O’Reilly’s history of settlements and the series of allegations against him, the company has extended his contract, which was set to expire this year, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. O’Reilly makes about $18 million per year. When the company extended the contract, it knew of multiple settlements that had been reached with women who complained about his behavior.

The company says it has discussed the issue with Mr. O’Reilly. It believes his new contract gives it more leverage over him regarding his behavior, according to two people familiar with the matter. Mr. O’Reilly has said that the allegations are without merit. He did not address the controversy on his show Monday night.

Earlier on Monday, Julie Roginsky, a current Fox News contributor, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Ailes, Fox News and Bill Shine, the network’s co-president, asserting that she faced retaliation for rebuffing Mr. Ailes’s sexual advances and for refusing to disparage Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News host who sued Mr. Ailes last summer.

Julie Roginsky has appeared on the Fox News show, “The Five.” CreditAssociated Press

And a former regular guest on Mr. O’Reilly’s program, Wendy Walsh, who had recounted her allegations against him to The Times, held a news conference with her lawyer to discuss those claims and to call for an independent inquiry into sexual harassment at the network.

Also, the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan is investigating Fox News, including how it structured settlements.

On Monday, Fox News moved to contain the fallout from the weekend’s developments, urging its employees in an internal memo to report inappropriate behavior to the human resources department or other network executives. “Particularly in light of some of the accounts published over the last few days, I wanted to re-emphasize the message we have been conveying at our training sessions for several months,” said Kevin Lord, the network’s new head of human resources, who was hired in the aftermath of the Ailes scandal.

Irena Briganti, a Fox News spokeswoman, declined to comment on Mercedes-Benz’s decision, Ms. Roginsky’s lawsuit or Ms. Walsh’s news conference.

Ms. Walsh, speaking in Los Angeles, repeated the account she provided to The Times. She said that Mr. O’Reilly did not follow through on a verbal offer to make her a contributor to his show after she declined an invitation to go to his hotel suite after a 2013 dinner in Los Angeles that was arranged by his secretary. She has not received a settlement and said she does not want any money. She did not report her complaints to Fox News at the time, she said, because she did not want to jeopardize her career prospects.

“Other women who are under gag orders, who cannot talk, they have been silenced,” Ms. Walsh said while seated next to her lawyer, Lisa Bloom. “I had to be the voice for them, because nobody can buy my voice. My voice is not for sale. My truth is not for sale.”

Ms. Walsh is recounting her experiences publicly despite receiving a warning on Saturday from Mr. O’Reilly’s lawyer, Fredric S. Newman, demanding that she retract the statements she made to The Times. The letter, obtained by The Times, said that her assertions were “patently false and highly defamatory” and to “cease and desist all defamation of Mr. O’Reilly’s character.”

“Your segment was a failure,” Mr. Newman wrote. “That is established as matter of undisputable fact in the minute-by-minute analysis of your segment, which showed that the segment was unsuccessful.”

Fox News’s troubles continued when Ms. Roginsky filed her suit in New York State Supreme Court. The suit echoes the complaints that other women have made about Mr. Ailes and the culture at the network, where women have said they faced harassment and feared reporting it. Ms. Roginsky’s lawyer is Nancy Erika Smith, the same lawyer who represented Ms. Carlson, who received a $20 million settlement after leaving the network.

Ms. Roginsky, who has been a paid contributor on Fox News since 2011, stated in her complaint that Mr. Ailes made sexist comments and unwanted sexual advances toward her during one-on-one meetings in his office, including requiring that she “bend down to kiss him hello” when he sat in a low armchair and telling her that they would get into “so much trouble” if he took her “out for a drink.”

Mr. Ailes also would tell her that she should “engage in sexual relationships with ‘older, married, conservative men,’” the suit stated.

“These comments and their delivery made it clear that Ailes wanted a sexual relationship with Roginsky,” the suit said.

Ms. Roginsky asserted in the suit that she faced retaliation for refusing Mr. Ailes’s advances. She said that she was denied a permanent position as a host on the program “The Five” and was rarely allowed to host her own segments on the show “Outnumbered,” unlike other panelists. She also stated that she was punished for not joining “Team Roger” when Ms. Carlson filed suit last summer — a reference, presumably, to a group of Fox News employees who publicly supported Mr. Ailes.

Susan R. Estrich, a lawyer for Mr. Ailes, said that he “vociferously denies” the allegations in Ms. Roginsky’s suit. She called the assertions “hogwash” and said that the suit was a “copycat complaint.”

“Her interactions with Mr. Ailes were not even close to the fictional version she wants people to believe now,” Ms. Estrich said in a statement. “The idea that Mr. Ailes would pressure Ms. Roginsky or any other women to have sexual relations with him is total nonsense.”

The developments raised new questions about the internal investigation at Fox News that was started after allegations about Mr. Ailes first became public. In the suit, Ms. Roginsky also stated that she discussed her complaints in a meeting with Mr. Shine and another top network executive during a meeting in November, months after Mr. Ailes was dismissed in July.

Ms. Roginsky said in her suit that Fox News did not investigate her complaints or tell her to contact Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the law firm 21st Century Fox hired to conduct an internal inquiry into sexual harassment issues at the network.

Samsung Galaxy S8 & Galaxy S8 Plus: The Good, Bad & Ugly

Samsung, last week, announced the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus smartphones, after seeing it leaked many times ahead of the announcement. Samsung seemingly checked all of the boxes with these two devices, but that doesn’t mean it’s the perfect smartphone. And now that both devices are available for pre-order, many are wondering whether they should take the plunge and pick up either device. Well, we are going to help you with that decision, by explaining what’s good about both smartphones, what’s bad, and what’s ugly about them.

The Good

Samsung didn’t make a big deal about the aspect ratio on their displays for both smartphones here, and that’s likely due to the fact that Samsung did a better job at making existing content work great on these taller displays. While the LG G6 display is 18:9, the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus displays are slightly taller at 18.5:9. Samsung has built in a few tricks to make 16:9 video play better on these smartphones. Including a way to zoom into a video and cut off the edges, in apps like YouTube.

With a curved screen comes some new software features. All of the usual Edge features are present on this family of devices this year. So you can swipe in from the edge for different apps, shortcuts and even contacts. Samsung decided to make both models a curved smartphone, which means this year your only choice is the size, and not a curved or a flat display. Since the Galaxy S7 Edge sold much better than the Galaxy S7 last year, this isn’t a huge surprise.

Of course, the fact that the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus ship with 64GB of storage inside is a good thing. Where many smartphones – including the LG G6 – are still shipping with 32GB as the base storage (and some aren’t even offering a higher storage capacity), this is a good thing. While Samsung’s overlay is known for taking up a good amount of space, bumping up the storage to 64GB is still a good thing. And if that isn’t enough storage, there is still a micro SD card slot available, to expand the storage further if needed.

Inside the Galaxy S8 is the Snapdragon 835, and this was truly our first experience using a Snapdragon 835-powered device, as the Galaxy S8 does have an exclusive on that chipset. While we didn’t use it for that long at Unpacked, we did still have a good experience with the chipset. It’s not going to be a huge improvement over the Snapdragon 821, but it is an octa-core chipset, instead of a quad-core like the Snapdragon 820 and 821 SoC’s were. Which means there are a few more low-powered cores that will allow for better standby time.

One thing that Samsung does better than almost everyone, is announcing a smartphone and telling people exactly when they can pre-order it and when it can be purchased. Out of all the phones announced at Mobile World Congress, none of them stated when pre-orders opened up, nor when they would be available in store. But for Samsung, they opened pre-orders that night, at 9PM PDT, and then announced that they’ll be available on April 21st. Which is less than a month after announcing the device. This is what manufacturers need to do. Because if you leave more time between the unveiling and the availability, people will forget about the device, and perhaps move onto looking to purchase something else. So good on Samsung for getting pre-orders going quickly, and making it available relatively quickly as well.

The Bad

While it’s not that much of a surprise, the pricing of the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus is not good. Starting at about $720 (although most places price it at $750), the Galaxy S8 is not a cheap smartphone. It’s priced very similarly to the iPhone, which is something that Android fans typically make fun of Apple users about. Now, Samsung is offering up some freebies that make the price sting a little less, but that is still quite a bit of cash for a smartphone. Samsung is bundling in a pair of AKG earbuds, that are typically $100, so that does also help drive up the cost, unfortunately.

The fingerprint sensor is by far the worst part of the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus. Now that’s saying a lot good and bad about the device, if the worst thing we can complain about is the position of the fingerprint reader. Samsung opted to put it next to the camera. Which is in a pretty awkward position for a fingerprint reader, and most people will end up touching the camera instead of the sensor, and getting that camera all dirty. This was rumored to be a last minute change – and it definitely looks like it – but on the bright side it does allow Samsung to add in a larger battery, and still have plenty of room for it to breathe without it experiencing the same issues as the Galaxy Note 7.

Samsung went safe with the capacity of the batteries on these new smartphones. Keeping the same 3000mAh battery in the Galaxy S8 and actually reducing the capacity from the Galaxy S7 Edge to the Galaxy S8 Plus at 3500mAh. Now the numbers that Samsung is touting on these batteries, for battery life, is fairly similar if not the same as last year’s flagships. But those numbers always need to be taken with a bit of salt. The reason for that is these numbers come from a lab, but when users actually use their smartphones, they aren’t using it like it’s in a lab. So while Samsung may say you can get 12 hours of talk time on a device, you actually might get more or less, depending on other factors. And with the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus sporting larger displays, it’s tough to say whether battery life will be good or not this year, until we get our hands on them to do more testing.

The Ugly

Bixby. I hate to say it, but it’s another half-baked feature that Samsung has implemented into their devices. It’s another feature that duplicates a Google feature that is already on the device. Bixby is cool and all, from the time we spent with it at Unpacked, but there’s a lot missing here. For one, it only currently works with a handful of apps. As is usually the case with new smartphone features, Samsung is relying on developers to make Bixby really good, by adding support in their apps. This didn’t work that well for Multi-window (at least not in the first couple of years) and that will likely be the case for Bixby, unfortunately. Additionally, it’s basically Google Now, but for Samsung. This is going to be confusing to users, because many of them already use Google Now, and Google Now gives them more information. Also, Google Now, and even Google Assistant have one important feature that makes them way better than Bixby, and it’s in their name. Google. Bixby does not have Google’s knowledge graph behind it. So asking Bixby questions about the president, or what year LeBron James started in the NBA, won’t work with Bixby, but it will with Google Assistant.

DeX is an interesting feature, but definitely not a practical one. Think about it, it’s cool that you can dock your Galaxy S8 into this DeX dock and have it connected to a monitor and a mouse and keyboard setup, and use the device as a desktop computer. Definitely cool. But how often are you actually going to use that? Probably not that often if ever. If you’re traveling, you’d need to bring a monitor, mouse and keyboard. Which is just not practical at all. While many of us do travel with a mouse, that’s much more practical than bringing basically an entire desktop setup. Most people will just opt to bring a laptop, or even a Chromebook (the Samsung Chromebook Plus is a good option) with them. Not to mention the fact that the dock starts at $149, making it pretty expensive, and likely to not sell well at all.

The Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus are not compatible with Google’s Daydream platform, and it’s hard to figure out why. They both meet all of the requirements for Daydream, including having an AMOLED display. Our best guess is that either Samsung has not worked with Google to enable support just yet, or that Samsung may be looking to push consumers to use Gear VR rather than Daydream. Which could very well be true, and it’s similar to what they have done with other apps and services in the past.

Trump Completes Repeal of Online Privacy Protections From Obama Era

President Trump on Monday signed a congressional resolution to complete the overturning of internet privacy protections created by the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration.

The change will allow broadband internet service suppliers, such as cable and telecommunications companies, to track and sell a customer’s online information with greater ease.

The Republican opponents of the Obama-era rules, which would have gone into effect later this year, said they would have unfairly placed restrictions on broadband providers, like Verizon and Comcast, that were more stringent than those on internet companies, like Google and Facebook.

The rules, approved in October when a majority of the commissioners were Democrats, would have required broadband companies to receive permission before collecting data on a user’s online activities.

Some technology policy experts said jettisoning the rules would allow broadband providers to collect customers’ internet browsing histories and other personal data and sell them to advertisers with little government oversight or fear of enforcement. Self-regulation and market competition, they said, may not sufficiently protect consumers.

“This is a repeal with no replacement,” said Danny Weitzner, director of the M.I.T. Internet Policy Research Initiative, who was a technology policy official in the Obama administration.

Broadband companies, privacy experts said, occupy a different position than internet companies. Google and Facebook, they noted, are corporate giants with plenty of market clout. But they are not a fundamental pathway to the internet the way the broadband providers are. And, privacy experts said, there is little or no competition for broadband service in many markets.

“You can live without Google or Facebook,” said Dallas Harris, a legal and policy fellow at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit consumer group. “It’s pretty difficult to walk away from internet service altogether.”

The privacy practices of internet companies are overseen by the Federal Trade Commission, while broadband providers fall under the F.C.C. Since the 1990s, the trade commission has policed the privacy practices of internet companies under its mandate to protect consumers from “unfair and deceptive practices.”

The F.T.C. requires internet companies to have privacy policies that the agency finds acceptable, and it conducts investigations into violations. Privacy advocates have criticized the trade commission for giving the companies too much freedom.

“It is lightweight regulation, but there is a real enforcement backstop as well,” Mr. Weitzner said.

Broadband carriers all have privacy policies. They can be sued by private plaintiffs and investigated by Congress, as they were about a decade ago, when an intrusive surveillance technique of personal data trails, known as deep packet inspection, came to light.

Just how valuable data collection may be for broadband companies is uncertain. Online advertising can be a lucrative, high-profit business. That is why Verizon, for example, bought AOL and is in the process of acquiring Yahoo’s internet assets.

Yet Google and Facebook account for two-thirds of online ad revenue, and their share of the market is growing. “The challenge is that Google and Facebook dominate this market,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Cowen & Company.

The broadband suppliers have “valuable, anonymized profiles of users,” Mr. Gallant said, adding, “But it’s not clear what the size of the market for the raw data is.”