... Clegg should be condemned in the strongest possible terms for his support of racism. For he is supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a future state of Palestine.

Why does the expansion of Jewish housing in the suburbs of Jerusalem prevent a state of Palestine from being established? Only because Abbas and his cronies have said over and over again that not one Jew will be allowed to live in their state of Palestine.
That racist agenda is what Clegg and Cameron are supporting. They too assume that, by definition, wherever Jews are living cannot be subsumed into Palestine. Some 20 per cent of Israel's population are Israeli Arabs.
Why don't Clegg and Cameron support the idea that there can be Palestinian Jews? Why do they not only agree that a future state of Palestine must be Judenrein but even blame Israel for 'vandalism' by failing to go along with that racist idea?

[...]
Why are Cameron and Clegg supporting the Holocaust-denier Abbas and his racist Palestinian Authority which pumps out hideous, Nazi-style demonisation of Jews and the intention to destroy Israel [- as here,http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3258.htm here,http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=452&fld_id=452&doc_id=6099 and here,http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5954 along with countless other examples -] and which extols those who have slaughtered Israelis as great Palestinian heroes whose murderous Jew-hatred serves as an example for Palestinian children to emulate?
For Cameron and Clegg to welcome this monster to Britain, while themselves demonising the nation he wants to wipe out and against which his administration incites hatred and murder week in, week out, is a truly sickening spectacle.”Cameron and Clegg give a free pass to racism.” By Melanie Phillips, The Daily Mail, 17th January 2012,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087589/David-Cameron-Nick-Clegg-free-pass-racism.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Tags: “palestine”, “palestinians”, Abbas, Arab racism, Areikat, Cameron, Clegg, Islamic bigotry, Islamofascism, Israel, Jihad, PA, racism, UK

A testament of hope: the essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr – Page 670 – Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King (Jr.), James Melvin Washington – HarperCollins, 1991 – 702 pages

Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert can be transformed into an…

Let the trumpet sound: a life of Martin Luther King, Jr – Page 475 – Stephen B. Oates – HarperCollins, Jan 12, 1994 – 592 pages

I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy.

Congressional Record, V. 148, Pt. 1, January 23, 2002 to February 13, 2002 – Page 426 – Congress – Government Printing Office

During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated his stand on the Israel- Arab conflict, stating “Israel’s right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable.” It was no accident that King emphasized “security” in his statements on the Middle East.

On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic death, he spoke out with clarity and directness stating, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy…
During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.” King taught us many lessons. As turbulence continues to grip the Middle East, his words should continue to serve as our guide…

http://books.google.com/books?id=aPAwhOGUggQC&pg=PA426

Near East report: Volume 23 – Page 158 – 1979

Ten days before he was murdered in 1968, when the four-year old PLO was already waging war against Israel, King told the Rabbinical Assembly: “Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs…

http://books.google.com/books?id=7bMMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Peace+for+Israel+means+security,+and+we+must+stand+with+all+our+might+to+protect+its+right+to+exist,+its+territorial+integrity%22

In My Opinion .Farrakhan’s Invective Threatens Historic black-Jewish alliance
Milwaukee Journal – Jul 12, 1984
By Peter Waldheim

[...] Only 10 days before he was murdered, the Re Martin Luther King Jr. gave a speech in which he said: peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with …

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H2gaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DioEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7022,2474538&dq=peace-for-israel-means-security&hl=en

Remembering MLK's ties to Israel, Promised Land vision | j. the Jewish news weekly of Northern California
Jweekly.com – Jan 16, 1998

Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, …

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7363/remembering-mlk-s-ties-to-israel-promised-land-vision/

Seeds of unity
Chicago Tribune – Feb 2, 1991

Peace for Israel means security and security must be a reality . . . . We must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist.” He also fought consistently against anti-Semitism. A street in Jerusalem is named after him….

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+must+stand+with+all+our+might+to+protect+its+right+to+exist.%22+He+also+fought+consistently+against%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers

Pastors Will Tie Rev. King’s Principles To Mid-east Issues
Pittsburgh Press – Jan 19, 1991
By Ann Rodgers-Melnick

The Pittsburgh Press

“Although one can say that Arabs and Jews are both semitic groups, the specific term anti-semitism refers to unreasoned hatred of the Jewish people….

King told the rabbis, peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality.” The Rev. Jason Barr, pastor of Macedonia Baptist Church in the …

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6xwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=32MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6884,1289656&dq=peace-for-israel-means-security&hl=en

Socialism of fools: the left, the Jews & Israel – Page 7 – Seymour Martin Lipset – Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, 1969 – 32 pages

“The Socialism of Fools” Shortly before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King, Jr. was in Boston on a fund-raising mission, and I had the good fortune to attend a dinner which was given for him in Cambridge.

This was an experience which was at once fascinating and moving: one witnessed Dr. King in action in a way one never got to see in public. He wanted to find what the Negro students at Harvard and other parts of the Boston area were thinking about various issues, and he very subtly cross-examined them for well over an hour-ami a half. He asked questions, and said very little himself. One of the young men present happened to make some remark against the Zionists. Dr. King snapped at him and said, “Don’t talk like that! When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews.

Encounter: Volume 33 – Page 424 – Stephen Spender, Congress for Cultural Freedom, Irving Kristol – Encounter Ldt., 1969

Seymour Martin Lipset

“The Socialism of Fools” The Left the Jews & Israel
[...]

He asked questions, and said very little himself. One of the young men present happened to make some remark against the Zionists. Dr. King snapped at him and said, “Don’t talk like that! When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews.

Op-Ed: Thoughts for Martin Luther King Day
Published: Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:00 AM

What would Martin Luther King dream about today?

… During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated his stand on the Israel- Arab conflict, stating “Israel’s right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable.” It was no accident that King emphasized “security” in his statements on the Middle East.

On March 25, 1968, less than two weeks before his tragic assassination, he spoke out with clarity and directness stating, “…peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

King also once delared, “I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews — because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

Unfortunately, King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech would not require too much alteration if given today in many parts of the world, but it would also be a dream about bringing to an end anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11131

Arabs Have a History of Enslavement of South Sudanese not the Jews
by Editorial – 16.01.2012
The above statement follows the sarcastic remark made by the current Secretary General of the Arab league Nabil Al-Araby that it would be to the benefit of South Sudan to join the Arab League instead of establishing diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. “From my end I regret that South Sudan took this step [Kiir visiting Israel] and it is part of Sudan from my point of view,” Al-Araby said in an interview with Qatar news agency..

http://www.thecitizen.info/opinion/arabs-have-a-history-of-enslavement-of-south-sudanese-not-the-jews/

–

Related:

Author explains (2011) the ”Baqt” agreement in Africa:

The Baqt in general was an Arab Muslim’s practice probably during the Islamic expansion which overran many countries including Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Iraq, Egypt, Libya Sudan etc. And during those wars, the Arabs would conquer, occupy and take booties (i.e. slaves, land and movable properties) where they were victorious over their enemies or victims. And where they failed to conquer immediately, they would impose the baqt or the payment in slaves and other valuable properties, plus certain conditions intended to weaken the indigenous socio-economic and political systems and the people at large, so that when the Arab Muslims become strong again they would conquer and colonized them. For the Arab Muslims there would always be no permanent peace with infidels or non Muslims until they surrender and become the dhimmes under the Arab Islamic Apartheid, as the third class citizens in an Islamic State, or if they submit to conversion and assimilation into Arab Islamic culture and religion, yet they would still become third or fourth class citizens because they would be treated as non Asharaf (i.e. non true Arab race or a non relative of the Prophet), non Awalad el Bled or non members of the Brown Arab Muslim Sudanese tribesmen (BRAMS) which is usually consisting of two main prominent Arab nationalities which include Jaaleen, and el Shaageen and the Arabised Danagaleen or Nubians. Indeed the non Arabs Muslim converts are always treated as outsiders within the Arab based Sectarian communities who consider themselves as “Alaharaf” the relatives of the Prophet” or Awalad el Bled (the children of the Land etc).<ref>Sudan: Will the Republic of South Sudan Accept Another Baqt the Dilemmas of Post Independence Agreement

Deng Dongrin Akuany
6 January 2012,

http://allafrica.com/stories/201201061141.html

Even anti-Israel ardent critic R. Goldstone admits the “apartheid” slur, is a lie, a slander!

Richard J. Goldstone, is a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9. He was quick to “accuse” Israel of “war crimes” in its (2008-9) anti-Terror operation (‘Cast Lead’). But retracted it after learning the facts.[1] In 2011 (Oct.) he wrote an Op Ed in the New York Times: “Israel and the Apartheid Slander.”

The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony. [2]

J. B. Pollack explains the context and timely importance of the Op Ed article:

Goldstone’s article anticipates the forthcoming “Russell Tribunal on Palestine,” to be held in South Africa. Named after the hearings held in the 1960s by philosopher Bertrand Russell in the United Kingdom to protest the Vietnam War, the Russell Tribunal will bring the emotive symbolism of apartheid to a make-believe judicial process whose outcome is already predetermined.
The chair of the panel, anti-war activist Terry Crawford-Browne, has already called for international boycotts of Israel. One of the star witnesses is Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, who conducted a reign of terror in South Africa’s black townships in the 1980s. Another is former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, who recently busied herself with propaganda for Muammar Gaddafi.

Despite the panel’s obvious lack of credibility, it will no doubt be touted by western leftists and third world governments as the basis for a renewed push at the United Nations to isolate Israel and promote unilateral Palestinian statehood. Goldstone’s op-ed is a timely rejoinder and the beginning of what appears to be sincere penance for the damage done by his slanderous report on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.[3]

BRITISH PARLIAMENT 1930-1947:

• ON ‘UNCHECKED’ ILLEGAL ARAB IMMIGRATION


• THE ‘UNFAIR’ “WHITE PAPER” RESTRICTING ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION


• ON JEWISH IMMIGRANTS INHABITING MOSTLY THE DESERTED SWAMPY LAND


• AND ACTUALLY BENEFITING ARABS IN PALESTINE

_____________

PALESTINE. (Hansard, 17 November 1930)
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE I wish to… This White Paper is a one-sided document. It is biased. Its whole drift is hostile to the spirit of the mandate… Jewish capital has been flowing into that country since the Peace, and Jewish capital has improved Arab conditions. You cannot pour capital into a country and simply confine its benefits to one section of the community…. you cannot restore a land so let down as this without a good deal of loss, and if these people, who have got an historic affection for this land, are prepared to sink their capital there, and to lose it—they are not people who will do It in every land as a rule—but if they are prepared to do it out of natural love and affection for this country, why should we hinder them?…

The Jews are 20 per cent. of the population, and their contribution to the revenue of Palestine is between 40 and 50 per cent. That is what enabled the Palestine Government to raise a loan of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 85 —[Interruption]—£4,500,000 was raised as a development loan, most of which provided labour for the Arabs, it was not spent upon the Jewish settlements there. We are told the Jews are using their wealth for the purpose of driving the poor Arab fellaheen from the soil of their fathers. It is not true. Most of the land cultivated by the Jews is land which they have reclaimed from the wilderness. Here and there, no doubt, upon the fringe of a morass, a little squalid Arab village may have been disturbed, but there have only been 700 taken out in order that it might be possible to drain the land. Half of them have been put back on the land and the others have found some other work. Here is a phrase which I will quote to the House: ‘Most of the land acquired by the Jews was swampy and malarial and required heavy expenditure on drainage before it could be made habitable. Much of the rest was sand dunes.’ What is the result? Not merely can you settle more people on the land, but you have improved the health of the community. Malaria is a very serious disease there, and it was slaughtering these poor people, and by this enormous expenditure of Zion and the other associations, such as the Colonisation Society, great tracts of territory have been drained in these areas and malaria has been eliminated. I would like somebody to take the trouble to read the eloquent description given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) when he was Commissioner of Palestine of this area. Its condition before the Jews went there was a swamp, a morass, created by the famous brook of Kishon. There were just a few miserable Arab villages right up on the hillsides, and not very many people there. The Jews spent £900,000 on draining about 50 square miles, and now there is a population of 2,600—probably it is more now. There are 20 villages, there are schools, there is a little forest in what was a treeless waste—this is very important in Palestine, as T shall point out—there is a training college for women for agriculture, and there are hospitals. That is a description of one valley.

… Surely with such an increase of population there must have been a great increase in the employment available for the Arab population. The large increase of population has been due undoubtedly, apart from a considerable Arab immigration, to the measures we have taken, in which the Jews have helped, to improve the health of the country, …
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1930/nov/17/palestine

PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION). (Hansard, 26 March 1934)
Mr. RHYS DAVIES asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty’s Government’s policy of restricting immigration into Palestine includes measures to control and restrict Arab immigration from Transjordania; and whether any increase in Arab immigration is accepted as a reason for restricting Jewish immigration?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1934/mar/26/palestine-immigration
Your Democracy – Housing
http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/housing/HAN3312744

PALESTINE LOAN [GUARANTEE]. Colonel Josiah Wedgwood Commons — May 11, 1934
Yet I think the worst illustration of all is in the question of immigration. You have these frightfully heavy restrictions upon Jews who go into the so-called Jewish National Home, and at the same time you have Arabs immigrating into that country without any check or restriction and without any possibility of knowing how many are going in except when the census is taken. The census figures have shown a far larger numerical increase of Arabs than of Jews, and that 1369 in the last year when the cry for labour has been so great. It has led to a large immigration of Arab labour. That labour is unskilled and is gradually driving Jewish labour out of all the unskilled trades and the heavy manual trades in the country. When I was in Haifa last I saw Jews, driven from Salonica, six feet high and broad-shouldered men, doing the stevedore work in the port, and their complaint was that they were offered precisely the same wage as the Arabs who came in. There again, you have the same discrimination against Jewish labour. Unless you can get the working class in Palestine Jewish it will never be a Jewish country. If you are to go on allowing the capitalist to go in—the merchant and the middleman—you will have repeated in Palestine what has happened in the rest of the world. One hope of making Palestine a Jewish country is to allow the workers to go in and to see that they are not driven out by inferior labour and paid a sweated wage on which the Jew cannot live free.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1934/may/11/palestine-loan-guarantee
Immigration.: 26 Jul 1939: House of Commons debates – TheyWorkForYou
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1939-07-26a.1454.2

PALESTINE (REFUGEES).Mr Malcolm Macdonald Commons — May 24, 1939
Mr. Herbert Morrison Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White 2295 Paper it is set out that it is Jewish immigration that will be discounted to the extent of any illegal immigration into Palestine, and that in that connection there is no mention of Arab illegal immigration?

Mr. MacDonald It will clearly be unfair to the Jews to deduct from their immigration quota the number of illegal Arab immigrants. The question, as I understood it, was what was to happen with regard to illegal Arab immigration, and I answered that steps would be taken to prevent it equally with steps to prevent illegal immigration of Jews.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/may/24/palestine-refugees

IMMIGRATION. Sir Geoffrey Mander Commons — July 26, 1939
Mr. Mander asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent in numbers during each of the last three years and for the last three months of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, and what steps are being taken to prevent it?
[...]
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at least the same energy will be shown in preventing illegal Arab immigration into Palestine as in preventing illegal Jewish immigration?
[...]
Miss Rathbone asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the matter of immigration into Palestine, he will consider making a concession on behalf of the elderly dependants of already established Jewish immigrants from the countries of persecution,..
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/jul/26/immigration
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1939-07-26a.1454.2

Illegal Immigration (Hansard, 19 November 1947)
Mr. Janner Can my right hon. Friend give to the House the total number of Arabs residing illegally in Palestine, and can he say whether reductions are made from the monthly quota for Arab immigration on that account?

Mr. Creech Jones That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Stokes rose —

Mr. Speaker It is quite obvious that we could go all over the place if we went on with this Question.

Mr. Stokes On a point of Order. As I have been unable to pursue this matter, Sir, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Janner On a point of Order. With respect, Sir, the main Question referred to illegal immigration into Palestine, and I was referring to illegal immigration over 1121 the borders of Transjordan, Egypt, and so on, by Arabs.

Mr. Stokes Further to that point of Order. As my supplementary question would have dealt with where the money comes from, and representations to the United States, would it be in Order to ask it now, Mr. Speaker?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/nov/19/illegal-immigration
19 Nov 1947: House of Commons
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=1947-11-19a.1120.6

Tags: Arab immigartion into Palestine, Arab immigration, Arabism, bible, British Mandate, British Parliament, History, House of Commons, Fellahin, holy land, Islamism, Israel, Jews, Muslims, palestine, Palestinians, PALLYWOOD, religion, settlers, so-called Palestinians, White Paper, Zionism, Zionist

It is a falsehood to say that Israel is an apartheid state.  This indictment, made by Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly in his speeches, is an Orwellian distortion of the truth, but it has been extremely effective in the public relations war of words that plays out in the United Nations, on the international stage, in the media, and on college campuses every day.

This is a grave and toxic travesty that needs to be made right.  In light of the “Arab Spring” spreading seeds of sharia law throughout the Middle East, Western civilization needs to see the truth.  Americans are being hijacked by propaganda against Israel…and not defending Israel’s right to be a Jewish state will lead to our own eventual downfall.

The analogy of Israel to South African apartheid commands a response.  Because of its catchy, slick word combination and its connotations that evoke vivid images of human unfairness and suffering, it has became a fashionable narrative for the media and international community’s discourse.  But it is not factual, and it is very deceptive.

Labeling Israel “apartheid” is meant to provoke worldwide criticism and elicit human rights-based anger that sanctions demonstrations, boycotts, and the denigration of Jewish morals.  This finger-pointing is an intentional attack on Israel.  It condones terror in the guise of “freedom-fighters,” encourages prosecution of Israeli officials in foreign courts, promotes laws against Israeli goods, and supports boycotts of stores selling Israeli products.  It sees the advantage of kidnapping soldiers, allows the destruction of Jewish artifacts and religious sites, and tries to exclude Jews from their legitimate claim to their historic homeland.

Factually speaking, apartheid was the policy of the South African government as a way of dealing with the white and non-white social, political and economic issues up until 1992.  It was the official policy that established and maintained racial segregation and racial discrimination.  The South African non-whites could not vote, and they had to carry a “Pass Book,” or they risked being jailed or deported.  By contrast, all citizens of Israel have equal voting rights.  Arabs have eleven representatives in Israel’s Knesset, including an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.  Every citizen must carry an identity card, along with all legal residents. 

In addition, non-white South Africans were kept from a wide range of jobs.  They had no free elementary through high school education; mixed sexual relationships were restricted and segregated; hospital and ambulance services were segregated; they could not use most public amenities; sports were segregated; and public facilities were labeled for correct racial usage.  Non-whites could not enter a building through the main entrance, be a member of a union, or participate in a strike.  That is apartheid, and Israel is not an apartheid state.

Although many pro-Palestinian organizations are aware that the Israel-apartheid analogy is inaccurate, this rhetoric is continually used to condemn and isolate Israel.  Just visit Israel to see the truth…Israeli Arabs shopping at Jerusalem’s Mamila Mall, enjoying Tel Aviv beaches, enrolled in the universities, getting hospital care, going on school trips to the zoos, and having free access to public places.

One of the more outspoken defenders of Israel is Benjamin Pogrund, a Jew born in Cape Town, now living in Israel.  Pogrund lived under apartheid, and as an anti-apartheid activist, he took grave risks by reporting the injustices against blacks.  He often comments that the comparison of Israel to South African apartheid “greatly minimizes the oppression and misery caused by apartheid and is debasing to its victims.”

In his rebuttal, Pogrund argues that “Israel is not unique in declaring itself a state for a specific people.”

Everyone knows that Egypt is for Egyptians, Ireland is for Irishmen, France for Frenchmen, Italy is for Italians, Serbia for Serbs, China for the Chinese, Iran for the Persians…and the list goes on.

“Apartheid”-supporters substantiate their stance by claiming that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs by barring them from buying land.

The facts regarding land ownership are clarified by Mitchell Bard, the executive director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who frequently lectures on U.S.-ME policy:

In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel’s War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92% belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8% of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

The reality is that both Arabs and Jews build homes illegally throughout Israel.  And the fact is that the number of illegal Arab homes scheduled for demolition is miniscule compared to Jewish homes that must adhere scrupulously to the rules for fear of condemnation.  (Please check Bard’s point-by-point rebuttal.)

The problems in Israel’s Arab communities are much like conditions others face in various places in the world, but Arabs don’t point a finger at those places.  Only Israel is labeled and attacked as “apartheid.”  Arabs need only to look at their neighboring countries in the Middle East to find real apartheid.  Does anyone honestly believe that Muslim women do not suffer from apartheid in countries with sharia law?  Or that Christians and Jews in some Arab nations are being attacked and killed purely because of their religion?  More pointedly, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not allow Jews to live there, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t even let Jews visit.

There are many “no-class” citizens in the world that Arabs don’t care to talk about.  One must believe that Abbas just doesn’t recognize “apartheid” as he declares that the State of Palestine will be “Judenrein” — a Jewish-free state.  Instead, the label of “apartheid” is stuck on Israel, keeping eyes focused away from the intolerance and bigotry that the PLO and Hamas preach.

Recently, I took issue with “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP), an on-campus pro-Palestinian organization that orchestrated the first National Anti-Israel Conference at Columbia University to “educate” students for participation in “Israel Apartheid Week 2012″ on university campuses.

The SJP supports the Apartheid Movement, the Gaza Freedom Movement that tried to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, the BDS movement against Israeli goods, and a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return.”  There can be no doubt that SJP, hiding behind the veil of human rights activism, supports the end of a Jewish state while “freedom-fighting” terrorists try to accomplish the same goal through violence.

One question needs to be asked of all those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state: if Israel gave up all the land rights, forfeited all of the natural resources, and agreed to a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return,” would the Jews be able to live in peaceful coexistence with their Arab neighbors?  The answer to this question determines the fate of the Jewish people and whether peace is ever attainable.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/israeli_democracy_vs_arab_apartheid.html

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly

By MARTIN SHERMAN

10/27/2011 23:00



Into the Fray: Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the rationale for its founding.
div id=”body_val”>
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state… 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. – Neve Gordon, “Boycott Israel,” Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2009.

Taken from an article by a senior Israeli academic, this excerpt typifies the racist Judeophobic rhetoric that has come to dominate the public discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Sadly it is rhetoric that has been endorsed by many in the Israeli academia and media. Even more disturbing is the complicity — or at least complacency — of Israeli officialdom in allowing it to become the defining feature of this discourse.

Expecting Jews to die meekly

This mode of rhetoric is no less than inciteful, Judeophobic racism, because in effect, it embodies the implicit delegitmization of the right of Jews to defend themselves.

It embodies the implicit expectation that Jews should consent to die meekly. And how can an expectation that Jews die meekly be characterized other than as “inciteful, Judeophobic racism?” For no matter what the measures Israel adopts to protect its citizens from those undisguisedly trying to murder and maim them — because they are Jews — they are widely condemned as “racist,” “disproportionate violence” or even “war crimes/crimes against humanity.”

It matters not whether these measures are administrative decisions or security operations, defensive responses or anticipatory initiatives, punitive retaliations or preemptive strikes. It matters not whether they entail the emplacement of physical barriers to block the infiltration of indiscriminate murderers; the imposition of restrictions to impede their lethal movements; the execution of preventive arrests to foil their deadly intentions; the conduct of targeted killings (with unprecedentedly low levels of collateral damage) to preempt their brutal plans; the launch of military campaigns to prevent the incessant shelling of civilians…

Lip service to Israel’s right to self-defense

The depiction of these measures as arbitrary acts of wrongdoing, whose only motivation is racially driven territorial avarice and discriminatory embitterment of the lives of the Palestinians, distorts reality and disregards context. But far more perturbing, is the moral implication of this condemnation.

For if all endeavors to prevent, protect or preempt are denounced as morally reprehensible, the inevitable conclusion is that they should not be employed. This implies a no less inevitable conclusion: To avoid the morally reprehensible, the Jewish state should — in effect — allow those who would attack its citizens, to do so with total impunity, and with total immunity from retribution.

True, many of Israel’s detractors protest with righteous indignation that they acknowledge that it “has a right to defend itself.” But this is quickly exposed as meaningless lip service, for whenever Israel exercises that allegedly acknowledged right, it is condemned for being excessively heavy-handed.

It makes little difference if Israel imposes a legal maritime blockade to prevent the supply of lethal armaments to Islamist extremists; or if Israeli commandos are forced to use deadly force to prevent themselves from being disemboweled by a frenzied lynch mob; or if, in response to the savage slaughter wrought by Palestinian suicide bombers — which relative to its population, dwarfed the losses on 9/11 — Israel clears the terror-infested and boobytrapped Jenin, using ground troops rather than its air force to minimize Palestinian collateral damage, thus incurring needless casualties of its own.

No matter how murderous the onslaughts initiated by the Palestinians, no matter how blatant the Palestinian brutality, no matter how outrageous the Palestinian provocation, the Israeli response is deemed inappropriate.

Despite the declaration of recognition of some generic abstract right to defend itself and its citizens, it seems that in practice the only “appropriate” response is for Israel to refrain from defending itself.

Exigencies of security

Then there is the reverse racism emblazoned in the subtext of the discourse of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians: The victims of racist hatred are condemned as racist for fending off their racist attackers.

Security barriers are not erected, roadblocks are not put in place, travel restrictions are not enforced as a racist response to Palestinian ethnicity but as a rationale response to Palestinian enmity. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to what Binyamin Netanyahu once called the “reversal of causality.” The blockade of Gaza is a consequence, not a cause, of Hamas’s violence; the West Bank security barrier is the result of, not the reason for, Palestinian terrorism.

If not for the massive carnage at Sbarro pizzeria, at Dizengoff Center, at the Passover Seder in the Park Hotel, there would have been no IDF operation in Jenin in 2002. Without the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli civilians, there would have been no Cast Lead operation in Gaza in 2009. If pregnant women and ambulances were not used to smuggle explosives into Israeli cities, there would be no need for checkpoints and roadblocks. If Palestinian gunmen would not open fire from vehicles on Israeli families passing by, there would be no need to restrict the movement of Palestinians on certain roads. If Palestinians did not ambush Israeli cars traveling though Palestinian towns, there would be no need to construct special roads for Israelis to bypass those towns.

The outcome of Judeophobic enmity

Of course, the standard Judeophobic response to this will be… “occupation,” that all-purpose, all-weather, one-size-fits-all excuse for every racist Palestinian atrocity perpetrated against the Jews.

According to this morally base and factually baseless contention, all Palestinian violence is an expression of understandable rage and frustration due to years of repressive “occupation” of Palestinian lands.

This claim is as egregious as it is asinine. It must be rejected with the moral opprobrium and the intellectual disdain it so richly deserves.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated in several recent columns, the call for the destruction of the Jewish state was made long before Israel held a square inch of what is now designated as “occupied Palestinian land.” (In fact, the original 1964 Palestinian National Covenant explicitly disavows any sovereign claim to the “West Bank” and Gaza as the Palestinian homeland.) The founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas are all committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, irrespective of time and regardless of frontiers. This too was the sentiment reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN appearance.

So clearly “Occupation” is not the origin of Palestinian ill-will towards Israel. Quite the reverse. The Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a direct outcome of Arab ill-will towards Israel, when in 1967 their massive military offensive to destroy Israel failed catastrophically.

It was not Jewish territorial avarice that brought Israel to “the territories” but Arab Judeocidal aggression.

What if there had been no ‘Occupation’?

Even if it can be irrefutably shown that “occupation” is not the origin
of Palestinian hostility, might it is not be possible that elimination
of “occupation” would induce, if not Palestinian amitié, then at least
Palestinian acceptance of Israel? Sadly, all evidence seems to point the
other way. Every time Israel has made tangible efforts to remove
“occupation,” the frenzy of Palestinian terrorism has soared to a higher
crescendo, and forced abandonment or even reversal of these efforts:

• This was the case from 1993 to ’96, when the implementation of the Oslo agreements brought forth a huge wave of suicide bombings.

• This was the case in 2000, when Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions to
the Palestinians, who responded with a wave of unprecedented terrorism
which continued under Ariel Sharon’s “restraint-is-strength-policy”
until the carnage made military response unavoidable. The result was
Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 that brought the IDF back in force to
the “West Bank,” where calm has been largely maintained ever since.

This was the case in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza and erased every
vestige of “occupation,” and in return received continuing and
escalating violence that culminated in Operation Cast Lead.

Clearly, not only can “occupation” not be attributed as the cause of Palestinian enmity, but attempts to remove — or at least attenuate — it seem only to exacerbate this enmity.

Here intriguing questions arise: What if Israel had never taken over the “West Bank” or had withdrawn
immediately after doing so, transferring control back to Jordan? What
then would have become of the Palestinians and their claims to “national
liberation?” What “occupation” would have then been blamed for their
plight? What territory would have then been the focus of their efforts
to establish their state? These are weighty questions which must await
discussion at some later stage, but merely raising them poses a serious
challenge to the factually flawed conventional wisdom that dominates and
distorts the debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

‘Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism’

“Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism” is the mantra sounded with Pavlovian regularity by Israel’s detractors. And they are of course right. Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti- Semitism.

However, the enduring practice of holding the nation-state of the Jews to
discriminatory double standards does makes anti-Semitism an increasingly
plausible explanation for that criticism, an explanation can no longer
be summarily dismissed without persuasive proof to the contrary.

After all, atrocities of ferocity and scale far beyond anything of which
Israel is accused, even by its most vehement detractors, are perpetrated
regularly with hardly a murmur of censure from the international
community. By contrast the slightest hint of any Israeli infringement —
real or imagined — of human rights immediately results in expression of
shock and revulsion in headlines in all major media outlets across the
globe, precipitates emergency sessions of international organizations,
and produces worldwide condemnation, from friend and foe alike.

Of
course, the implication is not that Israel should be judged by the same
criteria as the tyrannies of Sudan or North Korea; or by the bloody
standards of Damascus or Tehran.

The question is, however, why
should it be judged by standards and criteria which are far more
stringent than those applied to the democracies that make up NATO.

For in the Balkans, in Iraq and in Afghanistan they have enforced blockades
and embargoes far more onerous and damaging to civilians than that
imposed on Gaza. They conducted military campaigns far from their
borders that caused far more civilian casualties than Israel has in
campaigns conducted only a few kilometers from the heart of its capital
city…

Yet international outcry has been — at best – muted.

So, while holding the Jewish state to standards demanded of no other nation in the exercise of its right to self-defense may have explanations
other than anti-Semitism (or Judeophobia to be more precise), no really
compelling ones come readily to mind.

The real racism

This brings us back to where we began.

While the Jewish state faces unparalleled threats, and unconditional enmity,
it is continually condemned for acting to meet those threats and to
contend with that enmity — no matter what measures it adopts, no matter
how grave the peril, no matter how severe the provocation.

This then is the real racism that permeates the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

• The expectation that the Jews jeopardize their security in order to maintain the viability of manifest falsehoods.

•
The perverse portrayal of every coercive measure undertaken by the IDF
to protect the lives of Jews against those striving to kill them, merely
because they are Jews, as racially motivated, disproportionate
violence.

• The disingenuous depiction of the inconvenience
caused to Palestinians by these measures as a more heinous evil than the
Jewish deaths they are designed to prevent.

• The attitude that
shedding Jewish blood is more acceptable than the measures required to
prevent it, an element that appears to be becoming increasingly
internalized into the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the
rationale for its founding: Jews will no longer die meekly.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=243452

[...]
But a lie is still a lie.

Lie No. 1: The Palestinians were a sovereign people and nation until they were “expelled” in 1948.

Facts: The area known as Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th Century until the British took control in 1917. From 1917 until 1948, the area was under British operational control and, later, mandate.

There was never a Palestinian nation.

Further, the population of the entire area, according to a 1879 Encyclopedia Britannica, was never substantial and was ethnically diverse. Any inhabitants there were concentrated in two cities, Jerusalem and Jaffa, and in the nomadic Bedouin tribes.

There was also a constant Jewish community. From the time of the first census in 1844 to the present, there have always been more Jews in Jerusalem than Moslems. Large-scale Jewish immigration during the Ottoman period made the Jewish community. From the time of the first census in 1844 to the present, there have always been more Jews in Jerusalem than Moslems. Large scale Jewish immigration during the Ottoman period made the Jewish community a significant presence.

It was only after the Jewish settlers bought land and made the area economically productive that the Arabs returned in significant numbers. Between the World Wars, the Arab population in predominantly Arab towns rose only insignificantly, e.g. 16,000 to 23,000 in Nablus. The population trends in the three major Jewish cities show a different story. The Arab population increased in Jerusalem by 97 percent, from 28,500 to 56,400, in Jaffa by 134 percent, from 27,400 to 62,600 and in Haifa by 216 percent, from 18,400 to 58,200.

The massive Arab immigration into Palestine during the Mandate period accounts for roughly 75 percent of the supposedly “Palestinian” population present at the time of the partition in 1948.

Lie No 2: Israel occupies historical Palestine.

Facts: Israel only covers roughly 25 percent of what used to be the province of Palestine. In 1922, the British government violated its League of Nations Mandate over Palestine by partitioning the territory into a truncated Palestine and a nebulous entity called “Transjordan.”

In 1947, the United Nations voted to form two states out of what was left of Palestine, and the Jewish leadership pledged to abide by the borders. The Arab world refused and invaded.

As the world knows, Israel won its war and the ensuing armistice lines resulted in Israeli sovereignty over 20 percent of the land within the 1917 borders of Palestine. The remainder, the so-called West Bank, was grabbed by the Bedouin King Abdullah. For 19 years, he and his successor and grandson, Hussein, controlled the territory; at any time during that period either could have returned this so-called birthright to the Palestinians. They did not, and since none of the other Arab countries would grant full refuge to the refugees, they were dumped into policed camps.

Meanwhile, Jordan (the name was changed In 1950 is more than 75 percent Palestinian in population. Palestinians are prospering in that nation-in-an area comprising most of historical Palestine.

Lie No. 3: The PLO is a freedom-seeking, democratic organization.

Fact: Anyone who witnessed the tragedy of Lebanon from 1975 through last summer’s invasion by Israeli forces saw the true face of the PLO. At best, it is a shadow organization in chaos.

The Lebanese gave refuge to the Palestinians and the PLO, and in “gratitude,” the PLO established a state within Lebanon, mocking its sovereignty, murdering its citizens and slashing its social fabric.

The Lebanese have suffered enough from PLO democracy and freedom. They consider themselves somewhat lucky-a few more years of PLO freedom and guarantees and Lebanon might not have survived.

An American wit once said, “Trust everyone, but cut the cards yourself.” Through all of the lies, the truth is coming out, and right will triumph.

By Sister Margaret Ellen Traxler:- is director of the Institute of Women Today and founder and a member of the board of the National Coalition of American Nuns, both based in Chicago.

Palestine’s Lies And Facts – Radio Bergen

http://radiobergen.org/history/liefact.html
Palestine’s lies and factsChicago Tribune (1963-Current file) – Chicago, Ill.
Author: Sister Margaret Ellen Traxler
Date: Jul 8, 1983
Start Page: 17
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 816
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+massive+Arab+immigration+into+Palestine+during+the+Mandate+period+accounts+for+roughly+75+percent+of+the+supposedly+%22Palestinian%22+population+present+at%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers

—

Related:

Greensboro News & Record: JEWS DIDN’T DISPLACE ARABS‎
Date: November 8, 1991
Page A12

JEWS DIDN’T DISPLACE ARABS

Column: Letters to the Editor The ”Palestinian hoax” is obvious in the Oct. 30 story in the News & Record. James Weiner states that “Palestinians have been without a homeland since Israel became a state in 1948.” This is the big-lie technique. The displaced Arabs who lay claim to Israeli lands took a new name in the 1960s. This was a great victory for the Arabs. By one word, Palestinian, a geographic description became a proper noun…
Early Jewish settlers brought development, which created massive Arab immigration. Jews did not displace Arabs. Consult your British and Turkish histories.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Early+Jewish+settlers+brought+
development,+which+created+massive+Arab+immigration%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers

—

Letters to The Times; Costs of Production Computing Them…‎ Situation in Palestine Position of the Revisionists and the Zionists Explained

New York Times – Aug 1, 1938


Palestine’s “grave problem” arose from an overwhelming Arab immigration in 1936 and earlier, when three or four times as many Arabs as Jews were permitted to enter the country… ISADORE SOLKOFF

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Palestine’s+%22grave+problem%22+arose+from+an+
overwhelming+Arab+immigration+in+1936+and+earlier,+when%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers

—

Harold H. Hart, “Yom Kippur plus 100 days: the human side of the war and its aftermath, as shown through the columns of the Jerusalem post,” p. 273, Hart Pub. Co., 1974, 446 pp.

Who Are The Palestinians [...]

They also wondered why these so-called Palestinians were refugees. My former colleagues, all of whom were British officers in the Palestine Police, tell me they have documentary proof that the “Palestinians” are not and never were “Palestinians.” They were and are illegal migrants into the Land of Israel from all the surrounding Arab countries, and they Came searching for work and food from the Jewish settlers, because in their own Arab countries, they were homeless, jobless and on the verge of starvation.

http://books.google.com/books?&id=5sRtAAAAMAAJ&q=%22were+and+are+illegal+migrants
+into+the+Land+of+Israel+from+all+the+surrounding+Arab+countries%22