Posts Tagged ‘apartheid slur’

Israel’s ‘moral clarity letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

April 16, 2012

Israel’s ‘moral clarity’ letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

israel today | Israel News | Anti-Israel

fly-in protest is a bust – israel today
Sunday, April 15, 2012 | Ryan Jones

Anti-Israel fly-in protest 

is a bust

Israel was on

alert Sunday for a planned mass fly-in protest,

or “flytilla,” by foreign anti-Israel activists

protesting the Jewish state’s control of Judea

and Samaria, including the eastern half of

Jerusalem. But by the end of the work day, a mere

27 activists had managed to land in Israel. They

were quickly detained and deported.

The stunt was largely thwarted by Israel

loudly publicizing the fact that it would deny

entry to the activists, insisting that they were

arriving for the sole purpose of provoking

unrest. As a result, most airlines cancelled the

activists’ tickets rather than be billed for

their return flights upon deportation from

Israel. Unable to even reach Israel, hundreds of

the activists demonstrated at an airport in

Paris.

Those who did make it to Israel were presented

an official letter of welcome by Israel’s Foreign

Ministry. The wry letter read:

Dear activist,

We appreciate your choosing to make Israel the

object of your humanitarian concerns. We know

there were many other worthy choices.

You could have chosen to protest they Syrian

regime’s daily savagery against its own people,

which has claimed thousands of lives.

You could have chosen to protest the Iranian

regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent and support

of terrorism throughout the world.

You could have chosen to protest Hamas rule in

Gaza, where terror organizations commit a double

war crime by firing rockets at civilians and

hiding behind civilians.

But instead you chose to protest against

Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy, where

women are equal, the press criticizes the

government, human rights organizations can

operate freely, religious freedom is protected

for all and minorities do not live in fear.

Therefore we suggest to let you solve first

the real problems of the region, and then come

back and share with us your experience.

Have a nice flight.

The letter was seen as a public relations

victory, as it strongly highlighted the grossly

exaggerated attention paid to Israel and its

conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, a conflict

that pales in comparison with so many other

crises around the world. For

many, it is that gross exaggeration, that

irrational obsession with what “the Jews” are

doing, that marks such schemes as

anti-Semitic.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte

m/tabid/178/nid/23189/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Israel to ‘thank’ fly-in activists in mocking

letter



Jerusalem Post

14 Apr 2012

By HERB KEINON, YAAKOV LAPPIN, TOVAH LAZAROFF



Israel plans to bar entry by some 2,000 activists

from at least 15 different countries, mostly in

Europe, either by preventing them from boarding

their flights or by deporting them once they

arrive.



The activists want to draw attention to Israel’s

practice of barring foreigners it believes could

cause trouble by engaging in pro-Palestinian

activities during their visit.



The letter – drawn up in the Prime Minister’s

Office – noted, that the activists “could have

chosen to protest the Syrian regime’s daily

savagery against its own people, which has

claimed thousands of lives.”



Alternatively, they could have chosen to protest

“the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent

and support of terrorism throughout the world.”

Or, if they simply had to come to this part of

the globe, they “could have chosen to protest

Hamas rule in Gaza, where terror organizations

commit a double war crime by firing rockets at

civilians and hiding behind civilians.”



Instead, “you chose to protest against Israel,

the Middle East’s sole democracy, where women are

equal, the press criticizes the government, human

rights organizations can operate freely,

religious freedom is protected for all and

minorities do not live in fear.”



The letter concludes with a suggestion that the

activists first solve “the real problems of the

region” and then “come back and share with us

your experience.”



In an indication that Israel will not let the

protesters in but will instead deport them back

to their countries of origin, the letter ends

with the line: “Have a nice flight.”



Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry officials said

Saturday night that responsibility for dealing

with the flytilla was in the hands of the Public

Security Ministry, which will be in contact with

the consulates of the countries whose nationals

are to be barred from entering the country.



The Foreign Ministry has over the past few weeks

been in discussions with its counterparts in

capitals around the world, explaining Israel’s

position regarding the fly-in and making clear

that those coming to engage in provocative

actions would not be given an entry visa.



Israeli authorities circulated to the airlines

the names of some 1,200 pro-Palestinian activists

expected to participate, in the hope that the

companies would prevent them from boarding.



One official explained that if someone flies into

a country without the necessary visa or is not

given that visa when he or she lands, the

responsibility – and expense – for flying the

person back falls on the airline.



Already on Wednesday, Amnon Shmueli, who heads

the Immigration Authority at Ben- Gurion Airport,

sent a letter to all airlines with a list of

names of the people it believed were planning on

participating in flytilla, according to a

document posted on its website.



The document said, “Due to statements of

pro-Palestinian radicals to arrive on commercial

flights from abroad to disrupt order and confront

security forces at friction points, it was

decided to deny their entry.”



“Attached is a list of passengers that are denied

entry to Israel. In light of the above mentioned,

you are ordered not board them on your flights,”

the letter states.



“Failure to comply with this directive will

result in sanctions against the airlines.”



According to the website, already as early as

Tuesday a foreign visitor from Sweden who entered

Israel from Eilat was asked to sign a pledge not

to be a member of a pro-Palestinian organization,

not to be in contact with any pro-Palestinian

organizations and not to participate in

pro-Palestinian activities.



Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch

confirmed Saturday night that Israel had asked

airlines not to board fly-in passengers.



“They acted pretty much accordingly,” he said.



The public security minister, who is in charge of

Israel’s response to the flytilla, said a

passenger plane with activists could land in

Israel as early as Saturday night.



“We’ve started initial preparations tonight,” he

said on Saturday.



“Tomorrow is the main day…. Clear instructions

have been given to police, the interior

minister… to prevent provocations and not allow

disturbances at Ben-Gurion Airport.”



Those identified by Israel as provocateurs who

manage to circumvent the no-fly lists and land in

Israel will be “isolated from the central

airport,” Aharonovitch said.



Activists who get past all of Israel’s measures

“will be arrested if they cause disturbances,” he

added.



Two European airlines, Jet2.com and Lufthansa,

told passengers on Friday that they planned to

comply with Israel’s demands, according to the

Welcome to Palestine website.



Jet2 advised passengers that Israel had denied

them entry and as such they might not be able to

board their flights. Lufthansa informed the

passengers in question that their tickets had

been canceled.



The pro-Palestinian website #Airflotilla2

uploaded a scanned image of one of the tickets

canceled by Lufthansa and reported that the same

notification had been sent to dozens of activists

on Thursday, informing them that their

reservations had been canceled “by order of

Israel.”



Hundreds of unarmed police officers will guard

the airport on Sunday, when anywhere from 500 to

1,000 activists try to land in Israel, according

to police estimates.



Sunday is expected to be one of Israel’s busiest

air travel days, with some 45,000 passengers

landing and taking off from Ben-Gurion.



Central police district chief Cmdr. Bentsi Sao

will oversee the operation, which is aimed at

ensuring routine at the airport.



Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor

at Bethlehem University and one of the organizers

of the event, said that Israel was only harming

itself with its “hysterical” reaction.



“Why do they want people to lie to them at the

airport?” he asked. “Why can’t they say they are

coming to visit us in Bethlehem?”



Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this

report.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol

itics/Article.aspx?id=266012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Haters unite: Neo-Nazis, Islamists and IslamoChristians [pro-Islamism fake “Christians”]: Stephen Sizer, and stenchy company

February 27, 2012

Haters unite: Neo-Nazis, Islamists and IslamoChristians [pro-Islamism fake "Christians"]: Stephen Sizer, and stenchy company

Introduction
Under an outrageous banner: 'Christ at an Israeli Checkpoint,' organizers, like Stephen Sizer embark on an ugly propaganda, distorting the fact of security and constant attempts to carry out massacres by Arab-Muslims [grandchildren of immigrants, otherwise known as] "Palestinians" who caused the need of checkpoints. Just as Islamists caused the STA security checkpoints in the US. All the while Arab-Islamists have been abusing humane IDF by using children, "pregnant women" and ambulances for its violent intentions to target unarmed innocent Israelis.

Such is the infamous Stephen Sizer, who promoted a website that supports Holocaust denial," and prepares to host an anti-Jewish propaganda in March in Bethlehem Bible College, is naturally on the Islamists' side of history, That "conquered Islamic lands may never revert to non-Islamic control."

Fact-sheet Bethlehem number 1:
suffering Christians under "Palestine" Islamic rule vs flourishing Christians in Israel
Bethlehem the city is now home to Beleaguered Christians under cruel Islamists especially since Arafat's Islamization. They fear their Muslim neighbors and won't talk on camera. While all over the Middle East Christians dwindle, and besieged under Islam, only in Israel they flourish.

Fact-sheet Bethlehem number 2:
Bethlehem Bible College – hate hotbed
Bethlehem Bible College, has a worrying track record on antisemitism. They sent lecturer Alex Awad to represent the college, and share a platform with Hitler-admirer and Holocaust denier Frederick Tobin in Indonesia.

Under the yoke of Islamic persecution upon Bethlehem Christians, Arab intimidating presence has been so great that, ever since Hanan Ashrawi’s propaganda reign, it has been a 'Capital' of The IslamoChristians:
Islamo Christians applies to "Christians" who promote Islamism, usually on the expense of Christians and always on the expense of Judea Christianity. Those that are not defenders of Christianity but traitors to it

Tell me who your friends are…

Stephen Sizer – pro Nazism, associates:
* Muslim Brotherhood's Raed Salah;
* the Ayatollah Khomeini's daughter Zahra Mostafavi;
* and (exposed as a Nazi even by Palestinians) Joram Jermas Israel Shamir.

Stephen Sizer posted a link on his Facebook page to an antisemitic site called "The Ugly Truth" which featured images of blood-sucking Jewish vampires and Nazi-style caricatures of Jewish men. Three months later, Rev Sizer took down the link.

His associates include Palestinian activist Raed Salah; Zahra Mostafavi, the Ayatollah Khomeini's daughter; and Israel Shamir, who warns of "Jewish mind control on a world scale".

RAED SALAH

Raed Salah as in head of Northern Branch of Islamic Movement in Israel, espouses Antisemitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Nazi propaganda. He has been banned in the UK for racial hatred and arrested.

Triangle: Stephen Sizer, Ben White and Muslim Brotherhood's Salah
Both, anti-Israel vicious hater extremist blogger of 'The Guardian' Ben White, who flirts with Holocaust revisionists and Sizer are friends and supporters of Islamic movement's head in Israel: Raed Salah


ZAHRA MOSTAFAVI




Founder of Islamic Republic Ayatollah’s daughter does not need much introduction when it comes to oppression, totalitarianism. She’s helping Jihad and transalated Stephen Sizer’s book. When Iranian women, in 2009 tried to change and relax just a bit the prison-state Sharia theocracy, she stood firm and demonized them.

JORAN JERMAS (Non-Jew, Nazi, adopted an Israeli name and pose as a "Jew"): Israel Shamir, AKA: Adam Ermash, Joran Jermas.

Israel Shamir, whose writing imitates that of Nazi Alfred Rosenberg.

He is an open anti-Semite. Russian-born Shamir lives in Israel, but almost no Israelis have heard of him. He is an open neo-Nazi.

Exposed in “Israeli Writer Is Swedish Anti-Semite” by Tor Bach, Sven Johansen and Lise Apfel­bum; The Search­light; May/2004.:

A man who claims to be one of Israel's leading intellectuals is also a Swedish antisemitic writer. Israel Shamir presents himself on his website as a leading Russian-Israeli intellectual and a writer, translator and journalist. But in 2001 he changed his name to Joran Jermas and has surrounded himself in Sweden and Norway – (An empty bag cannot stand) and was published by the openly nazi publisher Nordiska Förlaget.

The London Times Exposes Columnist "Israel Shamir" as Swedish neo-Nazi. For many years the most openly anti-Semitic "Jew" filling the web with columns

Israel Shamir’s Antisemitic 'book' with the Arab radical 'activist' using information and 'ideas' created by Neo Nazi groups

From a neutral independent writer:

I make no comment here on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Arab conflict, or the appalling historical episode of which Mrs Allaf writes; I merely refer you to the source whose judgment Mrs Allaf proffers. "Israel Shamir" is the nom de plume of a writer whose real name is Joran Jermas. So far from being, as he claims, a leading Israeli intellectual and translator, Shamir is of Russian origin, and has lived in Sweden for the past 20 years. His writings, which are widely circulated on the Internet, are unambiguously antisemitic

Naturally, Shamir, is a regular on Counterpunch. He is so openly pro-Nazi, that even European anti-Israel activist groups repudiate him as an embarrassment. By the way, The 911-conspiracy-theories pusher (truther) Counterpunch’s IP Address, is also shared with the Arab islamic sites linked with the Arab lobby: ADC – 'The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

He's ISM’s Swedish antisemite who also passes himself off as a 'Jew' (all the better to make propaganda). Known widely as the 'toxic dwarf,' Israel Shamir (also known as Joran Jermas) is such an awful antisemite that even some pro-Palestinian Arab/anti-Zionist activists have rejected him. According to the now infamous Marxist anti-Zionist Dr. Sue Blackwell, Shamir is a Nazi.

Even Arab-Palestinian propagandist Nigel Parry who runs 'The Electronic Intifada' exposes Israel Shamir 'a neo-Nazi'.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1922-2012 90 Years to first Arab racist anti-Jewish boycott

February 22, 2012

1922-2012 90 Years to first Arab racist anti-Jewish boycott

The current bigoted anti-Israel boycotts, are NOT related to any “policies.” It began many years before Israel was re-established, in 1922. It was pushed mainly by the infamous Mufti Haj amin al-Husseini, who allied himself with Hitler later on.

Authors:

Economic warfare is an essential component of total war; anti-Semitism is the ideological concomitant of the Arabs’ total war against the Jewish state.

Anti-Semitism imbues this economic war with hatreds which have historic roots within the Arab world; it is an endemic feature of the boycott, despite the Arab claim that they have a quarrel only with “Zionists,” not with Jews.
[…] A call went out in 1922 from the Fifth Arab Congress, meeting in Nablus, for all Arabs to boycott Jewish businesses; seven years later, the First Palestine Arab Women’s Congress asked “every Arab to buy nothing from the Jews but land, and to sell them everything but land.”
Other, similar calls went out in 1931 and 1933, and in 1936 a boycott of all Jewish products was proclaimed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti and spiritual leader of all Moslems. This was the forerunner of today’s Arab Trade Boycott.

Terence Prittie, Walter Henry Nelson, Ter The economic war against the Jews (Secker & Warburg, 1978, 269 pp.) p. 4, p. 9

In March and April 1933, The Mufti, praised Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish treatment, especially the boycotts.

Current organizers of anti-Israel boycotts (like, BDS, Anti-Semitism’s New Face,” the movement to “isolate Israel as part of their program to destroy Israel”, PHAS-Anti-Semitic Motifs in Anti-Israelism have been exposed, and as US offical says Yes, the Boycott of Israel Is Anti-Semitic and as celebrated Italian writer says the boycott ‘is “a form of racism.”‘ Demonizing unfairly, blatantly maliciously lying obessively about the 100% democratic victim-Israel fighting off a constant existential threat since the 1920s and beyond, is bigotry, not “legitimate criticism.”) ‘market’ their racism with the false cover of “anti-racism,” and using the outrageous “apartheid slur,” which was invented in 1961 by the Mufti’s henchman Ahmad Ahukairy, who allied hismelf with Nazi groups in 1962 and is known for coining the genocide phrase ‘throw the Jews into the sea,’ in 1967, called Shukairy’s slogan.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , WW2

The totally unreliable ‘The Guardian’

February 16, 2012

The Guardian is not just ‘left’ like the BBC. But on the very extreme. Especially when it comes to US and Israel it has been known to be very radical and totally unreliable.



  • ANTI-ZIONIST AND ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE ON THE GUARDIAN’S COMMENT IS FREE WEBSITE

By Hadar Sela June 7, 2010 […] The result of the Guardian’s method of moderation is two-fold. Not only does it put the onus for the reporting of antisemitic comments and the demand for their deletion via the ‘report abuse’ function upon those members of the general public who consider it to be their voluntary task to monitor CiF (a resource upon which the Guardian openly admits it relies), it also means that racist hate speech for example comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa or the Nazi regime is not infrequently left standing on the CiF site. Moreover, those offensive comments that are deleted often take an unacceptable amount of time to disappear and are hence read by many visitors to the site before they do.[1]



  • UK Jewish groups slam ‘Guardian’ for using Hamas propaganda against Israel

Jerusalem Post – Mar 25, 2009 In an article in Tuesday’s Guardian, entitled ‘Guardian’ investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes..


“This is the newspaper that reported the massacre at Jenin, which turned out to be false, and said also that Israel was high in an international league table for its murder of journalists and then failed to properly correct this patent falsehood,” said Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation of the UK. “It is the paper that tolerates anti-Semitic content in its blog ‘Comment Is Free,’ and indeed encourages it by its choice of contributors.”[2]



  • IRAN’S NETWORK SPEWS

24-HR. TV NEWS HAS NO SEX, BUT LIES & VIDEO Last Updated: 5:00 AM, July 5, 2007 Posted: 5:00 AM, July 5, 2007 […] Another article blames the United States and Israel for stirring up violence between Fatah and Hamas in Gaza. Washington’s fingerprints are all over the chaos that has hit Palestinians and the last thing they need now is an envoy called Blair. Wait a minute. That piece came out of The Guardian newspaper in Britain. PressTV is in good company. [3]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

November 6, 2011

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]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid [AT]

October 31, 2011

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid

By JanSuzanne Krasner

October 26, 2011

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly [JPost]

October 28, 2011

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

Israel-and-the-Arab-World

October 28, 2011

Israel-and-the-Arab-World

Arab-Islamic Apartheid VS. Israel’s cosmopolitan beautiful equal-for-all democracy

July 4, 2011

ARAB-ISLAMIC APARTHEID

VS ISRAEL’S COSMOPLITAN DEMOCRACY

The comment ‘rejected’ by pro-Arab racism of the HuffPost’s moderator

June 30, 2011

The comment ‘rejected’ by pro-Arab racism of the HuffPost’s moderator

My friend tried to post the following, it was removed by the moderaotr of the “objective” HuffingtonPost:

How dare you attack this [SWC] humane organization personally? So much for your Arabic style of buzzwords like “graveyards” as if we don’t know who causes Arab civiian deaths. When is there going to be an outcry in the Arab world against Hamas/Hezbollah use of civilians to make sure Arab kids die in order to damn the Zionists? The same goes to the racist Arab “apartheid” slur on Israel’s true democracy where Arabs have more than equal rights, when you count the favoritism of the ‘affirnative action’ system in Israel.

This, in reply to the Arab propagandist: “sas”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/sas/hypocrisy-on-parade-delta_b_886309_94833059.html