Posts Tagged ‘bias’

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East

September 15, 2011

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East


It is long overdue that this (and others like it) come under scrutiny for being systematically blindly anti-Israel biased, distortion of facts and simply obsessive in singling it out, while covering for Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity. [You know when an orgainaztion is in real trouble, when, even, its founding chairman criticizes it for utter and complete failure].

“Human rights” organizations’ conspiracy-collective war on Israelis’ Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter if its (like the UN) influenced by Arab oil / Lobby, Islamic lobby, Arab “street anger,” or impacted by the powerful mythology of “strong Israel vs. poor weak Arab” – (deriving from a distorted image, naively based on looking at a raw-but-shallow picture of balance-of-armament VS reality, underestimating the Goliath power of “Palestinians” and Hezbollah use of their civilians against cautious and Humane Israel) is the source of it, or if it’s by an individual bigot in charge at HRW.





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch who publicly renounced his ties with the organization due to distorted and disproportionate focus on free and open Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East — mostly unfree — has just launched a new human rights organization, Advancing Human Rights.


Why the need for a new organization? Bernstein, 88, explains:


Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/03/hrw_founder_bernstein_starts_a.html


“Human Rights Watch Coverup”
Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky


When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth’s umbrage at criticism.


Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization’s reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch’s behavior at the UN’s infamous “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization’s actions were assailable there, he says, it would make “it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct.”


It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.
Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance ­ notwithstanding that ‘s citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.


At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here’s what happened:
As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.
The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that is an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state.”


As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.


THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.


Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.
 
Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the “voices of the victims.”


In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.


The vote to delete the Jewish caucus’s proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.


What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the “voices of the victims” had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: “The document gives expression to all voices.”


What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.


AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.
On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration “marks a major success… and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included “anti-Arab racism.”


Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: “What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers.”
What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.


As for Roth’s claim of the organization’s objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability ­ despite an annual budget of $22 million ­ to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.


So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an “assassination” or “liquidation.”


International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.


Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.
When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel’s enemies?
The writer, a professor at York University in , is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908


Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes …
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN. Published: October 19, 2009. AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman …The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Pollak: Human Rights Watch is Biased Against Israel – WSJ.com
Jul 30, 2009 – Double Standards and Human Rights Watch
The organization displays a strong bias against Israel
By NOAH POLLAK
Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.”

As criticism of her remark poured in, Ms. Whitson responded by saying that the complaint against her was “fundamentally a racist one.” And Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared that “We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”

The facts tell a different story. From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. (It also published a small number of critiques of both Israel and Arab groups, and of intra-Palestinian fighting.)

It was during this period that more than 8,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Human Rights Watch’s response? In November 2006 it said that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks.” Two years later it urged the Hamas leadership “to speak out forcefully against such [rocket] attacks . . . and bring to justice those who are found to have participated in them.”

In response to the rocket war and Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel imposed a partial blockade of Gaza. Human Rights Watch then published some 28 statements and reports on the blockade, accusing Israel in highly charged language of an array of war crimes and human rights violations. One report headline declared that Israel was “choking Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has never recognized the difference between Hamas’s campaign of murder against Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to defend those civilians. The unwillingness to distinguish between aggression and self-defense blots out a fundamental moral fact—that Hamas’s refusal to stop its attacks makes it culpable for both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also maintained a blockade on Gaza, although it is not even under attack from Hamas. Human Rights Watch has never singled out Egypt for criticism over its participation in the blockade.

The organization regularly calls for arms embargoes against Israel and claims it commits war crimes for using drones, artillery and cluster bombs. Yet on Israel’s northern border sits Hezbollah, which is building an arsenal of rockets to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, and has placed that arsenal in towns and villages in hopes that Lebanese civilians will be killed if Israel attempts to defend itself. The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament and the cessation of its arms smuggling. Yet while Human Rights Watch has criticized Israel’s weapons 15 times, it has criticized Hezbollah’s twice.

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch does not actually function as a human-rights organization. If it did, it would draw attention to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are warehoused in impoverished refugee camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and even the right to work. This has received zero coverage from the organization.

In 2007, the Lebanese Army laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp for over three months, killing hundreds. Human Rights Watch produced two anemic press releases. At this very moment, Jordan is stripping its Palestinians of citizenship without the slightest protest from the organization. Unfortunately, Human Rights Watch seems only to care about Palestinians when they can be used to convince the world that the Jewish state is actually a criminal state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

TNR publishes “Minority Report: Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel”
April 28, 2010   Richard Landes
The New Republic has just published a major piece on Human Rights Watch and their deeply disturbed relationship to Israel. Its a case study of demopaths and dupes, human rights complex, masochistic omnipotence syndrome, and the left-jihadi alliance. Below, a few choice passages.


Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
Benjamin Birnbaum April 27, 2010 | 12:00 am


[snip]


With Palestinian suicide bombings reaching a crescendo in early 2002, precipitating a full-scale Israeli counterterrorist campaign across the West Bank, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division (MENA) issued two reports (and myriad press releases) on Israeli misconduct—including one on the Israel Defense Forces’ assault on terrorist safe havens in the Jenin refugee camp. That report—which, to HRW’s credit, debunked the widespread myth that Israel had carried out a massacre—nevertheless said there was “strong prima facie evidence” that Israel had “committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” irking the country’s supporters, who argued that the IDF had in fact gone to great lengths to spare Palestinian civilians. (The decision not to launch an aerial bombardment of the densely populated area, and to dispatch ground troops into labyrinthine warrens instead, cost 23 Israeli soldiers their lives—crucial context that HRW ignored.) It would take another five months for HRW to release a report on Palestinian suicide bombings—and another five years for it to publish a report addressing the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza, despite the fact that, by 2003, hundreds had been launched from the territory into Israel. (HRW did issue earlier press releases on both subjects.)


In the years to come, critics would accuse HRW of giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds. According to HRW’s own count, since 2000, MENA has devoted more reports to abuses by Israel than to abuses by all but two other countries, Iraq and Egypt. That’s more reports than those on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and other regional dictatorships. (When HRW includes press releases in its count, Israel ranks fourth on the list.) And, if you count only full reports—as opposed to “briefing papers,” “backgrounders,” and other documents that tend to be shorter, less authoritative, and therefore less influential—the focus on the Jewish state only increases, with Israel either leading or close to leading the tally. There are roughly as many reports on Israel as on Iran, Syria, and Libya combined.


HRW officials acknowledge that a number of factors beyond the enormity of human rights abuses go into deciding how to divide up the organization’s attentions: access to a given country, possibility for redress, and general interest in the topic. “I think we tend to go where there’s action and where we’re going to get reaction,” rues one board member. “We seek the limelight—that’s part of what we do. And so, Israel’s sort of like low-hanging fruit.”


[snip]
[Bernstien and] Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel, eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”


[snip]


Robert James—a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception—calls the group “the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. … They cannot take criticism.”


[snip]


Critics have pointed out that a number of Whitson’s colleagues in MENA—such as Joe Stork, who came to HRW after decades as a leader of the left-wing Middle East Research and Information Project, where he was part of an editorial collective that ran an extremely anti-Israel journal—arrived at the organization with backgrounds in the pro-Palestinian movement. Sid Sheinberg argues that the mere appearance of a biased jury at MENA ill-serves HRW. “Is it smart to have a number of people about which questions can be asked—in either direction?” he says. But, when I asked Whitson about this critique—and, specifically, about a former researcher on Israel who, before starting at HRW, wrote pro-Palestinian dispatches from the West Bank and Gaza describing Israeli soldiers as “protected by arrogance and hatred and a state and an army and the world’s superpower”—she said she didn’t see a problem with this situation. “For people who apply for jobs to be the researcher in Israel-Palestine, it’s probably going to be someone who’s done work on Israel-Palestine with a human rights background,” she explained. “And guess what? People who do work with a human rights background on Israel-Palestine tend to find that there are a lot of Israeli abuses. And they tend to become human rights activists on the issue.” For his part, HRW program director Iain Levine, who oversees the organization’s 16 divisions, acknowledges that people from many divisions—and not just MENA—arrive from “solidarity backgrounds,” but insists that, “when they come to the door of this organization, they park those things behind.”


Whether or not Whitson has done so, she clearly favors a tough approach toward the Jewish state. She has argued that, far from being too harsh toward Israel, HRW is actually too lenient. “[B]elieve me,” she wrote in an e-mail to a MENA advisory committee member, “on israel in particular, we are overly cautious and extremely kid-gloved because of the harassment we endure.” Less definitive—but still arguably revealing—evidence about Whitson’s politics can be found in her opinion of Norman Finkelstein, the activist and avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany. The two became acquainted years ago, and she brought him to HRW to discuss his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah. (“He had a very mixed reception,” she remembers. “I think people did not find his style particularly persuasive.”) In late 2006, when Finkelstein launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that HRW officials apologize for a press release critical of Palestinian officials (which they eventually did), one HRW observer e-mailed Whitson to share thoughts on Finkelstein’s over-the-top rhetoric. Whitson replied: “I agree w/ u that norm undermines himself and his cause w/ the language he uses, and his anger sometimes gets the better of him and his brilliant mind and generous spirit. I continue to have tremendous respect and admiration for him, because as you probably know, making Israeli abuses the focus of one’s life work is a thankless but courageous task that may well end up leaving all of us quite bitter.”


[snip]


Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it.


He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail. (When I asked Roth in a February interview at his office about HRW’s refusal to take a position on Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel, including his famous call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Roth quibbled about the way the statement had been translated in the West—“there was a real question as to whether he actually said that”—then told me that it was not HRW’s place to render judgments on such rhetoric: “Let’s assume it is a military threat. We don’t take on governments’ military threats just as we don’t take on aggression, per se. We look at how they behave. So, we wouldn’t condemn a military threat just as we wouldn’t condemn an invasion—we would look at how the government wages the war.” Whitson, who sat in on the interview, offered her two cents: “You know, that statement was also matched by Hillary Clinton saying that the Iranian regime should be destroyed or wiped off the map. Again, so, very similar statements, side by side, close in time.” For his part, Goldstone told TNR that he eventually came around to the view this was not an issue HRW should take up.)
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/04/28/tnr-publishes-minority-report-human-rights-watch-fights-a-civil-war-over-israel/


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


Obama-Sponsor Gives $100M to Anti-Israeli ‘Human Rights Watch’
 – Sep 13, 2010 – Anti-Israeli secular-Jewish billionaire George Soros has pledged $100 million to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139596


Human Rights Watch sells out to Soros–Gerald Steinberg – NYPOST.com
Sep 13, 2010 – Selling Out to Soros
Rights group’s dubious recordBy GERALD STEINBERG


Last Updated: 6:20 PM, September 13, 2010
Posted: 11:44 PM, September 12, 2010


In accepting a huge grant from George Soros, Human Rights Watch has spurned the public advice (and warning) offered nearly a year ago by its founder Robert Bernstein. Rather than grapple with the serious problems of credibility and bias, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth has cemented relations with Soros — a partisan ideologue who also supports Moveon.org, a controversial advocacy group.


Bernstein severely criticized HRW in a New York Times oped. To “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world,” he warned, the organization must return “to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it.” In its earlier days, he noted, “to create clarity in human rights,” HRW aimed to “draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds.”


Soros: His $100 million donation to Human Rights Watch will make up for grants lost because of recent scandals. Over the years, HRW lost its moral compass and substituted ideology and an Israel-obsessed agenda. Bernstein was trying to awaken the group’s leaders to the decayed state of what was once a human-rights superpower.


Instead, Roth has opted to accept Soros’ $100 million grant — which should offset nicely the income lost from core donors who’ve walked away in the wake of a host of scandals. It won’t, however, address the root problems.


In May 2009, HRW launched a fund-raising drive in Saudi Arabia, using its anti-Israel record to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society.” That September, HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was “outed” as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia — a troubling hobby for the main author of a number of HRW reports that accused Israel of “war crimes” and other violations.


Add to this the recent work by NGO Monitor, the watchdog group that I lead, and others on the severe ideological biases at HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. The systematic research in NGO Monitor’s report and articles in The New Republic and the Sunday Times detail the severe ideological biases of MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson and deputy director Joe Stork.


Both Whitson and Stork came to HRW with backgrounds in pro-Palestinian political activities, and continue to promote their anti-Israel political agendas through their “human rights” work.


Whitson was and remains an advocate of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In July 2009, she referred to Israel’s “system of apartheid.” Stork’s publications in the Middle East Research and Information Project from the 1980s and 1990s focus on attacking Zionism, Israel and American “imperialism” in the Middle East, while promoting the Palestinian narrative.


This is further evidence of Bernstein’s conclusion that HRW is “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”


The group has relentlessly promoted the UN-commissioned report by one of its former board members, Richard Goldstone — a report that reflects the same biases and dubious research practices as so many recent HRW papers. In 2009, HRW’s 34 pro-Goldstone publications outnumbered its documents on all the countries in the Middle East except Israel and Iran.


The bias is indisputable: HRW’s publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” made up 28 percent of its total Mideast output in 2009.


Which makes it a fine fit for George Soros, whose own biases are well-established. In the Middle East, for example, his Open Society Institute exclusively supports advocacy groups that campaign internationally to undermine the elected governments of Israel — organizations such as Adalah, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Gisha and Yesh Din.


In extending his control over HRW, Soros seeks to increase its staff by 40 percent, reposition it as a major international player and restore its influence as an arbiter on universal human rights. But while his grant will alleviate the crisis caused by HRW’s declining income, it only deepens the moral crisis.


Only by changing the organization’s hiring practices, research priorities, methodologies and biases — especially at MENA — can Human Rights Watch recover its image as the “gold standard” of human-rights groups.


Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, and a professor of political science at Bar Ilan Uni versity
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ


_____________



EXPLODING CRITICISM IN THE WAKE OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, WHILE ISLAMIC-HEZBOLLAH DELIBERATELY CAUSES CIVILIAN DEATHS IN LEBANON (2006)


First Word: What is ‘Human Rights Watch’ watching – Jerusalem Post
 –  ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
08/24/2006 16:48


Many former supporters of the organization have become alienated by its obsessive focus on Israel.


When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true. Consider the following highly publicized “conclusion” reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel: “Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” No cases! Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch.


How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don’t think so. Despite its boast that “Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies,” it didn’t find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab “eyewitnesses” and monitored “information from public sources including the Israeli government statements.” Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker. “Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. – Sabrina Tavernise, “Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah,” The New York Times, July 28, 2006. Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins. A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, “It was a Hizbullah mosque.” A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. – Jon Lee Anderson, “The Battle for Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 8, 2006. Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They’ve done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret’d.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. “It’s the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital.” – Carlie Gillis, “Diplomacy Under Fire,” MacLean’s, August 7, 2006.
The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. “Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?” The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.


Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. – Sonia Verma, “Hizbullah’s Deadly Hold on Heartland,” National Post, August 5, 2006. [Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home. – Mohamad Bazzi, “Mideast Crisis – Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run,” Newsday, July 28, 2006 “What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces),'” said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. – Steven Edwards, “UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack,” CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006. It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin. – United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).
While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.
Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. “Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said. “Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. “After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater.
The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as “human shields.” – Chris Tinkler, “Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don’t care,” Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.


HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored – or more likely suppressed – this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah’s tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.


Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that “in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.” So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way. Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, “their obsessive focus on Israel.” Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias. Roth and his organization’s willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization.


Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=32731


Human Rights Watch: Irrelevant, Immoral on Mideast Conflict
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 
This article originally appeared in The New York Sun on August 2, 2006 


Human Rights Watch has come out with a stinging attack on Israel for its actions in the conflict against Hezbollah, calling the tragedy in Qana a “war crime.”


Since Human Rights Watch is not an organization that has ignored human rights issues in the Arab world — it has done studies on such issues as human rights violations in Egypt and suicide bombings — what the organization says is given much weight and credibility in certain circles.


The truth is, however, that the overwhelming thrust of Human Rights Watch work regarding Israel and the Arab world falls on Israel. Included was a rush to judgment in its accusation that Israel in Jenin had committed war crimes in seeking out suicide bombers, as well as the fact that in one year (2004), according to NGO Monitor, of 33 HRW documents dealing with Israel, 25 were critical of the Jewish State.


More significantly, there are questions about HRW’s broader perspective in its work in the Middle East. Kenneth Roth falls back on technical interpretations to justify what his organization criticizes and what it doesn’t. He says that it doesn’t go into the cause of war. He doesn’t want to talk about the intentions of various parties. He doesn’t want to look at the larger picture because, he claims, all of this would undermine the neutral posture that gives his organization credibility.


More than any specific criticism, it is this explanation of what HRW is about that is so problematic. First, he inappropriately compares his organization in this respect to the Red Cross, but that body has a very different purpose. HRW, by its reports and statements, has a major impact on political judgments.


Far more important is that his explanation of HRW’s perspective — at least as it applies to the conflict of Israel and the Arab world — leads inevitably to the conclusion that HRW is either irrelevant or immoral, or maybe both. On one level, his explanations of all the factors that don’t come into play when doing analyses and passing judgment should lead to the conclusion that they truly aren’t relevant to the fundamental issues of peace, war, and justice that are embodied in a conflict such as this. If the intentions of Syria and Iran are not to be examined, if the takeover of part of a country by a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel is not something important, if the continuous flow of rockets, launchers and other weapons from Iran and Syria to an illegitimate group is not worthy of consideration, then ultimately why should anyone take seriously what Human Rights Watch has to say?


On a deeper level, one can conclude that despite painting itself as a great moral arbiter, in fact Human Rights Watch’s approach to these problems is immorality at the highest level. Let’s remember that Israel has been able to survive and prosper in a region where it has been surrounded by neighbors, close and far, who have been committed to Israel’s destruction for five decades, because of one reason: its strength and power of deterrence.


The State of Israel, which emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust, understood early on that it must be able to convince its enemies that attacking the tiny Jewish State would be a big mistake. Israel had to make clear to the Arabs that they would be hurt far, far more than the pain they could inflict. In other words, without Israel hitting back (not in an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews) but in a much stronger way, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.


The moral issue, the human rights issue that overrides everything else in this conflict is that if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran don’t understand that they will pay an overwhelming price for these rocket attacks on Israel, then eventually the rockets will be armed with chemical weapons and the warheads with nuclear weapons. In other words, a second Holocaust would be in the works.


So yes, Israel is striking very hard at Hezbollah and the infrastructure that allows it to operate and to receive weapons from Iran and Syria. And yes, there are tragically civilian casualties. Israel must do everything in its power to limit these casualties. But it is Hezbollah that has cynically created a dilemma for Israel by embedding their missiles not only in civilian areas, but literally in civilian households. The dilemma for Israel was: should it be so careful to avoid civilian casualties — for its own sake, for the sake of the Lebanese people and their attitudes toward Israel, and for world opinion — that Israel would not effectively destroy the missile threat that was turning northern Israel into a hell for its residents? Or, should Israel strike at Hezbollah with significant force, inevitably producing civilian casualties because of the placement of missiles, which would turn the people of Lebanon and the world against Israel? Israel has sought its way through this minefield. It has tried both to protect its people and to limit civilian casualties.


It is no accident that Human Rights Watch gets it wrong or has a habit of rushing to judgment as it did in Jenin and as it did in Qana. If one sees military activity by Israel in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to its security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, ignoring the cynical actions of its foes which seek either to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world, then, of course, Israel will look like the neighborhood bully and will be accused of all kinds of things.


I would therefore recommend that Human Rights Watch be viewed for what it is, at least when it comes to the great struggle in the Middle East that may determine not only the future of the State of Israel but of mankind itself: as irrelevant or immoral.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/EB055C60-4506-
4FAF-98A0-49AEAAC82227,213018C9-567C-418C-BDEA-1CBDA8F58810,frameless.htm


Roth’s False God
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 8, 2006


After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is “a clear humanitarian violation.” We’re tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.


Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in “extremist interpretations of religious doctrine” like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he’ll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he’ll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not “in sight” is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.


The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth’s statements “loathsome” and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is “so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously.” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed “a classic anti-Semitic stereotype,” and said Human Rights Watch is “irrelevant or immoral.” A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, “Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying.”


The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us of Human Rights Watch that he was “disturbed by its apparent bias.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch “is not only naïve, but shows his hatred toward Jews and Israel is greater than his hatred of Islamist terror.” The general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, called Human Rights Watch’s position “a problem,” and said, “to elevate a mistake to the level of war crime is outrageous.” A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Bandler, said the statements by Human Rights Watch and Mr. Roth “display a real lack of understanding.”


American Jewry stands with the Israeli government on the point. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, a few months back told us of Human Rights Watch, after the organization wrote to President Bush calling for an end to all American aid to Israel, “They’ve lost their credibility.” Even Human Rights Watch’s founding chairman, Robert Bernstein, who led the organization from 1979 to 1997, is dismayed and pained at the stance the group he founded has been taking against the Jewish state, according to several individuals to whom Mr. Bernstein confided his discomfort with the organization he helped found. Mr. Bernstein declined to comment.


Mr. Roth sneers at “religious doctrine” and “Biblical injunctions” from the Torah. In an earlier letter to this page, he referred to them as the “morality of some more primitive moment.” He belittles any distinction between a terrorist group whose goal is to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, and impose Islamist law worldwide, and a pluralist sovereign state, like Israel, that apologizes and investigates when it kills civilians in the course of trying to protect its civilians and borders from the terrorist group. Human Rights Watch recently called on America to cease immediately arms transfers to Israel. If Mr. Roth’s Yale Law School degree and international law dictate cutting off Israel’s arms as it is under assault by a terrorist group out to destroy it and deliberately kill its civilians, we’ll take the Bible any day. One doesn’t need a Yale Law School degree or expertise in international law to know Israel is different from the terrorists, just a basic moral compass.


Mr. Roth’s own moral compass seems to go haywire whenever Israel is involved. More reputable scholars of international law, like Orde Kittrie writing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, disagree with Human Rights Watch’s conclusions. So do President Bush and a consensus in Congress and among the American public, which have supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Siding with Human Rights Watch in criticizing Israel have been the governments of Iran and Communist China, two of the worst human rights abusers of them all.


Mr. Roth may send us another letter, conceding another point or two along the way. Or not. But this is about more than Mr. Roth and his organization. The moral equivalence that has infected him and his organization has, sadly, spread far on much of the left, from the United Nations to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International and the editorialists of the New York Times, who yesterday, stunningly, said any ceasefire they would favor must allow Hezbollah “to claim some sort of victory.” That such confusion has not gained traction among American Jews or, for that matter, on the Christian right in this country is testament to the bond of shared values between America and Israel. Those values have a base in something higher than the false god of international law before whom Kenneth Roth has brought a once-idealistic institution so low.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roths-false-god/37473


Human Rights Hypocrites
– Aug 29, 2006 – Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which … Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

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

Advertisements

The ‘ARAB LOBBY’ = most powerful in the world (e. g. U.S. lost to Qatar)

December 7, 2010

The ‘ARAB LOBBY’ = most powerful in the world (e. g. U.S. lost to Qatar)

Still doubting the ‘power’ of the ARAB LOBBY, after the giant U.S. lost to ‘bad sportsmen’ of Qatar?

Think again!

US World Cup snub shows Qatari lobbying power | ProSports Colorado Dec 2, 2010 … In Qatar, FIFA officials saw an opportunity to accomplish two goals in … The reality is that Qatar is the uber-elite of the Arab world, …

http://www.prosportscolorado.com/2010/12/02/3839-us-world-cup-snub-shows-qatari-lobbying-power/

And this is just a tip of the iceberg of global Arab lobby. Of course it’s not just about sports.

Now, understand how the [international arena, like: the] United Nations and Amnesty work, and for whom – most of the time.

Or Human Rights Watch’s crippling of U.S. security or its failure to criticize strong enough the human rights abuses, racism and Islamic apartheid in the Muslim world, yet, is so quick to categorize Israelis struggle againt genocidal Arab-Muslim bigots as “violations.”

Related:


www.mitchellbard.com/lobby.html

New book: Arab lobby rules America – New book by Mideast expert Mitchell Bard claims Arab lobby, headed by Saudis, ‘has unlimited resources to try to buy what they usually cannot win on merits of their arguments.’

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3944579,00.html

Google up

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

NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher

July 6, 2010

NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher



A. writes…

To the NewYorkTimes [letters@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com]



It has been a long time since I took a peek in that paper, I apologize for being forced into it when meeting 2 relatives in a starbucks cafe, their flight was delayed, so the nytimes gained my attention, regrettably.



July 4 – 2010



Here are glimpses of the “quality” newspaper:



1) Frontpage of the (“Jewish?”) New York Times talks about strained relations between US-Israel, note, A) Mark Landler does not talk about frictions between Obama’s administration and the Netanyahu’s (A.K.A. naming the problem), but ‘between US & Israel.’

B) It titles the flotilla ship (you know, that radical-Islamists IHH led boat that attacked violently the Israeli security and called: “Kill the Jews for Allah!” and “Go back to Auschwitz! prior to that), no more and no less but: “humanitarian aid.”



2) Then, in the section: “Inside the Times” (p. 3, a summary of what awaits the reader…)

I notice briefly that Nicholas D. Kristof writes something… oh, wait where do I remember

that name from? Of course, that’s the guy that wrote about the Arab slavery & genocide

on Africans in Darfur but never had the courage to name it what it is: Arab racism, writing and writing so much material about that calamity, yet always beating around the bushes (Mr. Honigman has criticized him, a lot, google it up). So, Am I interested in anything Mr. Kristof has to say? not really. [if he can’t “see” the Arabs committing crimes against humanity in Africa, why would he see it in Arab-Palestine?] I didn’t even bother to look “inside” his article that “criticizes” Israel’s blockade over (Hamas’ controlled) Gaza.



3) Obituaries… (p. 19) Do you ever think, the bias-virus can spread there as well, sure enough in the never impartial Nytimes, anything is possible. Do you have any idea who the “chosen one” was this week? believe it or not, [Mohammed Oudeh] the planner of the infamous anti-Israel massacre by Arab-Muslim “Palestinians” in 1972, the Munich murderous cold blooded attack on Israel’s sport team [Why? “freedom fighters” of course].

So, Do you also know who provided the material for the “quality paper,” it was an Arab in Ramallah, W.B [Khaled Abu Aker – whatever] “reporting…” about how “great of a father he was,” [these loveable neutral guys always “report,” never posting opinions of course, not surprisingly the ‘Pallywood’ term pops up suddenly) aren’t

you intrigued as me to know how “wonderful” this low life murderer was?



In any case, all in all, a typical “dry” Sunday (wait until it gets interesting in Israel “Palestine”), and anti-Israel rant is all over it, and I barely had a chance to really ‘read’ the times. My family members appeared, thank you very much. I think I’ll pass, (Ma’am) Can I have 2 cappuccinos, to go, please?



I still notice how racist Arabists and Nazi KKK/supremacists call that paper “jewish,” not sure why, for all it is, it’s one staunch Arabist paper, certainly no better than the BBC,

who openly admitted a few years back of being biased against Christianity & against Israel.

I take it back, What a stupid question to wonder about haters’ “facts?”

PS
The date above says, July – 2010, but the date is irrelevant, the sample is certainly a pathetic routine.

1) Sad note: Whatever happened to the prestigious newspaper, the last 10-15 Years or so…?
2) Reality note: I guess there’s a real logic behind the huge loss of subscription, on top of deep disapppointing “opinions,” its bias has already reached a dreadful boring (not boiling) point – yawn!
3) Happy note: I am so glad that I do not have a habit to read that quality-less paper.

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

Tips to posters on public forums fighting anti-Israel bigotry

June 23, 2010



Tips to posters on public forums fighting anti-Israel bigotry






IMPOSTORS



* Arab, Muslim posters have been known for being impostors, posing as “Christians,” as “white Nazis,” even as “Jews.”



* True, there are some radicals in the west, that post against Israel, yet, the overwhelming majority of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish posters, today, are Muslims.



* Anti-Israel posters –like anti-Israel bigoted “activists”– cover their intolerance-agenda by “worrying” about “poor Palestinians,” which in reality, no one could care.





PRO-PALESTINIAN IS A SHAM – ITS ANTI-ISRAEL





Don’t buy the “pro-Israel” face, its never about caring FOR Arab Palestinians, otherwise they would divert all the energy in helping them get out of their self-inflicted  misery, instead they try very hard to damn Israel in front of cameras and making anti Israel headlines in the media, it’s just easier to go against Israel in a frame of “pro Palestine activism.”

Real pro-Palestinianism is almost an extinct specie.





CASUALTIES




[BODY COUNT IS NOT ALWAYS TELLING WHO THE VICTIM IS]



* What would have happened if ‘mighty’ Israel’s army wouldn’t be so humane and careful about Arab civilian lives?  The question is not how many would die, but, How many would survive?



* What would happen if the Arab Muslims would be so successful military-wise, would there be an Israel? or how many God-forbid Jews would have perished in their ultimate genocide goal?



* If the Arab-Muslims (Palestinian or Hezbollah) hadn’t used their civilian population, would there still be “massacres,” as they like to call it?



* Who are the targets of the Arab-Muslims? Army personal, or predominantly unarmed Israeli men, women & children?





DAVID VS GOLIATH



* Did you get a chance to look at the N.E. map lately? who’s threatening whom? including the “misunderstood” genocidal Islamic president in Tehran seeking to wipe off map 7,000,000 ?



* Arab Palestinians possess a much more powerful weapon, Israelis don’t have, as Israeli soldiers’ hands are tied every time there’s a crowd of unarmed Arabs, the cynical terrorists surround themselves by.





DETECTING BIGOTRY LURKING BEHIND “INNOCENT CRITICISM”



Pay attention to those that in the habit of:



* Highlighting any rare abuse case by an Israeli policeman, more than in such cases when occurring in the west.



* Obsession about Israel, singling it out.



* Demonization of all of Israel, the entire state/society/nation.

“Seeing” women & children only on the Arab side and ‘seeing’ all of Israel as nothing but one big “tank.” [This dehumanization can be detected easily through the lines, of never admitting of Israeli suffering].



* The racism of labeling all Israel does as ‘racist.’ mainly, ignoring the real picture of Israel’s fight for survival – constantly.



* Simple, crude lies about Israel’s democratic system (albeit, this might be tricky, many are simply unaware and plain ignorant, in that case it might not be intentional).





RACISM?



* Unlike the scene of the Arab-Palestine side, Israel’s a cosmopolitan country, society, with colors, races raging from the whitest of whites to the darkest of blacks.



* Israelis, Jews or Arabs are equally subject to check points, security -saving lives, is what motivates Israel’s policy, always, though the frequency of ‘checkpoints’ on roads, are stricter and more scrutinizing in the Palestinian-Arab areas, where terrorism is more frequent.



* What motivates Arabs,Muslims to target Jewish civilians (excluding Arab Israelis) just for being Jews? Is it not Arab racism & Islamic bigotry?



* What were the excuses of the Arab-Muslims in 1929 Hebron massacre on the verge to ‘kill Jews.’ was it the “occupation” of almost 40 Years later?



* Can you point to me 25% of Arab Palestine to being non-Arab, as a parallel in pluralistic democratic Israel where its 25% Arab population have full rights?

Or any Jew is prohibited from residing in racist apartheid Jew-free Arab-Palestine?



* Point to me a group, organization equivalent of B’tzelem or any other Jewish Israeli human rights groups advocating on behalf of Arabs, Is there anyone on the 100% racist Arab side that cares about Jews?





RACE, ARAB RACISM & “SEMITES”



* If there’s such a thing as “race,” then, Arab Israelis and Arab-Palestinians are of the same “race.” Even Jimmy Carter (who used the “apartheid” slur in his book after he was paid by the Arab lobby) admitted on CNN (Larry King Live) that Israel is a free and equal democracy for Arabs & Jews alike.



* If Arabs are pure “Semites” can be disputed, however, anti-Semitism, historically was always referred to anti-Jewish bigotry, exclusively, [come to think of it, if Arabs are in fact “semites,” then Zionism can never be “racism,” the hypocrite racists Arabism can’t have it both ways], in reality, racism is in one’s mind, as long as the Arabs see the Jews as a separate creed and hate it blindly, they are the true racists. Sorry, but they just can’t hide under “we are Semites” crap.

Virtually all minorities in the Arab world are effected one way or another (through violence, persecution or “plain” discrimination) from Arab racism, Kurds by Syria currently, by Iraq mainly under pan Arab racist: Saddam Hussein), Assyrians, pre-Arab invasion true indigenous Lebanese (Phoenicians), indigenous N. Africans (Berbers), Persians (Iranian), Blacks (in Sudan, Mauritania and in Arab countries), Copts (indigenous Egyptians), Jews, Asian maids (slaves – rather) in the gulf states, etc.





RELIGION AND THE BIGOTRY BY ISLAMISTS



* Israeli society is not religious, most IDF soldiers are secular, Israel’s policy is monitored by security issues and realism only.



Arab-Palestine society is by in large religiously Muslim. So is the “conflict” from their point of view. The “Allah u Akbar” when (attempting in) massacring Jews is a Muslim thing, of course.



In fact, Jews are hardly the only ones, fallen prey to the religious intolerance by Muslims, virtually all non-Muslims in the Muslim world, and many, even beyond, have been effected (more noticeably, Christians in the middle east and in Asia, non-Muslim Chinese in Indonesia, Hindus in India, Buddhists in S. Thailand, and Bahai in Iran) either by direct terror violence, expantionist Jihadism, religious fanaticism and any part of Islamists’ attempts in their Islamicizing the globe [by any means necessary] goal.



A tiny note, in Judaism, there’s no call to convert anyone to Judaism, tolerant Judaism says you don’t have to be a Jew in order to enter heaven. (see: Noahide laws).



Sorry, but ‘all religious extremism’ today are NOT all alike.



* The most extremist Zionist will only reach its “peak” to an attitude of asking Arab Palestinians who won’t accept Israel’s state and rule, to just leave the area towards Jordan (which was the original Transjordan-Palestine idea, to grant the Arabs, this idea by the very tiny minority among radicals is also known as “transfer”), nothing resembling that total genocide aim by their Islamic counterparts.



* A 2007 poll of Palestinians, where 75% don’t “give” Israel a right to exist, speaks volume of the radicalism in mainstream Arab-Palestine VS Israelis that by-in-large are even willing to go the extra mile and give the Arabs another state, a new one, which never existed before in history, an ‘Arab-Palestine,’ on top of the already 22 Arab states.



Try to conduct a poll about Jews in any moderate Arab country (as a matter of fact, a few years back, PEW’s finding about attitudes towards Jews in such an Arab country like Jordan, showed 100% negative) or street, you might already guess what you’re about to find out about mainstream Arab-Muslim bigotry.



Also, that despicable diabolic Islamic mythology of dehumanization of non-Muslims, like: ‘Christians are pigs and Jews are apes,’ [often shown in Palestinian media, and Mosques and in Saudi Arabian schools] is exclusively that, Islamic.





IT DIDN’T START IN 1948



The usual Palestine-song is “all was fine until the (re)establishment of Israel in 1948′

Fact: Arabs, Muslims have been attacking the Jews of Palestine in 1834 (Safed, many indigenous Jews – victims of a massacre & mass rape campaign of 33 days), 1920 (Jerusalem, and other locations), 1929 (Hebron massacre), 1939 (Tiberias), etc.





CAUSE = INTOLERANCE



It [historic perspective] matters, because the root cause was never about land, but about intolerance. Though the slogans sometimes change, according to the conditions, providing any “updated” excuses.

The Satanic Arab-Muslim theme running through their childhood education and inspirational religious icons are along the lines of: “Jews are not humans,” and ‘Kill a Jew – go to heaven’ doesn’t exist in the Jewish education system.





INDIGENOUS “PALESTINIANS” FROM… ARABIA, SYRIA & EGYPT



Prompted by that racist Arab Helen Thomas’ outburst of calling to an ethnic cleansing of Jews (June, 2010), we should all remember and remind everyone else, to the true origin of Palestinian Arabs, who were (previously) either called Arabs or S. Syrians, where their majority’s roots are from, some have migrated from Egypt, S. Arabia and other regional Arabian zones.

The two major differences between both immigrations are, 1) The Jewish immigration was highlighted, scrutinized and restricted by the British, while the Arab migration was allowed to flow and not even recorded so frequently. (It might have been a result of attempting to appease the Arab population).

2) [Unlike Arab relatively new history in the area] There was always a Jewish presence in the area, it is a well known fact that some Jews in Pekiin (for example) have stayed for all the generations, dating back 2,000 years, to the destruction of the second Jewish temple by the Romans who changed the name Israel to “Palestine.”



Don’t be fooled by such ideas like: color, as Arab Palestinians are “brown” so they must be from there… and yes, over 50% of Israeli Jews are of “brown” color as well.


A note about posters “inspired” by Nazi-hate sites.



1) FACTS?

Yes, we have all seen the crappy “facts” the “jew watchers” haters put up, never highlighting what Jews by-in-large help around the world in an over-representative way, like over 2/3 of their donations are to non-Jewish causes, or doctors without borders, helping the homeless, feeding the poor, or in any humanitarian cause where the Jewish minority in the world is so PROMINANT and over represented, but they will highlight ONE (out of thousands, or even in a larger ratio) dubious obscure “story” [true or false] of a person, that may, or may not be connected to a “jewish” origin, Well, that’s what hate is for.



2) INFERIOR ARAB RACE & NAZIS
The amazing thing is how such low life losers-Muslims are involeved in the “white nazi oroginated” supremacy sites, as we all know how Hitler has regarded the Arabs as a inferior race almost as LOW as the Jews, he saw them as half apes… he only managed to use the Arab Muslim nazi Mufti in his war against the Jews, but he would have burned them all in the oven, after that… of course.



3) NON-JEWISH COMMUNISTS & WHITE CHRISTIAN JOSEPH STALIN
Most of the communist were non Jews, but why not blame anything you can think of on the MINORITY Jews? While the awful truth is, the butcher of those so many Christians, Joseph Stalin was rather a white Christian who studied to be a PRIEST, he especially persecuted the Jews, very much so.



4) FAKE QUOTES
They also like to repeatedly quote the FAKE (or out-of-context) “quotes” of the Talmud (already exposed many times over), when they will NEVER quote the real peaceful humanitarian quotes of the Talmud.
Nevermind that most Israelis are secular, so is the army and most don’t even know what the Talmud says.



5) ARAB CONTROL ON MEDIA & ON U.N.
…Not only are the majority of Jews in the media anti-Israel critics… (remind me again on who’s side are CNN journalists or a tycoon like Joe Soros?) but the owners of mainstream media is controlled by such Arab Muslim billionaires as Saudi Bin Talal, checkout how much he owns of the elephant CNN or evn of Foxnews…

That’s besides the very “original” pure own Arab media flooding the west like Al Jazeera…

Or BBC? They have admitted openly (a few years back) of being anti-Israel biased, so much for “control in the media.”

The case of total ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL in amnesty and in the UN (aided in part by the international Arab oil lobby power), is far worse, which “exlains” the obssessive senseless almost boring “condemnations.”

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

Some Milestones in Israel-Palestine “conflict”

June 22, 2010

Some Milestones in Israel-Palestine

183418861920192219291938194119481950s-1960s19701972197319751976198219872000200120052006200720082010







1834



First recorded attack on native Jews in Israel by Muslims, is the one in June 1834, Safed (the Plunder), the massacres and mass rapes went on for 33 days, (an inciter, Muhammed Damoor, a self-proclaimed prophet, ‘prophesied’ the attack for which he agitated). It was repeated in 1838.






1886



First attack of Arabs on a Jewish settlement was in Petach Tikva (which was the first settlement in modern day Israel-Palestine), in the year 1886.






1920



Arabs attack Jews in Jerusalem & in Safed 1920-1921. Better known as “riots.”

During the year, 142 pogroms and 36 lesser riots occur against the Jews. It was led due to incitement by the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini who began getting wealth and power.






1922



* Arab immigration into the historic homeland of the Jews started mainly in the 1800’s, however an upsurge occurred since 1922 as Zionists changed the face of the deserted land.



* In 1922, as a continuing policy of appeasing the Arabs, 75% of the area of Palestine was taken away from the Jews and the Emirate of Transjordan was created, later to become Jordan. First the British, then the Arabs banned the entry of Jews from the area. This put those communities of Arabs in Transjordan and even the Judean desert who were of Jewish ancestry in an awkward position.





1929



First Arab on Jews massacre, in a clear attempt of annihilation was the Hebron massacre in 1929, incited by the Mufti al-Husseini who called to “Kill the Jews everywhere. This pleases Allah.” that was the foundation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.






1938



Arabs massacre Jews in Tiberias.

The Tiberias (today part of the State of Israel) massacre took place on October 2, 1938 during the 1936–1939 Arab “revolt” in ‘Palestine’, as they went from village to village, while shouting ‘Death to the English.’

Arabs murdered twenty Jews –among them 11 children– in Tiberias after infiltrating the Kiryat Shmuel settlement.






1941



The Mufti meets with Adolph Hitler in 1941, his parties & youth groups in Palestine are fascist, he plots in his pact with the nazi leader, to massacre Jews on a big scale.

Later on, in 1943, he will lead a Nazi SS Muslim army against the Christian Serbs.






1948



* Arabs reject U.N. partition for a “two state solution,” the Zionists, however, agree, for the first time in (around) 2,000 Years, a Jewish (albeit non-religious) leadership is in its historic place back again.


* First attempt by Arabs to ‘eradicate’ Israel, was right after its re-establishment (through the U.N.), in 1948, five Arab armies attacked, with Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announcing a head, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”


* Arab leaders ‘create’ the Palestinian-refugee problem, by telling them to leave as they are about to ethnic cleanse the land out of the Jews.

Ever since, these persecuted victims of Arabs, have been used as nothing but a toy in Arabs’ war against Israel.






1950’s



1952 saw the first phenomenon in what now can be called terrorism, the 1950’s 1960’s Arab fidayeen raids against Israeli citizen & property.






1967



In 1967, Egypt’s pan-Arab leader Nasser declared, a few days before the six days war, “Our main task is to destroy Israel.” Syria’s Assad: “It is time to embark on a war of annihilation.” Cairo Radio announced: “All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel.”

The world is stunned at the miracle of tiny Israel pushing off Goliath Arab attack.
It also resulted in a knee-jerk resentment in the Arab world.



First era of the Arab immigrants (or their children) adopting the title “Palestinians” as an exclusive name (instead of Arabs or S. Syrians) was in 1967.






1970



Terrorism organized, highlighted first attacks are: The Avivim school bus massacre in 1970, which resulted in killing 12 (9 of whom were children), and wounding 24.

The chain of Arab-Islamic terror picks-up, with targeting Jews in the area or in the world.



*Jordan massacres thousands of Arab Palestinians (Y. Arafat claimed that Jordan killed between 10,000 to 25,000, in September 1970) stirring trouble, attacking the government, hijacking airlines, in ‘Black September.’

The PLO is chased out of Jordan.

It will start making trouble in Lebanon, instead.






1972



The Olympics cold blooded massacre of Israel’s sports team in Munich 1972 by Arab Palestinian terrorists, marked a turning point in getting the world’s attention to Arab terrorism.






1973



The same sentiments of ‘total annihilation of 1967’ echoes in 1973, (like: “Throw the Jews into the sea.”) the Yom Kippur war takes Israelis off guard, Israel suffers initially great losses but manages to win over the Arabs, again, after a few days.






1975



First racist Arab campaign, of instilling in world’s mind the idea that Zionism [which is about Jews’ return to their homeland] should be regarded as “racism,” in 1975, at the UN through the Arab nations’ lobby, and forcing African nations (who many are ‘slaves’ to their market and power) to go along.



Ever since, the dreadful idea of shouting “racism” grew at any defensive action Israel ever takes against Arab racist attacks.



It relies heavily on an image that poor disadvantaged Arab-Palestinian is persecuted by a paler skinned Israeli.

Though, in reality most Israelis are “brown,” children of those being chased out by bigoted Arab countries since 1948. Today, in pluralistic multi-racial democratic Israel there are also a great number of black Ethiopian Jews, very visible in security employment. There no Jews inside Arab-Palestinian zones, ethnic cleansing.






1976



Palestinians, Syrians and other Muslims, massacre Christians in Damour Lebanon, in a very Islamic spirit of “Allah hu Akbar!” and offering a “Holocaust to Muhammad.” It draws a payback by the Christian Phalanges in 1982 in Sabra Shatila, that latter incident has been used in Arab anti-Israel propaganda to blame the Jews for Arab on Arab killings.



150,000 Christians were killed during the war with Muslims since 1975, the Arab Palestinians’ fault in it is major.





1982



After a long history of bloody attacks by Arab Palestinians based in Lebanon, Israel is forced to enter Lebanon [‘Peace for the Galilee’] with an aim to destroy PLO’s military capability.

Israel is welcomed by many in Lebanon, after the Arab-Palestinians have been prompting more violence between Muslims and Christians, sadly enough, the Islamic Republic of Iran founds a militia “Party of Allah” Hezbollah, its goal, establishing a clearly Islamic (totalitarian, oppressive) Shia state in the entire area, with the eradication of Israel.

Hezbollah will use terrorism against Israel, and adopt a tactic of using human shields in order to cause civilian casualties, 18 Years later, a group of ‘4 Mothers’ peace activists in Israel will force its government to withdraw from Lebanon.






1987



First Arab-Palestinian “intifada,” throwing rocks at Israeli civilian cars, attacking Israeli civilians in all methods possible, the Arab-Muslim Palestinian children are being indoctrinated into a death cult of Jihadism and Shahidism.


The use of children in the war –human bombs and human shields– is being picked-up.


Palestinian propaganda becomes powerful, as adults shoot behind little children’s shoulders, the TV picks up only the images of children throwing rocks VS Israeli soldiers firing back… a twisted around “David VS Goliath.”


The official Arab-Palestinian TV incites to violence, it demonizes Jews as “animals.”


Note:
Palestinians (like Hezbollah) “document” every defensive action by Israel, where the Arabs manage to cause civilian deaths, as “Israeli massacres.”






2000



Second Intifada.

A planned renewal of another wave of bloody violent Intifada was in place, an opportunity to “let it out” was when Sharon visited the Jewish temple mount, Muslims seized the opportunity to “protest” Sharon’s visit in “their holy place.”



Arafat now had a “perfect” title, in order to galvanize global Islamic support, his people named it the “Al Aqsa Intifada.” The Al-Aqsa is of course the mosque, where Muslims build on top of the historic Jewish temple.


It was boosted up by a staged video, where an Arab boy Muhammad al-Dura –who as exposed later on as being– shot by Arabs, was mistakenly pinned on Israel. Al-Dura becomes a symbol and an icon and motivates to more violence.




* The Ramallah brutal lynch of 2 Israelis who lost their way by Arab Palestinian masses and its police in public square, the sheer animalism of mutilating and “playing” with their body parts while screaming in inhuman ways, revealed the real face of mainstream Arab-Muslim Palestine.

The Italian cameramen who filmed the crime was threatened by Arafat’s people.



(Suicide) Genocide bombings rise, targeting ‘where civilians gather the most,’ to kill as many unarmed Jews as possible.


A rise of the use of children, use of civilians tactics “succeeds” in making Israel look bad.






2001



* First vicious successful propaganda of adopting the slur “apartheid” to Israel’s equal democratic state, it followed the above “racism” slur on Zionism.

Arab Palestinian Marwan Barghouti published a book “Israel, peace or apartheid.”



The idea behind it was/is to equate any understandable action by Israeli security as “racist” and de-legitimizing its existence just as S. Africa was at the apartheid (segregation between blacks & whites) era, while in fact, there’s no separation between Jews and Arabs (who make upo 25% of equal citizens) in Israel, and Jews are required to get through check points just as Arabs do, security tactics are regional, where terrorism is more frequent, nothing “racial.”

Not only are Arabs equal citizens in voting, being elected in government, but have often more rights than Israeli Jews, as they’re exempt from military services without having an effect on their equal benefits as Israeli Jews have, there’s also a policy of affirmative action to empower Arabs.



In 100% apartheid Arab-Palestine, no Jews are allowed to live in.



A major boost got the “apartheid” slur, through a book by Jimmy Carter with a title almost identical to M. Barghouti’s, who was always pro Arabism and pro Islamism on the expense of the west, including in Iran, and has been blamed for the change in that country towards the current oppressive Islamic Republic regime resulting in so many crimes on the millions of its citizens since 1979.



Even though, Jimmy Carter himself admitted on CNN that he realizes that “Israel is a free and equal democracy.” Yet he accepted Arab lobby’s money to write that hate book.



* The demonization of Israel took an open antri-semitic tone at that infamous racist Arab control gathering in Durban in denouncing Zionism, the Arabs passed along anti Jewish hateful pamphlets at the United Nations.



* Ordinary Arab Palestinians show their true face of “humanity” by celebrating– dancing, singing, giving out candies to children– the 9/11 massacre upon 3,000 innocent people in the U.S.





2005



* Israel gives away Gaza to the Arab Palestinians, as it roots out Jews from their homes in a most dramatic (non violent) way, this causes not a moderation on the Arab side, on the contrary, Islamic Jihadi Hamas rises as “victorious”, again, taking Israel’s sacrifice for peace as “weakness.”



* The patron of Hamas & Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s president M. Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to be wiped off map, he also “denies” the holocaust and persues nuclear weapons.






2006



Hezbollah attacks Israel, it “improves” Palestinian tactics of using civilians, by firing rockets upon Israeli civilians (inside major Israeli cities/towns) from among populated density locations, then, cowardly escaping the area, causing Israelis to fire back. The intended Lebanese casualties cause an uproar in the Arab world, Hezbollah comes out as “heroes.”






2007



Mainstream Arabs in Gaza go radical, vote for totalitarian Islamic party Hamas to become their “democratically elected government.”



A major gathering follows, where thousands of Arab-Palestinians (with a Hamas spokesman) declare they want an Islamic Caliphate.



Christians, the tiny minority among the Arabs, who have been subject to persecution by the Islamic majority (Islamic apartheid?), especially since the reign of Y. Arafat, saw a major rise in oppression with the ascend of Hamas, a number of Christian institutions and members have been attacked or/and threatened.


Backgrounder:
Hamas has been involved in major anti Israel attacks, its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, its leaders often declare (including on “moderate” Fatah TV) their desire to annihilate Jews.


A 2007 Poll: 75% of (all) Palestinians do not think that Israel has the right to exist.




2008



After 8 years of firing missiles into Israel by Arab-Palestinian Hamas, especially targeting children (programmed at certain hours when they go to/leave school) in Sderot, Israel decided it had enough, it kicks off ‘Cast lead.’ Risking the lives of its soldiers in conducting operations against terrorists and weapons stock-piling inside Gaza, and warning the residents to evacuate (clear the way, and move to other areas) before hand. Yet, it was still condemned.

By now, Hamas is not shy in bragging of using children as human shields.




2010



Arab Muslim anti-Israel propaganda picks up steam, as the current motto is to “make Jews look bad” so they can justify their hatred and create the foundation for their intended ultimate goal of genocide.


A supposed “peace activism” designed to help the Hamas in Gaza who have been blockaded (afrer their continuous attacks on Israel’s civilians, in order to stop their weapon smuggling) has been organizing “aid ships” heading to Gaza and confront Israeli security, one such ship, the Flotilla had a major success in damning Israel’s image, after violently attacking the Israelis (who came aboard to check for weapons), 9 Muslims died, an uproar against Israel came about, later on, the true intentions of the Islamists on board were revealed, as they were filmed shouting: ‘kill the Jews for Allah’ and in an earlier defying radio exchange with the Israelis who warned them of entering Israeli territory the response from the Islamists aboard the ship was “Shut up! Go back to Auchwitz! We help the Arabs, Remember 9/11!”

There were also revelations that Islamists planned the entire event as “martyrdom.”

The Flotilla was organized by the radical Islamic Turkish group IHH, tied to terrorism, Turkish president Mr. Erdogan who’s representing the Islamic party, was looking for some time to break his country’s alliance with Israel, he also objected to UN’s sanctions aginst Iran for not complying with regards to its nuclear program.

February 4, 2010

Anti-Israel apartheid: The bigoted campaign to de-legitimize multi-racial & full democratic state of Israel by (lying) branding it as “apartheid” – originated at the bigoted Arab Muslim society

What drives this “belief” on a society where Arabs can vote and get to high office, where all colors & races have equal rights?

More troubling how one can not ´see´ the originators of this racist label – coming from the real Apartheid Arab-Muslim states where Jews are either not allowed in (like racist ethnic cleansed “Palestine” authority) & Christians are (real) second class citizens facing persecution, where the natives of the Arab countries (such as the indigenous: Berbers, Copts, Nubians,) or Africans (ranging from slavery & even genocide or at least plain racism, accepted discrimination, etc.), or Asians (especially those in the gulf states, many as slaves) or the Kurds have been/are victims of the Arab-Islamic supremacy & bigotry.

If this bigoted campaign to exclude Jews’ legitimacy to their historic homeland, to isolate Israel from all international bodies, or to tarnish all Jews, than what is Apartheid, racism really all about?

The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheidby R Sabel – 2009 Israel is not an Apartheid state….Arab citizens of Israel can vote and ….. 4 Benjamin Pogrund, “Why They Depict Israel as a Chamber Benjamin Pogrund: (Benjamin Pogrund is well equipped to write about apartheid and Israel. He was born in South Africa, where a leader in the fight against apartheid and outspoken proponent of equality as editor of the Rand Daily Mail.) Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote – Not an apartheid state
http://www.jcpa.org/text/apartheid.pdf
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/Comparison_of_Palestinian_Israeli_conflict_with_Aparteid_south_africa.htm
branding it as such. is to de-legitimize it
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/980074.html
Israel and the apartheid lie
http://www.israel21c.org/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-lie

Michael Kinsley – It’s Not Apartheid – washingtonpost.com11 Dec 2006 … Jimmy Carter’s comparison of Israel to South Africa’s former racist … with a new best-selling book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101225.html

Israel Is Not An Apartheid State Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously… the Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. Under apartheid black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/Israel_&_apartheid.html

The poisonous myth of ‘Israeli apartheid’
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=306670

Milk & Honey Press – Israel has had waves of immigration from all over the globe– from India, Africa, Europe, North America, … like the new boys in this story, from Russia, and Ethiopia. … Israel is a “multi-cultural” and “multi-racial” society. … very beautiful with open vistas and, in the mornings and evenings, glowing colors. …
http://www.milkandhoneypress.com/forteachers_curriculum.php

The Situation in Israel How much does modern-day Israeli society mirror this dismal record of legalized race-based repression and discrimination? One soon finds that even a superficial glance at the respective situations shows the comparison to be self-evidently absurd. In reality Israel, one of the most multi-racial societies in the world, goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure both tolerance and equality before the law. Its very founding Declaration of Independence specifically mandates complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or gender. Jews and non-Jews in Israel attend the same public schools, vote and stand for election together, live side by side in the same residential areas, enjoy the same freedom of movement and job opportunities, make use in equal measure of public amenities such as beaches and parks and can marry or live together with one another as they choose.

Israel’s immigration policies encourage rather than impede the influx of diverse racial groups. Amongst other things, it has facilitated the immigration of some 70,000 Ethiopian Jews and plans to absorb 30,000 more. The vast majority of the Indian and Ethiopian Jewish communities today live in Israel, as do a majority of Jews from Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and other North African and Middle East countries. All, including Circassian, Druze, Kurds, Armenians, Beduin, and other non-Jewish citizens of the Jewish State, enjoy equal rights.

What kind of ‘Apartheid State’ actively seeks to increase its black population (and I don’t mean by importing slaves, either)? As Israeli academic Alex Yacobson points out, there has never been even a Western majority community that has been as willing to accept non-western immigrants to the extent that Israel has. Given that Israel has absorbed nearly a million Jews from Arab countries—who in terms of their ethnicity are essentially Arabs of the Jewish faith—one sees further that Israel has been the most generous of countries with regard to Arab immigration worldwide.1 All this has taken place under the framework of the supposedly ‘racist’ Zionist ideology.

While a measure of discrimination still exists in certain areas, this is in no way comparable to the kind of oppression that existed in South Africa. In any case this is being constantly confronted and eroded through the Israeli courts, in the Knesset, and by both Jewish and Arab NGOs. To compare the inequalities within Israel to those experienced by non-whites in South Africa both unjustly exaggerates Israel’s faults and subtly belittles the iniquities of apartheid. As such, it is a cynical ploy to piggyback on the suffering of others for propaganda purposes.

…Racist attitudes, however, are found to some degree in all countries. The real question that has to be asked is whether that racism is legally sanctioned. That is certainly not the case in Israel.
In apartheid South Africa, by contrast, racism was not merely legally sanctioned but indeed was mandatory. Even whites opposed to such racist policies had no choice but to comply with them. Courts had to enforce apartheid legislation, no matter what the personal feelings of the judges might have been, universities had no choice but to base their admissions policies on racial criteria and businesses could not employ qualified blacks in senior positions.
http://www.midstreamthf.com/current/feature.html

Technorati –

JEWS ARE FROM ISRAEL [of course] so called “PALESTINIANS” ARE FROM S. ARABIA

January 29, 2010

JEWS ARE FROM ISRAEL, SO-CALLED “PALESTINIANS” FROM SAUDI ARABIA

http://www.think-israel.org/aug06bloged.html#aug06.241

Posted by Palestinian Facts Org, August 29, 2006.

Arabs [propagandists] claim that (some of?) today’s Jews aren’t really descendants of ancient Israelites and are really converts WITHOUT EVER SHOWING ANY PROOF.

Here’s GENETIC PROOF that not only are Jews descendants of the Jews who were exiled from Israel by Romans, but Jews of today have more Israelite genes than Arabs have genes of ancient Arabs. Furthermore, SO-CALLED “palestinians” are originally from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Go back wherever the hell you came from!

University of Baltimore Study: Jews are originally from northern Middle East (where Israel is located), while SO-CALLED “palestinians” are originally from Saudi Arabia.

The study also says that while Jews are partially the product of mixed-marriages and converts, Jews have about 70% to 80% blood of ancient Israelites, while Arabs have only 50% blood of ancient Arabs. (http://www.ubalt.edu/kulanu/jewishdna.html), National Academy of Sciences: Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors.

Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study (meaning that Jews have more Israelite genes than Arabs have genes of ancient Arabs). Our results indicated a relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim. If we assume 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, then the rate of admixture would be <0.5%>
Stanford University: If you made a genetic map of Europe and the Middle East and you put Ashkenazi Jews on it, they would not end up in Turkey or in the middle of Europe, but in the Mediterranean.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.08.17/genetic2.html

University of Arizona: We saw such a strong signal of a Middle-Eastern origin in Jews. Jews really are a single ethnic group coming from the Middle East. Even if you look like another European with blue eyes and light skin, your genes are telling that you’re from the Middle East.

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000519/study.shtml

NY Times: The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.

http://foundationstone.com.au/htmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html

Reuters (on Yahoo web site): A study shows that Jews suffer from the same illnesses. If Jews were mere French, Polish, etc. converts, they would not share the same genetic makeup with each other.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/011217/107/1b4p6.html

ABC News: “Jews have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years. Very few non-Jewish European genes have gotten into the Ashkenazi (European and American) Jewish populations. The comparison, published Monday, of groups of Semites also shows that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/

Hebrew University: Jews are from Middle East.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/11/06/News/News.14948.html

BBC on another genetic study proving that Jews descended from Israel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_742000/742430.stm

This fascinating book traces the genetic chromosome makeup of the Jewish people and proves their decent from Ancient Israel. It focuses on the DNA makeup of the Kohanim in both Sephardic (Iberian, North African and Middle Eastern Jews) and Ashkenazic( North, East and Central European Jews) communities and shows that the genetic differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews are minor. I The author shows a marked understanding and knowledge of a number of disciplines.
Rabbi Kleiman explains how the Kohanim and the Jewish people have passed the test of time and of tradition, and tradition has passed the test of science.
Science has proved that Jewish men from communities in the Middle East: Iran, Iraq, Kurds, Yemenites and Roman Jews as well as Ashkenazim/European Jews- all have very similar almost identical profiles.

The author quotes Professor Michael Hammer who comments:

“Despite the long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora”. The genetic research confirms that most Jews today are indeed the descendants of ancestors who came from the Middle East. Jews everywhere are closely genetically related.
These studies also reveal that there is a closer genetic affinity of Jews to non-Jewish, non- Arab populations in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Turks, Druze and Lebanese Maronites, than to Arabs.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R31VJ96JPKCUXR/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Holy Discovery

Scientist works with stem cells during the day, and solves Jewish genealogy riddles in spare time
Peter Goodspeed, National Post Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
…the former University of Toronto professor has become world famous for applying genetics to genealogy and transforming history. He has found evidence to support traditional claims that modern-day Jewish priests, Cohanim, are descended from a single common male ancestor — biblically said to be Aaron, the older brother of Moses.Among the other intriguing findings he has uncovered: that 40% of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their descent to four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe 1,000 years ago, evidence that all Jewish communities share a common paternal origin in the Near East..

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2152933

DNA AND THE KHAZARS

The opinion of historians and genealogists concerning the Khazars is now confirmed with the development of using DNA as a reliable way to analyze one’s genealogical heritage. Kevin Alan Brook9 is a leading researcher on the Khazars, and tells us the following:

We no longer need to rely on speculation. It is now a known FACT that German
Jews mingled with other Jews when they came east. It is also clear that the
ancient Israelites possessed those Y-DNA patterns that are found in common among
Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazic Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Indian Jews, despite the fact
that ultimately those patterns may have earlier stemmed, in part, from somewhere
in Kurdistan or Armenia or Iraq. The Middle Eastern Y-DNA patterns in the J and
E haplogroups cannot be explained by Khazars. Some of the mtDNA evidence and
Levite Y-DNA can be,however.

Brook’s overall conclusion of Khazar origins is as follows:

In summary, Eastern European Jews are descended from a mixture of German and
Austrian Jews, Czech Jews, and East Slavic Jews. The East Slavic Jews may have
roots in both the Khazar and Byzantine empires, hence necessitating our further
study of Jewish life in those lands. But the largest, and most influential,
proportion of Eastern European Jews came from Central Europe. By this analysis
we can show that the dominant ethnic element among Eastern European Jews is
Judean-the ancient Jewish people of Judea in the Middle East.

CONCLUSION

The Khazar theory has been completely refuted by both scholarly research into the history of the Khazars and, more recently, by genetic evidence showing that Jews from all parts of the world are genetically closely related to Middle Eastern Jews and not so closely related to non-Jewish Russians, Eastern Europeans, or others from that region. “Dr. Michael Hammer showed that based exclusively on the Y- chromosome (parental) shows that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to Yemenite Jews, Iraqi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Arabs than they are to European Christian populations,”12 notes Joel Baine rman. True research on the matter reveals that only a tiny percentage of Jews have any descent through the Khazars. So it appears that the Khazar theory is just that, a theory, and not a very good one. It is safe to conclude that most of the Jews living today in Israel and still in the Diaspora are clear descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. http://www.midnightcall.com/articles/prophetic/the_khazars_and_the_jews.html

Technorati –

 

 

 

What is bias in the middle east conflict? [March, 2009]

March 24, 2009

 

What is bias in the middle east conflict? [March, 2009]
 

Arabs’ racist killing (specifically) Jews *, is accepted “freedom fighting’.

Israelis worried of Arab terror *, branded as “racists”.

*

War crimes, crimes against humanity by Palestinian Arab leadership – regime in Gaza * * * of using Arab civilians, making sure their kids die, for the “greater good (Jihadi-fascism’s goodness) of making Israel look bad…” * * * * * * *, using hospitals *, schools, UN medical vehicles * *, even aid material sent by humanitarian Israel * for murder, targeting at Israeli civilians, – shoved aside, ignored *.

Israel’s humane army’s extreme measures not to hit civilians (including 250,000 warning phone calls  to Arab residents to evacuate a particular area designated to be included in an op., knowing full well terrorists can cease the opportunity and flea, as well as risking young soldiers’ lives in going door to door) * * * * aiming only at Hamas terrorists is denounced of “random shooting” and “war crimes”.

*

[Arab led pressure forcing Israel to conduct] Uprooting Jews from their homes and their ancestors’, AKA Transfer * * AKA Arab Palestinian Apartheid * is “good for peace”.

Transfer of Arabs (who don’t have more than 2 or 3 generations of history in Judea / Israel / Palestine * * * *) is “apartheid, fascist and racist” * (AKA Avigdor Lieberman).

*

While Hamas or even “Moderate” Fatah refuses to recognize Israel *, international aid is flowing their way.

UN is “busy” condemning Israel * * on whatever is being told (forced) by the global Arab Muslim oil lobby.