Essay:anti-Israel bigotry: the Apartheid slur part5
- 1 JIMMY CARTER
- 1.1 Carter's fraudulent "apartheid" label by his own opinion - his contribution to anti-Semitism - his reliance on Pallywood fake "quotes" such as (supposedly) by Mandela and others
- 1.2 Tutu's general unreliability, especially in apartheid comparisons, said: "African National Congress worse than apartheid"
- 1.3 Carter's unreliability, appeaser of Arab-Islamic regimes committing/promoting genocide
- 2 ZIONISM NOT CONNECTED TO "RACE"
- 3 ISRAEL = ANTI-RACISM (VS ARAB RACISM)
- 4 HONEST CRITICISM OF ISRAEL VS CRUDE ANTI-SEMITISM
- 5 SINGLING OUT ISRAEL - WHEN ISRAEL IS AT LEAST AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER DEMOCRACY
- 6 RACISM IN CALLING ISRAEL -UNFAIRLY- "RACIST"
- 7 CALL TO CRIMINALIZE THE RIDICULOUS - YET DANGEROUS "APARTHEID" AND "RACISM" SLUR
- 8 RACISM MASQUERADING AS "ANTI-RACISM"
- 9 HATE RHETORIC OF SHOUTING "APARTHEID, RACISM" AS A TOOL BY ARAB RACISM AND ISLAMIC BIGOTRY TO PROMOTE GENOCIDE
- 10 'JEW HATRED' WEEK / 'INCITEMENT TO MURDER' WEEK
- 11 Notes
Carter's fraudulent "apartheid" label by his own opinion - his contribution to anti-Semitism - his reliance on Pallywood fake "quotes" such as (supposedly) by Mandela and others
The Israel- apartheid analogy is a fraud, one that Carter perpetuates by citing imaginary sources. At Brandeis, he claimed that South Africa's Nelson Mandela had "used the same description." Carter appeared to be citing a fake memorandum from "Nelson Mandela" that was written by Arjan El-Fassed, an Arab journalist living in the Netherlands. Anti -Israel activists often circulate the memorandum, pretending it is authentic, as does Carter, who has personal access to Mandela and has to know that the quote was made up. What is most striking about Carter's use of the word apartheid is his refusal to apply such labels to countries that actually deserve it.
Confused and self contradictory
He also adds that Carter in his own expressed opinion knows that the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with "race" but with what he calls it "acquisition of land," which makes his argument for "apartheid" totally wrong, as "apartheid" was defined by domination of one racial group over another.
We already mentioned above how J. Carter admitted on CNN (December 12, 2006) that Israel is a democracy with equal rights for all under the law. How then, can this slur ever be used in the context of Israel? What is also interesting is that he said in another interview that his use of 'apartheid' intentionally provocative (only) to create debate. That insinuates more of a tactic towards a certain goal (what he calls "debate") than out of a sincere belief and conviction. From Nov 27, 2006 ... a provocative title -- and I use the word provocative not in a negative sense, but just to provoke debate and to provoke discussion.
Carter's blatant lies and distortions
Jimmy Carter's "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" reviewed Nov 13, 2006 – Jimmy Carter Book - Palestine Peace Not Apartheid - reviewed. Shockingly, Carter largely only see Israel as the party responsible for the "plight" of [self inclicted] Arab-Palestinians. Most troubling is his blatant distortion of facts.
What the experts are saying:
Senior Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives
"President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments."
"The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary."
Kenneth Stein Former Executive Director of the Carter Center
"It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
"While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors."
Howard Dean Democratic National Committee Chairman
"I cannot agree with the book's title and its implications about apartheid. Use of such terms in this context does not serve the cause of peace and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong."
Rep. John Conyers
Carter's "Jewish problem"
D. Lipstadt wrote in the WashingtonPost about "Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem" regarding "Jimmy Carter's book 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid' ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion and murder committed against Jews."
In 2007, Carter said "too many Jews on Holocaust council." The ADL commented "on Jimmy Carter's intent to meet with the head Of Hamas." It asked Carter in 2010 after his continuing hate propaganda: "Jimmy Carter: Have You No Shame?... It was only nine months ago that former President Jimmy Carter issued an open letter to the American Jewish community asking for forgiveness."
Carter, appropriately called "racist," "anti-Semite" on TV, for his book. Astonishing is, how "Jimmy Carter, the Jew-hater, "cried racist" on someone critical of Barack Obama. Writes S. Benoit.
Tutu / Carter and culpability of pushing anti-Semitism
There were "Anti-Semitic Reactions to Jimmy Carter's Book" by White Supremacists. As to Desmond Tutu himself, which 'apartheid-slander-pushers' like to brag with. In 2002, Bishop Tutu who compared Apartheid & Nazis, outraged Jews. " His Jewish allies protested publicly "Tutu's latest anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs." And both, Tutu and Carter, who more than crossed the line of merely "criticizing Israel," (but rather hide their hatred under a sophisticated cloak of "Pro-Palestinianism") are blamed for a subsequent wave of anti-Semitic rants. That "people like Tutu and Carter legitimize the kind of anti-Semitic attitudes."
From a (Dec. 2010) article: "Bishop Tutu Is No Saint When it Comes To Jews": Among the world's most respected figures is South Africa's Bishop Desmond Tutu. His recognizable face—with its ever present grin—has become a symbol of reconciliation and goodness. But it masks a long history of ugly hatred toward the Jewish people, the Jewish religion and the Jewish state. Bishop Desmond Tutu is no mere anti-Zionist (though Martin Luther King long ago recognized that anti- Zionism often serves as a cover for deeper anti-Jewish bigotry). He has minimized the suffering of those killed in the Holocaust. He has attacked the "Jewish"--not Israeli--"lobby" as too "powerful" and "scar[y]." He has invoked classic anti-Semitic stereotypes...
Tutu's general unreliability, especially in apartheid comparisons, said: "African National Congress worse than apartheid"As if his anti-Jewish outbursts weren't enough to discredit his political clarity and bogus language, upset at a (2011) visa denial by the South African [black] ANC government for the Dalai Lama to attend his 80th birth day activities, he showed his true colors of selfishness, super arrogance, egoism and total disregard for the victims of the S. African apartheid era, when he said that
the African National Congress-party dominated government of President Jacob Zuma is worse than the regimes under apartheid and that he prayed for the collapse of the ANC.
The ANC responded: <block quote>"We are appealing to the archbishop to calm down," […] "The archbishop knows it well deep down his heart, mind and soul that the ANC and its government cannot be equated to the repressive and divisive apartheid regime” ... "We are appealing to the archbishop to calm down."</block quote>
Carter's unreliability, appeaser of Arab-Islamic regimes committing/promoting genocide
Carter and the Darfur genocide
J. Carter, who's supposedly so "caring" for the "plight" of the Palestinian-Arabs, couldn't bring himself to denounce strong enough the Arab racist (and supremacy against non-pure-Arabs)  genocide in Darfur, that has claimed already around 2,500,000 victims. Worse, he even objected to the term genocide.As scholars put it in an article titled "Jimmy Carter and Sudan's genocidal regime":
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is often lauded by the Arab world for championing the Palestinian cause. However, after stumbling into the world of Sudanese politics, Carter has lost all credibility. Inexplicably, Carter gave his blessing (with perfunctory caveats) to a rigged election that has handed victory to a genocidal war criminal who granted safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.From Sudan activist, Eric Reeves "Jimmy Carter on Genocide in Darfur" (October, 2007):
Last week, Jimmy Carter toured Sudan as part of a group of international celebrities who are calling themselves "the Elders." Founded by Nelson Mandela, the Elders aim--in the modest words of one member, British billionaire Richard Branson--to address "problems in the world that need a group of people who are maybe...beyond politics, beyond ego, and who have got great wisdom."In addition, children, as well as women, are continually abducted by the Janjaweed. This, too, is a genocidal act under the convention, which prohibits "[f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Great wisdom? Let's just say the group is off to a rocky start. That's because Carter took the opportunity of his visit to Sudan to criticize the United States for labeling the killing and destruction in Darfur genocide. "There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard," Carter lectured. "The atrocities were horrible but I don't think it qualifies to be called genocide." He also said, "If you read the law textbooks...you'll see very clearly that it's not genocide and to call it genocide falsely just to exaggerate a horrible situation--I don't think it helps."
Carter got one thing right--that there is a legal definition of genocide, embodied in the 1948 U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide--but that's it. The "atrocities" Carter refers to have included, over the past four and a half years, the deliberate, ethnically targeted destruction of not only African tribal populations, but their villages, homes, food- and seed-stocks, agricultural implements, and water sources. People die now in Darfur primarily because of this antecedent violence, directed against not only lives but livelihoods. Here, the Genocide Convention is explicit: You can commit genocide not only by "[k]illing members of [a] group" but also by "[d]eliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." The destruction in Darfur clearly meets that test.
Then there is the use of rape as a weapon of war by Arab militias in Darfur. The racial component of rape in Darfur has been well-documented at this point. In a typical example, here is what three Fur women--the Fur are the largest African tribal group in Darfur--told Doctors Without Borders: "We saw five Arab men who came to us and asked where our husbands were. Then they told us that we should have sex with them. We said no. So they beat and raped us. After they abused us, they told us that now we would have Arab babies; and if they would find any Fur, they would rape them again to change the color of their children." Racist epithets are typically hurled at women and girls, who are often gang-raped and then scarred to mark them as rape victims--a terrible burden in Darfur's conservative Muslim ethos. Can there be any denying that such ethnically targeted rapes fall under the Genocide Convention's admonition that "[c]ausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" constitutes genocide? Moreover, because of the stigma that attaches to raped women, marriage and thus child-bearing becomes impossible for many. And, for some victims, especially younger girls, ensuing medical complications make child-bearing physically impossible. Which means that these rapes clearly meet yet another definition of genocide contained in the U.N. convention: "[i]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."
Carter and the Genocidal Hamas
Carter was also willing to meet with the Jihadi terror organization Hamas.
"Palestinian" Arab-Islamic Hamas equals Genocide
In The Genocidal Hamas Charter, D. Littman points out article 7 of the charter which includs text like: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them),..."
As D. J. Goldhagen in "Worse than war: genocide, eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity" Hamas' blueprint, its genocidal charter.
Or as phrased by human rights activists Hamas Charter of 18 August 1988 is racist, 'politicidal' and 'genocidal'.
From a report at the UN: "The Charter of Hamas is genocidal and its article 8 a jihadist blueprint for global terrorism."
Author E. Staub in "Overcoming Evil: Genocide, Violent Conflict, and Terrorism."
But enmity to Jews is at the core of Hamas. The Charter blames Jews for all the evils of the world in the past century and before: With money they ignited revolution in all parts of the world ...Or for instance:
Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita was interviewed July 13, 2008 on Al-Aqsa TV. After reminding listeners that the Koran's opening prayer itself (the Fatiha, at 1:7), which pious Muslims repeat five times daily, declares that the Jews are "those who incur Allah's wrath," (re-affirming the standard exegesis, for example, Suyuti's classical commentary), he declared:
The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.
It also promotes fighting global jihad.
ZIONISM NOT CONNECTED TO "RACE"
There are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish Zionists. A person of any race or color can be a Zionist, the refuge for Jews escaping persecution is termed by the way they are persecuted, or/and by the definition of a Jew by religious law. A German or an Arab convert to Judaism, or a half-Jew that is persecuted, have all a right to the land.
Some have put it: "Zionism has nothing to do with race or racism. It is the expression of the Jewish people's yearning to return to their historical and religious homeland in the Land of Israel. The Jewish people also have a legal right to the land, as recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, and then by the United Nations."
"Every colour is represented, thanks to the 'Law of Return' that has drawn Jews of diverse backgrounds to re-converge in the Holy Land."
ISRAEL = ANTI-RACISM (VS ARAB RACISM)
Israeli Arab explodes Mideast 'lies'
Lebanese woman says she discovered freedom in Jewish state
"As a Middle Easterner brought up on this patent 'Israel is a racist state' propaganda, I discovered it is total hate-inspired nonsense," she said." I've seen with my own eyes what kind of society Israel is. I consider Israel to be one of the most multi-racial and multi-cultural countries in the world. There are no racial restrictions on becoming a citizen of Israel like there are in many Arab countries. Remember, Jews can't live in the neighboring Arab Kingdom of Jordan or in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
She explained that more than 100 different countries of the world are represented in the population of Israel.
"Consider how the Israeli government spent tens of millions of dollars airlifting more than 40,000 black Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 1984 and 1991," she said. "Since 2001 Israel has reached out to help others taking in non-Jewish refugees from Lebanon, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, Liberia, Congo and even Bosnian Muslims. How many such refugees have the 22 states in the Arab league taken in? The Arab world won't even give Palestinian refugees citizenship in their host countries."
She added that more than 1 million Arabs are full Israel citizens, that an Arab sits on the Supreme Court of Israel, that there are Arab political parties expressing views inimical to the state of Israel sitting in the Knesset, that women are equal partners in Israel and have complete human rights.
"Show me an Arab nation with a Jew in its government," she challenged. "Show me an Arab country with half as many Jewish citizens as Israel has Arab citizens. I'll borrow some of your academic freedom now and say that Arab nations are the real racist and oppressive states."
Indeed, Defining Zionism, the national liberation movement of jews, the victims of racism, as racism is particularly cynical.
The Jewish community has learned through bitter experience which people are likely to be targeted by antisemites for hatred and destruction. The State of Israel, accordingly, through the Law of Return, offers protection to all such people. It confounds logic, language, and common sense to argue that a law designed to protect targets of racist persecution is itself racist.
Regarding "Human Rights In Israel," Israel has one of the broadest anti-discrimination laws of any country. According to the State Department, "The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, or sexual orientation. The law also prohibits discrimination by both government and nongovernment entities on the basis of race, religion, political beliefs, and age."From World Press Review:
For instance, until quite recently, the Israeli Consul General in Atlanta was an Arab. Racism is totally contrary to the tenets of the Jewish religion and to the unwritten constitution of Israel. How does that compare with Israel's accusers?... The Arabs have for the most part expelled all Jews from their countries and don't even allow Jewish visitors. They were the slave masters of yesterday and in some cases are reported to practice slavery even today. They are mercilessly exploiting black Africa and other developing countries by their inflated oil prices. For them to say that Zionism is racism is atravesty and an insult to the intelligence of the world. 
In 'The False Issue of "Race" in the Arab-Israeli Conflict' Barry Rubin writes about the anti-Israel forces in an attempt to demonize it delegitimize it in interjecting falsely the "race" card. He elaborates on racism in Europe and the worse case in the Arab world, as opposed to the non-racist society in Israel which does not 'think' in 'racial' terms (Whereas crude racism in language, cartoons have been on display by Arabs in Israel/Palestine). A society that has welcomed all kind of colors and races, including asylum seekers:
As the waitress whose family had come from Ethiopia put the pizza on the table at the Tel Aviv restaurant, I contemplated the ridiculous misuse of "race" as a factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of skin color, we belong not only to the same country by way of citizenship but also to the same nation and people in a very profound way that isn't true for countries that are merely geographical entities.I don't think there's any question of the fact that there is far far more racism in Europe or in the Arabic-speaking world than in Israel--and that's an understatement.
Among the scores of ridiculous things said, thought, and written about the Arab-Israeli conflict, the pretense that it has something to do with "race" ranks high among them. This has been interjected for two reasons. First, this is a blatant attempt to demonize and delegitimize Israel.
Second, as part of that point but also due to trends in Western intellectual discussions, there is a conflation of nationality and race. Often, there is an attempt nowadays to portray any form of nationalism in the West as racist, though this is never applied to Third World nationalists situations. Neither the internal conflicts in Iraq (among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds) nor in Lebanon (among numerous groups) are about race but rather arise from national, ethnic, and religious (sometimes all rolled up into one) conflicts.
One of the most basic lessons in looking at foreign or international affairs is to understand that countries just don't think alike about issues. America, and in a different way Europe, has been obsessed with race. That doesn't mean everyone else is racially oriented. Israelis don't think about skin color as such and are well aware that Jews, while having a common ancestry, have been affected by many cultures and societies.
With intermarriage rates between Jews whose ancestors came from Europe and those who came from the Middle East approaching half in Israel today, there is no way to classify people. In fact, Israelis are far less interested than other countries about people's ancestral travels.
Moreover, what does one say about such "darker-skinned" Israelis as my Hungarian-Yemenite colleague or my Syrian-origin pianist neighbor (whose wife is from Poland by way of Argentina? There is absolutely no issue involved here. And many Israelis of European origin are not exactly "white" in their appearance.
Indeed, Israel has more "blacks" among its Jews (from Ethiopia) than do the Palestinians by far. Israeli media never use racial stereotypes or epithets while Arab and Palestinian media have had numerous racist remarks and cartoons about such American leaders as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and now even Barack Obama. In a recent radio interview one of the leaders of the Islamist movement in Israel, in other words from the Arab minority here, said that it was a disgrace that a black Israeli soldier could ask for the identity document of an Arab Muslim. Yet such racism from the Arab/Palestinian side is ignored in the Western media.
While there have been some incidents in reaction to the arrival of Jews from Ethiopia, these have been few and universally rejected. Moreover, Israel has given refuge to the American "Black Hebrew" movement when it easily could have deported them.
It is officially estimated that at least 19 asylum seekers have been shot dead by Egyptian forces in Sinai. To my knowledge no one in this category has ever been injured in Israel.
I have had friends, mostly Filipinos, who were illegal workers (they overstayed work permits) deported from Israel and they simply accepted it and were soon working in another country. None of them bears any grudge against Israel, quite the contrary they could serve as citizen ambassadors on its behalf. None of them ever reported a single case of "racial" mistreatment and I don't believe there has ever been--and workers' advocacy groups have never reported--a racial assault or even insult on any foreign worker in Israel. The problem, of course, is that there is at times terrible economic exploitation by unscrupulous employers, which is in no way atypical in the world today.
The Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts are in no way "racial." National identity is something quite different from "race" generally. Israelis and Arabs are not easily distinguished by skin color, though of course there are exceptions.I was in an Israeli government agency meeting a high-ranking official whose skin shade was darker than that of Barack Obama. This was only something I noted because I was planning to write the article you are reading now.
I arrived at the meeting mentioned above by taking a cab from my neighborhood taxi stand. I gave the address and the driver went back to speaking on his mobile phone in Arabic, which is the only reason I realized he was an Israeli Arab. I couldn't tell just by looking at him.
The attempt by anti-Israel slanderers to inject a racial aspect is ludicrously nonsensical. If you have ever travelled in Syria you would find that the average skin color of people there is lighter than that of Israelis on average. Generally speaking, there is less variation in "racial terms" between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs than there is among member states of the European Union.
It just doesn't apply to conditions here. 'While Palestinian Arabs are on average a shade or two darker than Israelis you can find wider variations within the EU member states.
But if you can label someone as a "racist" because they are engaged in a conflict with another nation or group automatically "proves" they are in the wrong. If the conflict is a national one, however, you actually have to think about it. Who's right in the following conflicts: Irish Catholics or Protestants; Basques or Spain; Bosnians or Serbs; Russians or Chechens, Somalis or Ethiopians; Iraqi Sunni, Shia, or Kurds; India or Pakistan; Azerbaijan or Armenia, and so on?
The answer cannot be deduced automatically. But label one side as racist and the discussion is over. This, then, is a trick for deceiving, not a tool for understanding.
The ridiculousness of attempts to transfer American or European situations to Israel was embodied in an American student asking an Israeli professor how many blacks were on his university's basketball team. Actually, there are many on the professional teams...
Noted writer S. J. FRantzman shows the the blurry "race" and color that exist in the non-racially-defined Israeli society. He asks:
Do Arabs and Jews realize how much they look alike?...In a 2003 article in the Gotham Gazette, an on-line magazine focusing on New York, J.E. Safa noted that "Arabs come in all shapes and sizes and colors; they are not all dark haired and dark eyed." The same might be said of Jews. Surely Suter's project reminds us of this. If only the Israel- and Jew-hating activists who recently assaulted Israel's ambassadors to Spain and Argentina, barricaded Jews in Hillel at York University and rioted over tennis star Andy Ram in Sweden, all in the name of "anti-racism," could see behind their own myths of Israel and the Jewish other.
A new coexistence project entitled Enemies by Swiss artist Olivier Suter seeks to show how people define the "other." Suter noticed that in many conflicts people come to hate and stereotype an "other" and ascribe all sorts of differences, particularly ethnic ones, to their enemy. He believes that if he can show that most people locked in deadly conflict look alike they will have no reason to be enemies. Towards that end he received backing from Charlatan, a Swiss-based artists collective, to publish an advertisement in March 2008 showing eight unidentified people and asking readers to submit photos of anyone who looked like them. He had chosen eight Palestinians and by publishing his "wanted" ad in Haaretz he was hoping to get pictures of Israeli Jews. Sure enough he received many of them. His final selection included a picture of an Israeli girl who remarkably resembles, almost identically, a Palestinian boy from Beit Hanina. The project is not limited to Israel. He intends to embark on a similar stunt in Belgium, showing that Flemish and French speakers look alike. Next he is going to Africa and will prove that Hutus and Tutsis, the latter the victim of the Rwandan genocide, look alike. The implication is clear: Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, look alike. Since we look alike there is no reason for a conflict. Suter asks, "Can two people who look so similar that they could be mistaken for identical twins really be enemies?" The project also seeks to show that by hating the other we are in affect hating ourselves since we are all the same. Those campaigning for a color-blind world have long championed this tune in their statement "one race: human." But while this project theoretically should make us think twice about the way we view the Palestinian "other," it also has a lot to say about accusations of Israeli racism and apartheid.
ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVISTS and extremists who write about Israel in the West tend to portray its Jews as white and European, and Arabs as dark and "indigenous." This is part of the rhetoric that wants to connect Israel to the policies of apartheid South Africa. The overtones of this racial lens of the conflict can often be found in anti-Israel material, such as Caryl Churchill's play Seven Jewish Children. It is perpetuated in more obscure ways by media outlets that often include pictures of headscarf-clad Palestinian women and very light skinned, even blond, Israelis. It is more blatant among fringe extremist groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Review, where Lauren Ray wrote in the fall of 2003 that they were "organizing and educating about the nature of Israel's white supremacy and colonialism." Tal Nitzan, a Hebrew University M.A. student, authored a 2008 thesis, supported by sociology professor Eyal Ben-Arie, in which she claimed that IDF soldiers don't rape Arab women because they are racist. Olivier Suter's project deserves attention for this reason. It shows the degree to which the "racist" and "apartheid" slur aimed at Israel is a myth. There are great differences between Jews and Arabs and Palestinians and Israelis, just as there are great differences within the two groups: between Yemenite and Persian Jews, between Hebronite and Jerusalemite Arabs, between Beduin and Druse. There are certainly elements of racism within Israel's multicultured society, such as that which sometimes is felt between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, or even between Beduin with African ancestry and Beduin with Arab ancestry in the town of Rahat. But it is very far from a racial conflict.
HONEST CRITICISM OF ISRAEL VS CRUDE ANTI-SEMITISM
In the words of harsh anti-Israel critic H. Rosenthal (working for the State Department): "When Israel is demonized, when Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries, and when Israel is delegitimized. These cases are not disagreements with a policy of Israel, this is anti-Semitism."
Scholar R. A. Steinsaltz in the WashingtonPost defines "Fine Line: Criticizing Israel Without Anti-Semitism" when it entails: misinformation, lies and singling out Israel, disproportionately criticizing Israel.
The term "anti-Semitism" is itself a euphemism for "anti-Jewishness," and it is therefore easy to replace it with other words that may have a similar meaning. In many places, to be "anti-Semitic" has become unacceptable and has thus been replaced with "anti-Zionism" or anti-Israel stances, which are easier to condone.Within these limits, anyone – including a faithful Jew – has the right to criticize Israel, even if sometimes the criticism may not be completely right.
In my view, anyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, may criticize the State of Israel without being anti-Semitic, but it is walking a fine line. One's criticism of Israel should be of a certain nature.
The critique must be honest and without other agendas. The first step in making such a critique, as in any other criticism, is to verify the facts. Misinformation and negative propaganda are in abundance today, particularly in this day and age of the Internet. Furthermore, anti-Semitism is not confined only to non-Jews; Jews can be - and sometimes actually become - quite anti-Semitic. Therefore, Jewish, and even Israeli, sources may be as unreliable as Iranian or Syrian sources. When criticizing Israel, one must be careful about truth vs. misinformation, reality vs. prejudice.
In addition to the issue of factuality, there are other, more subtle elements involved here. Anti-Zionism and anti-Israel positions may be a covert expression of a desire to eradicate any concentrated Jewish existence. This desire may not manifest itself in killing Jews physically, but merely as a wish that, somehow, the Jewish people should disappear. A critique of Israel with this intent is, by its very nature, an expression of anti-Semitism.
In a certain way, there is a widespread belief, even sometimes reluctant, in Jewish "superiority," not only in mundane matters, but also in morality. This results in an attitude that holds Jews, and by extension, the Jewish state, to standards that are not expected of any other nation. One must be aware of this tendency when making a critique of Israel.
R. S. Boteach: "It seems that Jews are the only group that you can attack with impunity because they are the only ones unwise enough to tolerate it."
SINGLING OUT ISRAEL - WHEN ISRAEL IS AT LEAST AS GOOD AS ANY OTHER DEMOCRACY
A watch group on [Arab lobbied] UN's obsession: Every country, including every democracy, commits human rights violations, and states should be held to account accordingly, both domestically and internationally. Yet Israel does have the right to be treated equally under the law. It is legitimate for the UN to criticize Israel, but not when UN bodies do so unfairly, selectively, massively, sometimes exclusively, and always obsessively...
RACISM IN CALLING ISRAEL -UNFAIRLY- "RACIST"
There's great worry at the growing trend to brand Israel unfairly as "racist." In "Anti-Semitism under the Guise of Anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism," author laments attempts to "nazify" Israel, that to call it "racist" is a bigoted campaign against Israel being seen the 'Jew' among states.
The singling out of Israel has been criticized, more noticeably, protested at the UN by Western nations.
The selective use of pseudo Arabist terminology where, for instance, the pejorative epithet "racist" applies to Jews alone. Thus, while the encouragement of Arab emigration from Israel to the neighboring lands is vehemently condemned as worthy of a Hitler, the indiscriminate attack on Jews as Jews is glossed over in silence, if not actually condoned... empathy with the Palestinian Arab plight. In reality it betokens the pseudo-Arabist's pathetic longing for no less than a racial transmutation.
It has been called the "New Anti-Semitism," [part in a campaign of] attempts to delegitimize (only) Jews in their historic homeland.
Experts, researchers noted: "Racial practices, such as apartheid, dhimma, tribalism, xenophobia, and antisemitism (sometimes under the cover of... anti- Zionism) persist today."From 'Facts & Logic About the Middle East' article in 1990 under title: The "Bashing" of Israel Who does it? What is behind it?:
What are the facts?
Israel is a very small country, less than half the size of San Bernardino County, California. Its Jewish population is approximately 3.5 million, just about the population of Iowa. Compare that to the 22 Arab states, armed to the teeth, and virtually all of them in a state of war with Israel. They have over 140 million inhabitants and a land area larger than that of the United States. From its founding, Israel had to fight every day for its very survival.
Israel is constantly being hectored and admonished by sanctimonious advisors, who lament Israel's "abuse" of its Arab population. South Africa's Bishop Tutu made the false analogy between the condition of the blacks in South Africa and the status of Arabs in Israel. That is totally unfair. The blacks in South Africa are disenfranchised and politically impotent. The Arabs in Israel have the vote, have every civil right, are members of the Knesset (parliament), and are even members of Israel's diplomatic service. Nelson Mandela physically embraced that arch-terrorist Yassir Arafat and made the gratuitous statement that Zionism is a "unique form of colonialism." What a colossal lie! Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people whose purpose has been for 2,000 years to restore Zion, the ancient land of Israel, to their people. One must marvel at the love affair of the South African black leadership with the Arabs. It is the Arabs who, even today, keep black slaves; it is the Arabs who continue to engage in genocide against blacks in such countries as Chad, the Sudan and Mauritania; it is the Arabs who for years have fueled apartheid by selling millions of barrels of oil to South Africa: It is the Arabs who by their extortionist pricing of oil have brought ruin and famine to many countries of black Africa.
Ex-president Carter, in his recent swing through the Middle East, visited Syria, but did not have one word of unfavorable comment about that aggressor country and its regime. How strange! It is a country whose record of executions, torture, imprisonment, and utter abuse of even the most fundamental human rights is almost unsurpassed. President Carter did not talk about any of that. He talked about "human rights violations" by the Israelis against the stone throwers and Molotov cocktail hurlers in the administered territories. He did not mention that it is only because of Israel's abiding respect for human rights that the "intifada" has been allowed to go on for so long. Any of the Arab rulers would have known how to handle such an uprising "efficiently" had it occurred in their own country.
Disconcertingly, our own Administration is beginning noticeably to "tilt" to the Arab cause. Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Western concepts of law, decency and human rights prevail. It is the only country that has free elections, a free press, unrestricted right of movement of its citizens and, of course, unlimited right of dissent. Besides, Israel is the staunchest ally of the United States not just in the Middle East, but in the entire world. It is a priceless defensive asset of our country where, in contrast to NATO or Japan/Korea, not a single American soldier needs to be stationed. How strange that our Administration would be so grimly fixed on imposing a PLO state on Israel and that it questions the legitimacy of Israel's possession of Jerusalem. And how strange that the Administration would constantly wish to strong-arm Israel, oblivious to Israel's constant struggle for survival in a sea of implacable hostility, but at the same time remaining silent about the Arab tyrannies in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and all the others.
Why is so much Israel bashing going on? Why do such obviously decent people as our President, Secretary of State, former president Carter and so many columnists, commentators, pundits, television personalities and "liberals" of all stripes identify with the tyrannical Arab regimes, with governments that have terror, kidnapping, torture, attacks on innocent civilians and assaults on commercial aircraft as their official policy? And why do they oppose and criticize Israel, a country that started from scratch, little more than 40 years so, and which, despite being under constant attack, has built a prosperous nation and a thriving society that surely could be a model for all developing countries? Could the sad answer be that it is a reincarnation of good old-fashioned anti-Semitism, which for almost twenty centuries has been the curse of Western society? No longer tolerated in its cruder manifestations, it now seems to be acceptably sublimated in the bashing of the state of Israel which, deep down inside, so many do not really wish to survive.
R. Shulman correctly stated: "I suspect bigotry in ignoring apartheid in Muslim states and erroneously finding it in the Jewish one."
Arab-Nazi attempt to "Nazify" their victims
As anti-Israel hype [as opposed to genuine criticism] is never related to facts, there is, therefore, no limits, anything goes, the "ultimate" defiled idea can be attached without any moral conscious, Since radical Islamists believe in calumniation of Israel and even 'all' Jews as a religious "good deed," or Arab racists are motivated by their racism and neo-Nazis are all about that to begin with.
A simple Google search shows Arab propaganda and openly neo-Nazi websites 'Nazifying' the Zionist state. Next to them, there are some among radical left that, so sadly jump the repugnant bandwagon.
Noted Canadian MP, I Cotler cites as one example of many in which critics of Israel become anti- Semites: when they nazify Israel.
In 'A lethal obsession: anti-semitism from antiquity to the global Jihad', Robert S. Wistrich wrote how some Europeans journalists believe it is legitimate to Nazify Israel and fail to see any anti-Jewish prejudice in such caricatures.
In 'Where have all the fascists gone?,' Tamir Bar-On wrote on the new global Judeophobia that combines Old Right anti- Semitism and New Left anti-Zionist anti-Semitism in order to Nazify Israel
Already in the 1980s, Conor Cruise O'Brien observed the increasingly systematic attempt to Nazify Israel and the Jewish People: In the Spectator (19 June), a respected journalist , Mr. Nicholas von Hoffman developed the analogy with refinements.
The UN Commission on Human Rights: To "Nazify" Israel and the Jewish people is, for example, a contemporary form of Holocaust inversion that palpably incites antisemitic feelings. The kind of mindless "antiracism" that pillories Israel as an apartheid state...
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs explains the goal of this diabolical path:
The Aims of Those Who Nazify Israel
The "Nazification" of Israel makes it possible to kill three birds with one stone. The first objective is to delegitimize Israel by associating it with the symbol of evil par excellence. Second, one can attack and humiliate the Jewish people by equating them with the perpetrators of the brutal genocide that nearly succeeded in exterminating the Jews. Finally, this malicious analogy between Israelis and Nazis frees Europeans of any remorse or shame for their history of a lethal anti-Semitism that lasted a solid millennium...
Decrying the Arab-Islamic Goebbels' Nazi tactics in Nazification the image of Israel, a writer that has lived through [real] Apartheid in South Africa Mervyn Danker, wrote an Op-Ed in the AJC: 'Calling Israel an apartheid state is preposterous,'
Pro-Palestinians have, ironically, taken a page out of Joseph Goebbels' playbook: If one says something frequently enough and with sufficient conviction it will be believed. This strategy has been helped along by a sympathetic and often gullible media that portrays Israel as the "oppressive occupier." Indeed, the Palestinians are handily winning the propaganda battle.
[...] Inaccuracies and distortions need to be challenged consistently and with unfailing resolve.
Palestinian propagandists have seized on the term "apartheid" and its association with an evil regime and inhumane policies.
For example, the security barrier separating the West Bank and Israel (which, by the way, has dramatically and sharply cut the incidents of suicide bombings) is referred to as the "apartheid wall." And Israel's granting of automatic citizenship to Jews only is seen as blatant discrimination, again offered as evidence of the state's "apartheid" policy. Israel's Arab population is (erroneously) portrayed as second-class citizens, akin to people of color in apartheid South Africa.
Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, prime minister of South Africa from 1958 until his assassination in 1966, is often called the "Architect of Apartheid" and is credited with having coined the term as it is used today. Apartheid literally means "separateness" and it characterized his government's policy.
During its more than four decades in power, the white regime enacted a series of laws that separated whites and the majority population (blacks, mixed race and Asians). For example, people of color who lived in neighborhoods close to white areas were relocated to distant areas, while the right to vote in parliamentary elections was denied to all but whites. People of color were relegated to a life of discrimination and deprivation.
Growing up in South Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, I attended whites-only elementary schools and high schools, as well as a whites-only university. Years later, the early 1980s, I was the principal of a Jewish day school in South Africa when I could finally see signs of the apartheid system crumbling (the government allowed us to admit Asian and mixed-race students, although only after we filled out a battery of government forms).
Nowadays, the use of "apartheid" in referring to Israel is grossly inaccurate, misleading and fallacious.
The Israeli Arab population, as citizens of the country, enjoys the full range of civil rights. Israeli law guarantees the social and political equality of all citizens without distinction of race, creed and sex - sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Arab citizens vote in national elections, attend Israeli schools and universities and represent Israel on national athletic teams.
Unlike the bulk of the poverty-stricken population of South Africa during the apartheid years, Israeli Arabs enjoy a higher standard of living than Arabs in neighboring countries. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen addressed the subject March 2 in an op-ed piece headlined "Israel has its faults but apartheid is not one of them."
That covers the West Bank and Gaza, as well. Israel withdrew fully from Gaza in 2005, and while Israel has established security zones and implemented some road restrictions in the West Bank, it's only because of a rash of suicide bombings earlier in the decade. As security improves and Palestinian police take more control of Arab towns and villages, barriers and checkpoints will become fewer, eventually disappearing. Already Arab towns and villages are run by mayors and town councils elected by Palestinians. Certainly these dynamics do not qualify as apartheid.
Using "Nazi" terminology in reference to Israel is just as off-base. One need not be a student of history to be aware of the atrocities and inhumanity of the German Nazi regime. Their murder of 6 million Jews - either in the extermination camps or by SS paramilitary death squads (which shot thousands of Jews at a time and dumped their bodies in open graves) or by starvation and disease - is well chronicled. More than 65 years later, the mind still boggles at the massacres and madness.
Yet at the S.F. Board of Supervisors meeting and at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in U.S. cities and overseas, the use of "Nazi" in reference to Israel, and claims of Israel using "Nazi tactics," is clearly evident.
In a Chicago protest, the Magen David in the Israeli flag was replaced with a swastika. In San Diego, a poster read "Stop the Israel Third Reich." And in San Francisco, Gaza was compared to a concentration camp. At the time of the Gaza conflict in December 2008, on the floor of the House of Commons in England, Jewish M.P. Gerald Kaufman compared Israel's actions to the brutal tactics used by the German Nazis.
The use of the term "Nazi" in describing Israel is obscene, odious and contemptible. It needs to be refuted as vigorously as possible, each and every time.
As mentioned above, the first known politician to come up with such a thesis was A. Shukairy,#1961: Genocidal pro-Nazi Arab leader: Ahmad Shukairy, 'father' of 'Apartheid' slander the aide to Hitler's ally, the Mufti, and an assistant on extermination techniques in WW2. The one that called to 'drive the Jews in the sea,' and identified himself with [Argentine] Nazi groups on the UN floor. The very first initiator of the "apartheid" analogy as well.
It all fits well with the identical aims, characteristics and hypocrisy [as in a genuine Arab-Nazi and admirer of Nazism calling its very target by this term. The same paradox-mentality that "explains" how Neo-Nazis brand Israel by this terminology] of those that follow suit, as if nothing has changed during the 50 Years (since Shukairy's 1961 virulent speech). Indeed, 'history repeats itself.'
Apartheid lie - as pure racism
Even such long-time fierce critics of Israel, like Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, has exposed the lie behind tying the Jewish State with the term "apartheid." Under the headline "Israel has its faults, but apartheid isn't one of them," tore apart the description as "pure racism."
"Israel's critics continue to hurl the apartheid epithet at the state when they have to know, or they ought to know, that it is a calumny." "Interestingly, they do not use it for Saudi Arabia, which maintains as perfect a system of gender apartheid as can be imagined -- women can't even drive, never mind vote -- or elsewhere in the Arab world, where Palestinians sometimes have fewer rights than they do in Israel."
[...]"Years of this sort of stuff have made Israel tone-deaf to legitimate criticism and exasperated with any attempt to find fault. That's why Israel refused to cooperate with the South African jurist Richard Goldstone when, on behalf of the United Nations, he looked into alleged war crimes. The United Nations had once equated Zionism with racism. After that, it was hard to care what the United Nations thought."
Cohen flatly stated that the linking of the word "apartheid" with Israel belies the truth. "The use of the word has become commonplace -- Google "Israel and apartheid" and you will see that the two are linked in cyberspace, as love and marriage are in at least one song," according to Cohen. "The meaning is clear: Israel is a state where political and civil rights are withheld on the basis of race and race alone. This is not the case."
He also took aim at former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" set off a storm of protest in the Jewish community. Carter last year wrote a public apology for his previous criticisms that "stigmatize Israel" but did not refer to his own book's description of Israel.
Cohen wrote, "Carter was waving the bloody shirt of racism, and he knew it."
The journalist contrasted the official apartheid policy of South Africa decades ago, when the majority black population was denied citizenship and civil rights, with the situation in Israel, where Arabs and Jews have equal civil rights, including representation in the Knesset.
He stated, "Whatever this is -- and it looks suspiciously like a liberal democracy -- it cannot be apartheid."
Despite Cohen's rare defense of Israel, his column did not spare Israel from his usual condemnation of a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. ..
However, Cohen admitted that the term apartheid does not apply to Judea and Samaria, which he calls the West Bank, and wrote that "security concerns are not rooted in racism."
As for Israel Apartheid Week, Cohen condemned it. He told readers, "Israel is not above criticism and the Palestinians have their case, but when that case is constructed out of lies about the Jewish state, it not only represents a wholly unoriginal cover of some old anti-Semitic ditties but also denigrates the Palestinian cause…"
The real racism of categorizing as "racially motivated" - whatever self defense measures Israel takes to fend off Arab-Muslim racist attacks of Jews because they are Jews
"The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly," M. Sherman wrote in the JPost (2011): Into the Fray: Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the rationale for its founding.
After quoting from an "academic" (i. e., Neve Gordon, an infamous exposed anti-Israel extremist, Or as other have put his hypocrisy (Oct. 2011) Neve Gordon can't take criticism... A Haifa University professor is denied free speech by a self-hating Israeli academic. It's ironic that those who shout loudest about freedom of speech for themselves and their friends are often the first to try to silence those with whom they disagree. A case in point is Dr. Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University, who has defamed so many people, as well as the nation of Israel...") who accused Israel with the "apartheid" mantra, he appropriately charges:
Exposing the "occupation" utter fake excuse:
... Taken from an article by a senior Israeli academic, this excerpt typifies the racist Judeophobic rhetoric that has come to dominate the public discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.
Sadly it is rhetoric that has been endorsed by many in the Israeli academia and media. Even more disturbing is the complicity - or at least complacency — of Israeli officialdom in allowing it to become the defining feature of this discourse.
Expecting Jews to die meekly
This mode of rhetoric is no less than inciteful, Judeophobic racism, because in effect, it embodies the implicit delegitmization of the right of Jews to defend themselves.
It embodies the implicit expectation that Jews should consent to die meekly. And how can an expectation that Jews die meekly be characterized other than as "inciteful, Judeophobic racism?" For no matter what the measures Israel adopts to protect its citizens from those undisguisedly trying to murder and maim them — because they are Jews — they are widely condemned as "racist," "disproportionate violence" or even "war crimes/crimes against humanity."
It matters not whether these measures are administrative decisions or security operations, defensive responses or anticipatory initiatives, punitive retaliations or preemptive strikes. It matters not whether they entail the emplacement of physical barriers to block the infiltration of indiscriminate murderers; the imposition of restrictions to impede their lethal movements; the execution of preventive arrests to foil their deadly intentions; the conduct of targeted killings (with unprecedentedly low levels of collateral damage) to preempt their brutal plans; the launch of military campaigns to prevent the incessant shelling of civilians...
Lip service to Israel's right to self-defense
The depiction of these measures as arbitrary acts of wrongdoing, whose only motivation is racially driven territorial avarice and discriminatory embitterment of the lives of the Palestinians, distorts reality and disregards context. But far more perturbing, is the moral implication of this condemnation.
For if all endeavors to prevent, protect or preempt are denounced as morally reprehensible, the inevitable conclusion is that they should not be employed. This implies a no less inevitable conclusion: To avoid the morally reprehensible, the Jewish state should - in effect - allow those who would attack its citizens, to do so with total impunity, and with total immunity from retribution.
True, many of Israel's detractors protest with righteous indignation that they acknowledge that it "has a right to defend itself." But this is quickly exposed as meaningless lip service, for whenever Israel exercises that allegedly acknowledged right, it is condemned for being excessively heavy-handed.
It makes little difference if Israel imposes a legal maritime blockade to prevent the supply of lethal armaments to Islamist extremists; or if Israeli commandos are forced to use deadly force to prevent themselves from being disemboweled by a frenzied lynch mob; or if, in response to the savage slaughter wrought by Palestinian suicide bombers - which relative to its population, dwarfed the losses on 9/11 - Israel clears the terror-infested and boobytrapped Jenin, using ground troops rather than its air force to minimize Palestinian collateral damage, thus incurring needless casualties of its own.
No matter how murderous the onslaughts initiated by the Palestinians, no matter how blatant the Palestinian brutality, no matter how outrageous the Palestinian provocation, the Israeli response is deemed inappropriate.
Despite the declaration of recognition of some generic abstract right to defend itself and its citizens, it seems that in practice the only "appropriate" response is for Israel to refrain from defending itself.
Exigencies of security
Then there is the reverse racism emblazoned in the subtext of the discourse of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians: The victims of racist hatred are condemned as racist for fending off their racist attackers.
Security barriers are not erected, roadblocks are not put in place, travel restrictions are not enforced as a racist response to Palestinian ethnicity but as a rationale response to Palestinian enmity. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to what Binyamin Netanyahu once called the "reversal of causality." The blockade of Gaza is a consequence, not a cause, of Hamas's violence; the West Bank security barrier is the result of, not the reason for, Palestinian terrorism.
If not for the massive carnage at Sbarro pizzeria, at Dizengoff Center, at the Passover Seder in the Park Hotel, there would have been no IDF operation in Jenin in 2002. Without the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli civilians, there would have been no Cast Lead operation in Gaza in 2009. If pregnant women and ambulances were not used to smuggle explosives into Israeli cities, there would be no need for checkpoints and roadblocks. If Palestinian gunmen would not open fire from vehicles on Israeli families passing by, there would be no need to restrict the movement of Palestinians on certain roads. If Palestinians did not ambush Israeli cars traveling though Palestinian towns, there would be no need to construct special roads for Israelis to bypass those towns.
The outcome of Judeophobic enmity
Of course, the standard Judeophobic response to this will be... "occupation," that all-purpose, all-weather, one-size-fits-all excuse for every racist Palestinian atrocity perpetrated against the Jews.
According to this morally base and factually baseless contention, all Palestinian violence is an expression of understandable rage and frustration due to years of repressive "occupation" of Palestinian lands.
This claim is as egregious as it is asinine. It must be rejected with the moral opprobrium and the intellectual disdain it so richly deserves.
of "occupation" would induce, if not Palestinian amitié, then at least Palestinian acceptance of Israel? Sadly, all evidence seems to point the other way. Every time Israel has made tangible efforts to remove "occupation," the frenzy of Palestinian terrorism has soared to a higher crescendo, and forced abandonment or even reversal of these efforts:
Indeed, as I have demonstrated in several recent columns, the call for the destruction of the Jewish state was made long before Israel held a square inch of what is now designated as "occupied Palestinian land." (In fact, the original 1964 Palestinian National Covenant explicitly disavows any sovereign claim to the "West Bank" and Gaza as the Palestinian homeland.) The founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas are all committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, irrespective of time and regardless of frontiers. This too was the sentiment reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN appearance.
So clearly "Occupation" is not the origin of Palestinian ill-will towards Israel. Quite the reverse. The Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a direct outcome of Arab ill-will towards Israel, when in 1967 their massive military offensive to destroy Israel failed catastrophically.
It was not Jewish territorial avarice that brought Israel to "the territories" but Arab Judeocidal aggression.
What if there had been no 'Occupation'?
Even if it can be irrefutably shown that "occupation" is not the origin of Palestinian hostility, might it is not be possible that elimination
This was the case from 1993 to '96, when the implementation of the Oslo agreements brought forth a huge wave of suicide bombings. This was the case in 2000, when Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions to the Palestinians, who responded with a wave of unprecedented terrorism which continued under Ariel Sharon's "restraint-is-strength-policy" until the carnage made military response unavoidable. The result was Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 that brought the IDF back in force to the "West Bank," where calm has been largely maintained ever since. This was the case in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza and erased every vestige of "occupation," and in return received continuing and escalating violence that culminated in Operation Cast Lead.
Clearly, not only can "occupation" not be attributed as the cause of Palestinian enmity, but attempts to remove - or at least attenuate - it seem only to exacerbate this enmity.
Here intriguing questions arise: What if Israel had never taken over the "West Bank" or had withdrawn immediately after doing so, transferring control back to Jordan? What then would have become of the Palestinians and their claims to "national liberation?" What "occupation" would have then been blamed for their plight? What territory would have then been the focus of their efforts to establish their state? These are weighty questions which must await discussion at some later stage, but merely raising them poses a serious challenge to the factually flawed conventional wisdom that dominates and distorts the debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
'Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism'
"Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism" is the mantra sounded with Pavlovian regularity by Israel's detractors. And they are of course right. Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti- Semitism.
However, the enduring practice of holding the nation-state of the Jews to discriminatory double standards does makes anti-Semitism an increasingly plausible explanation for that criticism, an explanation can no longer be summarily dismissed without persuasive proof to the contrary.
After all, atrocities of ferocity and scale far beyond anything of which Israel is accused, even by its most vehement detractors, are perpetrated regularly with hardly a murmur of censure from the international community. By contrast the slightest hint of any Israeli infringement - real or imagined - of human rights immediately results in expression of shock and revulsion in headlines in all major media outlets across the globe, precipitates emergency sessions of international organizations, and produces worldwide condemnation, from friend and foe alike.
Of course, the implication is not that Israel should be judged by the same criteria as the tyrannies of Sudan or North Korea; or by the bloody standards of Damascus or Tehran.
The question is, however, why should it be judged by standards and criteria which are far more stringent than those applied to the democracies that make up NATO.
For in the Balkans, in Iraq and in Afghanistan they have enforced blockades and embargoes far more onerous and damaging to civilians than that imposed on Gaza. They conducted military campaigns far from their borders that caused far more civilian casualties than Israel has in campaigns conducted only a few kilometers from the heart of its capital city...
Yet international outcry has been - at best - muted.
So, while holding the Jewish state to standards demanded of no other nation in the exercise of its right to self-defense may have explanations other than anti-Semitism (or Judeophobia to be more precise), no really compelling ones come readily to mind.
The real racism
This brings us back to where we began.
While the Jewish state faces unparalleled threats, and unconditional enmity, it is continually condemned for acting to meet those threats and to contend with that enmity — no matter what measures it adopts, no matter how grave the peril, no matter how severe the provocation.
This then is the real racism that permeates the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict:
The expectation that the Jews jeopardize their security in order to maintain the viability of manifest falsehoods. The perverse portrayal of every coercive measure undertaken by the IDF to protect the lives of Jews against those striving to kill them, merely because they are Jews, as racially motivated, disproportionate violence. The disingenuous depiction of the inconvenience caused to Palestinians by these measures as a more heinous evil than the Jewish deaths they are designed to prevent. The attitude that shedding Jewish blood is more acceptable than the measures required to prevent it, an element that appears to be becoming increasingly internalized into the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the rationale for its founding: Jews will no longer die meekly.
CALL TO CRIMINALIZE THE RIDICULOUS - YET DANGEROUS "APARTHEID" AND "RACISM" SLURDue to the obvious danger against Jews by bigoted Arab Islamic led inflammatory campaign of these slurs, ridiculous as they are, the seriousness of endangering Jews' lives has been raised. Noted French Doctor, activist against helping the hungry, and novelist Dr. Jean Christophe Rufin has suggested to France's government the following:
Certainly, there is no question of penalising political opinions that are critical, for example, of any government and are perfectly legitimate. What should be penalised is the perverse and defamatory use of the charge of racism against those very people who were victims of racism to an unparallaed degree. The accusation sof racism, of apartheid, of Nazism carry extremely grave moral implications. These accusations have, in the situation in which we find ourselves today, major consequences which can, by contagion, put in danger the lives of our Jewish citizens. It is legitimate to require by law that these accusations are not made lightly. It is why we invite reflection on the advisability and applicability of a law... which would permit the punishment of those who make without foundation against groups, institutions or states accusations of racism and utilise for these accusations unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism.
RACISM MASQUERADING AS "ANTI-RACISM"
The classical racism masquerading as "anti-racism" was seen -among other opportunities- at the infamous, condemned, disgraced Arab-hijacked racist "Conference against Racism" in Durban. (Where not a single word was uttered against the racism, apartheid and discrimination against minorities and even "raw" slavery in the Arab and Muslim world, but the members of the conference, geared by the oil-elite Arabs went ballistic over Zionism, as expected of their clear anti-Israel agenda.) For example, the Arab Lawyers Union, distributed a booklet filled with anti-Semitic caricatures frighteningly like those seen in the Nazi hate literature printed in the 1930s. (From M. Melchior's speech in 2001: But here today, something greater even than peace in the Middle East is being sacrificed - the highest values of humanity. Racism, in all its forms, is one of the most widespread and pernicious evils, depriving millions of hope and fundamental rights. It might have been hoped that this first Conference of the 21st century would have taken up the challenge of, if not eradicating racism, at least disarming it: But instead humanity is being sacrificed to a political agenda. Barely a decade after the UN repealed the infamous 'Zionism is Racism' resolution, which Secretary-General Kofi Annan described, with characteristic understatement, as a "low point" in the history of the United Nations, a group of states for whom the terms 'racism,' 'discrimination,' and even 'human rights' simply do not appear in their domestic lexicon, have hijacked this Conference and plunged us to even greater depths.) These repeated "conferences" are rightfully termed: "The U.N.'s Racist Conference On Racism," or simply "racist conference."
HATE RHETORIC OF SHOUTING "APARTHEID, RACISM" AS A TOOL BY ARAB RACISM AND ISLAMIC BIGOTRY TO PROMOTE GENOCIDE
Usage of "racism" and "apartheid" slurs as justification for real racism and genocide:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the first Holocaust threatens a new one in wiping out Jews, annihiliation charged with genocide, has used the Arab racist "anti-racism" Durban conference to damn Israel with the fake "racism" charge. The West protested it. This Islamic leader, who advocates a 'New Holocaust' was -appropriately- termed 'Hitler,' worldwide.
Those openly calling for annihilation of Jews, like Arab "Palestinian" terrorist organization/Islamic regime in Gaza, Hamas  it even warned that "Islamists would kill Jewish children anywhere in the world," and Islamic Republic of Iran's terrorist organization: Hezbollah    use these slurs regularly. Even "moderate" Fatah who "accuses" Israel in this terminology, has promoted annihilation.
At the outcry of the brutal massacre by "proud" racist Arabs of a Jewish family while asleep in Itamar, Israel (March, 2011), where a baby's throat was slashed, and Palestinian Arabs celebrating it, Iran and Hamas praising it, the cause for such crimes and "celebration" was raised. 'Palestinian Authority incitement against Jews': "Palestinian incitement: Jews receive 'Der Stürmer' depiction," leading for the "Atmosphere for terror," Israel said: "The world must call on the Palestinians to put a stop to the incitement. When Abbas chooses a band calling for the annihilation of Jews to play at festivals, then how can you even dream of reaching an agreement?"
The PFLP and the PLO who from the beginning [in the 1970s, starting with Kiryat Shmona, Avivim, Maalot etc. Continuing today as in the mentioned 'Itamar massacre'] targeted to massacre children under a garbage cloak of "freedom fighting," are the main propagators of the Arab racist "apartheid slur" (as seen on their "imagingapartheid"). Tied together with the infamous "ISM" International Solidarity Mission (the anti-Jewish genocidal organization who chant the slogan: "Kill the Jews" - "Ittbach al yahood" in Arabic.
In May 2010: "MSA (Muslim Student Association) Member publicly calls for another Holocaust promotes Hitler Youth Week."
One shouldn't be surprised to hear that among the Arab lobby tied to money for J. Carter for his hate book against Israel, would be "activists" of these butchers - organizations.
'JEW HATRED' WEEK / 'INCITEMENT TO MURDER' WEEK
The so-called (IAW) "Israeli Apartheid Week" - anti-Israel bigoted "agenda of propaganda and lies." A smear campaign (with its gist of defining Israelis' genuine security concern from bigoted Arab-Islamic attacks with "racism" and "apartheid" epithets), though deceiving in its theme as a "pro-Palestinian" activism or as "caring" for Palestinian-Arabs, the overwhelming anti-Israel and often anti-Jewish hatred message is well noted. It has been marked as 'a ritual of discrimination and incitement against Israel,' that it "doesn't seek Middle East peace. It seeks to harm the Jewish people by taking from them the only land where they are not a minority." It is dubbed the 'Jew hatred week' especially in light of grave hate crimes arising around this hype venomous week, such as: Swastika graffiti found in college bathroom in Selden (February 26, 2009), Vandals leave graffiti on Jewish Federation building (March, 2009), In 2009, during IAW at Queen's University, one of the anti-Israel propaganda pamphlets (sitting in a public cafeteria) had been defaced with several swastikas. In 2010, at the University of California, a Jewish student found a swastika carved into her dorm door. Among the phenomenon of the unholy alliance "cooperation" between racist Arabs and Neo Nazis: Carleton University graffiti: "Kill a Jew slow + painfully…" (April 2010), Swastikas and Ku Klux Klan Symbols during 'Apartheid Week' (Mar, 2010 No wonder it was defined: "Israel apartheid week anti Semitism by any other name." It reveals itself recently in the intimidation of Jewish students at York University, where SAIA members disrupted a Hillel news conference, called the Hillel president a "dirty Jew," a "f-king Jew," and prevented students from exiting the Hillel building. (2009) Invidious and raw slurs as "Die Jew - get the hell off campus." (2009) Or the cases whereby its accompanied with, screaming <i>anti-Semitic slurs like, "[Expletive] you, you Jewish Israeli mother [expletive]ers."
It is a pattern to attack physically, like in <i>York University in particular, has .. revealed a troubling pattern of tolerating physical and emotional assaults by pro-Palestinian radicals against Jewish students and others who dare to demonstrate any support for Israel or question the tactics of Islamists in their efforts to destroy the Jewish state. At the University of Toronto, a Jewish student protesting against IAW 2009, was threatened with beheading. Some have been threatened and assaulted, In some cases there were comments such as "Hitler did not do a good enough job."
Here's an example of the feeling of a Jewish student (2010) as a result of Muslim Students Association's "Apartheid week" hate campaign:
University of California Jewish Student Questionnaireskippah)." (UCB)
Sample Responses to Selected Questions from students at UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and UC Irvine
Do you feel harassed or intimidated as a Jewish student when you have seen or heard about the appearance of anti-Semitic graffiti (eg. swastikas) on campus?
"I feel very intimidated and worried when I see anti-Semitic graffiti on campus. I grew up thinking that such occurrences are a thing of the past, or things that only take place in Europe, but never in supposed intellectual centers." (UCB)
"I definitely feel harassed when I hear about the appearance of swastikas on campus and the utter APATHY with which it is treated by the student newspaper and student body in general. The campus's reaction to this event is by far more disturbing than the event itself; the student newspaper brushed it off as a meaningless prank, and most students I've talked to don't seem to care at all or even realize that the appearance of a swastika means someone on this campus wants me, as an ethnically Jewish student, dead." (UCB)
Do you feel harassed or intimidated as a Jewish student when speakers, films and exhibits that demonize Israel and her supporters are brought to your campus?
"I feel very uncomfortable when university sponsored events come to campus that are not only blatantly anti-Israel, but often quite anti-Semitic.
"Yes. I tell my friends how uncomfortable I feel. MSA speakers not only demonize Israel, but its supporters like me. When Finkelstein and other speakers compare Israel to apartheid South Africa or Nazism, that is a reflection on me, as though I support apartheid or Nazism." (UCSD) "I do feel very uncomfortable, hurt, and intimidated as a Jewish student at UCI during Israeli Apartheid Week." (UCI)
"Absolutely. [Israel Apartheid Week] is completely anti-Semitic, no matter how many times the MSU denies it. Just today, after the Malik Ali event dissolved into debates, an MSU student stood on top of a wall and shouted the Islamic prayer as loud as he could. No one seemed to hear him because they were too far away, but I recorded him. It was clearly directed at the Jewish and Zionist students." (UCI)
Do you feel harassed or intimidated as a Jewish as a result of the Divestment from Israel campaign on your campus?
"Yes, the divestment bill raised so much tension on campus and made fellow students into enemies simply based on their beliefs toward Israel. The big senate meetings were a harsh reminder to me that intense hate of Jews and Israel is very much alive and that we Jews have to remain vigilant, since the authorities and campus officials haven't stood up for us." (UCB)
"Yes I do feel very harassed, intimidated, and threatened as a result of the divestment from Israel campaign." (UCB)
"I feel harassed because the Divestment campaign has lead to anti-Jewish expressions such as the swastikas drawn across from the doors of Jewish students and the verbal attacks on Jewish students (for example, someone drove by my friend in a car and yelled, "Jewish bastard!" because my friend was wearing a
Israel "Apartheid" Week, was also dubbed "Hitler Youth Week" by some. The MSA and SJP launch a war against Jews and their supporters during this week. These groups bring virulent anti-Semitic, radical speakers to campuses nationwide to call for the destruction of Israel and Jews. Additionally, a mock wall is erected to portray Israel as an "occupier" and "human rights violator." As a result, students are targeted by these hate mongers and are not protected by their school's administration.From remarks prepared for the delivery at the Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties Forum:
Universities should ban Israel anti-apartheid weeks. Why they should do so takes some explanation.
No one today claims to be against semitism. Antisemitism is rather a characteristic that others attribute to antisemites. Those who objectively we have to acknowledge manifest antisemitic attitudes or behaviour claim not to be antisemites.
There is no apartheid in Israel. That much is obvious even from a cursory glance.
Basic to apartheid in South Africa was the denationalization of blacks because they were black and allocation of nationality in state created bantustans or homelands. Blacks assigned to bantustans were subject to influx controls and pass laws. The objective of apartheid was to denationalize all blacks, to assign every black to one of ten bantustans. Blacks were forcibly removed from where they lived to their designated bantustans.
Israel has not since its inception taken away vested Israeli citizenship of even one Palestinian for the sole reason that the person is ethnic Palestinian. Israel has not created designated territories within its borders to which it has forcibly removed its own citizens who are ethnic Palestinian.
Freedom of speech encompasses the right to be wrong. The mere fact that Israel is not an apartheid state, not even close, in itself, does not justify banning Israel anti-apartheid weeks from universities.
Calling Israel an apartheid state is a form of incitement to hatred against the Jewish people. Understanding hate speech requires an understanding of the context in which the speech is uttered. Hate speech often involves veiled or coded references. Understanding is a work of decoding.
The charge of apartheid against Israel is one of a barrage of anti-Zionist accusations levied against Israel. Anti-Zionism by definition is rejection of the existence of the Jewish state. That rejection is the denial of the right to self determination of the Jewish people.
Anti-Zionism attempts to destroy Israel through arms and words. Words are used as hate and war propaganda.
Because Israel is a sovereign, legal entity, anti-Zionists attempt destruction through demonization and delegitimization. Anti-Zionists assert that Israel has no right to exist claiming that it is, by its very nature, a rights violating state.
The position of anti-Zionists that Israel violates rights is not a conclusion based on facts but a strategy adopted to combat the existence of the state of Israel. This strategy leads anti-Zionists to accuse Israel of every grave crime known to humanity - war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and, not least, apartheid.
The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is connected to antisemitism both in substance and in form. The accusations of criminality against the Jewish state lead to accusations of criminality against the Jewish community world wide as actual or presumed supporters of this allegedly criminal state. If Israel is an apartheid state, then the Jewish community world wide supports apartheid.
Antisemitism linguistically means being against semitism. It has come to mean discrimination and bigotry against Jews. Today, there in no semitism, only antisemitism.
Understandably, governments like that of Canada slam this "apartheid week" warning students to think twice before engaging in the activities designed to de-legitimize Israel.Adding:
The events, which seek to promote Palestinian human rights, are frequently "accompanied by anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and bullying," Mr. Kenney said, and are at times planned and promoted with disregard for the safety of Jewish students, professors and others on campus.In an article titled: "Political Theater at Its Worst," noted writer P. Chesler in a report summed it up:
"These activities can cultivate an atmosphere exactly the opposite of one that is open to the free exchange of ideas and the development of the mind with the aid of facts and logic," he said. Repeatedly singling out and condemning Israel year after year creates a "hateful environment" that "offends not only our sense of fairness, but also our core Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law."
The mob roars its hoarse, ear-splitting chants. "Death to the Jews," "Death to Zionism," "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free." Keffiyas abound: On heads, over faces, around shoulders. The Arab "street" is on the move-in Toronto, Montreal, Amherst, Washington, D.C., Cleveland, St. Louis, Houston, Berkeley, and in Oxford, Belfast, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Zurich, and many other Western cities.The 'apartheid slur' message is also accompanied via terrorizing all who oppose this slur, typically it is ironically so hypocritical. Here's an example of a someone that dares tell the truth about humane Israel VS the Arab world who was about to be attacked physically by a Muslim "angry" anti-freedom fanatic:
Israel stands aloneHoward Galganov in an editorial "The New Old Anti-Semitism . . . Intellectual Nazis," writes about the lies, about the rainbow colors of refugees that can be found in Israel, in sheer contrast with the raw apartheid, oppression, denial of rights in the Arab-Muslim world, showing that the target of the campaign is Jews, period:
In human rights and tolerance, Jewish state far superior in its regionTragically, he is not alone.
By Michael Coren, QMI Agency
Last Updated: March 12, 2011 2:00am
I will defend all of my beliefs, but one of the ideas I most proud of is Zionism. No apologies, no hiding, no doubts.
Zionism is arguably the most successful example of the restoration of an indigenous people to their rightful homeland in human history. It is a liberation struggle, a story of the creation of a light on a hill, that light being the Jewish state in the Middle East.
I write this now in particular because it is Israel Apartheid Week. Which is an attempt to bully and silence supporters of Israel and close down any civilized debate on university campuses concerning Israel and Palestine. It singles out for particular contempt one small country that, while far from perfect, has a human rights record eminently superior to that of any around it.
It attempts to equate the Jewish state - where all citizens irrespective of religion, race, gender or sexuality enjoy equality - to the hideously immoral racist society that was apartheid South Africa. It's a lie, a blood libel, a politically motivated and blatantly dishonest campaign to use Soviet-style propaganda to condemn Jews.
So I was delighted to accept the offer to speak to four different universities during this death-dark celebration of doublespeak and anti-intellectual posing.
As I write this, I have spoken at my first and while the majority of the people there were supportive, and most of those not supportive were relatively polite, the fanatic who was removed by the police showed me the face of authentic hatred.
In the middle of my talk, he ran to the microphone reserved for questions at the end and screamed foul language and abuse. That the police were there in the first place says a great deal - disruptions are not uncommon.
This particular individual then waited for me when I left the lecture hall and continued to abuse me for 10 minutes, and also try to run at me and physically confront me. If this happened to me, I can only imagine what ordinary Jewish kids have to put up with on campuses each day.
A few brief comments: Kurdistan is occupied by four different Islamic nations. Morocco forcibly prevents hundreds of thousands of people who have the right to live in the country from entering. Most Arab countries reject black immigration and embrace passive, if not aggressive racism. In the Gulf States, and Pakistan in particular, slavery exists in the guise of "servants" who are treated as virtual animals.
In Lebanon, Palestinians are denied dozens of different occupations simply because of who they are. In Iran, homosexuals are publicly hanged and innocent women stoned to death. The secret police suppress freedoms in Syria and even relatively free Jordan. We have seen what Egypt and Libya are like, with other Arab countries little better and sometimes worse. ...gender apartheid exists in massive chunks of the Arab and greater Islamic world, yet Israel is supremely open and progressive. And so on and so on.
It's the sort of thing the man screaming at me doesn't want to hear.
This past week was when university students, their professors, unionists and other assorted LEFTISTS worldwide, INCLUDING the USA and Canada, celebrated their common hatred for Israel, in what they describe as ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK (IAW).There is no Audio Editorial with this commentary.
The absolute truth of Israeli Apartheid Week is really . . . LET'S HATE THE JEWS WEEK.
But, these LEFTIST snivelers don't have the guts of bygone JEW-HATERS to say exactly what they mean; instead, they couch their visceral Anti-Semitism in their contrived concept of Apartheid in Israel.
This 7 year old annual university event is so sick, that there are even LEFTIST Jews who get involved in this mockery of social conscience, that it rings in my mind to the equivalence of what the Nazis and other varied Jew-Haters contrived throughout the generations.
It seems to me that the only things missing are the BLOOD LIBELS and The Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion; two other lies Jew-Haters cling too for their Anti-Semitic approbation.
The rub here, is that these Anti-Semites, who wouldn't cross the street to help anyone who is really downtrodden; like the women of MOST Arab/Moslem countries, will climb mountains to demean and punish Israel, which is one the most open, egalitarian, and accomplished countries on the planet, let alone within the entire Middle East.
In Israel, Arabs and Moslems are absolutely FREE, and encouraged to reach for the greatest heights imaginable. Like any other Israeli, their own limitations are what they put upon themselves.
In Israel, Arabs are FREE to vote and participate in every fabric of life, where Arabs sit in government, where Arabs sit as jurists in the courts, where Arabs compete on Israeli sports teams, where Arabs express themselves freely in the media, where Arabs are educated from grade-school to post graduate universities, where Arabs teach at all levels and work in hospitals in all capacities.
In Israel, Arabs are FREE to buy homes and rent apartments anywhere they wish without government restrictions. Israeli Arabs own businesses and are no less FREE than any other Israeli to work at all jobs, including within the Israeli civil service.
Where in the Arab World are Gays and Lesbians accepted, if not murdered? But in Israel, Gays and Lesbians celebrate Gay Pride Days strutting their stuff on audacious floats in parades.
Where in any Arab country are women really FREE? In Israel, all women are as FREE as men, without being restricted to reach for the top.
As these LEFTIST academic Jew-Haters cloak themselves in as dishonest an intellectual charade as any that can be imagined, Israel was out there just one hour from the time the earthquake hit Japan, all saddled-up and ready to go to help in no small way.
When the earthquake shattered Haiti, ONLY little Israel, a quarter distance of the world away, was able to set-up a completely functioning hospital with an OR second to none.
When the Indonesian Earthquake and resulting Tsunami in 2004 killed more than 200,000 people, Israel was amongst the first on the scene, treating and helping everyone they could, regardless of their religion, culture or gender, even though several Moslem countries preferred to have their people suffer and die rather than let an Israeli on their soil to help.
When there was genocide in Ethiopia, which other country other than Israel sent in rescue planes to get people out?
Even today, Blacks from Africa travel the most dangerous routes imaginable in their desire to reach FREEDOM in Israel, where they know they will be treated humanely if they survive the journey.
In absolute reality, what the universities are doing throughout the world in their participation of Israeli Apartheid Week, is nothing more and nothing less than an OVERT expression of Hate-Speech and incitement against an entire people based EXCLUSIVELY upon that people's religion.
And because of this, I have no problem whatsoever equating them and what they are doing, and what they stand for with Nazis and other worldly Jew-Haters.
To single out an entire people for contrived and phantom crimes, all of whom happen to be Jewish, would make the likes of Hitler, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Eichmann and others just like them proud.
Rampant intellectual Nazism, Fascism, Anti-Semitism or whatever you want to call it in our universities and amongst our trade unions is as despicable as it gets.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT - When they attack Israel, their target are Jews.
When I was 18 years old (1968), I took a pledge amongst a small but determined group of other young Montreal Jews who swore an oath NEVER AGAIN!
I meant it then - And I mean it now.
To most people, 1936 (the Nuremberg Laws), 1938 (Crystal Nacht), and 1945 (the Liberation of the Death Camps) were a long time ago. To me, they were just like yesterday, and will always be just like yesterday.
Let me repeat myself – NEVER AGAIN!
Activists countering the anti-Israel propaganda in 2011, allied with those who set up the "Palestinian Wall of Lies" ad, explain, it was an attempt to confront Boston University's Israel Apartheid Week, which featured the erection of an "Apartheid Wall," a speech by Diana Buttu, a former legal adviser to the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization, and an event... from a group called "Anarchists Against the Wall" which protests Israel's security fence and what they term "land theft, violence, separation and occupation" – all favored propaganda terms of the left to support the claims of the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas. The removal of Israel's "apartheid wall" would simply give free reign to Palestinian suicide bombers to kill more Jews.
Suugestions for terminology 'inspired' by the Arab-Islamic bigoted slanderous "apartheid week"
- 'Hypocrisy Week'
- 'Hitler Youth Week'
- 'Israel Pogrom Week'
- 'The Arab Apartheid Week'
- 'Islamic State Apartheid Week'
- Terror apologists
- "Hate fest"
- 'anti-Israel hatefest'
- Anti-Israel Hatefest
- 'Jew-Hatred Week'
- Verbal Terrorism
- 'Arab Genocide Week'