14 Jul



Arab Apartheid – IN GENERAL

The Koran and the kafir: Islam and the infidel : Islam and the infidel : all that an infidel needs to know about the Koran but is embarrassed to ask – A. Ghosh – 1983 – 170 pages – Snippet view [Page 158]

One of the early Caliphs, Omar “insisted on a medieval Apartheid with the Arabs as master race.” In subsequent years the Arabs had one of the worst records of slavers, and this has continued right up till the latter years of the 20th century and may still be going on. Some of the worst feudal regimes in history were based on Islam as is the present regime in Saudi Arabia.


Let’s launch ‘Arab Apartheid Week’

03/11/2010 10:17

Arab states remain the last great outpost of despotism and tyranny.
In nearly three dozen cities across the world, a coordinated series of events is being held this week with the express aim of demonizing Israel. Now in its sixth year, the annual hate-fest known as “Israel Apartheid Week” has sought to portray the Jewish state as a bastion of bigotry, inequality and discrimination.

The organizers do not mince words in describing their objectives, asserting on their Web site that they aim “to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns” against the Jewish state. This, they confidently declare, is a key part of “the battle to end Israeli apartheid,” whatever that means.

Naturally, behind the sloganeering stands a clear political platform, one which essentially seeks to dismantle the Jewish state by stripping it of territory and flooding the country with millions of Palestinian refugees through the so-called right of return.

The first step in this campaign, of course, is to equate Israel with the evils of apartheid-era South Africa, thereby laying the groundwork for increased diplomatic and economic pressure to make far-reaching concessions. And so, as usual, the only democracy in the Middle East
once again finds itself on the receiving end of yet another indefensible canard, accused of one of modernity’s greatest political sins without any basis or justification.

SIMPLY PUT, this slur cannot be allowed to stand. It is an insult to Israel and its democracy and dangerously analogous to asserting that Zionism is a form of racism. If allowed to take hold in the public’s consciousness, it could have far-reaching and extremely damaging
effects on support for Israel in the near- and long-term. In the past, the typical response by pro-Israel activists to such charges has been to go on the defensive, responding to the slanders and explaining in great detail the myriad differences between democratic Israel and the racist regime that once ruled South Africa.

Well, I say the time has come to stop playing defense and to bring the offense out onto the field. We need to turn the tables and fight back against our opponents by taking the struggle toward their end-zone.

A good place to be start would be to organize an annual “Arab Apartheid Week,” which would highlight the decrepit state of human and political rights throughout the Arab world.

There is a solid case to be made that the Arab states remain the last great outpost of despotism and tyranny on earth, and people need to be reminded as much. Indeed, the Arab world today is a living encyclopedia of outmoded forms of government, from sultanates such as Oman and emirates such as Qatar, to thuggish dictatorships such as Syria and dynastic monarchies along the lines of Jordan. It may be a political scientist’s dream, but it is a nightmare for the hundreds of millions of Arabs chafing under oppression and tyranny.

Basic and fundamental freedoms such as personal autonomy and individual rights are routinely trampled upon, and ethnic and religious minority groups suffer extreme discrimination and
intolerance. Just ask Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha’is in Iran or Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia for starters.

This was borne out most recently by a report issued by Freedom House, the independent Washington-based group that advocates for freedom worldwide. Its annual survey, “Freedom in the World 2010,” would make for eye-opening reading for all those who cry “apartheid” whenever they see a flag with a Star of David.

Consider the following findings:

Of the 18 countries in the Middle East that Freedom House surveyed, only one is considered to be “free.”

And just who might that be? Yep, you guessed it: Israel.

Not a single Arab country – not one! – did Freedom House consider “free.” Three Arab states – Morocco, Lebanon and Kuwait – were labeled “partly free,” while 13 other Arab states as well as Iran merited the dubious distinction of being branded as “not free.”

In effect, then, this means that of the approximately 370 million human beings currently residing in the Middle East, only 2 percent enjoy true freedom – namely those who live in the Jewish state.

So much for “Israeli apartheid.”

NOT SURPRISINGLY, in a press release announcing the report’s publication, Freedom House concluded that “the Middle East remained the most repressive region in the world.” It is this message that Israel and its supporters need to begin highlighting. By casting a spotlight on the subjugation, oppression and tyranny that typify nearly the entire Arab world, we can open some eyes out there and educate the Western public as to who really shares their democratic values.

As Prof. Bernard Lewis has written, the Arab states are little more than “a string of shabby tyrannies, ranging from traditional autocracies to new-style dictatorships, modern only in their apparatus of repression and indoctrination.”

An annual Arab Apartheid Week, held on campuses and at community centers, could be an effective vehicle for driving home this fundamental truth.

Doing so will reframe the debate. More importantly, it will help Westerners to finally begin recognizing the Arab regimes for what they are: a dangerous mix of despotism and dictatorship.

Suissa: Murdering Israel’s Name

Mar 27, 2011 – Here’s my candidate: “Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East that is NOT apartheid.”


Freedom And The Middle East

By: Michael Freund

Date: Wednesday, February 16 2011

This was borne out most recently by a report issued by Freedom House, the independent Washington-based group that advocates for freedom worldwide. According to its annual survey, “Freedom in the World,” of the 18 countries in the Middle East, only one is considered to be “free.”

And that one, of course, is Israel.

Not a single Arab country – not one – did Freedom House consider fully “free.”

In effect, then, this means that of the approximately 370 million human beings currently residing in the Middle East, only 2 percent enjoy true freedom – namely, those who live in the Jewish state.

With the world’s attention focused on the region, it is essential to underline the repressive and high-handed nature of the various Arab regimes. Pro-Israel activists need to make the case that if there is apartheid to be found in the Middle East, it is in those Arab countries that oppress the majority of their citizens while denying them the basic right to elect their own leaders.

Now is the time to drive home the extent of “Arab Apartheid” while emphasizing the danger this poses to the West and its interests.


What About “Arab Apartheid Week”?
by Arsen Ostrovsky
March 7, 2011 at 5:00 am

Today, March 7, begins an annual part of the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, as student groups and academics — on campuses around the world — hold events marking “Israel Apartheid Week” [IAW].

None of these groups is holding similar events protesting human rights abuses in any number of Arab and Muslim countries — Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, the Sudan or Jordan — where people are being jailed, tortured and often killed fighting for their human rights.

The IAW features a series of events, including lectures, films, demonstrations and other activities, which, according to organisers (http://apartheidweek.org/en/about), is aimed at “raising awareness about Israel’s apartheid policies toward Palestinians and gathering support for the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.”

If Israel were an apartheid State, people like Arab Israeli Salim Jurban would not have been elected to Israel’s Supreme Court and Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin Muslim, would not have been appointed an advisor to Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, and then to the position of deputy Consul General of Israel in San Francisco. If Israel were an apartheid state, there would not be 5 different Arab parties and 14 Arab Israeli members of Knesset, some of whom are the most outspoken and harshest critics of Israel, including Haneen Zoabi who participated in the terrorist flotilla in June 2010, and Ahmed Tibi, currently one of the Deputy Speakers of the Knesset.

There are Arab parties in the Israeli Parliament; full Arab voting rights. Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. The only national institution from which they are exempted is the military, so that, if necessary, they should not be required to fight against their own brothers. Israel is clearly not an apartheid state.

Attempts, therefore, to compare Israel, to white South Africa are at best uninformed; at worst, maliciously dishonest and anti-Semitic.

The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbours in any number of Middle East countries currently fighting for these very same privileges. As the Muslim Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh repeatedly says (http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses):

“Israel is not an apartheid state… Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second class citizen in Israel, even though I’m not, than a first class citizen in any Arab country.”

The real apartheid today is in places such as Saudi Arabia, where the government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions, the presence of a Bible there, officially labels both Christians and Jews “unbelievers,” and cautions in the Qu’ran Muslims not to befriend Christians or Jews:

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and Christians for friends: they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” {Qu’ran 5:51)

“You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for , that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide [ie: Muslim who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.] ” {Qu’ran 5:80}

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah,” {Qu’ran 3:28)

“O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among other than your own people… they love what distresses you….” {Qu’ran 3:18)

“O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your bretheren for friends if they take take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith.” [ie: Even family members should not be friend if they do not submit to Islam.} (Qu’ran 9:23) *

Also in the Qu’ran, Muhammed curses the Jews and turns them into pigs and monkeys. (Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166)

Iran routinely executes, tortures and persecutes Baha’is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities. How many Christians or Jews, for example, are in its government?

In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from working in many professions.

Egypt continues to persecute its Coptic Christians and torch their churches.

Jordan last year revoked the citizenship of thousands of Jordanian Palestinians, and still denies citizenship to Jews.

Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

Yet Israel is the only country constantly to be singled out for opprobrium by groups such as the IAW. If its organizers were truly interested in human rights, going from worst to best, wouldn’t a better starting point be to hold an Arab Apartheid Week?

The main weapon in the campaign to brand Israel an apartheid state is the Boycott Divestment Sanctions [BDS] Campaign, which seeks to ostracize the Jewish state by severing all ties with it — economic, diplomatic, cultural, academic among others.

Marwan Barghouti for example, who is the founder and one of the leaders of the BDS Campaign (and incidentally, also a PhD student of ethics at Tel Aviv University), has said (http://vimeo.com/9605827) that the Palestinian refugees right of return to Israel is the “litmus test of morality for anyone suggesting a just and enduring solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” First, the Palestinians’ claim to a right of return is hotly disputed – where in history has one been able to defect to countries that have initiated four wars in sixty years against Israel; then, when these countries lose those wars that they have initiated, say that one would like to return and expect such a choice to be automatically accepted? The relocation of some 4 million plus Palestinians to Israel would clearly entail a demographic death of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state – rather than have two states, a Jewish Israel and a Palestinian State, you would have a Palestinian state displacing Israel, a point that is not lost on Barghouti, who says (http://vimeo.com/9605827):

“I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution…[I]f the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you would have a Palestine next to Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel.”

Other BDS leaders are equally forthright about the aims of their movement. Ronnie Kasrils for example says (http://vimeo.com/9617367): “BDS will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine.” And Ahmed Koor, another leader, proudly proclaims (mondoweiss.net/2010/04/bds-is-a-long-term-project-with-radically-transformative-potential.html): “Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself… BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state.”

Koor goes even further, clarifying that: “BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.”

It difficult to overlook the similarities between this “The Final Showdown” and Hitler’s “Final Solution.” Whereas Hitler’s Final Solution sought to bring about the end of the Jewish people, the BDS Campaign’s Final Showdown, by endorsing a one-state solution and return of Palestinian refugees, seeks to bring about the end of the State of Israel as the Jewish state.

The leaders of the apartheid and BDS movements may talk “peace,” “justice” and “ending the occupation,” however, their real goal seems to be the vilification, delegitimization, and obliteration of Israel as a Jewish state by branding it the pariah of the international community. From their statements, their goal is not to advance Palestinian rights, but to deny and strip Israel of its rights.

The IAW and BDS supporters do nothing to advance the cause of peace or the well-being of the Palestinians. But then again, has that ever really been the goal of the IAW and BDS movements?

See also Qu’ran 53:29; 3:85; 3:10; 7:44; and 1:5-7 , as wells as from the Hadith 1:417; 41:4815; 41:4832; 59:572; and Ishaq 262 and 252.

F L A M E HOTLINE: Exposing the outrageous truth: The world (again …Mar 16, 2010 … Secondly, if everyone involved in IAW truly cared about human rights, they would rename their movement Arab Apartheid Week.

The simple facts

Dershowitz’s film reminds Yair Lapid that case for Israel based on basic facts

Yair Lapid Published: 02.01.10, 10:01 / Israel Opinion

How dare they refer to Israel as an apartheid state? He asks with genuine amazement. Arab society features apartheid of women, apartheid of homosexuals, and apartheid of Christians, Jews, and democracy. Gays are being hanged in Saudi Arabia, genocide is taking place in Sudan, and women across the Arab world are murdered for not wearing a hijab or for falling in love with the wrong man.


Apartheid in the Arab Middle East
How can the U.N. turn a blind eye to hateful, state-sponsored discrimination against people because of their race, ethnicity, religion and gender?

[FLAME – April, 2011]

While apartheid—the legally-sanctioned practice of segregation, denial of civil rights and persecution because of race, ethnicity, religion or gender—has been eliminated in South Africa, where the term originated, it continues to be practiced in many parts of the world, particularly in the Arab Middle East and Iran. Why does the United Nations Human Rights Council continue to attack free, democratic Israel, yet refuse to condemn these true crimes against humanity?

What are the facts?

Apartheid has been practiced in Middle East nations for decades, yet it has managed to escape the scrutiny and condemnation of most of the world, including the United Nations Human Rights Council. It’s time to denounce these discriminatory laws and customs and declare them illegal. Can moral people ignore such blatant, heinous examples of apartheid in the Middle East?

Racial Apartheid against Black Africans. One of the world’s most deadly examples of racism is in Sudan, where native black Sudanese have been enslaved, persecuted and slaughtered by Muslim Arabs. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the “Darfur pogrom is part of a historic continuum in which successive Arab governments have sought to entirely destroy black Africans in this biracial nation … The raison d’etre of the atrocities committed by government-supported Arab militias is the racist, fundamentalist, and undemocratic Sudanese state.” Since 1983, more than two million black Sudanese have been killed, displaced or exiled.

Ethnic Apartheid against the Kurds. Few ethnic minorities in the Middle East have suffered as much repression as the Kurds. In Syria in 1962, hundreds of thousands of Kurds had their citizenship taken away or were denied citizenship. In 2008, the Syrian government issued Decree 49, which expelled Kurds from the country’s so-called “Arab Belt” and dispossessed them of rights to own land. The Kurdish Union Party called this an “ethnic cleansing decree … aimed at ending national Kurdish existence.” In Iran, following the Islamic revolution, the Shiite majority denied the Kurds a role in defining the new constitution, and in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared a holy war against Kurdish political organizations: Entire Kurdish villages and towns were destroyed, and thousands of Kurds executed without due process.

Ethnic Apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. For some 40 years Palestinians have been denied citizenship in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Palestinians have been expelled from many Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait, Jordan, Libya and Iraq. In Lebanon, Palestinians must live in designated areas, cannot own homes and are barred from 70 occupations.

By contrast, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are self-governing. They have their own government—the Palestinian Authority—hold elections (albeit irregularly) and run all aspects of civil society.

Religious Apartheid against Christians and Jews. Persecution, discrimination and attacks against religious minorities, especially Christians and Jews, are rampant in the Middle East. Pressure by radical Islamists has become so great that in the last 20 years some two million Christians have been driven out of their Middle East homelands. Christians in the Palestinian territories have dropped from 15 percent of the population in 1950 to just two percent today. In Egypt, two Coptic Christian churches were burned down over the past year, and according to a recent NPR report, Egyptian police commonly stand by and watch as Copts are physically attacked by Islamist vigilantes. In Saudi Arabia, Christians and Jews may not be citizens at all. Some 700,000 Jews have been forced out of Arab nations, effectively extinguishing the Jewish population in the region, except in Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. In the disputed Palestinian territories, Jews are the victims of hate-motivated murders and, according to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Jews will be banned from any future Palestinian state.

Gender Apartheid against Women. A 2002 United Nations report states that “women in Arab League countries suffer from unequal citizenship and legal entitlements often evident … in voting rights and legal codes [and] from inequality of opportunity, evident in employment status, wages and gender-based occupational segregation.” In Saudi Arabia, women must walk on separate sidewalks, must be covered from head to toe, and are not allowed to drive or vote in municipal elections. Women in many Middle Eastern countries are commonly forced into marriages, the law usually requires absolute obedience to husbands, and millions of girls must undergo genital mutilation.

Only Israel, among all Middle Eastern nations, guarantees equal civil rights for all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference. Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which the Christian population is growing. Some 1.4 million Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights than citizens in any Arab country. Isn’t it time for the U.N. Human Rights Council to stop persecuting Israel and condemn apartheid where it really lives—in Arab nations—and demand immediate reform and sanctions against all countries that commit such crimes against humanity?


Alan Dershowitz’s Response to Israel Apartheid Week 8 Mar 2010 … Apparently there are a lot of people calling for an Arab Apartheid Week.


Reaction: Apartheid Week Goes On
[Published: 03/15/11, 8:34 PM]
by Victor Sharpe

There is no such thing as Israeli apartheid against the Arabs. But there most certainly is Arab Apartheid imposed upon Jews, who are denied the right to live amongst Arabs even in the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland, which is occupied and controlled today by the Palestinian Authority and the Islamist Hamas.
It truly is an upside-down world, viewed now through a window so terribly distorted as to bewilder and confuse untold millions. It is much more than an Arab-Israel conflict over territory; it is much deeper than that. It is an Islamic refusal to accept a reconstituted Jewish homeland where once the Muslim foot trod triumphal. The very fact that the Palestinian Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, will never accept a tiny Jewish state within the enormous Arab landmass that stretches from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east is clear and present evidence of Muslim and Arab Apartheid. This empirical fact must be understood.


The Arab Apartheid

By Ben Dror Yemini
Maariv (translated from Hebrew)
May 14, 2011

The real “nakba,” which is the story of the Arab apartheid. Tens of millions, among them Jews, suffered from the “nakba,” which included dispossession, expulsion and displacement. Only the Palestinians remained refugees because they were treated to abuse and oppression by the Arab countries. Below is the story of the real “nakba”

In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which states as follows: “The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.” That is a stunning resolution, which was diametrically opposed to international norms in everything pertaining to refugees in those years, particularly in that decade. The story began, of course, in 1948, when the Palestinian “nakba” occurred. It was also the beginning of every discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the blame heaped on Israel, because it expelled the refugees, turning them into miserable wretches. This lie went public through academe and the media dealing with the issue.

In previous articles on the issue of the Palestinians, we explained that there is nothing special about the Israeli Arab conflict. First, the Arab countries refused to accept the proposal of partition and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war – and with a declaration of annihilation, yet – pays a price for it. Second, this entails a population exchange: indeed, between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs (the most precise calculation is that of Prof. Ephraim Karash, who calculated and found that their number ranges between 583,000 and 609,000). Most of them fled, a minority were expelled because of the war and a larger number of about 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries ( the “Jewish nakba”). Third, the Palestinians are not alone in this story. Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time. They occurred in dozens of other conflict points, and about 52 million people experienced dispossession, expulsion and uprooting (“And the World is lying“). And fourth, in all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, or on the backdrop of the establishment of a national entity, or the disintegration of a multinational state and the establishment of a national entity – there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state. The displaced persons and the refugees, with almost no exceptions, found sanctuary in the place in which they joined a population with a similar background: the ethnic Germans who wore expelled from Central and Eastern Europe assimilated in Germany, the Hungarian refugees from Czechoslovakia and other places found sanctuary in Hungary, the Ukrainians who were expelled from Poland found sanctuary in Ukraine, and so forth. In this sense, the affinity between the Arabs who originated in mandatory Palestine and their neighbors in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, was similar or even greater than the affinity between many ethnic Germans and their country of origin in Germany, sometimes after a disconnect of many generations.

Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. They crushed the refugees despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation. They instituted a régime of apartheid to all intents and purposes. So we must remember that the “nakba” was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The “nakba” is the story of the apartheid and abuse suffered by the Arab refugees (it was only later that they became “Palestinians”) in Arab countries.


Throughout many eras, there was no real distinction between the inhabitants of Egypt and the inhabitants of the coastal plain. Both were Muslims, Arabs, who lived under Ottoman rule. According to the researcher Oroub El-Abed, commercial ties, mutual migration and intermarriage between the two groups was commonplace. Many of the residents of Jaffa were defined as Egyptians because they arrived in many waves, like the wave of immigration to Jaffa during the rule of Muhammad Ali and his son over many parts of the coastal plain. Inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, which became mandatory Palestine, did not have an ethnic or religious identity that differed from that of the Egyptian Arabs.

Various records from the end of 1949 show that 202,000 refugees went to the Gaza Strip, primarily from Jaffa, Beer Sheva and Majdal (Ashkelon). That number may be exaggerated because the local poor also joined the list of aid recipients. The refugees went to the place where they were part of the majority group from all standpoints: ethnic, national and religious. Egypt, however, did not think so. At first, back in September 1948, a “government of all Palestine” was established, headed by Ahmad al-Baki. However, it was an organization under Egyptian auspices due to the rivalry with Jordan. The ostensible Palestinian government gave up the ghost after a decade.

What happened to the people in the Gaza Strip? How did the Egyptians treat them? Strangely, there is almost no research dealing with those days. But it is a bit difficult to hide that not so distant past. The Gaza Strip became a closed camp. It became almost impossible to leave Gaza. Severe restrictions were imposed on the Gazans (the originals and the refugees) in everything connected with employment, education and other matters. Every night there was a curfew until dawn the next day. There was only one matter in which the Egyptians assisted to the best of its ability: the school books contained serious incitement against Jews. Already in 1950, Egypt notified the UN that “due to the population crowding,” it would not be possible to assist the Palestinians by resettling them. That was a dubious excuse. Egypt thwarted the UN proposal to resettle 150,000 refugees in Libya. Many of the refugees who had fled in the earlier stages and were within Egypt were also forced to move to the giant concentration camp that was forming in the Gaza Strip. In effect, all the settlement arrangements proposed for resettling the refugees were blocked by the Arab countries.

Despite the absolute isolation, there is testimony about what happened in the Gaza Strip during those years. The important American journalist Martha Gellhorn paid a visit to the refugee camps in 1961. She also went to the Gaza Strip. It wasn’t simple. Gellhorn described the bureaucratic ordeal involved in obtaining an entry permit to the Gaza Strip and the days of waiting in Cairo. She also described the “sharp contrast between the amiability of the clerks, and the anti-Semitic propaganda that blossomed in Cairo.” “The Gaza Strip is not a hole,” Gellhorn stated, “but rather one big prison. The Egyptian government and is the warden.” She described a harsh military régime with all the elite of the Gaza Strip expressing enthusiastically pro-Nasser positions. Thus, for example, “For 13 years (1948-1961) only 300 refugees managed to obtain temporary exit visas.” The only thing that the Egyptians gave the Palestinians was hate propaganda.

That is not the only testimony. In 1966, a Saudi newspaper published a letter by one of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip:

“I would be happy if the Gaza Strip would be conquered by Israel. At least that way we would know that the one violating our honor, hurting us and tormenting us – would be the Zionist oppressor, Ben Gurion, and not an Arab brother whose name is Abdel Nasser. The Jews under Hitler did not suffer the way we are suffering under Nasser. In order to go to Cairo or Alexandria or other cities, we have to go through an ordeal.”

Radio Jedda in Saudi Arabia broadcast the following:

“We are aware of the laws that prohibit Palestinians from working in Egypt. We have to ask Cairo, what is the Iron Curtain that Abdel Nasser and his gang have raised around the Gaza Strip and the refugees? The military governor in Gaza has prohibited every Arab from traveling to Cairo without a military permit, which is valid for only 24 hours. Imagine, Arabs, how Nasser, who claims to be the pioneer of Arab nationalism, treats the wretched Arabs of Gaza, who are starving to death while the military governor and his officers enjoy the riches in the Gaza Strip.”

Even assuming that those were exaggerated descriptions in the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Nasser, we are still left with an oppressive régime of two decades. And it is worth noting another fact – when Israel arrived in the Gaza Strip, the life expectancy there was 48 years of age. After a little over two decades, the life expectancy has jumped to 72 years of age, past that of Egypt. More than the fact that this awards points to Israel, it also shows the abyss in which the Gaza Strip found itself during the days of the Egyptian régime.

Refugees from mandatory Palestine also lived in Egypt itself. Many of them did not even feel that they were Palestinians and preferred to assimilate. The Egyptians prevented them from doing so. Except for a short period of time that was considered the “golden age,” during some of the years of Nasser’s rule, which did not include the Gaza refugees, even those who were in Egypt suffered from restrictions on purchasing land, engaging in certain professions and education (for example, there was a prohibition on the establishment of a Palestinian school). The Egyptian citizenship law allowed citizenship for someone whose father is Egyptian, and later the law was expanded to anyone whose mother is Egyptian. In actuality, however, restrictions were imposed on anyone considered a Palestinian. Even the decision of an Egyptian court canceling the restrictions did not help. The new régime in Egypt has recently promised change. The change, even if it happens, cannot erase many years of discrimination, which was tantamount to collective punishment. Thus, for example, in 1978, Egyptian Minister of Culture Yusouf al-Shib’ai was murdered in Cyprus by a member of Abu Nidal’s group. In reprisal, the Palestinians suffered a new wave of attacks and the Egyptian parliament renewed legislation restricting the Palestinians in education and employment services.



Precisely like the identification and unity between the Arabs of Jaffa and southern Israel, and the Arabs of Egypt, similar identification exists between the Arabs of the West Bank and the Arabs of Jordan. Thus, for example, the Bedouin of the Majalis (or Majilis) tribe from the al-Karak region are originally from Hebron. During the days of the Ottoman Empire, Eastern Jordan was part of the Damascus district, like other parts of what later came under the auspices of the British mandate. According to the Balfour declaration, the area now called Jordan was supposed to be part of the Jewish national homeland.

The initial distress of the refugees on both sides of the Jordan River, was enormous. For example, Iraqi soldiers controlled the area of Nablus, and there is testimony about “the Iraqi soldiers taking the children of the rich for acts of debauchery and returning the children to their families the next day, the inhabitants are frequently arrested.” (in Hebrew) Indeed, Arab solidarity.

It seemed that Jordan treated the refugees differently. Under a 1954 Jordanian law, any refugee who lived in the area of Jordan between 1948 and 1954 was given the right to citizenship. However, that was only the outward façade. Below is a description of the reality under the Jordanian régime in the West Bank:

“We have never forgotten and we will never forget the nature of the régime that degraded our honor and trampled our human feelings. A régime that was built on an inquisition and the boots of the desert people. We lived for a long time under the humiliation of the Arab nationalism and it hurts to say that we had to wait for the Israeli conquest in order to become aware of humane relations with civilians.”

Because these things are liable to sound like an ad from a public relations campaign by the occupying force, it should be noted that they were published in the name of critics from the West Bank in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al Hawadith on April 23, 1971.

As in all other Arab countries, Jordan did not do a thing to dismantle the refugee camps. While Israel was absorbing hundreds of thousands of refugees from Europe and the Arab countries in similar camps (transit camps), and undergoing a punishing process of rehabilitation, building new settlements and dismantling the camps, Jordan did exactly the opposite and prevented any process of rehabilitation. During those same two decades, not one institution of higher learning was established in the West Bank. The flowering of higher education began in the 1970s, after the Israelis took control..

Even the citizenship that was given to the refugees was mainly for the sake of appearances. Despite the fact that the Palestinians number over 50% of the inhabitants of Jordan, they hold only 18 seats – out of 110 – in the Jordanian parliament, and only 9 senators out of 55, who are appointed by the king. It should also be recalled that during just one month, September 1970, in one confrontation, Jordan killed many more Palestinians than all the Palestinians who have been hurt in the 43 years of Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.



The first Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, the first Palestinian Arab conference, was held in Jerusalem in 1919. At the conference, it was decided that Palestine, which had just been conquered by the British, was southern Syria – an integral part of greater Syria. Over the years of the mandate, the immigration from Syria into the British mandate territory increased, for example, the Al-Hourani family, which arrived from the Houran in Syria, and others. The idea of “greater Syria,” which included mandatory Palestine, was also reflected in the growing involvement of Syrians in the great Arab rebellion and in the gangs that arrived from Syria during the War of Independence. The refugees, therefore, were not strangers politically, religiously or ethnically. To the contrary. Their fate should not have been different from the fate of other ethnic groups who were expelled to a place in which they constituted the national and cultural majority.

Between 70,000 and 90,000 refugees arrived in Syria, the decisive majority of them from Safed, Haifa, Tiberias and Acre. Thus, in 1954, they were granted partial rights, which did not include political rights. Until 1968, they were prohibited from holding property. Syrian law enables any Arab citizens to obtain Syrian citizenship, provided that his permanent residence is in Syria and he has a proven capacity for economic subsistence. However, the Palestinians are the only ones outside the applicability of the law. Even if they are permanent residents and possess means, the law prevents them from obtaining citizenship.

Only 30% of those who, for some reason, are still considered “Palestinian refugees in Syria” still live in refugee camps. Actually, they should long ago have been considered Syrians to all intents and purposes. They were part of the national Arab identity, they are connected by family ties, they should have been assimilated into the economic life of the country. But despite that, as a result of the political brainwashing, they remain in Syria as a foreign element, they daydream about the “right of return,” and are kept perpetually in their inferior status. Most of them are at the bottom of the employment ladder, in the service (41%) and construction (27%) professions. But there is nothing like the field of education to clarify their situation. 23% do not even go to elementary schools and only 3% reach academic education.



In the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians suffered for only two decades because of the Egyptian régime. In Lebanon, the apartheid continues to this day. The result is poverty, neglect, and enormous unemployment. Up to 1969, the refugee camps were under the stringent military control of Lebanon. According to the descriptions of Martha Gellhorn, most of the refugees were in a reasonable situation. Many even improved their standard of living compared with the days before the “nakba.” But in 1969, the Cairo Agreement was signed, which transferred control of the camps to the refugees themselves. The situation only grew worse. Terrorist organizations took control of the camps, which turned them into arenas of conflict – mostly violent – among the various groups.

A new study that was published in December 2010 presents data that makes the Gaza Strip look like paradise compared with Lebanon. Indeed, there was some scant publicity about it here and there, but as far as we know, there was no worldwide protest, not even a Turkish or international flotilla.

In contrast to Syria and Jordan, in which most of those defined as refugees are no longer in refugee camps, two thirds of the Palestinians in Lebanon live in camps, which are “enclaves outside the control of the state.” The most stunning data is that, despite the fact that about 425,000 refugees are registered with UNRWA, the study found that only between 260,000 and 280,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon. The paradox is that UNRWA is receiving financing for more than 150,000 people who are not even in Lebanon. This figure alone should have led to a serious inquest by the financing countries (primarily the US and Europe), but there is no chance that that will happen. The issue of the refugees is fraught with so many errors and lies that one more lie doesn’t really change anything. And so UNRWA can demand a budget for 425,000 people from the international community, while its website has a link to the study that shows that it’s all a fiction.

According to the study, the refugees are suffering from 56% unemployment. That seems to be the highest figure, not just among the Palestinians, but in the entire Arab world. Even those who are working are at the bottom of the employment ladder. Only 6% of those in the workforce have some kind of academic degree (compared with 20% of the workforce in Lebanon). The result is that 66% of the Palestinians in Lebanon live below the poverty line, which was set at six dollars per day per person. That is double the number of the Lebanese.

This dismal state of affairs is a result of apartheid to all intents and purposes. A series of Lebanese laws restrict the right to citizenship, to property, and to employment in the fields of law, medicine, pharmaceutics, journalism, etc. In August 2010 there was a limited amendment to the labor law but the amendment did not actually lead to any real change. Another directive prohibits the entry of building materials into refugee camps, and there are reports of arrests and the demolition of houses resulting from construction in the refugee camps. The partial and limited prohibition imposed by Israel on bringing building materials into the Gaza Strip stemmed from the firing of rockets at population centers. As far as we know, no prohibition was imposed in Lebanon due to a similar firing of rockets at population centers. And despite that, again, beyond the dry reports of human rights organizations, as part of the outlook that “they are permitted to do as they please,” no serious protest was recorded and no “apartheid week” was held against Lebanon.



In 1991, the Palestinians constituted 30% of the country’s population. Relative to other Arab countries, their situation there was reasonable. Then Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. As part of the attempts at compromise that proceeded to first Gulf War, Saddam made a “proposal” to retreat from Kuwait in exchange for Israel’s retreat from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The PLO, headed by Yasir Arafat, supported Saddam’s proposal. That support was the opening salvo in one of the worst events in Palestinian history. After Kuwait was liberated from the Iraqi conquests, and anti-Palestinian campaign commenced, which included persecution, arrests and show trials. The terrible saga ended in the expulsion of 450,000 Palestinians. Incidentally, some of them had settled there back in the 1930s, and most of them had no connection to Arafat’s support for Saddam. Nevertheless, they were subject to collective punishment, a transferor of proportions similar to the original nakba in 1948, which barely earned any mention in the world media. There are endless academic publications on the expulsion and flight in 1948. There are close to zero studies on the “nakba” of 1991.

* * *

These are the main countries in which the refugees are located. Apartheid is also rampant in other countries. In Saudi Arabia, the refugees from mandatory Palestine have not received citizenship. In 2004, Saudi Arabia announced some changes but clarified that the changes do not include the Palestinians. Jordan also prevents 150,000 refugees, most of them originally from the Gaza Strip, from receiving citizenship now. In Iraq, the refugees were actually given preference under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, but since he fell from power they have become one of the most persecuted groups. Twice, both on the Libyan-Egyptian border and on the Syria,-Iraqi border, thousands of expelled Palestinians lived in temporary camps and not a single Arab state agreed to take them. That was a formidable show of “Arab solidarity,” in making the “Arab nation.” And it continues. Palestinians from Libya, refugees from the civil war, are now arriving at the border of Egypt, which refuses to grant them entry.

Time after time the Arab countries have rejected proposals to resettle the refugees, despite the fact that there was room and there was a need. The march continues. In 1995, the ruler of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, decided to expel 30,000 Palestinians, just because he was angry about the Oslo accords, about the PLO, and about the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. A Palestinian doctor, Dr. Ashraf al-Hazouz, spent 8 years in a Libyan prison (together with Bulgarian nurses), on false charges of spreading AIDS. In August 2010, before the present uprising, Libya passed laws that made the lives of the Palestinians impossible. It was precisely at the time when Libya dispatched a “humanitarian aid ship” to the Gaza Strip. There is no limit to hypocrisy.

The following is a summary of the apartheid against minorities in the Arab world in general, and against the Palestinians in particular. But there is a difference. While the Copts in Egypt or the Kurds in Syria are, indeed, minorities, the Arabs from mandatory Palestine were supposed to be an integral part of the Arab nation. Two of the symbols of the Palestinian struggle were born in Egypt – Edward Said and Yasir Arafat. Both of them tried to fabricate their birthplace as Palestine. Two other prominent symbols of the struggle by the Arabs of mandatory Palestine are Fawzi al-Qawuqji (who competed with the mufti to lead the Arab struggle against the British) and Izz al-Din al-Qassam – the former Lebanese and the latter Syrian. There is nothing strange about this, because the struggle was Arab, not Palestinian. And despite that, the Arabs of mandatory Palestine became the most downtrodden and spurned group of all, following the Arab defeat in 1948. The vast majority of the descriptions from those years talks about Arabs, not about Palestinians. Later, only later, did they become Palestinians.

The Arab countries are well aware that their treatment of the refugees from mandatory Palestine was no less than scandalous. To that end, they signed the “Casablanca Protocol” in 1965, which was supposed to grant the Palestinians the right of employment and movement, but not citizenship. To have it almost within their grasp. But like other documents of that type, this one did not change a thing. The abuse continued.

At the comparative level, it seems that the Palestinian group that underwent the most significant growth is the one that is under Israeli sovereignty – both the Israeli Arabs who received Israeli citizenship, whose situation is far better, and the Arabs of the territories. Despite the harsh living conditions in Lebanon and Syria, and before that also in Egypt and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians under Israeli rule, beginning in 1967, have enjoyed a steady rise in their standard of living, in employment, in health services, in life expectancy, in the dramatic drop in infant mortality, and in the enormous growth of higher education.

For example, in all the territories captured by Israel in 1967, there was not one institution of higher education. In the 1970s, academic institutions began to sprout one after the other, and today there are at least 16 institutions of higher education. The growth in the number of students has continued for three decades, including during the years of the Intifada in the last decade. Within six decades the Palestinians – only those under Israeli rule – have become the most educated group in the Arab world.

The same is true in the political arena. After decades of political oppression, it was only under Israeli rule that the Palestinian national consciousness sprang up. For two decades after the War of Independence, the Arabs could have established a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. They did not do so – until Israel arrived and released them from the oppression of two decades. That didn’t make the occupation desirable. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t injustices and dispossessions. There were. But it seems that after the first two decades following the “nakba,” it was actually the era of Israeli rule that caused the enormous flourishing growth in every field. We should, and we must, criticize the negative aspects of the occupation. But we should, and we must, also remember the aspect that is ignored.

In the past decades, the lie has arisen again and again about Israel’s responsibility for the distress of the Palestinians, so it is advisable to set matters straight. The Palestinians went through a terrible experience of uprooting and expulsion. Most of them fled. Some of them were expelled. But, again, that type of occurrence was experienced by tens of millions of others. The difference lies in the fact that all the other tens of millions were absorbed by the countries to which they went. That has not been the case with the Palestinians. They have gone through ordeals of oppression, abuse, and denial of rights. That was the work of the Arab countries, which decided to perpetuate the situation. Many proposals to resolve the problem of the Palestinians and resettle them have been rejected again and again. The open wound has festered. Time after time the Arabs themselves have claimed that the Arabs are one nation. The borders between the countries, and of this there is no dispute, are a fiction of the colonial government. After all, there is no difference, either ethnic, or religious, or cultural, or national, between the Arabs of Jaffa and Gaza and the Arabs of El Arish and Port Said, or between the Arabs of Safed and Tiberias and the Arabs of Syria and Lebanon. Despite that, the Arab refugees have become the forced victims of the Arab world. The “right of return,” which is primarily a propaganda invention, has become the ultimate demand. Behind this demand was hidden, and still hides, one single intention: the annihilation of the State of Israel. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said back in 1949 that the “demand for the right of return was actually intended to achieve the purpose of annihilating Israel.” That was also the case at a conference of refugees that was held in 1957 in Homs in Syria, where it was declared that “Any discussion of the refugee issue that does not promise the right to the annihilation of Israel will be deemed a desecration of the Arab nation and treason.” There is no confusion here between the “right of return” and the “right of annihilation.” It is the same “right.” Identical words about return, whose purpose is the annihilation of Israel, were stated in 1988 by Sacher Habash, Yasir Arafat’s adviser. So, too, in our day, is the BDS campaign, whose platform supports the “right of return,” and whose leaders, such as Omar Barghouti, explained that the real objective is the annihilation of Israel.

Already back in 1952, Alexander Galloway, a senior official in UNRWA, stated that “The Arab countries do not want to resolve the problem of the refugees. They want to leave them like an open wound, as a weapon against Israel. The Arab rulers don’t care at all if the refugees live or die.” The Palestinian – and usually also the academic – historiography mimics a series of expressions of that type, just as it mimics the absorption of tens of millions of refugees in other places, and as it mimics the “Jewish nakba,” the story of the dispossession and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, and as it mimics the story of the Arab apartheid. But the truth must be told. Indeed, there was a nakba, but it is a nakba that is recorded primarily in the name of the Arab apartheid.

Ben-Dror Yemini is a researcher, a lecturer and a journalsit

http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=f2b4c1b55be76d1e6d7b777256ea0370&id=2428 [Hebrew]


Prior to the miraculous event that took place when the Jewish people’s 3,000 year old capital city [of Jerusalem] was restored to the Jewish state in the 1967 Six-Day War. For 19 long years from 1948 to 1967, Jordan had occupied Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the eastern half of Jerusalem. Only Pakistan and Britain had ever recognized Jordan’s illegal occupation.
The British officered Jordanian Arab Legion had forced out at gunpoint the Jewish residents of the Old City and the neighboring Jewish villages: It was Apartheid and ethnic cleansing, Arab style.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37025

For Zion’s sake – Yehuda Zvi Blum – [Associated University Presse,] 1987 – 242 pages – [0845348094, 9780845348093] – pp. 220-221

Most regrettably, many of the countries represented here today, although pretending to be among the most outspoken critics of racism, have cynically exploited that issue to serve their own nefarious partisan objectives, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the eradication of racism. On the contrary, these pretentious critics represent regimes that, themselves, have come to exemplify the worst evils of discrimination, intolerance and oppression. We must never lose sight of the fact that many, if not most, of the states that orchestrate and lead the verbal offensive against Israel, while ostensibly addressing the problem of apartheid, have ruthlessly trampled underfoot their own minorities and have enslaved their peoples under cruel dictatorships. Widespread imprisonment without trial, disappearances of alleged political opponents, degradation and torture, summary executions and wholesale butchery have become their hallmarks.

Among the countries represented on the Special Committee Against Apartheid we note, for example, Syria. The brutal policies of Syria’s ruling Alawite minority have claimed thousands of victims and in 1982 culminated in the horrifying massacre of between 10,000 and 25,000 people and the annihilation of whole families at Hama; the orphaning of an estimated 20000 of that town’s children, and the widespread devastation of the town’s historic quarter. The savage character of the Syrian regime was also pointed out recently in a special report of Amnesty International that described not only the atrocities committed by Syrian forces in Hama, but also cited overwhelming evidence showing that over the years thousands of people have been harassed, arbitrarily arrested, horribly tortured and even summarily executed by Syrian security forces.

Algeria, another member of the special committee, is noted for its oppression of the native Berbers, who are denied the right to separate cultural expression.


Outside the special committee, but very outspoken nevertheless, are such countries as Libya and Iraq. The fanaticism and extremely oppressive character of Libya’s regime has become notorious. Indeed, the hysteria that marks the religious intolerance of Libya’s dictator has recently reached a higher pitch as Colonel Khaddafi has increasingly taken to openly inciting against people of other faiths, particularly Christians — as, for eaxmple in his speech of 1 September 1983 in the anniversary of his coup. Iraq, too, has become infamous for its own brand of bloody suppression of human liberties and the cruel persecution of its Kurdish and Assyrian minorities.

In conducting their cynical campaign against Israel in the context of apartheid, Arab states and their allies conveniently manoeuvre attention away from their own central role in the history of racism against black Africans . For centuries, the slave trade in Africa was dominated by Arab traders and in certain Arab countries today slavery still exists.

Arab brutalization of black Africans was recalled in the 17 February 1973 issue of Ghana’s Weekly Spectator, which wrote that, during Ghana’s struggle for independence , Arab merchants “constituted themselves into a volunteer force and with batons cudgelled down freedom fighters in the streets of Accra in open daylight.” Khaddafi’s calls for a jihad — a holy war — against Christianity in Africa led the black African Archbishop of Abidjan to raise the question in the Milan newspaper Avenire (19 June 1974) whether this might mean a return to the days when this might mean a return to the days when eighty thousand Africans a year were enslaved by the “Arab colonialists.” Arab economic domination led Joseph Nyerere, the brother of Tanzania’s president, to write that

. . . Arabs, our former slave masters, are not prepared to abandon the rider-and-horse relationship. We have not forgotten that they used to drive us like herds of cattle and sell us as slaves. (Zambia Daily Mail, 21 June 1974).



West Africa (West Africa Pub. Co., ltd.) 1988 – Page 419

In the late 1970s, it was an open secret in New York that Arab diplomats never invited their black counterparts to their receptions. The ex-President of Senegal, Leopold Scn- ghor, was hesitant in giving recognition to the Polisario Front of SADR because whenever the Front took Moroccan prisoners the blacks amongst them were segregated and shot because the little food they had was not meant to feed black people,..


It’s quite disheartening to learn that black people are being relegated to second-class citizenship in Mauritania. Black African states must protest to the Arab Berber- government of Mauritania and to all Arab states to respect black people.
Abuse of black people by Arabs, especially Syrians and Lebanese, has been ignored for too long. … two sides in the conflict (Arabs and Israelis): they always have praise for Israelis while wondering why the Arabs hate black people.


In the face of these insults and disrespect no African Head of State has been bold enough to raise a voice apart from Zaire’s President Mobutu. This is because either they risk being overthrown or fear sanctions in the form of in the form of withdrawal of Arab petro-dollars. It is high time for African states to forget this senseless and blind solidarity with the Arabs and to think of the emerging Arab apartheid.


Africa betrayed – Page 307
George B. N. Ayittey – [Palgrave Macmillan,] 1992 – 412 pages
In fact, virtually all of Africa’s problems can be explained in terms of fierce competition among the elites for this power. The state was captured by the white race in South Africa (apartheid); by Arabs in Mauritania and Sudan (Arab apartheid);


The crime problem in Africa: a wake-up call of the 1960s-1990s
James S. E. Opolot – [Univers de Presse,] 1995 – 196 pages

Patterns of the concentration of power by the state as of 1992 have been outlined in these words: The state was captured by the white race in South Africa (apartheid); by Arabs in Mauritania and Sudan (Arab apartheid);


Mauritania, the other apartheid?
Garba Diallo – Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1993 – 57 pages
[Page 29]
“Non-Arabs are discriminated against in all walks of life, including unequal access to education, employment, and health care” said the resolution. “Even the heinous practice of slavery, although formally abolished in 1980, continues in some parts of the country”
[Page 30]
The implementation of Arabisation policies, and the imposition of Shari’a laws by Arab regimes on black Africans suggest that deliberate efforts are being made by these regimes to forcebly assimilate non- Arabs.


[Page 42]

Mauritania, including the question of slavery. Among those who spoke with Africa Watch were a number of slaves who escaped from Mauritania, or slaves who came to Senegal with their masters years ago and chose to remain in Senegal for fear mat if they returned to Mauritania, they would be forced to live as slaves…


In an Article in Etterge, Roberto Santiago has this to say about what he terms “modern African slavery: Mauritanian’s version of Apartheid”:
“When apartheid is slowly being dismantled in South Africa, a similarly harsh institutionalized racism and defacto slavery continue to flourish in the Arab-ruled north-west African nation of Mauritania, with little public outcry from the international community.


Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3 – Pax Sudani Network – 1993

Moreover, they have committed to a program of de-Africanization through forced Arabization and Isalmization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile regions.
Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed in the Dusan said Elias N. Wakoson. In 1955, a group of Southern Sudanese revolted against the system… they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab Apartheid and enslavement of black Africans. …

Negative ethnicity: from bias to genocide – Page 152
 Koigi wa Wamwere – 2003 – 207 pages

When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab Apartheid against the black southerners did not in Sudan. Arab insen- sitivity to the suffering of Africans in the South has led to an ongoing war that sends Arab militias from Khartoum …By 1997 Moorish apartheid in Mauritania had driven 55000 black Africans into Senegal, Mali, and surrounding countries. Judging by the numbers slaughtered, black, Arab, and Moorish apartheids have killed more Africans than white …

Africa betrayed – Page 124
 George B. N. Ayittey – 1992 – 412 pages

Arab Apartheid In some parts of Africa there is a dominant Islam which allows practically no room for other … by Arabs against black Africans has become a growing problem in Africa, especially in Mauritania, Sudan, and Tanzania.

Book review: Sudan – WSJ.com

Anatomy of Misery


How did Sudan implode so catastrophically?

Wall Street Journal Online – Aug 12, 2010

In a gallant effort to find an “African solution” for Sudan’s crises, Mr. Cockett points to Nigeria’s federal system as a model. A true federal system, like that of the U.S., would indeed decentralize power; but Nigeria’s is a fake federal system, which rebel groups in the Niger Delta are fighting against for the same reasons that the Darfuris and the Beja tribespeople oppose Khartoum. Perhaps the vehicle used to dismantle apartheid in South Africa would be more appropriate, since at the core of Sudan’s problems is Arab apartheid.


Indigenous African institutions
 George B. N. Ayittey – Transnational Publishers, 1991 – 547 pages – Page 29
Arab Apartheid reigns supreme in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, blacks have no political power and cannot vote. Like their counterparts in South Africa , they are persecuted and discriminated against by Arab masters.

The Washington Times: Are they free? Are they victims of others’ prejudices?

Washington Times – Nov 15, 1995

Ambassador Ismail Ould Iyahi’s hysterical response (“Times gets taken in by a peddler of racist myths about an African nation,” Letters, Nov. 1) to the issue of slavery in Mauritania, highlighted in your Oct. 28 interview with Mo-hamed Nacir Athie (“Ex-envoy decries Mauritanian slavery,” World, Oct. 26) was grotesquely out of order for a diplomat…


The ugly fact that Mr. Iyahi (and black American leaders) persistently refuse to address is the institution of Arab apartheid, slavery and oppression of blacks in Mauritania and Sudan.


Africa after the Cold War: the changing perspectives on security – Pages 126-127
 Adebayo Oyebade, Abiodun Alao – 1998 – 228 pages
This ethnic crisis is invariably between the Arabs and the black population. Although the conflict had been on for some time, it was only in the late 1980s that it came into the open. In 1984, the Force de Liberation Africaine de Mauritanians (FLAM) was formed, and in June 1986, it published the “Manifesto of the Oppressed Black Mauritanians.”
The manifesto denounced what it called “Mauritanian apartheid” and the ” Arabization of the Mauritanian society.”… The Black/Arab ethnic conflict inside Mauritania has influenced the neighboring states of Mali and Senegal. The largely black state of Senegal…

Africa in chaos – Page 50
 George B. N. Ayittey – 1999 – 416 pages – Preview
In Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs held power and blacks were excluded (Arab Apartheid); in Rwanda and Burundi, the Hutus and Tutsis alternatively usurped power; in Nigeria the Hausa-Fulani ran the government (tribal apartheid); Togo, …

Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3
No cover image Pax Sudani Network [A newsletter committed to the rights and liberties of African Sudanese people] – 1993
While African American leaders have played an important role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa, they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab Apartheid and enslavement of black Africans.”

Africanity redefined: Volume 1 – Page 39
 Ali AlʼAmin Mazrui, Ricardo René Laremont – 2002 – 225 pages – Preview
Ex-President Mobutu of Zaire [now Congo] — who once called Egyptians “brothers” — later called for Afro-Arab Apartheid on a continental scale, a continent partitioned. It is worth remembering that the cultural links between North Africa 

Biculturalism, self identity and societal transformation – Page 13
 Rutledge M. Dennis – 2008 – 267 pages – Preview
This was the pattern in South Africa before the fall of apartheid, and until more recent times, the way of life of … This is intended to impose a monolithic Arab culture over non-Arab Southerners, and Muslim, but non-Arab Darfurians. 

Arab Racism And Imperialism In Sudan (Africa) [2001]


One of the most insulting events occurred a few months ago when thousands of Nigerians, Ghanians and other West Africans were lynched, attacked and killed in the streets of Libya, an Arab nation. Yet Africans continue to allow the Arab extermination of Blacks in Sudan and Mauritania, Arab racism and apartheid/racism in Zanzibar and parts of East Africa, and Arab mischief in some of the wars in West Africa. The time has long past for Black Africans to realise two things.


Racism in Sudan | PRI’s The World Feb 7, 2011 …
Joseph Lagu says that what the Sudanese have been fighting is “Arab racism, apartheid in the Sudan.” He led the first armed resistance …


IndyACT… (2010) Anti Racism Movement…

… A group of independent activists organized a direct action on a number of touristic resorts that adopt racist policies towards migrant workers in Lebanon on the basis of color, race, and class.

Some of these resorts had put up signs asking its customers not to bring radio, food and maids to the resort.

After conducting several field researches and verifying the rules and procedures of the resorts, activists went to the resorts identified as the most racist accompanied by an activist of the Madagascari citizenship.

The woman was denied entry by the administration of the resort and no valid reasons were provided.

“We have monitored more than 15 resorts that follow the same traditions and practices of racism against non-whites in Lebanon, reminiscent of the era of apartheid in South Africa, blatant racism in the United States,” said the campaign’s spokesperson at IndyACT, Aimee Razanjay.

Lebanese apartheid, blacks are not allowed to access swimming pool.


Arab Apartheid ANTI-BERBER

The Amazigh Voice, December 1995 – March 1995 The Algerian government has subjected my people to a cultural apartheid for 33 years. In my village in Kabylia, my mother taught me Berber at home. …

[PDF] The Amazigh Voice
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
To Revisit North Africa, See a splendid movie in Tamazight… the cultural apartheid enforced by the North African states on the Amazigh people…

Amazigh Cultural Association in America Feb 26, 2008 … The list of victims of the Moroccan style apartheid goes on. These Let us recall that ten political prisoners of the MCA (Amazigh Cutural …

Considering that the Moroccan State practice a policy of apartheid [anti-] Amazigh characterized by the ban on names Amazigh, the ban on cultural activities, the non-issuance of permits for the establishment of associations Amazigh, the suppression of Sit-ing and events , Blocking television Amazigh…

[FLASH] boycotting the last parliamentary elections of September 7, 2007 …File Format: Shockwave Flash
To the atention of the European Parliament delegates, The European Parliament Subject: Human Rights and political anti-Amazigh apartheid in Morocco ladies…

World Amazigh Congress reviews the state of Amazigh rights Jan 7, 2011 … The International Federal Council (CF) of the World Amazigh Congress … “The Khadafi regime… continues to follow its apartheid politics …

Statement about the protest in front of the Libyan Consulate in Rabat
Following the arbitrary and unlawful banning of the protest (sit-in) announced to be held on Thursday, January 6, 2011 in front of Libyan embassy in Rabat by the International Congress of Amazigh Youth in solidarity with Bouzakhar brothers detained by the Libyan apartheid regime. In presence of and coordination with supporting associations and activists in a meeting held in the headquarters of the Amazighe Network for Citizenship in Rabat, the International Congress of Amazigh Youth announces the following to national and international public opinion.

Jan 13, 2011 … LIBYA: BERBERS ARRESTED, PROTESTS IN RABAT – Morocco – ANSAMED.info. … stop its discriminatory apartheid policy on all things Amazigh”. …


Apartheid today: racism definition… persecution and discrimination against native Berber tribes and their culture: Morocco and Libya…


Arab Apartheid VS Israel Democracy

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid

By JanSuzanne Krasner

October 26, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


“Know Your Palestine” Quiz – Op-Eds – Israel National News

Arutz Sheva – Mar 11, 2011

Op-Ed: “Know Your Palestine” Quiz

Published: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:17 AM

Try your luck.The winner gets to decide who gets the Holy Land–or Promised Land, as you wish to call it.

Now it’s time for the nation of “Palestine” and “Palestinian” people quiz. Put on your thinking caps. See how many you can get right. The winner gets to decide who gets the Holy Land or Promised Land. Maybe your prize shall be to take a road trip with the “Road Map” serenaded by the “Quartet”!!!

1. When was the “now occupied” country of “Palestine” founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was the capital city called?

4. What were its major cities?

5. Name at least one leader before Yasser Arafat.

6. What year did Yasser Arafat come to power?

7. Who “occupied” the disputed territories of Gaza, Judea & Samaria then?

8. What was the national language of the “Country of Palestine?

9. What was the prevalent religion of the “Country of Palestine”?

10. What was the name of its currency?

11. Choose any date in history before 1993 and tell what was the exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the U.S. dollar, German Mark, Great Britain/United Kingdom Pound, Japanese Yen or Chinese Yuan on that date.

12. Since there is no “Country of Palestine” today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

13. Why did the “Palestinians” never decide to become independent until after the devastating defeat of Arab invading states in the 1967 war?

14. Name the “Palestinian” head and hierarchy for the Palestine Electric Company, Palestine Post and Palestine Symphony Orchestra.

15. Who occupied “Palestine” until Israel was re-established as a nation state in 1948 pursuant to the Balfour Declaration, British/Palestine Mandate and United Nations?

Anyone who can answer all or any of these questions correctly will receive the award of accuracy, believability, credibility, honesty, integrity with regard to historical facts.

This contest is open to all citizens of the international community and there is no discrimination based on nationality, religion or gender as there is in the Arab apartheid nations. GOOD LUCK!!!




Midstream: Volume 36
 Theodore Herzl Foundation – 1990 – Page 8
… was that much more effective for having been Judenrein or whether the pepper and salt of open Israeli participation might not have produced a timely ending of Arab Apartheid (with European and American condonation) towards Israel.

The last option: after Nasser, Arafat, & Saddam Hussein : the quest for peace in the Middle East – David Kimche – [Charles Scribner’s Sons,] 1991 – 328 pages – Page 235
We were told that without the international community’s acceptance of this policy of Arab Apartheid concerning Israel, the anti-Saddam coalition at the United Nations and in the field in Saudi Arabia would disintegrate. The American request for an Israeli ‘low profile’ and Israel’s acceptance, since we really had no choice in the matter, was understandably not publicly discussed or fully considered in Israel at the time. The first short-sighted and


1947 Arab Apartheid

[Wednesday, March 9, 2011]

Jews expelled from Arab lands

In 1947, the political committee of the Arab League drafted a law that would direct the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League. Jewish anti-discriminatory legislation is approved by Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, with the exception of non-Arab countries (Turkey, Iran …)
Legislation passed by the political committee of the Arab League in 1947…


Middle East review: Volume 9 – American Academic Association for Peace in the Middle East – 1976 – Page 116
If the President of Egypt wishes to pursue his policy of Arab Apartheid and to continue to bar Israelis from visiting Cairo, that is his privilege.

March 03, 2010
Apartheid is Alive and Well in Araby
By Victor Sharpe
We stand in the midst of a new round of Israel-bashing called by the organizers of “Israel Apartheid Week.” Those doing the bashing are busy turning logic on its head. For them, up is down, day is night, and right is wrong. The collected hatemongers of the radical Left allied with the terminally hate-filled Muslim world, their ranks filled with empty-headed and gullible drones, are combining to shriek misplaced support for an Arab people calling themselves Palestinians, who, they allege, are suffering from apartheid. They make this false charge by slandering the Jewish state, equating it with what was once the South African apartheid regime.

According to the upside-down world of the “hate Israel” crowd, Arabs are separated from Jews within Israel just as the black Africans were segregated from the whites within South Africa. This is where facts retreat into the fantasy world one finds within the Thousand and One Arabian Nights.

The real apartheid that exists in the Middle East can be found not in Israel, but within the territories currently occupied by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-occupied Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Arabs ban all Jews from living amongst them. Any Jews found are summarily murdered in cold blood. This is sanctioned by Fatah and Hamas, who both delight in describing the Arab terrorist thugs as heroes — even naming streets and town squares in their honor. Any Arabs found to have sold property to Jewish purchasers are summarily executed – often in the public squares and streets of Palestinian Arab settlements.

The geographical territory known as Palestine has, of course, never existed as an independent, sovereign nation in all of human history, and certainly never as an Arab state. The current territory within the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip formed integral parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority sits upon the very Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, known now by its Jordanian name, the West Bank.

The vast territory east of the River Jordan, now called the Kingdom of Jordan, includes large tracts of land that also formed part of the biblical Jewish and tribal lands. But now that same vast territory, which extends eastwards to Iraq, north to Syria, and south to Saudi Arabia (dwarfing tiny Israel in size), is also closed by the Jordanian authorities to Jews, who may not live within its borders upon pain of death. In contrast, Arabs, who make up 20% of the overall Israeli population, may live within the reconstituted Jewish state as citizens enjoying equal rights with justice for all.

The Jordanian regime instituted a law in 1954 prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan. They did this by conferring citizenship to all former residents of geographical Palestine — except Jewish ones. Israel’s population contains Jews who are white, black, brown, and yellow. It is not an apartheid state based on racial differences or concepts of racial purity and impurity. Under apartheid South Africa, blacks were not citizens of the country and were not permitted to vote. Yet the loony Left, allied with the hate-filled Islamic world, continues to accuse Israel of a mythical apartheid system while ignoring the Arab and Muslim perpetrators of the actual apartheid that so clearly exists in the Kingdom of Jordan, in the Palestinian Authority, and within the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.  

The tsunami of anti-Jewish bigotry and malice sweeping the universities in America and Europe is desolating. The boycotts of Israel generated from within academia are built upon a fraudulent ethos of Arab distortions and outright lies, yet thy are willingly accepted by gullible students and faculty alike. It seems that the intellectuals who utter their elitist drivel within the corridors of academe are all too often seduced by novelties. But what it sadly, and so often, reveals is an undeniable truth that intellectualism does not automatically confer intelligence or intelligent behavior.

It would be refreshing if the same students, professors, and assorted Israel-bashers could learn how the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have created for themselves what can be described as anti-history. So insanely set are they upon a destructive denial of Jewish patrimony that these same Palestinian Arabs have created for themselves a fraudulent narrative denying even the existence of the Jewish Temples on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount — despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence of Jewish civilization and history in the land spanning millennia. This is why Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad called out the Palestinian rent-a-mob to riot in the streets of Hebron and Jerusalem after Israel declared the ancient Jewish holy sites of the Machpela Cave in Hebron and the tomb of the biblical matriarch, Rachel, as national heritage sites.

In Genesis 23:13, we read about the first Jew, Abraham, purchasing land in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite as a burial plot for his wife, Sarah. His son Isaac and grandson Jacob are also buried there along with their wives — the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. But this upsets the Palestinian Arabs because the Jewish tombs are within the territory they demand for a state — for them, these Jewish sites are an inconvenient truth. Another Jewish holy place in what the world likes to call the West Bank is Joseph’s tomb in Nablus, or what was once biblical Jewish Shechem. The good Palestinian Arabs recently desecrated the ancient tomb, filling it with rubbish and excrement, to prevent Jewish prayers and pilgrimage at the site. These are manifestations of apartheid — Arab style.

With breathtaking absurdity, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make claims of historical and lineal descent from the extinct Canaanites and Philistines. They have bred several generations of children in kindergartens imbued with such frightening nonsense, attended by a love of barbarism and a culture of death. They have been encouraged in this by the corrupt neighboring Arab leaders, who for some sixty years have stigmatized them as refugees yet at the same time have barred them from living within their own basket-case countries.  

From this horrific Palestinian-Arab sectarianism, the culture of death has developed along with an Islamic refusal to ever make a true and lasting peace with the non-Muslim state known as Israel. Indeed, for the Jewish population and for the subsequent State of Israel, there has been relentless Arab terror since the 1920s.

Consider the massacre of Jewish civilians by their Arab neighbors in Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron — the city that not only houses the Jewish burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but which King David first made his capital. That Arab atrocity took place in 1929 during the British Mandate occupation. For all those anti-Israel bigots who scream against Israeli occupation, they should know that the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not occupied at that time. Indeed, the Jewish state was not reborn until nineteen years later, in 1948 — yet Arabs were murdering and terrorizing Jews all those years before. They should ask themselves why, after the Israel-Arab war of 1948, when the Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and the Jordanians occupied the so-called West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan felt the need to create a new Arab state to be called Palestine. Neither did the Arab residents demand it. Only after Israel defeated Arab aggression in 1967 and liberated the territories did the Arab world begin to demand the creation of a 23rd Arab state. They should also know that today, some 98% of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians live in both the Arab Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the rival Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. There is, in reality, no occupation. So what do they mean when they rant and rave about Israeli occupation, unless it is a call for the very extinction of Israel itself?  

There is no such thing as Israeli apartheid against the Arabs. But there most certainly is Arab Apartheid imposed upon Jews, who are denied the right to live amongst Arabs even in the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland, which is occupied and controlled today by the Palestinian Authority and the Islamist Hamas.

It truly is an upside-down world, viewed now through a window so terribly distorted as to bewilder and confuse untold millions. It is much more than an Arab-Israel conflict over territory; it is much deeper than that. It is an Islamic refusal to accept a reconstituted Jewish homeland where once the Muslim foot trod triumphal. The very fact that the Palestinian Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, will never accept a tiny Jewish state within the enormous Arab landmass that stretches from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east is clear and present evidence of Muslim and Arab Apartheid. This empirical fact must be understood.

In that context, I am reminded that it was the Indian leader Mahatma Ghandi who said, “While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees, and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.”

It would be an enlightening and seminal moment in these first years of the 21st century if the eyes and ears of the Israel-bashers could be opened with the realization that they have targeted the wrong nation, and that apartheid is alive and well within the Arab world.

The case for Israel – Page 157
Alan M. Dershowitz – 2003 – 264 pages
The most primitive apartheid against non-Muslims is still openly practiced in some Arab countries. Moreover, Jordan has a law of return that explicitly denies citizenship to all Jews, even those who lived there for generations…

[PDF] dershowitz – carter book article

Nov 22, 2006 … The reality is that other Arab and Muslim nations do in fact practice apartheid. In Jordan, no. Jew can be a citizen or own land.


How About A Real Campaign Against Abuses?

Alan M. Dershowitz


The second entity on any apartheid list would be Hamas, which is the de facto government of the Gaza Strip. Hamas too discriminates openly against women, gays, Christians. It permits no dissent, no free speech, and no freedom of religion.

Every single Middle East country practices these forms of apartheid to one degree or another. Consider the most “liberal” and pro-American nation in the area, namely Jordan. The Kingdom of Jordan, which the King himself admits is not a democracy, has a law on its books forbidding Jews from becoming citizens or owning land. Despite the efforts of its progressive Queen, women are still de facto subordinate in virtually all aspects of Jordanian life.


For Zion’s sake – Page 106
Yehuda Zvi Blum – 1987 – 242 pages
Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is no better than an advocate of apartheid. However, discrimination on the part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has not been…

Delta and Saudi Arabia: Flying the Friendly, Anti-Semitic Skies

June 24, 2011 7:32 pm

Shmuley Boteach

anti-Semitic Delta Israeli Jews morals oil Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian Airlines women

It’s no secret that Saudi Arabia bars passengers with Jewish sounding last names and any passport with an Israeli stamp from its flights. It’s therefore inexplicable why Delta Airlines would partner with Saudi Arabian Airlines knowing that the partnership would, at best, passively endorse Saudi Arabia’s anti-Semitic policies. Even more bizarre is the defense Delta offered of the practice once the story of the partnership broke. International airlines, it said, “are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country… Visa requirements or other possible government travel restrictions to enter any country are dictated by that nation’s government, not the national airlines or foreign carriers. These requirements apply to anyone entering the country either by land, air or sea.”

Aha. So Delta isn’t barring Jews from entering Saudi Arabia. They can’t be faulted for Saudi policies.

But would Delta have said the same thing had they partnered with, say, South African Airways at the height of apartheid had there been a requirement for black passengers to sit near the toilet in the back of the aircraft? Would they have said, “Sorry, this isn’t our regulation, it’s our partner’s.” I suspect not. They would probably have never risked a partnership that would have passively endorsed racist policies and subjected the airline to international condemnation.

Which leads to the larger question of why Saudi Arabia is always treated differently. Where is the outrage over the only country in the entire world that doesn’t allow women to drive a car or that publicly flogs women for being alone in a room with a man they are not married to, as recently happened to a woman in her seventies who committed the sin of allowing a delivery man into her house? This is pure barbarity, yet the West continues to overlook it due to Saudi wealth and our own gluttony for oil. In essence, we have allowed our morals to drown in an ocean of crude.

Islamic scholars have confirmed that there is nothing in the Koran that bars a woman from driving and at least two of the prophet’s wives are known to have ridden camels, the four-wheel drive of its time. Yet, when Manal al-Sharif posted a video of herself driving this past May she was locked up for nine days.

This extreme gender apartheid led in turn to the recent, widely-covered protests on the part of several Saudi women to publicly drive and challenge the authoritarian Wahhabi regime, pleading with Hillary Clinton to speak out on their behalf. But the most our Secretary of State could muster was a bland and non-committal statement: “What these women are doing is brave, and what they are seeking is right.” You don’t say. But hey, at least the statement is a start.

But while the world applauds the rise of the Arab spring and the sprouting of the innate desire on the part of Arab brothers and sisters to live and breathe free, there is at best token American and European pressure on the Saudis to come in from the dark ages and treat women like fully-fledged human beings. The absence of leading feminist voices regularly and unrelentingly condemning the Saudis for their brutal treatment of women is particularly dispiriting.

But hey, even feminists need to fill up and so long as the Saudis prove useful in pumping up our gas-guzzling SUV’s, it seems that the American people will continue to remain silent and more American businesses will continue to sell their souls.

Progressives Copy Arab Muslim Playbook of Lies

[January 11, 2011]

One of the ironclad laws of the Muslim world in relation to Israel/Jews is this simple formulation:

Whatever atrocity the Muslims accuse Israel of committing, is, in fact, being perpetrated by Muslims.

Item: The Muslim world and its enablers on the left accuse Israel of being an apartheid state. Of course over a million Arab Muslim, Christian and Druze are citizens of Israel. There are Arab members of the Knesset and an Arab on the Israeli supreme court. There are Arab officers in the IDF. Israeli society, open and democratic, bears zero relationship to the South African apartheid state to which it is being compared.

In contrast, the Arab Muslim world is effectively an apartheid system. Jews are all but gone from the Arab Muslim world, expelled over the past sixty years, the wealth and property of the 800,000 Arab Jewish refugees stolen or taken in, er, taxes. And now Christians have been targeted for elimination from all Arab Muslim states.

The Palestinian Authority has publicly announced that any future Palestinian State will be judenrein, an apartheid state.

Item: The Arab Muslim world, like clockwork, accuses Israel of perpetrating a holocaust against the Palestinians.

If such a charge were true, the Israelis must be the most inept genociders in the history of the universe. For how is it that Gaza, a terrorist state, and an easy target, has not been flattened by the IAF and turned into a nice big parking lot.

Of course, the Arab Muslims were allies of Hitler in World War II. There were even Muslim SS soldiers. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was led, by Heinrich Himmler, on a guided tour of Auschwitz for a first-hand lesson on how to murder Jews on an industrial scale.

The Hamas covenant calls for the annihilation of the Jewish State and the murder of every Jew on the face of the earth.

Which brings us to liberal progressives and their ghoulish charge that a conservative climate of hate is responsible for the Tucson massacre.

The above formulation—in effect, blood libels—applies to liberal progressives, for they have adopted the Arab Muslim tactic of committing acts which they attribute to others.http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2011/01/post_198.php



Not all apartheid is created equal
Published On Tue Jul 6 2010

By Martin Regg Cohn
 Queen’s Park Columnist
Thousands turned out to protest racial discrimination against Palestinians the other day — and with good reason.

The long-suffering Palestinians face armed soldiers at the gate if they try to leave their camps. They are frozen out of public medical and social services. They are barred from dignified work in dozens of occupations such as engineering, medicine, law and journalism. They cannot own property. Their children are banned from regular schools.

If it looks like apartheid and sounds like apartheid, let’s march against it. . .

Except . . . I’m not referring to the quest by Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) to hijack Toronto’s Pride Parade over the weekend. While QuAIA and its fellow travellers issue righteous (if wrong-headed) denunciations of the Jewish state, Palestinian protestors in Beirut are targeting “apartheid” closer to home.

Some 6,000 Palestinians marched on the Lebanese parliament late last month to protest their discriminatory treatment — not at the hands of Israel, but by Lebanon itself.

As Lebanese columnist Rami G. Khouri noted last week, the treatment of these Palestinians — like “penned-in animals” — must be condemned as a “lingering moral black mark.” Writing in the Daily Star of Beirut, Khouri argued that “Lebanon faces a moment akin to . . . when South Africans seriously mooted changing their apartheid system in the 1980s.”

Aha — apartheid alert! Perhaps we’ll see a Queers Against Lebanese Apartheid protest at next year’s Pride Parade?

As Gaza-born journalist Ahmed Moor wrote in the Guardian last month, “the Arab world is rife with hypocrisy when it comes to the Palestinian issue.” His conclusion, from Beirut: “They are second-class citizens here.”

In fact, he’s quite wrong. Palestinians are not second-class citizens for the simple reason that they are pointedly ineligible for citizenship in Lebanon, whether first- or second-class. Lebanon’s politicians, always wary of upsetting the country’s delicate sectarian balance, have preferred to ghettoize their 300,000 Palestinian refugees in camps while righteously railing against Israel to take them back.

Six decades later, generations of Lebanese-born Palestinian refugees who have never seen Haifa — and probably never will — remain fodder for the world’s debating societies and protest marches.

Belatedly, a proposal to be debated by Lebanon’s parliament later this month would let Palestinians own an apartment and get hospitalization for work-related accidents — while retaining the ban on employment in major professions.

Not all countries in the Middle East are equally prejudiced against Palestinians. Jordan grants them full citizenship, without falling for the intellectually corrupt trap of claiming that a passport precludes their right of return to Palestine. Syria grants them full residency rights, though not citizenship. Egypt does neither.

Israel, for the record, grants full citizenship, legal and language rights to Arabs (including gay Arabs) within its borders — notwithstanding attempts to conflate Israel proper with the West Bank and Gaza when using the apartheid label.

To be sure, decades of occupation have degraded Palestinians and dragged down Israel. But occupation is not racial segregation, despite the superficial similarities. I remember when the notorious Glenn Babb, South Africa’s ambassador to Canada during its apartheid era, paraded around reserves condemning our discriminatory treatment of status Indians.

Babb was smearing us with sophistry back then, so why stoop to using his misleading tactics now against Israel? Unless one really believes Canada is also an apartheid state.

As for the quirky cause of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, they have seen the enemy and the enemy is gay-friendly Israel: the QuAIA website falsely claims that “Israel’s apartheid system extends gay rights only to some, based on race” while blithely giving a free pass to Arab regimes that extend gay rights to no one — such as Hamas in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and others.

I’M ALL FOR FREE SPEECH, so I’m waiting for QuAIA to take its quixotic crusade against Israel to the Santa Claus Parade (the Jewish state discriminates against Christmas?), and to demand a float in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade (let’s see if the archdiocese offers them a spot).

Word is, however, that QuAIA is not seeking a float on the next Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, lest the gay-friendly Israeli army (yes, homosexuals can serve) waves them through and the Toronto protestors find themselves in the arms of Hamas enforcers.

The QuAIA website declares, “There is no pride in apartheid, and QuAIA is dedicated to fighting it wherever it exists” — even though it turns a blind eye to Lebanese-style apartheid or pan-Arab homophobia.

There’s a word for that kind of selective morality. I wouldn’t call it anti-Semitism or hateful, though it goes beyond hypocritical.

It’s hutzpah.

Martin Regg Cohn writes Tuesday.

Middle East  Where’s the international outcry against Arab Apartheid?
03/17/2011 03:40

Comment: As Israel Apartheid Week continues, a Palestinian boy was left to die at Lebanese hospital because father couldn’t afford treatment.

As Israel Apartheid Week continues, a Palestinian boy was left to die at Lebanese hospital because father couldn’t afford treatment.
Mohammed Nabil Taha, an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, died this week at the entrance to a Lebanese hospital after doctors refused to help him because his family could not afford to pay for medical treatment.

Taha’s tragic case highlights the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon and who are the victims of an apartheid system that denies them access to work, education and medical care.

Ironically, the boy’s death at the entrance to the hospital coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week, a festival of hatred and incitement organized by anti-Israel activists on university campuses in the US, Canada and other countries.

It is highly unlikely that the folks behind the festival have heard about Taha. Judging from past experiences, it is also highly unlikely that they would publicize the case even if they would hear about it.

Why should anyone care about a Palestinian boy who is denied medical treatment by an Arab hospital? The story has no anti-Israel angle to it.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened if an Israeli hospital had abandoned a boy to die in its parking lot because his father did not have $1,500 to pay for his treatment? The UN Security Council would hold an emergency session and Israel would be strongly condemned and held responsible for the boy’s death.

All this is happening at a time when tens of thousands of Palestinian patients continue to benefit from treatment in Israeli hospitals.

Last year alone, some 180,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip entered Israel to receive medical treatment. Many were treated despite the fact that they did not have enough money to cover the bill.

In Israel, even a suicide bomber who is only (!) wounded while trying to kill Jews is entitled to the finest medical treatment. And there have been many instances where Palestinians who were wounded in attacks on Israel later ended up in some of Israel’s best hospitals.

Lebanon, by the way, is not the only Arab country that officially applies apartheid laws against Palestinians, denying them proper medical treatment and the right to own property.

Just last week it was announced that a medical center in Jordan has decided to stop treating Palestinian cancer patients because the Palestinian Authority has failed to pay its debts to the center.

Other Arab countries have also been giving the Palestinians a very hard time when it comes to receiving medical treatment.

It is disgraceful that while Israel admits Palestinian patients to its hospitals, Arab hospitals are denying them medical treatment for various reasons, including money. But then one is reminded that Arab dictators do not care about their own people, so why should they pay attention to an 11-year-old boy who is dying at the entrance to a hospital because his father didn’t have $1,500 handy? But as the death took place in an Arab country – and as the victim is an Arab – why should anyone care about him? Where is the outcry against Arab Apartheid?



Is This Apartheid in Bahrain?
February 22, 2011, 1:15 am

A few scattered thoughts about Bahrain, on a day on which huge protests are unfolding.

Members of the ruling family, the Khalifas, are rightly proud of what they’ve built here. Bahrain is modern, moderate and well-educated, and by Gulf standards it has more of the forms of democracy than some others. But here’s my question to King Hamad: Why is it any more appropriate for a minority Sunni population to rule over majority Shia than it was in South Africa for a minority white population to rule over a majority black population? What exactly is the difference?

Indeed, the language of the ruling party sounds a lot to me like the language of white South Africans — or even like the language of white southerners in Jim Crow America, or the language of militant Israeli settlers in the West Bank. There’s a fear of the rabble, a distrust of full democracy, a sense of entitlement. Apartheid isn’t exactly the right metaphor, because there isn’t formal separation (although neighborhoods are often either Sunni or Shia), and people routinely have very close friends of the other sect. But how can a system that bars 70 percent of the population from serving in the army be considered fair? How can a system in which the leading cabinet positions are filled by one family be considered fair?

The government talks about “unity” and complains that the opposition is encouraging sectarianism. Please! An American friend was on the roundabout Thursday morning when police attacked. They caught him but when they saw he was American they were friendly and said they were hunting Shia only. My friend said the experience left him feeling icy, as if they were hunting rats. And several people I talked to who were there said that the police used anti-Shia epithets and curses as they were beating prisoners. If the government wants to ease sectarianism, it might start by bringing Shia into the police and armed forces and fire anybody caught making derogatory comments about Shiites.

The two sides are very, very far apart right now, and it’s hard to imagine them hammering out a compromise that both can agree on. The opposition would accept King Hamad continuing as king – perhaps more like a Moroccan or Jordanian king than a British one, but still much less powerful than today – but the Khalifa family would have to give up the way it dominates Bahrain. Right now, government is pretty much a family affair, and that would have to end. I worry that the result will be more strikes and protests and a stalemate, and then harder-line elements in the family will again use force. The big worry in the roundabout isn’t so much that the army goes in again, but that the government sends in thugs (perhaps Wahabis from Saudi Arabia, by opening the causeway to them) to provoke fighting and intimidate the protesters. That’s similar to what I saw Mubarak do in Cairo, and it was terrifying.

Two things bother me about the protests. One is that the participants are overwhelmingly Shia. I’ve met a few Sunni on the roundabout, but very, very few – and that makes it less authentic and broad-based an opposition movement than it should be. There are lots of disgruntled Sunni, but they don’t go out on the streets, either because they don’t feel comfortable in a Shia-dominated movement or because their families work in the army or police (as many poor Sunnis do) and would get in severe trouble for doing so. Nonetheless, the protest organizers could try harder to reach out to the Sunni community, and a first step would be to stop the “Death to al-Khalifa” chants and similar slogans. The other day I saw a sign reading “Imagine Bahrain without the al-Khalifas.” That kind of thing is utterly inappropriate. The opposition has to do what Nelson Mandela did so brilliantly in South Africa – make clear that majority rule will not lead to persecution of the minority. Every time the democracy movement scrawls “Death to Al-Khalifa” on a sign, it erodes its own legitimacy before the world.

After Arab Revolts, Reigns of Uncertainty‎
New York Times – Anthony Shadid

Published: August 24, 2011

… Syrian rebels denounce Hezbollah, which prides itself on its resistance to Israel. Bahrain withdrew its ambassador from Damascus as it carried out a crackdown on its Shiite majority that smacks of apartheid. And Colonel Qaddafi, in his message, praised his loyalists as revolutionary youths.


Bahrain’s besieged protesters keep campaign alive‎

The Associated Press – Sep 26, 2011


Shiites claim they are stuck in a permanent underclass although they represent about 70 percent of Bahrain’s 525,000 citizens. In their view, all the routes to power, such as high political or military posts, have been blocked by the Sunni leadership. “Welcome to Arab apartheid,” read a message spray-painted in red in Sanabis.

Bahrain’s Sunni rulers say their country is being pulled apart by rejectionist groups that have chosen violence over dialogue, including offers to allow parliament to vet government appointments such as the premiership. They also view the main Shiite political blocs as deeply conservative — with ties to Shiite leaders in Iran and Iraq — and a threat to women’s rights and Bahrain’s open economy.

The leadership’s stance is hardened by the belief that Shiite power Iran is plotting ways to gain influence through the discord in Bahrain — which could have ended up part of Iran if a U.N.-backed fact-finding mission in 1970 found majority support for annexation.

The fears about Iran also resonate strongly with Bahrain’s allies. Neighboring Saudi Arabia led a Gulf military force that came to the rescue of Bahrain’s monarchy in March. Washington has stuck by Bahrain’s rulers to preserve crucial partnerships, including the base of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. At some police checkpoints, the green Saudi flag flies alongside the red-and-white colors of Bahrain…



Arab Apartheid AGAINST KURDS

Barham Salih – Washington Kurdish Institute

IRAQI KURDISTAN: Conflicts and Prospects for Peace

Conference on Kurdish Conflict Resolution Washington Kurdish Institute July 28-29, þ 1998

By Barham A Salih

Director of PUK Bureau for International Relations
… Therefore, if Iraq is to survive, a fundamental restructuring must take place and the ethnic and sectarian apartheid overcome. …


Federal Iraq Constitution – KurdishMedia.com: News about Kurds and … – [08/12/2002 ]
The ruling class of this Iraqi minority, Sunni Arabs, has always behaved like Apartheid of South Africa, against the rest of Iraqi diversity.


News about Kurds and Kurdistan – [25/01/2001]
The Kurdish people live in an apartheid state riddled with conflict, which has created hundreds of thousands of victims and left an indelible stain on Iraqi …


…what is Mr Blair’s Mission? – By Dr Kamal Mirawdeli 01/11/2001 00:00:00

It seems that Mr Blair has not even known or even discreetly mentioned to his hosts that Syria is occupying a part of Kurdistan in which one million Kurds are living who are subject to the most appalling racist apartheid policies of oppression and assimilation. 150,000 of them are even deprived of having passports, being considered as ‘foreigners’ with no right, legally, to enter into employment or marriage. Syria does not allow the Kurds or to call their children Kurdish names.

Syria does not allow the Kurds to use their language for education and promote their art and culture, or to have their own legal political organisations. That is despite the fact that the Kurds are Muslims! But being Muslim for Arab racist regimes that use Islam as an Arabising racist ideology, is equivalent to being an Arab – full stop.


What happens when your oppressors are next-door neighbors … – 14 Jun 2006…
I raise my palm for Turkey, Syria, Iran and even Iraq to be on that …. Africa and that Apartheid didn¹t just melt away on its own, …


Underappreciated At Home, Kurdish Filmmakers Struggle For Identity
‎RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty – Oct 28, 2009

By Nikola Krastev


Bahman Ghobadi from Iran, whose film “No One Knows About Persian Cats” premiered at the New York festival, is among the better-known contemporary Kurdish filmmakers.

Also offering a film in New York was Hiner Saleem, an Iraqi-Kurdish cinematographer based in France. Saleem’s latest comedy, “Vodka Lemon,” is a gentle love story about an ex-army officer and a barmaid set in a Kurdish village in Armenia that dismisses the notion that there is a common underlying theme for all Kurdish filmmakers.

“We can live in the same city or the same village but think differently or have different sensibilities,” Saleem said. “Unfortunately today for Kurds in Turkey, in Syria, in Iran, it is very hard to make movies. It’s very difficult to work because there is an apartheid against Kurdish [people], there is no equality, there are no human rights, there is no freedom. But some very courageous, brave Kurdish girls and boys [are] making movies in very hard conditions.”


Halabja and Anfal – Welcome to Kurdish House
HALABJA & AL-ANFAL GENOCIDE CAMPAIGN. In the turn of the 20 th century, the powerful … Regrettably, these racist and oppressive campaigns have always been …


Genocide: conceptual and historical dimensions – Page 170
George J. Andreopoulos – 1997 – 265 pages – Preview

See Kanan Makiya, “The Anfal: Uncovering an Iraqi Campaign to Exterminate the Kurds,” Harper’s Magazine (May 1992): 53-61. 55. … In Iraq, the racist fringe has come to occupy center stage; it was Saddam Hussein’s foster-father, uncle, and father-in-law Khairullah Tulfa who wrote the edifying pamphlet. Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, …

<A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=e5I34DePIxYC&pg=PA170


Butchery in Baghdad – Chicago Tribune Dec 18, 2005 … He has also conducted ethnic cleansing against the Shi’a Iraqis and the Marsh Arabs, whose culture has flourished for more than a millennium. “Saddam Hussein’s police state ruthlessly eliminates anyone who dares to dissent. Iraq has more forced disappearance cases than any other country–tens of …


Our World: The Syrian spring

Jerusalem Post – Caroline B. Glick – Mar 28, 2011


Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces and Hezbollah operatives have reportedly been deeply involved in the violent repression of protesters in Syria. Their involvement is apparently so widespread that among the various chants adopted by the protesters is a call for the eradication of Hezbollah.

The first place the fire spread from there was Syria. Inspired by the establishment of autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq, in May 2004 Syria’s harshly repressed Kurdish minority staged mass protests that quickly spread throughout the country from the Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria. Assad was quick to violently quell the protests.

Like Gaddafi today, seven years ago Assad deployed his air force against the Kurds.

Scores were killed and thousands were arrested. Many of those arrested were tortured by Assad’s forces.

The discrimination that Kurds have faced under Assad and his father is appalling. Since the 1970s, more than 300,000 Kurds have been stripped of their Syrian citizenship. They have been forcibly ejected from their homes and villages in the north and resettled in squalid refugee camps in the south. The expressed purpose of these racist policies has been to prevent territorial contiguity between Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds and to “Arabize” Syrian Kurdistan where most of Syria’s oil deposits are located.

The Kurds make up around 10 percent of Syria’s population. They oppose not only the Baathist regime, but also the Muslim Brotherhood. Represented in exile by the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, since 2004 they have sought the overthrow of the Assad regime and its replacement by democratic, decentralized federal government. Decentralizing authority, they believe, is the best way to check tyranny of both the Baathist and the Muslim Brotherhood variety. The Kurdish demand for a federal government has been endorsed by the Sunni-led exile Syrian Reform Party.”


Halabja Centre – C.H.A.K – Chak Representative and members at Chak Representative and members at Switzerland participated in the UN Conference on March 20, 2010

The case of the Kurds in Syria is an example of a harsh ethnic state policy. This policy in Syria is rather an apartheid policy because there are still more than 300.000 Kurds in Syria who are deprived of citizenship and all rights that citizenship implies. In Iran there is a suppression expressing itself in many ways. In the last months there has been a pattern of state terrorism in Iran. One face of this terrorism is the hanging of Kurdish activists, almost all of them being youth and sometimes even people under guardianship.



Alternative report submitted to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights when reviewing the second periodic report of Yemen:

May 2011

The All Youth Network for Society Development in association with the International DalitSolidarity Network (IDSN) is pleased to submit this parallel report on the occasion of the review of Yemen to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) at its 46th session.The report focuses specifically on the human rights situation of the Al-Akhdam community inYemen, a situation which has been addressed by the Committee in the List of Issues

For centuries the Al-Akhdam has suffered perpetual discrimination, persecution and ensuing crimesat Yemens most marginal social, economic, and political spaces where they are violently excluded from mainstream society as an untouchable ethnic outcaste. Local folklore proverbs, inherited over generations, have helped isolating the Akhdam socially andhave enhanced enhanced apartheid-like differences.

Such proverbs indicate that the Akhdam are unclean and dirty, e.g. Never be lured by Akhdam, who are dirty even in bones or: If a dog eats in your saucer, clean it; but if a khadem eats in your saucer, break it.





The De-Nubianization Policies in Egypt and the Sudan… the officially
explicit and illicit policies aimed at marginalizing the Nubians in both Egypt
and the Sudan by, first, driving them away from their historical homelands by
systematically impoverishing their region; secondly, re-settling Arab groups in
the lands the Nubians leave behind; thirdly, pushing the Nubians into Arabicization through biased educational curricula at the expense of their own languages and culture; fourth, nursing a culture of complicity among the Nubian
intellectuals so as to help facilitate these policies… racist and Apartheid-like policy is adopted by the Egyptian government… how the Egyptian government began re-settling them in the Nubian regions which was evacuated four decades ago against the will of its historical people, the Nubians. In doing this the Egyptian government is consciously pushing the Nubians into being
completely assimilated and Arabized, a policy pursued by the successive Egyptian



U.S. Rapprochement with Syria :: Hudson New York

by Farid Ghadry

August 6, 2009 at 6:00 am

… You cannot defang Islamic terrorism through indiscriminate oppression. If you think freedom without a strong base of active civil organizations is a recipe for disaster (i.e. Hamas elections), even more disastrous is supporting the Assad Apartheid perpetrated by his minority rule against ALL Syrians and hoping his iron fist will expunge a tiny minority of extremists. This is equivalent to the west telling Syrians, through Assad, that you are all guilty until proven innocent. Some actually become guilty because you doubt their innocence, something Assad’s oppression counts on to remain in power.


Face the facts – Syria is an apartheid state | Nick Cohen | Comment …

19 Jun 2011 – Nick Cohen: The west is conniving in the brutal suppression of opposition in Syria.

[…]The UN will never tell you this, but Syria is an apartheid-style state. Members of Assad’s Alawite sect make up only 14% of the population, but they control government, much of business and all the forces of coercion. Even the underworld is segregated on confessional lines. The shabbiha crime gangs that run the prostitution and smuggling rackets, and whose members the Assads are letting loose on the civilian population, are Alawite mafias.



Jordan – apartheid

The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

The Middle East’s Apartheid Regime By: Steven Plaut FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, February 19, 2009

…let us put this into perspective. Jordan itself is a pseudo-country sitting on land that properly belongs to the Jews. There is no Jordanian people at all. Jordan is a country composed of Palestinian Arabs with no political rights at all, controlled by a Bedouin ruling elite, which has hegemony over the government and army.

Jordan is as much an apartheid regime as any on earth. Official discrimination against non-Bedouin Arabs is state policy. Jews may not own land in Jordan, and tracts of land once legally purchased by Jews have been stolen from them by the Jordanian government. When Jordan controlled the Old City of Jerusalem it destroyed every single Jewish shrine there and used their stones to build latrines. It tore up gravestones from the Mount of Olives, which has been a respected cemetery for 4000 years, and used them also as building materials.
Jordan came into existence as a country when the young Winston Churchill quite literally drew its boundaries on the back of an envelope, drawn so as to accommodate two British petroleum pipelines, in land promised to the Jews under the Balfour Declaration. Instead of Wilsonian national self-determination dictating the emergence of countries, pipeline geography did in the case of Jordan.

Jordan is one of the few countries on earth still ruled by a king, and not a make-pretend ceremonial one, but rather one whose every whim must be obeyed. Moreover, the previous king of Jordan decided to show his devotion to the human rights of Palestinians by massacring tens of thousands of them in the infamous “Black September” of 1970. No one exactly knows how many Palestinian civilians were massacred by the Jordanian ruling class and army, although Yassir Arafat said it was 25,000. The Palestinian terror group “Black September,” which carried out the Munich massacre and other atrocities, named itself in memory of this massacre of Palestinians by the Jordanian army. At the time, hundreds of Palestinian terrorists entered Israel and begged to be allowed to be put in Israeli prisons, rather than be returned to Jordan where they faced certain death.

Jordan does not only shoot Palestinians when they ally with Syria and try to topple the Bedouin regime there, as they did in 1970. Palestinian students in Jordan participating in demonstrations against ISRAEL have been mowed down by the Jordanian soldiers. In fact the only country in the Middle East in which students can conduct a spontaneous anti-Israel demonstration against Israel is Israel.

Amnesty International and many others speak out against human rights abuses in Jordan. The treatment of women there is about as bad as it gets anywhere and there are many “honor killings” of women. There is no freedom of the press. Torture is routinely used. One of the more ironic matters is the treatment of homosexuals. Jordanian gays, who face violent persecution, often apply for asylum in Israel.

Jordan of course has a long history of military aggression. It began with the Jordanian invasion of Western Palestine in 1948, when Jordan attempted to annex all of the territory that the UN had tried to partition into Israel and an Arab Palestinian state. Jordan, not Israel, prevented the creation of that Arab Palestinian state. Jordan illegally invaded and held East Jerusalem, including the Old City, starting in 1948 and lasting for nineteen years. It participated in the military aggressions against Israel in 1967 and 1973. The West Bank was taken from Jordan by Israel the same way that Germany lost Alsace and Lorraine, thanks to its losing its own war of aggression.BR>

The Hashemite Kingdom of Apartheid?
04/26/2010 09:41

The rise of radical tribal-based nationalism is leading to increased provocative measures being taken against neighboring countries as well as citizens from other ethnic backgrounds.
In its recently published survey, Freedom House concluded that Jordan is not a “free” country. This startling finding raises serious doubts over the Hashemite regime’s commitment to modernize and build a moderate, peaceful and democratic society.

Jordan is in the midst of a full-scale political and economic crisis due to the King Abdullah II’s inability or unwillingness to build a modern democratic system. Indeed, contrary to the king’s public pronouncements regarding his commitment to political and economic reform, it is clear that the Hashemite regime’s long-term strategy is to acquire permanent status as an “emerging democracy,” without the need to actually deliver on its public commitments for political reform.

In spite of the $6 billion in economic aid that Jordan has received from the US since 1991, the Hashemite regime has been unable to transform the fortunes of the ailing Jordanian economy. Indeed in 2010, Jordan’s deficit doubled to 9 percent of gross domestic product and led to a steep rise in public debt to a staggering $13 billion, or 60% of GDP. Due to the failure and obvious shortcomings of the government’s economic reform program, the king feared that Jordanian nationalists would try to capitalize on widespread public frustration and discontent by applying increased pressure on his fragile regime. In 2009, he dissolved parliament in a thinly disguised attempt to quash any political opposition to his regime.

TRADITIONALLY, JORDANIAN tribes have supported the Hashemite regime, as long as they have benefited from economic patronage from the state. However, when this economic support was subsequently withdrawn – due to the mismanagement of the economy, the tribes considered this a breach of the unwritten agreement it had in place with the state. Consequently, the king has sought to counter this potential conflict with the tribes by maintaining “ethnic cohesion” inside the security/military establishment. This has had the added benefit of enabling the regime to collaborate with the US Army in training troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and, most recently, in Yemen. It has also allowed the regime to secure US military aid.

As a consequence of the above policy, the king has failed to integrate the urban Palestinian-Jordanian majority into the security/military structure. Instead, the king has adopted his grandfather’s 1920s policy by appointing Bani Sakher as the major tribe in control of Jordan’s security affairs. The heads of military, public security as well as the minister of interior now belong to a single tribe that fought other tribes on behalf of the Hashemites before the creation of the Arab Legion.

This policy has exacerbated ethnic tension within the kingdom, and the adoption of a policy of apartheid, clearly demonstrated by the withdrawal of the Jordanian citizenship of more than 2,700 Palestinian-Jordanian citizens. This clearly creates additional challenges for any potential resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and signals a willingness by the Jordanian nationalists to adopt hostile measures against Palestinians and Israelis.

The lack of ethnic diversity in the security establishment has raised concerns that the king may be losing legitimacy in Jordan. Accordingly, the Hashemites are reestablishing kinship ties as a way to preserve his influence in security-related decisions.

But this policy has also put the lives of Jordanians, Americans and even Afghanis at risk. The Khost attack on seven CIA officers last January in Afghanistan was the direct result of the misguided appointment of Prince Ali bin Zeid as the Jordanian case officer, who seemingly failed to convince the Jordanian al-Qaida bomber to cooperate with Jordanian intelligence.

Due to the obvious differences in their social, economic, cultural and ethnic background, the prince was unable to establish and build a relationship of trust with the Jordanian bomber, which would lead to a successful operation. Apparently, the royal family was hungry for a historical victory against al-Qaida, and perhaps huge financial rewards from the US.

AS TRIBALISM flourishes, freedom within Jordanian society will gradually erode. This has led to a weakening of state control that has already resulted in chaos and anarchy erupting in major rural towns. Almost five citizens are killed in Jordan on a weekly basis as a consequence of tribal clashes. The security forces have been unable to maintain order; fortunately, local sheikhs have stepped in to prevent further disturbances.

This is a further example of a weakened state, unable to control actors or impose the rule of law within its own borders – returning back to the Transjordanian norms that characterized the society prior to the establishment of the kingdom. Consequently, the tribes are becoming an increasingly important and active force within the state, which has been greatly assisted with the widespread availability of weapons to citizens.

Jordan’s domestic policies are inconsistent with what is needed to achieve regional stability – vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict. Apparently, the effect of rising tribal-based nationalism is that it is eating into the cohesive force of citizenship and its institutional manifestations. Accompanied by the weakening structure of the state, the emergence of violent non-state actors is becoming evident. The rise of radical Transjordanian nationalism is leading to increased provocative measures being taken against, and engendering hostility toward, neighboring countries – as well as Jordanian citizens from other ethnic backgrounds.

Perhaps it is time for the international community to revise its policies toward the kingdom – taking into consideration its recent adoption of a policy of apartheid and the lack of political and economic reform within the kingdom.

The writer is a policy analyst and senior fellow at the Center for Liberty in the Middle East.

Jordan, Dr. Peace and Mr. Apartheid
07/24/2010 23:23

The world must tell Jordan that peace and integration of its own Palestinians are not privileges it is giving away.
Talkbacks ()  
  Last January, Faisal al-Fayez, a Jordanian senator and former prime minister, threatened Israel on national Jordanian television with “6 million Jordanian suicide bombers.” Fayez is considered one of the closest Jordanian officials to King Abdullah II; he is also a leader of the Bani Sakher tribe which has historically dominated the most important positions in the Hashemite kingdom.

Another member of the tribe, Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Nayef al-Qadi, defended an official policy of stripping Jordanians of Palestinian heritage of their citizenship, a policy that has resulted in the denaturalization of more than 2,700 so far according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. In an interview with a London-based Arab newspaper, Qadi said that “Jordan should be thanked for standing up against Israeli ambitions of unloading of the Palestinian land of its people” which he described as “the secret Israeli aim to impose a solution of Palestinian refugees at the expense of Jordan.”

Furthermore, King Abdullah, in a clear gesture of carelessness to Israel, has extended his condolences to the family and followers of Muhammad Hussein Fadallah, Hizbullah’s spiritual leader who passed away recently.

THE CAUSES of Jordan’s recent line of official hostility toward Israel are deep-rooted in the makeup of the Jordanian state itself. Jordan is a country with a Palestinian majority which allows them little or no involvement in any political or executive bodies or parliament.

This lack of political and legislative representation of Jordanians of Palestinian heritage has been enforced by decades of systematic exclusion in all aspects of life expanding into their disenfranchisement in education, employment, housing, state benefits and even business potential, all developing into an existing apartheid no different than that formerly adopted in South Africa, except for the official acknowledgement of it.

The well-established apartheid system has created substantial advantages for East Bankers who dominate all senior government and military jobs, along with tight control of security agencies, particularly the influential Jordanian General Intelligence Department, all resulting in tribal Jordanians gaining superiority over their fellow citizens of Palestinian heritage.

The fact that East Bankers have done very well under the current situation provides motive for Jordanian officials to maintain the status quo and work on extending it; especially as the helpless Palestinian majority has no say and very little it can do against such conditions.

The East Bankers’ desire to keep their privileges has gone unchallenged until recent years, when the international community mentoring the peace process has brought into its dynamics one of Jordan’s most critical commitments of the peace treaty with Israel, by which Jordan is obligated to negotiate the conditions of the displaced individuals from both sides.

When Jordanians of Palestinian heritage moved to Jordan in 1967, they were Jordanian citizens legally relocating inside their own country as Jordan had declared the West Bank a part of the Hashemite kingdom 19 years earlier. Therefore, the Palestinians’ move to Jordan was similar to an American’s move from New York to New Jersey.

This fact was hard to absorb by the Jordanian government, as it dictates that citizens of Palestinian heritage are equal to them in rights and therefore entitled to political representation.

Such concept would have shaken the privileged ruling elite and has been confronted by a dramatic rise in radical nationalism among East Bankers and extensive support of the apartheid policies of the government that pushes Palestinians to believe they should return to “Palestine” as their home country.

Since 2008, East Bankers have been embracing hostility toward Israel with dedication to “liberating Palestine” as an excuse to further exclude the Jordanians of Palestinian heritage with calls for a universal denaturalization to put pressure on Israel. Such calls have been emphasized and publicized by the media, which are tightly controlled by Jordanian intelligence.

The radical nationalists went as far as aligning themselves with Islamists to defend their cause, as both call for turning Jordanians of Palestinian heritage into refugees rather than citizens.

The anti-Palestinian/anti-Israeli conservative nationalist political salons in Amman have been calling for threatening Israel with what they describe as the Palestinian demographic bomb by sending the Palestinians to Israel.

The Jordanian state seems to subscribe to this idea through sustaining the on-going process of striping Palestinians in Jordan of their citizenships. Although it has been done to a few thousand, it is viewed as a victory for radical nationalists. This trend poses a serious threat to regional stability and Israeli national security.

Jordan cannot maintain its apartheid policies. The international community must make it clear to Jordan that both peace and integration of its own citizens are not privileges it is giving away to Israel or any other country.

The writer is a researcher at the University of Bedfordshire.  



The changing global order: world leaders reflect – Page 282 – Nathan Gardels – Wiley-Blackwell, 1997 – 298 pages – Preview

I have to say that this conception that we have to make the heart of the Jewish homeland a Judenrein of some kind is inimical to peace. I am completely baffled that the world still somehow sees an “apartheid peace” as a prescription for harmony between Israelis and Palestinians.


The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress – Page 74 – Chuck Morse – Universe, 2002 – 172 pages – Preview

… the indignation he would’ve faced would’ve no doubt emanated from quarters supporting the racist and apartheid idea of expelling 200000 Jews from the disputed territories leaving the area Judenrein.


The big lie: on terror, antisemitism, and identity – Page 191 – David Solway – LMB Editions, 2007 – 320 pages

…it may well be that majority public opinion will continue to victual terrorism for some time to come. We must also bear in mind that Palestinians living in Israel will naturally keep their Israeli citizenship, but the new Palestine would be effectively judenrein, or Jew-free (another reason why Palestine would not be a genuine democracy but a racist and apartheid state), that the terrorists will continue to threaten renewed violence if their maximal demands are not accepted, that Israel must agree to retreat to the untenable pre-1967 borders, that Hamas has refused to recognize Israel,..


,A HREF=”http://books.google.com/books?id=DYXmAAAAIAAJ&q=%22renewed+violence%22&#8243; TARGET=BLANK>http://books.google.com/books?id=DYXmAAAAIAAJ&q=%22renewed+violence%22

The changing global order: world leaders reflect – Page 282 – Nathan Gardels – Wiley-Blackwell, 1997 – 298 pages

I have to say that this conception that we have to make the heart of the Jewish homeland a Judenrein of some kind is inimical to peace. I am completely baffled that the world still somehow sees an “apartheid peace” as a prescription for harmony between Israelis and Palestinians. If I had told vou that we have to eliminate the Palestinian…


Judenrein Palestine?
Rachel Neuwirth
January 09, 2003

Why is it that people are proposing a Middle East peace plan that will make Judea and Samaria Judenrein (the Nazi term for a place with no Jews)?

It is the historic homeland and birthplace of the Jewish people, yet many world leaders – including every American president – believe that the removal of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria is a crucial prerequisite for a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, every Israeli prime minister has been pressured to follow this policy.

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria for thousands of years. In fact, the Jewish religion and people were birthed in Hebron. We know of the ancient Jewish presence there from both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles and from abundant archaeological and documentary evidence.

No one denies that the oldest document showing the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank), is the Bible. Genesis 24:18 says: “And Abram moved his tent, and came and dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre, which are in Hebron.” And the world’s oldest documentation of real estate being purchased for full price is also in the Bible (see Genesis 23:9). And for those who doubt biblical references, there is substantial evidence in archaeological findings (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/History\_of\_ancient\_Israel\_and\_Judah).

Historically, the Jewish homeland included what is today called Judea and Samaria, the Golan Heights, and a considerable part of today’s Jordan. The land was inhabited mainly by Jews and was ruled by Jews. Therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, former acting British foreign secretary, was right to use the name “Judea” for the whole land in his famous remark: “Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews.” (December 2, 1917; see http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html.)

The Jewish presence there has been continuous, except for 19 years from 1948 to 1967 when the area became Judenrein. And during that 19 year period, the Jordanians and Arabs of the remaining portion of “Palestine” desecrated Jewish holy sites and cemeteries in an attempt to deny that the Jews ever lived there.

Those who advocate the dismantling of the Jewish communities in this territory are advocating a policy of ethnic cleansing. This may sound extreme, but from the early 1900s, the Arabs carried out a policy of ethnic cleansing that included the massacre and pogroms in 1929 and 1936 in Hebron. Both the spirit and practice of ethnic cleansing are being continued in the current conflict (see http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf\_mandate\_grand\_mufti.php).

So, what did UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan mean in his 2001 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech when he said, “A genocide begins with the killing of one man not for what he has done, but because of who he is. A campaign of ‘ethnic cleansing’ begins with one neighbor turning on another.”

Does this not also apply to the Israeli Jews who have re-established homes in Judea and Samaria? Should they be ethnically cleansed from the heart of their historical homeland? Does the Nobel recipient not know a real victim of ethnic cleansing when he sees one?

The same people and countries that condemned ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Cyprus, Rwanda and Tibet totally reverse themselves when it comes to the right of Jewish people to live in the lands of their historic patrimony. If Chinese people were forbidden to live in China, Buddhists barred from Tibet, or Irish-Catholics banned from South Boston, there would be a tremendous outcry against such injustices. But where is the outcry against the removal of Jews from Judea their historical homeland?

Is there any other nation on earth that has such a legitimate birth certificate as Israel? And if the Jews have no such document, then the Old and New Testaments are worthless.

The war for Israel’s independence ended in 1949 with the Jordanians in full control of Judea and Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem (the “West Bank”), cutting the Jewish people off from their most holy religious sites. The official status of these areas, then, was disputed territories, as no one had held sovereignty there since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Only two countries, Pakistan and Britain, recognized the 19-year Jordanian “illegal occupation”. Even the entire Arab world refused to recognize it and, consequently, it was illegal and illegitimate ab initio.

After the 1967 war, the Jewish people have simply been returning to the land from which they were forcibly expelled during the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-49.

This territory has always been known as Judea and Samaria. Do the names “Jew” (for Judea) and “Samaritan” (as in “good Samaritan”) sound familiar? In fact, Shemer, founder of Asher, a clan of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, was the owner and eponym of the hills of Samaria. Is there anything Arab or “Palestinian” about either? Even UN Resolution 181, the Partition Plan of 1947, refers to these territories as Judea and Samaria (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm).

The word “occupiers” does not apply to the Jews. Prior to the illegal Jordanian occupation of 1948-67, Jews had maintained several thousand years of continual residence in the area. However, the term does apply to both the Jordanians and the “Palestinian” Arab squatters of today (http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml).

In the early part of the 20th century, the Arab population carried out a war against the Jewish inhabitants of the area. This resulted in a series of massacres in Hebron, the birth place of Judaism, in 1929, as well as numerous other violent attacks, such as the 1936-39 pogroms against Jews, ending in the total expulsion of the Jewish population from much of Judea, Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem.

As a result of the Israeli victory in 1967, Jewish people returned to this area and re-unified the historic capital of Jerusalem. Many of the Jews who had been expelled from this territory, or whose parents and grandparents were murdered by rampaging Arabs, have merely returned to their previous homes. And in subsequent years, additional Jewish communities (not “illegal settlements”) were built, mainly for security purposes, and others for historical and emotional reasons on mainly state-owned land and historical outposts.

Judea and Samaria were liberated, not stolen or occupied, from Jordan (see http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal3.shtml and http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-143-A-Settlers-History-of-Settlements).

Since 1967, 261 new Arab settlements have been built in Judea and Samaria. According to international law, all of these are illegal, as no sovereignty was ever recognized over these territories; yet no one calls for their removal. Why is it that no one talks about those Arab settlements as obstacles to peace especially when they are bases for carrying out terrorism, and their inhabitants are constantly taught virulent hatred toward the Jewish people and the West?

Dismantling the Jewish communities in these territories will only reward terrorism.

The Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, are a litmus test of Arab intentions. Why can’t Jews live in their historic homeland if there really is peace? After all, there are 1.2 million Arabs living as citizens of Israel in the one Jewish country in the world, while there are only a handful of Jews living in any of the 22 Arab countries. In fact, in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not only is it illegal for Jews to be citizens, they are not even allowed to live there.

Therefore, instead of Israel being the “apartheid state” in the region, it is the Arab world that is not only apartheid, but also racist and religiously exclusive.


Our World: Why is Muhammad Abu al-Hawa dead?
Apr 18, 2006 – SINCE 1994, dozens of Arab Israelis and PA residents have been murdered on suspicion of selling land to Jews. Abu al-Hawa’s murder – like those that preceded it – tells us several important things about Palestinian society. It tells us that like the PA today, any successor Palestinian state will be a racist, apartheid state where laws will be promulgated based solely on race and religious origin. Jews will be denied all basic human rights and Arabs who peacefully coexist with Jews will be accused of treason and made targets for murder.

Beware Palestinian apartheid [Ynet]

Op-ed: Palestinian leader Abbas seeks to adopt racist policy based on ethnic cleansing of Jews

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi Published:  08.04.10, 00:03

The Palestinian Authority is under heavy international pressure, mostly American, aimed at facilitating the transition from proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel.

The written message recently sent by President Obama to Palestinian Chairman Mahmud Abbas indicated that the American administration is not content, to say the least, with the Palestinian foot-dragging in the peace process, or with what is perceived to be a lack of appreciation for American pressure on Israel (which led PM Netanyahu to accept the two-state solution and to temporarily freeze settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.)

However, there is no obvious fundamental change in the Palestinian stance. The PA hesitates and refrains from explicit commitment to direct negotiations without any pre-conditions. Instead, it tries to weather the American demands by raising a new proposal to convene a three-way meeting of Palestine, Israel, and America to discuss the agenda of the negotiations, its legitimacy, and the settlement cessation.

While briefing the Egyptian media in Cairo, Abbas divulged last week his version of the failure of the peace talks with former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his positions regarding the political settlement of the conflict. Abbas noted that he almost reached an agreement with Olmert, but the negotiations failed at the final stretch because of disagreement on the discussed land swap.

Olmert proposed 6.5% but Abbas accepted to no more than 1.9%. Abbas said that he demanded to divide Jerusalem, with the city’s eastern section handed over to the Palestinians and the western part remaining in Israeli hands, and insisted that the refugee problem must be settled in accordance with an Arab peace initiative from March 2002, and UN resolution 194. He also stressed that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

A state without Jews

The Palestinians intend to demand the implementation of the UN resolution regarding refugees, from a Palestinian perspective, which gives the 5.5 million refugees and their descendants the right of return and to settle in the State of Israel. In his briefing to the Egyptian media, Abbas presented this strategy and denied the Jewish character of Israel. He maintains that Israel should, in fact, become a bi-national state, but on the other hand that Palestine must become a state “clean” of Jews.

The term “Israeli” used by Abbas means “Jew,” as the PA sees Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The future State of Palestine, according Abbas, must resist any Jewish presence in its territory. In other words, the PA embraces a racist policy – Palestinian apartheid – directed at Jews, based on denial of Jewish history and the cultural and religious linkage of the Jewish people to the land.

The anti-Semitism embodied in Abbas’ words refers also to his position towards the NATO observers’ force that may be deployed in the West Bank to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement with Israel. He is opposed to Jews being included in this force; meaning, he will ask Germany and all other partner countries in NATO to use their own forces in the West Bank, in an effort to the exclude any Jewish soldiers.

He didn’t explain how these countries would determine who is a Jew, whether according to orthodox Jewish laws or just if one of the parents or grandparents was a Jew. But even Saudi Arabia didn’t dare oppose the deployment of American Jewish soldiers on its land during operation Desert Storm (1990-1), and no one in Israel ever demanded to disqualify Muslim soldiers from serving in the international observers’ forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Sinai.

The racist language used by Abbas is particularly despicable as it doubts the loyalty of the Jews to their country. It is for this reason that his comments call for a firm Israeli and European response.

Note: Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency published on July 28 its version of Abbas’ briefing to the Egyptian media, quoting him as saying: “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land”. This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.

Mahmoud Abbas promises apartheid Palestine state

Dec 28, 2010 – Attention apartheid shoppers: Have we got a potential bargain country for you! Mahmoud Abbas, the expired term head of the mythical country … Abbas is in bad company, joining other apartheid states in the region in segregating some religious or ethnic groups. Jordan, which does not allow Jews to live in the country, also refuses to grant citizenship to some of its so called Palestinian citizens even though they have the same religious and cultural background. Lebanon confines people it calls Palestinians to certain areas, denies them citizenship, prohibits them from numerous professions and education. Saudi Arabia does not allow Christians to enter the country with Christian bibles or other religious symbols; if found they are immediately confiscated. Houses of worship other than mosques are not allowed. Very few Jews are allowed to enter the country. Syria’s Jews fled the country; none live there now.



By – Shmuel Trigano, Paris University

Published in: Original Submission to SPME Faculty Forum October 17, 2010

During a meeting with the Egyptian press in Cairo at the beginning of August, Mahmud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, and the man on whom the United States and Europe have placed all of their hopes for peace, revealed what was at the back of his mind with regard to the Jews and the nature of the regime he plans to set up in the future State of Palestine. The official demands of the Palestinians for a settlement are known: Israel’s agreement in advance to withdraw to the borders of 1967, a freeze of construction in the territories including Jerusalem, the division of this city, including the Old City, which must become part of the Palestinian Authority, the solution of the problem of the “refugees” in conformance with Arab demands and Resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the U.N.).

When considering the possibility that a third force, such as NATO, could be given the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the planned agreement, Mahmud Abbas imposed a condition: that there should not be a single Jewish soldier and any Israeli. “I am ready to accept a third party which supervises the implementation of the agreement, NATO forces for example, but I will not accept the presence of Jews in these forces or a [single] Israeli on the Land of Palestine.”

Is such a demand tainted with antisemitism? It should not come as a shock, if we remember that Mahmud Abbas defended his doctoral thesis which was based on Holocaust denial at a school for political indoctrination in the Soviet Union.

Some may see a polemical and ideological expression in the term “racist,” but Mahmud Abbas’ demand with regard to NATO leaves no doubt in this respect. What does it really mean when he demands that the European states, members of NATO, exclude their Jewish citizens from the ranks of their forces? Can one imagine such a situation and the juridical mechanisms that these states would have to activate in order to separate the Jews from their citizens? As it happens, Mahmud Abbas does not help them by defining the criteria of who is a Jew: religious law, ethnic origins, the father, the mother, the grandfather? It is all the more remarkable that Saudi Arabia, during the Gulf War in 1990-1992, permitted American Jewish soldiers to serve with the American forces on its territory, a land which, according to the Koran, is sacred and should not shelter any non-Moslem. In all of these cases, it is not a question of Israelis, but of Jews, and one knows that the Arabs, in their immense majority do not make a distinction. “Yahoud” [Jew], in this region, designates without hesitation “The Israeli.” What Abbas says about Jews, he says about Israelis, as we have seen, and he demands that the Europeans, so attentive to his wishes, that they accept his conditions.

The refusal to recognize Israel, the Jewish State

There is a perfect coherence between this demand toward the West and the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, which on many occasions Abbas or Saeb Erekat, his “minister” of foreign affairs, have articulated. The two positions with regard to NATO and refusal to recognize the Jewish State, as such, share of the same anti-Semitism. The thinking behind this refusal, currently repeated as a leitmotiv, has not been sufficiently analyzed. We can immediately dismiss the most current explanation that a state does not have to recognize the “religion” of another State. This is a stalling tactic, which PLO used numerous times in the past, especially in the Palestinian Charter, as we shall see below. To be specific, “Jew” here means a “nation”, not a “religion”. It is with that intention that the UN Resolution (181, II), of November 1947, uses 23 the expression “Jewish State” twenty three times, when it advocates the creation of “two states in Palestine, a Jewish one and an Arab one” (see especially article 3).

In order to understand what this refusal means and why it is not motivated by nationalistic but racist intentions, we shall have to consider it in the context of collateral evidence.

If one examines its link to the demand for the return of the “refugees” of 1948, the picture is clear. Under the weight of five million refugees Israel would automatically become a country with an Arab and Islamic majority, a binational state where the Jews would be a minority, while Palestine would become uniquely Arab. Not one Jew, not even under the flag of NATO or the UN, would be able to be in Palestine, but five million Arabs would join the million Israeli Arabs already residing in the State of Israel and openly rebel against the notion of a Jewish (national) state.

The Palestinian Authority is building a racist regime based on the principle of establishing an apartheid between a Palestine untainted by Jewish blood and a mixed State of Israel where the Jews would become a minority. In its refusal to recognize a Jewish state, there is, in fact, more then a rejection and denial of Jewish history and identity. One may well know that this improper and exorbitant demand serves a politically correct fig leaf for its fundamental refusal to recognize the State of Israel. On this point, the PLO abandoned its bluff of a “Secular and Democratic Palestine,” which it had promoted in the decade between 1980 and 1990, except that the Palestinians now demand that this formula be imposed on Israel, as they would like it to be, [1] while Palestine proper would be purely Arab.

State-sanctioned Racism and Segregation

Palestine proper would be, indeed, Arab and Islamic. That is written explicitly in the draft constitution of the plotted state: “This constitution is based on the will of Palestinian-Arab people,” (Article 1), “the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab and Islamic nation,” (Article 2), “sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian Arab people,” (Article 10), “the legal character of the Arab-Palestinian people will be embodied by the state,” (Article 13). “Islam will be the official religion of the state,” (Article 6).

We can verify this last principle (the Islamic quality of the state) in the light of the use of rhetorical obfuscation (Article 6) to which the drafters of this constitution resort when they give the appearance of making space for non-Moslems: “Islam will be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions will be respected.”

Who are these odd “monotheists” (and what about the Hindus, the Confucians, the Behais, etc., forbidden to live in Palestine?) if not a politically correct version of the old dhimmi status imposed on non-Moslems by the Koranic law? In practice, this article would apply only to Christians, because there should be no more Jews in the State of Palestine…

This strange “monotheistic” statute permits us to understand by deduction the Palestinian Authority’s vision of the state of Israel (that is to say of Jewish Israelis). In Palestine, the Jews theoretically would not be citizens, because they are neither “Arabs” (the key to Palestinian nationality according to articles 10 and 13), nor “Moslems,” (key to the Palestinian national law according to article 6). Although they would be “respected,” they would fall outside of national sovereignty, the exclusive privilege of the Arabs (Article 10), who could be Christians or Moslems, indeed, but with a restriction. Since the law would conform to Islamic law, Christian Arabs could only be second class citizens, subjected to the status which Koranic law imposes on them, a status which excludes them from the general law which applies to the Moslems, a status granted however as a privilege. As they are not subjected to the rules of (Islamic) national law with regard to their personal status, they will be permitted to act autonomously within the framework of their law and religious tribunals.

This was already the case before the colonial era, before Islam lost all power over non-Moslems, and this is indeed what the Palestinian constitution provides for in its Article 7: “the principles of Islamic Sharia are the first source of legislation. The legislative power will determine the law of personal status under the authority of the monotheistic religions in conformity with their religions, with due respect to the clauses of the constitution and the preservation of unity, of the stability and progress of the Palestinian [Moslem] people.”

The problem is twofold: Sharia will not only apply to them when their “personal” status is at stake (and this status is segregative: it included, in the pre-colonial era, political submission, submission in behavior and religion, payment of a head tax, the djizya, or a financial tax on the land from which they have been dispossessed, the kharadj, etc) but also in their quality as citizens. It will indeed govern the citizenry as the law of the state (art. 6). Non-Moslems will be subject to its rulings as citizens and not only as believers.

How does the “monotheistic” statute reveal the vision which the Palestinian Authority has with regard to what the State of Israel should be, and which it does not want to recognize as “Jewish”? Would it recognize the “monotheist” character of the Israelis but not the Jewish character of their state? Would not the term, “Jewish,” designate a “monotheist”?

It is the understanding of the status of the dhimmi which could help us to grasp this apparent contradiction which contains a nasty trick for those who do not understand the categories of Moslem culture. The status of the dhimmi, one must know, is not personal but applies to collectivities, to the “nations” (millet from the times of the Turks) politically subjected to Islamic power since the “Conquest.”

It is necessary to clarify the theological basis of the collective condition of the dhimmi. According to the Koranic vision, there were different “umma” [peoples] in history, each one rising to the call of a prophet (Moses, Jesus, etc.), until the advent of the final “umma,” which rose to the call of Islam. The basis of an umma is thus a ‘religion.”

In this sense, the Palestinian leaders cannot recognize the right of a Jewish state (and in fact any state which would not be Islamic), which would entail the self-determination and sovereignty of a collectivity whose only possible status under Islam is that of dhimmi. This would be an affront to the Islamic umma. A Jewish state thus constitutes essentially a scandal. The two terms, “State,” and “Jewish” therefore constitute, as theological-political matter, an impossible alloy. The Jews cannot have a state. They are not a people of political standing, because there can only be The Umma. They [the Jews] can neither be free nor sovereign.

An unclear “nationalism”

This classical Islamic perspective was much more evident in the sixties and seventies when the PLO did not resort to double talk to such a sophisticated degree, even if it already made use of western concepts (religion and state) to express Islamic notions. What does one read indeed in the PLO Charter in its first version (1964)? “The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything which derives from them are declared null and void. The claims of the Jews to historical and religious links with Palestine are incompatible the historical facts and the right conception of what a nation consists. Judaism, being a religion, does not constitute an independent nationality. For the same matter, the Jews do not constitute a unique nation with its own identity. They are citizens of the states to which they belong” (Article 20).

This is already a strange remark for a culture which confuses the political and the religious… It does not prevent the PLO, in the same text, from insisting on the exclusive Arab character of Palestine: “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. It is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people is a part of the Arab nation (Article 1.)” […] “Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine constitute two complementary goals” (article 13) “The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred objective.” Here, the term, Arab nation, really designates the Umma.

We learn in this remark the extent to which the strictly Palestinian “national” framework is recent (the second version of the charter was published in 1968). “The Palestinian people believe in Arab unity. In order for it to contribute to the realization of this objective, it is necessary but, at this stage of the struggle to safeguard the Palestinian identity and develop its consciousness of this identity,” (Article 12) because (Article 1): “Palestine is the home of the Arab Palestinian people. It is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people is an integral part of the Arab nation.” Really, despite the “nationalistic” formulation of this clause, the term, Arab nation, defines other words the Islamic Umma. Palestine belongs to the Umma (which cannot renounce a part of Islamic land).

It is noteworthy that in their constitutional documents, the Moslem Brotherhood write the same thing about Jews/Israelis, although in a more extreme manner in the case of the Hamas. Let the reader judge. With regard to the dhimmis, the Hamas charter declares that “the Islamic Resistance Movement … is guided by Islamic tolerance when it deals with the faithful of other religions. It does not oppose them except when they are hostile. Under the banner of Islam, the faithful of the three religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, can coexist peacefully. But this peace is not possible except under the banner of Islam.” With regard to the nature of the Palestinian country, the Hamas takes the view that: “The Movement of Islamic Resistance believes that Palestine is an Islamic Wakf [Religious patrimony] consecrated for [the future] generations of Moslems until the Last Judgment. Not a single parcel of this can be divested or abandoned to others […] (Article 11).

PLO Charter: an antecedent of this ancient-new racism

The Palestinian Charter of the PLO is more explicit with regard to the racist motives beneath such an apparent nationalistic statement and it finds expression with regard to all the Jews outside the state of Israel. It states in its Article 23, “The need of security and of peace, as well as that of justice and law, require of all the states that they consider Zionism as an illegitimate movement, that they declare its existence illegal, that they forbid its activities, so that the friendly relations between peoples can be preserved, and that the loyalty of citizens to their respective countries may be preserved.” What does this canned expression “loyalty of citizens toward their respective countries,” describe other than the Jews of the whole world (essentially of the Western countries), not Israelis, whom the Charter singles out for suspicion and the vindictiveness of their respective states, and implies that they are not faithful and could stand up for Israel against the interest of their respective states: that they are in fact Israelis, that is to say, more crudely, “The Jews.” They are depicted precisely with the classic traits of antisemitism: the Jewish conspiracy.

Article 22 of the Charter thus traces the borders in this “anti-Zionist” antisemitism: “Zionism is a political movement bound organically to an international imperialism and hostile to all action for the liberation and every progressive movement in the world. The Zionist by his nature is racist and fanatical, aggressive, expansionist, colonial in his objectives, and fascist in his methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement and the geographical base of world imperialism, strategically placed in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes for liberation, unity and progress of the Arab nation. Israel is a constant source of threats to the peace of the Middle East and in the whole world. Because the liberation of Palestine will destroy Zionism and the imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of the peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian people demands the aid of all the progressive forces [which are] oriented toward peace, and enjoins them, without distinguishing between their affiliation and creed, to offer their aid and support to the Palestinian people in its struggle for the liberation of its homeland.” Zionism” here is another word for the classical “Jewish Conspiracy.”

International and Israeli Passivity:

There has been no European or American reaction to condemn Abbas’ odious remarks in Egypt. Could it be that the world knows very well what to expect from the “moderate” Palestinians? But if this is the real reason for this astounding silence, why should one believe in the Palestinian desire for peace and the myth of Abbas’ moderation? No reaction of protest emanated from the European and American Jewish institutions, to disturb the summer’s torpor. No reaction was forthcoming from the Israeli government. Where are the idealistic souls of the European JStreet, JCall, to castigate this “moral mistake” and this openly bellicose declaration? This silence gives an idea of the indulgence of the public with regard to the Palestinian and Arab-Islamic demands and their lack of interest with regard to the impasse into which they want to throw Israel and the whole Jewish world.

[1] As post Zionists define it “A state of all its citizens”…

Shmuel Trigano is Professor at Paris University (Sociology of Politics), among his recent publications in English is, The Democratic Ideal and the Shoah. The Unthought in Political Modernity, SUNY Press, 2009

<A HREF="http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7279&quot; TARGET=BLANK.http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7279

Endorsing Palestinian apartheid [Ynet]

Why does world accept notion of Palestinian state free of Jews?

Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi Published:  07.02.09, 23:43

Aharon Barak, Israeli Supreme Court president, in a speech on June 25 before a meeting of the New Israel Fund touched an exposed nerve regarding the identity and existence of Israel as a Jewish state and a democracy. He burned his candle at both ends when he unequivocally expressed his support for a democratic Jewish state on the one hand and complete fealty to the idea of a country for all its citizens on the other.

His notions were amazing. If Israel is supposed to be a country for all its citizens, why discriminate against non-Jews and give Jews priority in immigration? If he were really faithful to the principle of equality, why did he find it necessary to insist that Israel was a Jewish state and not one determined democratically by “all its citizens?” In a situation of equality, why should the Law of Return not apply to Israel’s Arab population, since “the rights (of the Jews) must be equal those of the Arabs?”

The State of Israel is undergoing a serious identity crisis. The schism between Jews and Arabs grows worse and the Arabs regard themselves as Palestinians rather than Israelis. It also grows worse between those who are faithful to the Zionist idea of a democratic Jewish state and the post-Zionists who want to eradicate the Jewish nature of the state and establish one for all the citizens living within the borders of the State of Israel as it is today, or within the land of Israel-Palestine.

Both solutions are problematic. A democratic Jewish state can provide equality for all its citizens as long as it does not endanger its Jewish nature, and in effect it negates the right of groups which are not Jewish (or Jews who do not agree with its mindset) to change the face of the state in a democratic majority process.

On the other hand, the implication of a state for all its citizens includes within it destroying the unique Jewishness of the state, which was founded as a sanctuary for the Jewish people returning to its historical homeland, as well as including the demand to deny the right of the Jewish people and the Jews living in Israel to their own land.

There is an inherent imbalance in the proposed political arrangement. The Palestinians have won international recognition for their demand to establish a Palestinian state from which all Jews will be expelled. The basic law of the Palestinian Authority, which is the state in the making, expressly states that “Islam is the official religion of Palestine” and that “the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) are the primary source of lawmaking.”

Palestinians demand ‘just agreement’
The international community has permitted the Palestinians what it tries to keep from Israel, that is, the Palestinians are within their rights to establish a country based on the religion of the majority of its citizens, and a Christian minority, even if it should become the majority, will not be entitled to change the nature of the state but at most to be allowed freedom of worship.

Human rights champions in shining armor endlessly preach morality to Israel and demand a country for all its citizens while accepting the morality of establishing an apartheid, racist, Palestinian state which openly and proudly states its intention of being Judenrein.

The foundations of the peace process of the Oslo Accords of 1993 (rapprochement between the sides through interim agreements) crumbled during the al-Aqsa intifada and the united Palestinian front, from Fatah to Hamas, which unequivocally rejects a compromise with Israel and demands a “just arrangement,” based on demands for the right to return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendents to what is currently the State of Israel. Those ideas were mentioned again and again in speeches given by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

No one contests the right of the Palestinians to a national state even if it is based on racism and it is liable to be an extremist theocracy like Iran, a foretaste of which can be seen in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas takeover. Even the government of Israel headed by Benjamin Netanyahu recognizes that right and demands that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, among other things.

The Palestinian problem, it is assumed, will be solved when the Palestinian state comes into being. The arrangement, lacking in political symmetry based on a genuine compromise, will leave the gates of conflict wide open and the demand for the “return” of millions of Palestinians, which would mean the expulsion of Jews to make room for the refugees, would raise again the wish for self determination of the Jews of Israel.

International politics will no longer have to deal with the “Palestinian problem,” but rather, with the “Jewish problem” in Palestine.

Creating a Palestinian Apartheid State? by Ariel Natan Pasko
22 December 2004
Why does the Palestinian “Peace Plan” call for the expulsion of so many Jews from their homes?

The Real Apartheid State

by David Bedein

 The “Palestine” envisaged by the UN is an apartheid state in the making. Israel Apartheid Week is the time to publicize that fact.

During Israel Apartheid Week, orchestrated on campuses around the globe, the time has come to go on the attack, and to put the shoe on the other foot.

In 1948, Apartheid laws institutionalized racial discrimination in South Africa & denied human rights to 25 million The time has come to go on the attack, and to put the shoe on the other foot.

Black citizens of South Africa.

In 1948, the Arab League of Nations applied the Apartheid model to Palestine, and declared that Jews must be denied rights as citizens of Israel, while declaring a total state of war to eradicate the new Jewish entity, a war that continues today.

In 1948, at the directive of the Arab League of Nations, Jordan devastated the vestiges of Jewish life from Judea and Samaria, and burned all schules in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. In 1948, member states of the Arab League of Nations began to strip the human rights of Jews and to expel entire Jewish communities who had resided in their midst for centuries

In the mid 1960’s, The Arab League of Nations spawned the PLO to organize local residents to continue the war to deny Jewish rights the right to live as free citizens in the land of Israel – well before Israel took over Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem in the defensive war waged by Israel in 1967.

And since its inception in 1994, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority, created by the PLO, has prepared the rudiments of a Palestinian State, modeled on the rules of Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination:

1. The right of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents to return to Arab villages lost in 1948 will be protected by the new Palestinian state.

2. While 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, not one Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian State

3. Anyone who sells land to a Jew will be liable to the death penalty in the Palestinian State

4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official Palestinian media outlets.

5. Palestinian Authority maps prepared for the Palestinian State depict all of Palestine under Palestinian rule

6. PA maps of Jerusalem for the Palestinian State once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem

7. Recent PA documents claim all of Jerusalem for the future Palestinian State.

8. The right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places is to be denied in the new Palestinian State.

9. The Draft Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion except for Islam.

10. No system which protects human rights or civil liberties will exist in a Palestinian State

If that is not a formula for a totalitarian apartheid state of Palestine, then what is?


US-Funded Racist Apartheid Government Will Execute Man Who Sold Land To Enemy Religion. [MereRhetoric – 2009]

Whither Palestine?‎

International Analyst Network

Whither Palestine?

Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

18 Jun 2011

Obama’s announcement that the questions of Jerusalem and refugees would be deferred to a later stage, following the successful conclusion of an agreement on borders and security is a total non-starter from the Israeli viewpoint. It permits the Palestinians to continue the conflict after having their territory legally defined as “occupied”, or forcing Israel to retreat to the indefensible borders of 1967 without even ending the conflict! No sane Israeli government can agree to such a position. So too, roughly three out of four Israelis refuse to see Jerusalem divided again. The nineteen years of Arab rule of East Jerusalem [1948-1967] and the attendant desecration of synagogues and Jewish cemeteries as well as the inaccessibility of Jewish holy sites during that period has taught Israelis to seriously distrust promises on that score. Mahmoud Abbas’ recent statement that no Israelis would be permitted to stay on Palestinian land proves that not much has changed in the Palestinian view of the relationship. It’s Palestine that would be a racist, apartheid state, not Israel which has a 20% Arab citizenship and Arab Members of the Knesset, as well as Arab members of the cabinet.


A Wrong Turn in East Jerusalem
Posted by Charles Bybelezer on Jul 4th, 2011

Prior to 1967, the year Israel liberated Jerusalem from Jordanian apartheid-rule, Jews were not permitted to enter into their illegally occupied biblical capital. Jordan’s “No Jews Allowed” policy meant that no Jew had prayed at Judaism’s holiest site, the Western Wall – the last standing remnant of King Solomon’s temple – during the previous twenty years.

Today, in East Jerusalem, controlled by Arab Palestinians and determined to be, according to Western powers, the capital of “Palestine,” the situation is worse. Under Jordanian authority, Jews were banned from Jerusalem; under Palestinian rule, Jews are welcome, so that they may be summarily executed upon arrival.

This was again made overt last week when Nir Nachshon, a 28-year-old Israeli, was led astray by his faulty GPS navigational device and accidentally ended up in the east Jerusalem Palestinian village of Issawiya.

The realization that Nir had inadvertently entered hostile territory came, in his words, “just as I made the turn.… But I didn’t realize how big the issue was. This is Jerusalem. This is home.”

According to Nir, once he was identified as a Yahood, “immediately a 12-year-old boy started screaming ‘Jew, Jew’. Each time [the boy] called out, dozens more people arrived.… They started throwing rocks and cement blocks right into the car. I realized I was going to die and started thinking this isn’t the way to die.”

Thankfully, Nir’s life was saved by one of the village’s Muhtars (civil servant): “Someone came out of nowhere and tried to rescue me from the people; there was screaming but [I] managed to get to his house.… The people in the house said they needed to get me out of the village or they would also come under attack.”

Accordingly, not only did saving the life of a Jew jeopardize the ongoing security of Darwish Darwish-the heroic Muhtar who resuced Nir-but also undoubtedly destroyed his political career, as the likelihood of Darwish, a “traitor,” being reelected by his constituency is slim to none.

Lying in his hospital bed in Ein Kerem Medical Center, Nir recalled how during the assault he searched among his assailants for “children or young people, to look them in the eyes and find an ounce of humanity in them, but all I could see was murder.”

These are the murderous stares that will one day, if the West has its way with Israel, emanate from the official capital of “Palestine.” These are the stares that, contrary to Nir’s assertion, confirm that parts of Jerusalem are no longer “home” for the Jewish people.

And the West is to blame.

Nir’s great error was buying a cheap navigational device, which unintentionally led him wayward; the West’s great error is that its GPS is self-directed, yet the West is conscientiously leading Israel into “Issawiya.”

This is achieved by continuously validating Palestinian belligerence, incessantly reinforcing the need to unconditionally surrender half of Jerusalem—in order to usher in “peace”-to a people whose definition of peace incorporates war, and who lack even a remotely legitimate claim to it. By beating Israel over the head to submit to dividing Jerusalem, the West is effectively endorsing the creation of a genocidal capital in the “holy of holies,” where Jewish people have resided, without exception, for more than 2000 years, a place where they will, in the future, enter at their own risk, if not avoid at all costs.

This is why Jerusalem can never again be divided.

This is why Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated during his June 1 Jerusalem Day speech:

Forty-four years ago, Israel’s soldiers…brought back Jerusalem to its proper place.… Jerusalem has once again become the capital of the Jewish people.… There’s nothing more holy to us than Jerusalem. We’ll keep Jerusalem. We’ll keep its unity[.]

One can only hope that it is not too late to realize Mr. Netanyahu’s vision.

Although for Nir Nachshon it almost certainly is.

Charles Bybelezer is the publications chairman at the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

PLO official: Palestine should be free of Jews [YNet, Sep. 15, 2011]
PLO ambassador to US says ‘after 44 years of occupation, it would be in both peoples’ interest to be separated’ adding that Palestinians need separation to work on national identity. US diplomat subs remarks ‘despicable form of anti-Semitism’

Yitzhak Benhorin Latest Update:  09.15.11, 00:42 / Israel News 

WASHINGTON – The Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Ambassador to the US Maen Areikat said Wednesday that any future Palestinian state must be free of Jews. Speaking to reporters in the US he said, “After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated.”

Areikat made the statements after being asked about the rights of minorities in a future Palestinian state, USA Today reported. He declared that the PLO seeks a secular state, but that Palestinians need separation to work on their own national identity.

Later Wednesday, Palestinian Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud al-Habash dismissed Areikat’s statements, saying that the Palestinian state is to welcome members of all faiths. He asserted that any media attempts to manipulate anti-Jewish statements are politically motivated.

He added that the Palestinian Authority and its ambassador to Washington have a clear stance on the matter.

Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein also responded to Areikat’s remarks. “After an unending de-legitimization campaign and attempts to brand Israel an apartheid state, it appears it is the Palestinians who seek apartheid.

He said the statements are reminiscent of Nazi slogans. “His comments conjure up Judenrein motifs. I wonder if Areikat’s remark that both peoples must live separately means that one million Arab-Israelis are not part of his people.”

Areikat’s comments caused a stir among Jewish leaders. Elliott Abrams, a former US National Security Council official, said in response that according to such plans, Palestine will be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews.

Abrams described the demand as “a despicable form of anti-Semitism” adding that a small Jewish presence in a future Palestinian state would not hurt the Palestinian identity.

The UN’s General Assembly is scheduled to address the Palestinian bid for recognition next week, with Israel, the US and several European states strongly opposing it. The Palestinians are slated to win an overwhelming majority at the Assembly as it is controlled by Arab and Muslim states.

Nevertheless, any such resolution would not have practical significance and in order to be accepted as a full member in the UN the PA will need Security Council endorsement.

Meanwhile, Jordan’s foreign minister said Wednesday his country supports a Palestinian drive for recognition at the UN but prefers negotiations toward creation of a Palestinian state.

Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh told reporters that Jordan supports the Palestinian campaign, but it should take into account the rights of Palestinian refugees, the fate of Jerusalem and the borders of a future Palestinian state.

He said the “best way” to attain statehood is through “direct negotiations.”

Last-ditch effort to prevent UN vote
Meanwhile, a high-level US team kicked off a new round of shuttle diplomacy on Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to contain the diplomatic fallout from the Palestinian statehood push, but the odds of a breakthrough appeared slim as the Palestinians pledged to go ahead with mass rallies to draw world attention to their bid.

US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale arrived late Wednesday for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. They were to travel to the West Bank on Thursday to talk with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. No breakthrough has thus been achieved.

In addition to the US efforts, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and special international Mideast envoy Tony Blair have been meeting with the sides this week. US officials said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in touch with both Ashton and Blair in recent days.

Barak urged Ashton to prevent the Palestinians from tabling a resolution proposal.

Ashton is proposing a three-part plan: Grating the Palestinians UN observer status similar to that of the Vatican, issuing a Quartet statement accounting both the Israeli and the Palestinian needs, and a UN chief pledge the put forward a recognition resolution in the future.

Germany is opposed to Ashton’s plan which has not won European consensus. The US, on its part, wants the plan to be presented to allow each side to voice its reservations.

Both Israel and the Palestinians oppose the plan.
AP, Attila Somfalvi and Elior Levy contributed to this report

Edelstein: PA Wants Apartheid – Middle East – News – Israel National News
By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 9/15/2011, 1:15 AM – Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein accused the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) of advocating apartheid, in comments he made Wednesday.

He was referring to statements made by Maen Areikat (or Erikat), the PLO’s ambassador to the United States, who met with reporters Tuesday in Washington D.C. and confirmed that Jews would not be allowed to live in the future state of Palestine.

“After endless campaigns of delegitimization against Israel, and attempts to brand it as an apartheid state, it turns out that the Palestinians are the ones interested in apartheid,” accused Edelstein.

“I wonder if Areikat’s statement that the two nations need to live separately means that one million Israeli Arabs are not of his people.”

The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack reported that Areikat claimed the state of “Palestine” would tolerate minorities. “Asked by the Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein if, following the establishment of a Palestinian state, ‘there would be no Jews in the West Bank or Gaza,’ Areikat answered in the affirmative. ‘We have to be separated, we have to work on our own national identities,’ he said.”


Lieberman Orders Embassies to ‘Protest PA Apartheid State’
FM Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies around the world to protest remarks by a PA official that ‘Palestine’ will be ‘Judenrein’
By David Lev
First Publish: 9/15/2011, 2:18 PM

Foreign Minister Lieberman (file)
Israel news photo: Flash 90Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies in Europe and the U.S. to file strong protests with the governments of their host countries against comments by the Palestinian Authority representative delegation’s United Nations observer, who said that the Arab state the PA plans to declare in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will be “free of Jews.”

In response to a reporter’s question Tuesday, the PA official, Maen Areikat, said that “after a military occupation of 44 years, I think it would be best for the two nations to split.” He added that Jews would not be welcome to live in the PA state. The implication, said Lieberman, was that more than 350,000 Jews who live in areas the PA claims for its state would have to leave their homes.

The Palestine Liberation Organization, however — tasked with making the formal request to the United Nations for recognition of the PA as a new Arab country, and accepting the entity into its ranks as a full member — has announced that the new state would “welcome all faiths.”

Lieberman said Thursday that Areikat’s comments were similar to other statements made directly by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who has spoken of the need to deport all Jews from PA controlled areas. Both Areikat’s and Abbas’ statements, said Lieberman, prove that the PA plans to make its state “Judenrein,” borrowing a term describing the Nazis’ policy of destroying Jews and murdering them. “The nations of the world should take these comments into account when deciding how to vote on the PA’s demand to set up a state,” Lieberman said.

In June, Abbas himself made a similar statement. Telling reporters that he would under no conditions recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas said that he would agree to an international force to ensure enforcement of a peace agreement between Israel and the PA state to prevent terrorism. But, he said, “I will not agree to allowing Jews to participate in this force, and I will not agree to allow even one Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land.”

Earlier, Yuli Edelstein, in charge of the government’s public information efforts, said that “after endless attempts by the PA to delegitimize Israel and attempts to brand us as an apartheid state, it turns out that the Palestinians are the ones who are interested in apartheid.”

Judenrein Palestine 3:11 PM, Sep 14, 2011 – By DANIEL HALPER

USA Today reports: 

The Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.

“After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” Maen Areikat, the PLO ambassador, said during a meeting with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. He was responding to a question about the rights of minorities in a Palestine of the future.

Such a state would be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews, said Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. National Security Council official.

I was at this breakfast, and as the so-called ambassador was leaving and getting into his Cadillac, I asked whether he was endorsing an apartheid state. 

TWS: Are you endorsing apartheid?

Areikat: Apartheid?

TWS: Yeah, like separation?

Areikat: No! Absolutely not. I mean, what I talked about separation in a way that you have your own sovereign independent state. What, is the United States an apartheid state because it is separated from Mexico and Canada? 

So there you have it: The so-called ambassador from the PLO does not think the Jews and Palestinians should live in the same state–but it absolutely isn’t apartheid!

Palestinians: No Jews in our state
Thursday, September 15, 2011 | Ryan Jones
The Palestinine Liberation Organization (PLO) ambassador to the US, Maen Areikat, told reporters in Washington on Tuesday that the Palestinian state his regime is trying to gain recognition for at the UN next week should be free of Jews.

“I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” said Areikat. Of course, any talk by Israeli politicians of removing Arabs from the Jewish state is immediately branded as racism and aggressively dismissed by the international community.

Israeli and Jewish leaders were incensed by the Palestinian official’s remarks.

“It is advisable for the world’s nations to take these statements into account when discussing the Palestinian request to establish an independent state,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who filed official statements of protest with the US and European powers.

Turning the tables on those who want to make Israel synomymous with history’s most racist regimes, Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein noted:

“After an unending de-legitimization campaign and attempts to brand Israel an apartheid state, it appears it is the Palestinians who seek apartheid. …[Areikat’s] comments conjure up Judenrein motifs.”

Judenrein was the term used by the Nazis to describe the goal of their campaign to cleanse Germany and Europe of Jews.

Speaking of the Nazis, former US National Security Council official said that it appears the planned Palestinian state will be the first nation since World War II-era Germany where Jews are forbidden to live by law.

The UN General Assembly is scheduled to start deliberating on recognizing a Palestinian Arab state on September 21. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will address the assembly on September 23, the last day of the first session of deliberations.

That same day, Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki has said he will officially submit to the UN Security Council a request for full UN membership status for “Palestine.” The US has already said it will veto such a motion, but the General Assembly may hold its own vote which, though not legally binding, is almost certain to approve the Palestinian statehood bid.

And just in case anyone was considering that recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would end the conflict and lead to peace, the Palestinians themselves have revealed otherwise.

Even if the UN votes in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state and accepting it as a UN member state, the Palestine Liberation Organization will not disband, and will still be seen as the offical representative of the Palestinian Arabs.

Why, one might ask, would such a “liberation” organization need to continue its work if the ostensible goal of statehood has been achieved? Because, as the Palestinians have said all along – starting with Yasser Arafat and continuing with the democratically-elected Hamas government – the true end goal is not a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel, but rather a Palestinian state replacing Israel.

CAMERA Snapshots: Apartheid Palestine – Not in Washington Post or New York Times
Sep. 14, 2011 – The Palestine Liberation Organization’s representative to Washington, Maen Areikat, told American reporters that a future West Bank and Gaza …

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine :: Hudson New York

by Alan M. Dershowitz

September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am

The United Nations is being asked to grant the Palestinians the status of a "state," for at least some purposes. The question arises what kind of a state will it be? In an effort to attract Western support, the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become another "secular democratic state." Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, disagrees. It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law.

We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West. Now let's look at what its saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy.

The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine." It also states that Sharia Law will be "the major source of legislation." It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular.

The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine. The Ambassador of the PLO to the United States was asked during an interview whether "any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?" His answer: "Absolutely!" After much criticism, the Ambassador tried to spin his statement, saying that it applied only to Jews "who are amid the occupation." Whatever that means, one thing is clear: large numbers of Jews will not be welcome to remain in Islamic Palestine as equal citizens. In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims. They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli army.

The new Palestine will have the very "law of return" that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!

Palestinian leadership accuses Israel of having roads that are limited only to Jews. This is entirely false: a small number of roads on the West Bank are restricted to Israelis, but they are equally open to Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The entire state of Palestine will have a "no Jews allowed" sign on it.

It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel's law of return and about its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state. Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims? If so, is that not a form of racism?

What would the borders of a Palestinian state look like if the Palestinians got their way without the need to negotiate with Israel? The Palestinians would get, as a starting point, all of the land previously occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 War, in which Jordan attacked Israel. This return to the status quo that led to the 6 Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes.

The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would include Judaism's holiest place, the Western Wall. It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago. The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force.

It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians. But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap. Palestinian leaders have already said that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands. For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, they would have to surrender thousands of acres. The same might be true of the access road to Hebrew University and the Jewish Quarter.

When Jordan controlled these areas, the Jordanian government made them Judenrein—Jews could not pray at the Western Wall, visit the Jewish Quarter, or have access to Hebrew University. There is no reason to believe that a Palestinian state would treat Jews any differently if they were to maintain control over these areas.

An Apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.

The Palestinians and Israeli leaders are now in New York. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to sit down and negotiate, with no preconditions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution. President Abbas should accept that offer, which will actually get the Palestinians a viable state rather than a cheap paper victory that will raise expectations but lower the prospects for real peace.

Push for Palestinian state at UN must be rejected: It will hurt Arabs and Jews alike
New York Daily News – Alan Dershowitz – Wednesday, September 21st 2011, 4:00 AM

An apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine based on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the …


Inernational: From Israel to New York – Jews, Christians Protest Hamas Led …‎ Israel News Agency

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

New York — September 20, 2011 …. Thousands of Jewish and Christian protesters are taking to the streets in Jerusalem and in New York to protest a UN vote on the creation of a Hamas led Palestine…

The issue is not a vote at the UN. The issue is that of an all out PR campaign of incitement and violence coordinated by Iran, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah which will transcend into a regional war in the Middle East.

The Israel Defense Forces are preparing for mass riots as the Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command prepares bomb shelters for it’s citizens.

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, criticized the Palestinian effort last Friday, calling it a violation of the Oslo Accords, the 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO.

“The Palestinians made a commitment to Israel and the world, to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations. The Palestinians are violating their signed commitments.”

Regev also threatened the PA, saying that if they proceed with their UN action either with the General Assembly or the Security Council, “Israel will reserve the right to respond in kind”. Several Israel lawmakers have suggested responding by annulling the accords or by annexing all or part of the entire West Bank. The West Bank, which never belonged to any entity known as Palestine, belonged to Jordan before the 1967 war.

While many protest a UN vote for a Palestine that has openly stated that it would not allow Jews inside their country, a state of Apartheid, Americans are also out in the streets protesting the arrival of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The New York based advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, is protesting outside the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan where Ahmadinejad is staying.

“Ahmadinejad is the leader of a criminal regime allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and guilty of atrocious human rights violations,” the group said in a statement. “Would the Warwick be willing to accommodate Osama bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri were he to visit Manhattan?”



Arab Apartheid against non-Arabs in Islamic practice

Apartheid in the Hajj

In Islamic doctrine the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to the holy sites of Mecca and Medinah, represents the highest point of Islamic liturgy. It is believed to be an obligatory experience when men and women of every race, colour and creed stands before God as equals, stripped of their wealth, their worldly possessions and their social status, just as in death.

This is how Ahmad al-Akhras describes the Hajj:

This great annual convention of faith demonstrates the concept of equality of mankind, the most profound message of Islam, which allows no superiority on the basis of race, gender or social status. The only preference in the eyes of God is piety as stated in the Quran: “The best amongst you in the eyes of God is most righteous.”

The key phrase here ‘equality of mankind’ is fundamental to the Hajj. At least it is in theory. In reality, racial discrimination by Arabs sanctioned by state policy against non-Arabs is pervasive at every instance of the pilgrimage and makes a mockery of this spiritual ideal. A case in point is the ‘Hajj Train’ service, which, in the spirit of Arabic racial apartheid, is reserved for Arabs only, as Ziyad Motala explains:

The experiences of the Hajj are very different depending on which part of the world you originate from. If you hail from Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states, you will perform the hajj in relative luxury and privilege, which is denied to Muslims from the sub-continent, Africa or the rest of the world. Those from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a different Hajj based on luxurious accommodations, and preferential treatment in performing the rituals. The latest egregious practice is the high-speed rail service, which transports the pilgrims from Mecca to the sacred sites where the rituals of the Hajj are performed. The train is reserved only for Saudis and citizens from the Gulf countries. Citizens from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries can be transported to the holy sites within a few minutes. For others, they will have to take the bus or walk which could take many hours each day. I cannot think of any other place in the world today that practices such crass racism. Imagine a train in the United States that states no Arabs — just people from the west — can ride in. The real tragedy is the lack of outrage from Muslims.

The Hajj as a gathering of Muslims, based on equality, simplicity and brotherhood is a fiction. The Hajj is a gigantic money making endeavor. All visits to the holy place have to take place under the auspices of a Saudi institution or company, which is totally Saudi-owned. Every opportunity is geared towards profit maximization. The Saudi companies in turn enter into agreements with parties in the local country where the pilgrim resides. The Saudi company takes care of the negotiation with the local hotels and other parties to organize and pay for the accommodations and internal transportation and the like. Saudis have profited greatly from the pilgrims who have been exploited on a scale that is beyond imagination. A two week visit to Saudi Arabia during the Hajj period (if you are not sponsored) in modest accommodations costs more than a month-long world tour (not counting the fact that for five days during the two week period, the pilgrim is staying in a tent). Imagine the outrage if a Saudi was told that he could not do business in the United States (including booking a hotel) except though a United States entity?

Exactly. Where are the protests and the furious write-ups by the Islamic “anti-racist” advocacy groups which have been set up to campaign against Islamophobia? Why the silence on this topic by the usually vocal “anti-racists”: iEngage, the Cordoba Foundation, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and other “long-time campaigners for community cohesion in Britain”? Why aren’t student groups such as FOSIS concerned about this kind of racism?

One of the biggest contributing factors to their stupid silence on these matters is this: The liberal left has managed to pervert the principle of “anti-racism” to be applicable exclusively to the white race as if to say that only white people can be racist simply by association with the “unspeakable crimes of colonialism”. This has been seized enthusiastically by actors of Islamism, particularly in the West.

The problem with this kind of selective thinking leaves a few inconvenient questions unanswered. Why is it that when Arabs practice blatant racist segregation against non-Arab peoples, Muslims, even those who should know better, choose to ignore this ancient spiritual/racial ‘superiority’? Even when it takes place in the midst of the mosques and shrines of the Hajj, Arab racism is rendered perfectly acceptable, at worst a minor inconvenience, and our friends in the so-called anti-Islamophobia organisations in Britain play deaf, dumb and blind.




14 Jul


Dhimmis – DHIMMI :: Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya. No legal rights.


Petition to the United Nations Against Religious Apartheid …The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights is an umbrella coalition representing various organizations from the following communities: Arab-Christian, Armenian, Assyrian, Bahai, Buddhist, Copt, Hindu, Humanist Muslim, Ibo, Maronite, Nubian, secular intellectuals, Southern Filipino, Slavic-Christian, Southern Sudanese, Syriac, West African, and women’s groups.

We gather to demonstrate our determination to protest the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, as well as women and moderate and secularized Muslims in Islamic lands. We are here also to cry out against the murderous ideology of radical Islamism, which, by dividing humankind into worthy Muslims and inferior “infidels” is wreaking havoc throughout the world.

In the face of growing attacks and oppression of religious and ethnic minorities in Islamic lands, we respectfully make the following two demands upon the appropriate organs of the United Nations:

1. We call upon you today to appoint a Special Rapporteur to investigate the status and conditions of non-Muslim minorities, women, and humanist, moderate Muslims in states ruled by Islamic majorities. Such a rappoteur must investigate the following conditions.

Equality Under Law: What is the status, both in law and in practice, of these groups, and of individuals belonging to these groups? Do the laws in these nations discriminate against religious minorities? Do members of these groups have the same rights to assemble, speak, publish, and associate as those in the majority? Can members of these classes be elected to governmental and representative bodies? Is there a government policy of discriminating against the hiring of members of these classes? Does the government allow or encourage radical anti-minority organizations to abuse, threaten or otherwise oppress minority populations? Do the agencies that enforce the laws represent all groups in society?

Religious rights and freedom: Do members of minority faiths have the right to practice their faiths freely? Do they have the right to proselytize? Do members of the majority faith have the right to choose another faith?

Cultural equality: Are the rights and cultures of national, religious, and ethnic minorities respected?

Teaching of hatred and contempt: What is the view of these classes promoted by the government and the general culture?

2. We call upon the United Nations to condemn the ideology of Jihad-Islamism as a form of religious apartheid, which divides humankind into exalted Muslims and inferior “infidels.”

Radical Jihad-Islamism is a supremacist, quasi-racist ideology that is now waging terrorist war worldwide against innocent men, women and children it labels “infidels.” This ideology is supporting religious wars against non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslim infidels worldwide. It is seeking to establish Apartheid-like regimes similar to those in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, to subjugate and control “infidels.” It legitimizes and extends human rights abuses – including slavery – on a massive scale. It employs a global economic resource (oil) as a weapon against non-Muslim nations in the service of its goals. It is the duty of the United Nations, which came into being as a result of racist Nazism, to condemn and to combat any ideology which defines some part of the human race as inferior.

Radical Jihad-Islamism must be condemned as a form of cultural, racial, religious and ethnic discrimination, and the United Nations should equate it with Colonialism and Imperialism. It should condemn its teaching to any community or school and it should call for a “corrective teaching” to seek to undo the hatred that it has engendered in peoples who have been taught the ideology. Further, the U.N. should condemn all current Jihad wars and call on nations waging such wars to cease violating the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and peoples. Finally, the U.N. should intervene to protect the rights and lives of religious and ethnic minorities and non-Islamist Muslims in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Sudan, and Syria…


A Clash of Values: The Struggle for Universal Freedom – Page 15
Tal Ben-Shahar – 2002 – 160 pages

The spirit of dhimmitude is pervasive in the Muslim world, regardless of how religious a country is. Even the more secular Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, discriminate against non-Muslims. There are exceptions, Turkey being one of them, but even in those places Islamic fundamentalism is gaining support. Dhimmitude is institutionalized apartheid in its most blatant form, part of the official law in the dar al-Islam..


FLAME Hotline: Muslim Apartheid Targets Christians as well as Jews …Jan 11, 2011 … Muslim Apartheid Targets Christians as well as Jews in the Middle East.

Islam’s Apartheid

Amil Imani

[May 19, 2011]

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]
The declaration prohibits,
“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"
Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration.

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
There are many many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.

But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”

Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad-stipulated place.

·         If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh—blood money, or compensation—as that of a murdered Muslim male.
·         A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.
·         A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.
·         A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.
·         A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.
·         Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.
·         Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.
·         Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.
·         Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much much more.
·         Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtune of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.
·         Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.
Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid.

Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.

Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

·         On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.
·         In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
·         The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice.

Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others.

It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.

Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.


The Brownshirts of Our Time – Phyllis Chesler
The largest practitioner of apartheid in the world is Islam, which practices both gender and religious apartheid. In terms of gender apartheid, Palestinian women – and all women who live under Islam – are oppressed by “honor” killings, forced veiling, segregation, stonings to death for alleged adultery, seclusion/sequestration, female genital mutilation, polygamy, outright slavery, and sexual slavery. Women have few civil, legal, or human rights under Islam. Today, the entire Middle East is judenrein. Jews cannot become citizens of Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, yet no one accuses those nations of apartheid.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10882 http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2003-11/2003-11-21.html

Rebranding Apartheid

Published: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:23 PM
Sharia law is the real apartheid. Let’s tell the world the truth about Arab rights in Israel and Arab rights in Islamic countries.

Ron Jager

The Arab Spring and the Islamic takeover of the Middle East provides Israel and her supporters the opportunity to rebrand the current media narrative concerning Apartheid. As usual, Israel’s public diplomacy consistently misses the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy of our Arab neighbors. It is an outright lie to claim or to imply that Israel is an apartheid state, yet it is done all the time repeatedly by the Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas and other Arab leaders, and by his supporters in the United States and Europe.

This distortion of the truth has been extremely effective in the war of words and has fallen on receptive ears in the international arena, in the media & internet, and on college campuses.

As the Arab spring becomes an Islamic tsunami wiping out any semblance of democratic or human rights for the Arab masses, as the leader of Syria, Bashir Assad butchers over 6000 of his own countrymen, now is the time to rebrand the meaning of Apartheid. Now is the time to remind the world that Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle East and that the Arabs living in Israel including Judea and Samaria enjoy more Democratic rights than any Arab living in any Middle Eastern Islamic nation.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, Apartheid is defined as “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Islamic Sharia law is the prevalent system of law today among the Islamic nations embodying racism by adopting laws of institutionalized discrimination and “legal” racism against anyone who is not a Muslim.  This is the authentic narrative of Apartheid today imploring us to rebrand Apartheid. Associating Israel with Apartheid seems more absurd than ever when compared to the violation of human rights in Islamic ruled nations.

Factually speaking, apartheid was the official policy of the South African government that established and maintained racial segregation and racial discrimination against non-whites, and abolished in 1992. The South African non-whites could not vote, and they had to carry a “Pass Book,” or they risked being jailed or deported. In addition, non-white South Africans were kept from a wide range of jobs.  

They had no free elementary through high school education; mixed sexual relationships were restricted and segregated; hospital and ambulance services were segregated; they could not use most public amenities; sports were segregated; and public facilities were labeled for correct racial usage.  Non-whites could not enter a building through the main entrance, be a member of a union, or participate in a strike. 

By contrast, all citizens of Israel have equal voting rights.  Arabs have eleven representatives in Israel’s Knesset, including an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court and a full range of other civil and political rights. Arabs in Israel receive equal access and are subject to equal treatment in hospitals.  There are no “anti-miscegenation” laws, or other policies of racial segregation.

As we begin the arduous journey of rebranding Apartheid, let’s begin by pointing out the similarities between Sharia Law and Islamic gender apartheid.

What is amazing is that whether in isolated enclaves in the heart of European cities or the major cities of Canada, or in the Islamic nations of the Middle East, gender Apartheid is an accepted norm in Islamic societies. Forced marriages for 13 year old girls, honor killings, domestic slavery, rape and torture of women until they convert to Islam, stoning women accused of adultery to death, and female genital mutilation are all only a few of the many examples that are condoned by Islamic gender apartheid.

Speaking out against these kinds of Islamic norms as in the case of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh who was murdered on the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic terrorist for exposing the abuse of women, all in the name of Islam is what awaits many that publicly expose Islamic Apartheid.

The following are some common laws of Islamic Sharia law which are regularly practiced and can be easily associated with Apartheid;

·        A Muslim who leaves Islam (apostate) must be killed immediately

·        A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : a) an apostasy b) an adultere

·        A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim

·        Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, for sins like killing, adultery, prostitutions; and other Quranic corporal punishments like: amputation of limbs (chopping hands and feet), floggings, beatings and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for the sins like: stealing, sexual promiscuity, robbery, burglary etc

·        Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia

·        Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you”

·        Homosexuality is punishable by death

·        The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man; that is, two women equal to one man

·        A woman loses custody of her children if she remarries

Falsly branding Israel as an Apartheid state means something more fundamental:  that there is no justification for there being a Jewish state at all, based on hatred and contempt for Jews.

By rebranding Apartheid and associating it with the absense of basic human rights and freedom in the Islamic nations of the Middle East, we can transform the accepted narrative to its rightful place.


Israel Anti Terrorism Jerusalem Summit Meets German Christian Zionists On Islamic Apartheid.

By Herb Brandon
Israel News Agency – May 20, 2008


The Jerusalem Summit is an international conservative think-tank whose objective is developing an effective and Bible-value-based strategy for fighting the terrorism of radical Islam. The Jerusalem Summit advocates diplomatic and economic sanctions against countries practicing gender and faith apartheid. Major examples of Islamic apartheid can be witnessed in depriving women and religious minorities of equal rights.


Israel: And the Palestinian Nightmare – Page 158 – Ze’ev Shemer – 2010 – 244 pages
…Because we live at a time when objective truth does not matter anymore, when only Big Lies matter. For example, Islam is the world’s largest practitioner of both religious and gender apartheid. Say this on most campuses, as I have, and you will be jeered, booed, possibly physically menaced, certain demonized afterwards as a “racist” and “Islamophobe.”


Suissa: Murdering Israel’s Name

Mar 27, 2011 – Here’s my candidate: “Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East that is NOT apartheid.”


From Salman Rushdie to WTC

The crimes against humanity of supporters of Islamic Apartheid and their attacks on progress and human rights has not started with their brutal terrorist attack on World Trade Center in New York. It has been going on for a long time and the West had heard it loud and clear the first time, with the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini to kill the author Salman Rushdie because of Salman Rushdie’s ideas opposing Islam. Islamic Apartheid has been trying to lynch Salman Rushdie for over a decade . Even though Iranian government distanced itself from the fatwa, but the terrorists in Iran openly collected bounty money to kill Salman Rushdie.

The Islamic Apartheid has slaughtered many of their opponents such as Shahpour Bakhtiar, in cold blood, in Paris, while basically the West stayed silent and did not want take any drastic action, risking a change in the status quo of the Middle East, where only the safe flow of oil from that region, is all that the Western states cared for. The atrocities of another state of Islamic Apartheid, the Islamic Fundamentalist regime of Taleban in Afghanestan, has been known for a long time. For example see the following website about their crimes against humanity:


The atrocities of Islamic Apartheid has been around long before they took power in Iran in 1979 Revolution. The fatwa to kill Ahmad Kasravi, by the mullahs in 1950’s was the best example of their resorting to murder to silence their opponents, the opponents who called for progressive society in the Middle East. Ahmad Kasravi, progressive author in Iran, not having much security, before Islamic Republic, was easily murdered by the Islamic Apartheid terrorists. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the Islamic Apartheid is not particular to Iran. The main supporter of the U.S. government in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is a fundamentalist Islamic state, which openly discriminates against followers of other religions, such as the Jews, and justifies the stone-age Islamic punishments of beheading and stoning and discriminates against women . In fact, many of these countries have religious authorities, who supported the murder fatwa against Salman Rushdie, but one seldom hears about it, because they are supporters of the U.S.

Regardless of what various governments do in response to the WTC bombing, I think one thing is certain that the Islamic Apartheid lost its legitimacy with the heinous atrocity of World Trade Center in New York. Islamic fanatics cannot pretend as victims anymore. The victim game that the Islamic Republic and its agents had played for so long, while committing the crimes against humanity, will not work anymore, to get the support of some pseudo-intellectuals in the West. Their terrors against the dissidents such as Bakhtiar and Ghasemloo in the West, cannot be written off, as actions against imperialism anymore.

Iranian government allowing terrorists to freely collect money and plan for the murder of Salman Rushdie cannot be acceptable anymore. When committing stoning of a porn movie star in Iran or killing Foruhars and writers for their ideas inside Iran, one would ask about what Islamic Apartheid is doing to humanity. Yes, their gesturing of defending themselves against the imperialists, and showing themselves as victims, does not cut it anymore. The bombing of WTC by supporters of Islamic Apartheid was equivalent to the burning of Jews in concentration camps by the Fascists, when after the publicity of their atrocities, they lost their legitimacy, and could no longer justify their murderous ideology, with the cloak of combating decadence.

Finally it is very sad that the Middle Eastern people are being attacked as Islamic fanatics in the West. In fact, the majority of the people of Middle East, both in countries like Iran, Afghanestan, and other Middle Eastern countries, and Middle Easterners abroad, are the ones who have opposed the Islamic Apartheid more than all the Western people and states, and they have given many martyrs in their challenge of Islamic Apartheid. Among them, dissidents like Dr. Shahpour Bakhtiar in Paris and Foruhars in Tehran. The reality is that the real force of retrogression in the Middle East is Islamic Apartheid, whether in the form of retrogressive Islamic ideologies of Islamic fanatics in Iran, or the Islamic Fundamentalism of Taleban and Saudi Arabia, and it should be challenged by all progressive-minded people all over the world.

Rants about Islamic extremists and cruel policies in Arab states are valid … East — a region where Islamic apartheid is the actual order of the day.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/1/31/opedFreedomAndRightToProtestNoNationShouldBeImmuneFromCr iticism

Christians in the Middle East Christian Arab existence in Jerusalem is being threatened because its Arab population … Islam operates a system of racial and religious apartheid




The collective intolerant Islamic apartheid systems one by one.

All minorities suffer from harsh discrimination in all Arab/Islamic societies, not to mention the wide ethnic cleansing of a Million Jewish refugees.
Among regimes accused of ‘apartheid’ are:

Iran [Ethnic racist apartheid against: Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen etc. Religious apartheid: against all other faiths: Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai’, Jews, etc.].

Sudan [Arab racist supremacist genocide and oppression motivated by racism against non-Arab natives. The Arab ruler al-Bashir is accused of genocide. There’s also a Sharia strict Islamic rule against non-Muslims].

Mauritania [against non-Arab natives].

Arab-Palestine, Palestinian Authority [against Christians, Jews (such as, a ‘Jew-free’ policy, with a racist law punishable by death of anyone selling land to Jews), Ahmadis, blacks].

Jordan [against Christians, Arab-Palestinians, non-Bedouin Arabs, Jews (in fact, already in 1948, it instituted a real ‘legal’ religious apartheid system in its occupied Jerusalem, which was abolished when Israel liberated it in 1967), Gypsies].

Syria [against the majority who is not Alawi… Still, Kurds are among the non-Arab groups who suffer probably the most of Arab racism.

Kuwait / UAE [against Asians, Blacks].

Saudi Arabia [against Asians, Jews, Christians, Blacks].

Bahrain / Saudi Arabia [anti-Shia apartheid].

Egypt [against Christian Copts – the pre-Arab invasion indigenous people, and against blacks].

Iraq [still, post Saddam’s era, anti-Black discriminations, anti-Assyrian and anti-Kurd].

Lebanon [anti-Blacks, anti Arab-Palestinian and deep Muslim Christian divide].

Libya [anti-black racism, oppression].

Turkey [against (Christians as a whole) Greeks (plus the apartheid on Cyprus), Armenians, Kurds].

Yemen [against indigenous al-Akhdam].

Morocco / Tunisia / Algeria [against Berbers – indigenous people, before the Arab invasion].

Malaysia [racial superiority against non-Malaysians].

Indonesia [non-Muslims, especially Chinese, Christians, also long bloody history on ‘others,’ in Papua and in E. Timor].

Pakistan [non-Muslims in general, especially Indians, incuding certain election laws desinged to block non-Muslims].


Worth mentioning that while Christians dwindle all over intolerant Middle East, they flourish only in Israel…

Israeli Arabs enjoy preferential treatment (affirmative action on campus, employment) and reach all high positions. Including a 2007 Arab president of the Jewish democratic State.
Case after case in Israeli courts systems, Israeli Arabs are often given preferences, especially in issues involving land.
On top of it, there’s a serious gross imbalance which Israeli-Arabs have an advantage in. Unlike Israeli Jews, the Arabs are not obligated to serve in the military, yet possess all rights Israeli Jews have.

Anti-Israel radicals try to portray, what Israel defends against a racist ‘ocean’ of entities who openly seek to wipe it off, as “racist”. If denying its right to survive is not racism, what is?
Just because Carter (has copied M. Bishara’s 2002 book title, after he was paid by the Arab lobby, and) so irresponsibly used the “apartheid” slur, doesn’t make it true.

[see also: Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby, by: Jacob Laksin, FPM Dec 18, 2006, The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East, by Mitchell Bard, (HarperCollins, 2010), p. 135 “…deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received.”


Let’s not forget, that it was the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmad Shukairy –who, aided the Mufti during his pact with Hitler in WW2 (Congressional record: proceedings and debates of the United States Congress: Volume 113, Part 12, United States. Congress – Govt. Print. Off., 1967. p. A-525)– who in 1961 in his UN hate speech, came up with the racist idea of erroneously comparing democratic Israel to “apartheid.”


In fact, Carter’s use of the slur was/is only intended to provoke and incite, to provoke debate and to provoke discussion as Carter admitted himself (CNN, Nov. 27, 2006).
He also said: “I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.” (CNN, Dec. 12, 2006).

UN’s obsession is grotesque and Orwellian

Jewish World Review Dec. 5, 2008

By Jeff Jacoby

…so similar to the apartheid of an earlier era… Of which country was he speaking?
Was it Saudi Arabia, where public facilities are segregated by sex, and where a pervasive system of gender apartheid denies women the right to drive, to dress as they choose, to freely marry or divorce, to vote, to appear in public without a male “guardian,” or to give testimony on an equal basis with men?
Was it Jordan, where the law explicitly bars Jews from citizenship and where the sale of land to a Jew was for decades not only illegal, but punishable by death?

Was it Iran, where homosexuality is a capital crime — at least 200 Iranian gays were executed last year – and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asserted at Columbia University that there are no homosexuals in Iran?

Was it Sudan, where tens of thousands of black Africans in the country’s southern region, most of them Christians or animists, have been abducted and sold into slavery by Arab militias backed by the Islamist regime in Khartoum?

It was none of these. The General Assembly president, a radical Maryknoll priest who served as Nicaragua’s foreign minister during the Sandinista regime in the 1980s, was not referring to any of the Middle East’s Muslim autocracies and dictatorships, virtually all of which discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities. He was speaking of the Jewish state of Israel, the region’s lone democracy, and the only one that guarantees the legal equality of all its citizens – one-fifth of whom are Muslim and Christian Arabs.

[…] Like so much of what takes place at the UN, the obsession with demonizing Israel and extolling the Palestinians is grotesque and Orwellian.


KUHNER: Ban Koran-burning? – Washington Times‎
washingtontimes.com – Apr 7, 2011
Moreover, Muslim-majority societies are deeply hostile toward non-Muslims – especially, Christians and Jews. Bibles are banned in Saudi Arabia; when confiscated, many of them are burned or tossed into the garbage. Construction of churches and synagogues is prohibited. In Egypt, churches have been razed to the ground and Coptic Christians massacred. In Iraq, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, half of the Christian population has been exterminated or expelled; the other half lives in mortal fear. Iran executes Muslim converts to Christianity.

Shariah law – the legal basis of most Islamic states – is a form of religious apartheid, systematically classifying Christians and Jews as third-class citizens. Christophobia and anti-Semitism are rampant in the Muslim world. America’s political class, however, refuses to speak out.

Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron

Feb 26, 2008 – Islamic law for Muslims would create legal apartheid in Britain, David Cameron said today.


Surrender! – HUMAN EVENTS

Jul 8, 2008 – This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that…


Shilling for Shariah | FrontPageMagazine

Aug 30, 2011

… So Shariah is based upon a religious ideology that embraces gender apartheid, religious apartheid, cruel punishment and the denial of freedoms of speech, thought, and conscience. As such it cannot be compatible with western pluralistic democratic societies.


Sharia would create legal apartheid in Britain, says David Cameron

Feb 26, 2008 – Islamic law for Muslims would create legal apartheid in Britain, David Cameron said today.


New Republic – Sep 29, 2011

Wierdly, the progressives talk all the time about class, apartheid (in Israel where it doesn’t exist) but somehow doesn’t see us women as a class and is loathe to speak out about the mistreatment of half the people on the planet.


Africa, 1990
Pierre Etienne Dostert – [Stryker-Post Publications.,] 1990 – 207 pages – Page 195
Internal dissention occurred with the tightening of Islamic sharia laws within Mauritania. A ban on alcohol was particularly been resented by the non-Islamic people who constitute about 20% of the population, most of whom are seasonal workers from Senegal.
Interestingly, they published pamphlets accusing the Moslem majority of “Islamic apartheid.”


Coptic Youth Association in Britain

News From Egypt


The religious and cultural persecution of the Christians in Egypt

No month during the past twelve years has passed without the murder, beating or torture of Christians, or without their properties or churches being burned. In all cases, without exception, the criminals have been set free. An incident that took place from March 2-9, 1990 in the city of Abu-Kurkas in Upper Egypt and in all cities and villages of the Al-Minya province sheds some light into the real situation of Christian under persecution in middle eastern countries. Following Friday prayers, the Moslem fundamentalists ransacked and completely desecrated many Coptic churches, organizations and the YMCA. Also most of the Christian-owned pharmacies and stores were burned to the ground and 15 Christians were seriously injured and required hospitalization. Later five died from their wounds.

While the Moslem fundamentalists were ravaging churches and Christians-owned business and terrorizing the Copts, the city officials and police refused to intervene to stop the destruction and vandalism directed against the Christians. According to the BBC, two churches were burned down in the Northern Cairo by the Moslem fundamentalists. In addition, on April 15, 1990, they bombed the Coptic church and destroyed most of the Christian-owned stores in the city of Sinouris in the province of Al-Fayoum without any protection from the police force.

Hostility towards the Christians is being ignited and supported by the state-controlled mass media which characterizes Christians as “infidels” with a “false” Bible. Moslem Sheikhs exhort their followers to carry out a holy war against Christians everywhere. Elementary school Christian children are forced to read in the required reading books that Islam is the only true religion that should replace all other religions.

While Moslem fundamentalists burn churches, the Egyptian government makes it impossible for Christians to repair old churches or to build new ones. Newly constructed towns and cities in Egypt are deprived of churches in order to create pure Islamic societies and establish a kind of religious apartheid. The bishop of the city of Dariut in the province of Asyut, unable to secure a presidential permit to repair a 60 years-old church, had it repaired without such a permit. The minister of Interior promptly closed not only that church but nine others, as well.

The Egyptian government has stopped appointing Christians to the judicial system, the army and the police and has instructed government agencies and business not to hire Christians. Saudi Arabia is financially supporting Moslem organizations to form Islamic banks, corporations and educational institutions that exclude Christians and undermine Christian livelihoods. Egyptian and Saudi-Arabian governments are forcing Christians to covert to Islam to avoid unemployment, hunger and terrorism. The Egyptian government has seized lands in trust to the Coptic church and has given them to the Minister of Islamic Affairs. Such arbitrary confiscation deprives poor Christians of a major source of income. The Palestinians have better human rights under their occupation than the Copts under their government…

Christians in Egypt

Mr Edward Leigh – Westminster Hall – June 14, 2000

Copts… It is important to ensure fundamental rights of political representation, to end educational apartheid, to allow the building of new churches, and to prevent massacres and killings. I hope that the Government will make strong representation on all those matters.


Egypt’s New Rulers Must Protect the Copts, Not Persecute Them | U.S. Copts Associaton

May 13, 2011 … The first and major failure and setback committed by the “Higher Military Egyptian Council” members was in their stubborn clinging to Article Two in the country’s constitution that legalizes discrimination and apartheid. It states verbatim: “Islam is the religion of the state, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation”.

In this realm of discrimination, the Council refused to appoint Christians and women in the judicial committee that was designated to study and propose constitutional amendments. The approved amendments were few, insubstantial and merely decorative and cosmetic.


ReligionToday News Summaries – Christian News, Conservative Commentary
crosswalk.com – May 30, 2007
Egypt: Keeping the Copts Subjugated

On 11 May, Muslims in the village of Bimha in Ayat district left their mosques after Friday prayers, armed and zealous for jihad against the indigenous Coptic Christian community and their solitary, partially built church. According to ASSIST News Service, the violent Muslim pogrom in Bimha bears the same features of other anti-Christian pogroms of the past decade. These familiar elements indicate that the security situation for Egypt’s indigenous Copts (who are Christian) is growing increasingly tenuous. The tragedy in Bimha takes Egypt another step backwards into religious and ethnic apartheid as it further reinforces Egypt’s indigenous Christian Copts not as equal citizens, but as a subjugated people – dhimmis. It also presents Egyptians with yet another precedent which demonstrates that Copts (Egypt’s remnant indigenous peoples, the descendants of the Pharaohs, Christians for nearly 2000 years) can be terrorized, robbed and killed with impunity.

Sectarian Violence: Egypt’s Version of Apartheid
By: Sherif Rizk

The following is an article published in the summer 2010 edition of The Caucus, a political magazine at the University of Ottawa

When dealing with the history and current affairs of Coptic Christians, two things should be kept in mind: history repeats itself, and there is a world outside the confines of Western media. Unfortunately, these two mantras were realized by some on two dates in the past decade or so: December 31st, 1999 and January 7th, 2010.

Coptic Christians are the largest Arab-speaking, non-Muslim minority in Egypt and the Middle East, which makes their affairs an unofficial litmus test of social life for minorities in the Middle East. Their history has always been filled with bloodshed, from persecution and systematic, forced conversion in pre-Christian eras to current social discrimination in their native Egypt. Unfortunately, their current state of discrimination does not differ much from pre-Christian times.

On December 31st, 1999, following a long trend of Islamic radicalism that has gripped Egypt since the late 1970s, violence broke out between Coptic Christians and Muslims in the Egyptian town of El-Kosheh. Evidence pointed out that a scuffle between a Muslim customer and a Christian merchant led to the widespread violence. A total of 21 Copts (ranging from 11 years old to 85 years old) were left murdered. Eyewitnesses claimed that the violence was purely sectarian, and that even some Egyptian police officers, most of which were Muslims themselves, participated in the violence against the small minority. The violence continued for days until security forces finally regained control of the town and arrested those responsible. To the dismay and anger of the entire Coptic community, the several dozen suspects of the massacre – all of whom were Muslims – were acquitted only a month before their trial took place. The only individual responsible for any of the violence was a Muslim man who was accused of murdering another Muslim in the onslaught of violence. As for the 21 Christians murdered, the court didn’t even mention them.

Fast forward to January 7th, 2010, only days after the tenth anniversary of the horrendous El-Kosheh Massacre. As Christians in the town of Nag Hammadi were leaving Church after a midnight mass celebrating Coptic Christmas, three cars drove by and opened fire on worshippers as they left the Church. The attacks left six dead, including a sixteen year old Christian. What was shocking is the eerie similarity to the El-Kosheh Massacre. The events of December 1999 were marked by lack of police sympathy to the victims, and even more shockingly, the lack of punishment on those responsible. The government went to great lengths to ensure that any Christians filing complaints or lawsuits were arrested and forced to sign statements recanting their claims. In 2010, the government arrested as much as 100 Christian youths in Nag Hammadi in order to force the Coptic church to drop its complaints against the Egyptian government. The perpetrators, yet to be caught, will probably not face any serious punishment or incarceration.

It is incredible to see how bloodshed in the Middle East now has a price on it. An increasing trend of marginalization of minorities in the Middle East is evident in Egypt, but also in Iraq, where extremists associate the native Christian population with their American enemies. Considering the fact that since 1972, 160 documented, premeditated attacks on Coptic Christians took place, and with more than 4,000 Copts killed and tens of millions of dollars in damages and losses estimated, their story warrants substantial coverage and more attention from the Western media about the state of affairs for minorities in the Middle East.

‘History repeats itself’ is often a phrase that is stated in a negative light, and this case is certainly no different. In fact, there will probably be another attack like those mentioned here because regardless of any protests or pressure from the Western world because the root problem will still exist, and will continue to exist for a long time. That problem is the ignorance and hatred that still manifests between the two. Like apartheid in South Africa, this problem needs to transcend the boundaries between the ignorance of segregation and the seemingly simple world that comes into view when we see each other as ‘black’ and ‘white’. Differences exist, and regardless of how hard we try to bridge those gaps, there will always be a conflict of interests. So instead of fantasizing about a fallacy of a uniform, unilateral world, it is time to understand that differences exist, and so will conflict, but there is absolutely no need to reach violent means. And that is, unfortunately, the one lesson that we have not been able to learn from history’s continuous loop, despite the fact that it has been a track that has played for far too long.


Pakistan, the land of religious apartheid and jackboot justice: a report to the UN committee against racial discrimination – Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2007 – History – 62 pages – Page 18
CHAPTER 4 The practice and patterns of discrimination against “non-Muslims’* Pakistan is all about appeasing the majority Muslims at the costs of the religious minorities. The religious minorities like the Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus …

‘Apartheid’ in Pakistan
By N. Mahmood Ahmad and Amjad Mahmood Khan
January 19, 2011; 1:30 PM ET

More than seven months have passed since the Pakistani Taliban attacked two Ahmadiyya Muslim mosques in Lahore massacring 86 Ahmadi Muslims and injuring more than a hundred more. In November, in connection with the release of the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specially noted the carnage against Ahmadiyya holy sites. The Secretary also observed that such “infringements on religious freedom strain the bonds that sustain democratic societies” – a statement that is more profound than it may appear to be at first glance, for it draws a direct linkage between the protection of religious freedom and the very survival of democracy.
Indeed, the systematic persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan is Exhibit A in the case that religious intolerance can fatally weaken liberal democracy. The State Department’s annual report concerning Pakistan, which makes mention of Ahmadi Muslims on 101 occasions, details what can only be described as religio-political apartheid directed at Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Not only are members of the community expressly declared non-Muslims under the constitution and the subject of specific anti-Ahmadi provisions in Pakistan’s penal code (commonly referred to as the “blasphemy laws”), but they are also denied the most basic right in a democracy – the right to vote – through a series of extraordinary legal provisions.

From 1947 until 1978, all Pakistanis had an equal vote irrespective of creed. But in 1977, the military dictator Zia ul Haq took power, and the following year, he decreed that non-Muslims would have to register on separate “non-Muslim” electoral rolls. Apart from disenfranchising non-Muslims who did not want to be segregated in that manner, the decree was specifically targeted against Ahmadi Muslims because it would force them to disavow their Muslim identity by registering as “non-Muslims” on the electoral rolls. Naturally, Ahmadi Muslims, forced into a Hobson’s choice that would require them to declare themselves non-Muslims regardless of which option they chose, have had to sit out national, state and local elections.

The separate electorate system for Muslims and non-Muslims remained in place even after Pakistan returned to a democratic form of government. Ironically, Pervez Musharraf, yet another military dictator of a more liberal bent than Zia, issued an executive order calling for its elimination in 2002. President Musharraf was duly hailed as a benevolent despot for restoring the rights of non-Muslims and Ahmadis, but the true extent of the power of Pakistan’s religious extremist element became apparent when, within a matter of months, he was forced to reverse course.

While continuing to allow non-Muslims to cast their votes alongside Muslims in a joint electorate, subsequent amendments to Musharraf’s original Order specifically stated that the “status of Ahmadis [was] . . . to remain unchanged.” As a result, Ahmadi Muslims presently are the only religious community in Pakistan who cannot freely vote.
This system of religious segregation at the voting booths is enforced through national identity cards that require each individual to list their confessional creed, and anyone wishing to be listed as a Muslim must denounce the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s founder – Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – as a false prophet and his followers as non-Muslim.

Pakistan’s apartheid regime is not only a human rights travesty, but also a national tragedy since Ahmadi Muslims are considered to be among Pakistan’s most literate and educated citizenry (notably, the country’s only Nobel Laureate, Dr. Abdus Salam, was an Ahmadi Muslim – having ignored his achievements during his life, the Pakistani state ordered that the word “Muslim” be effaced from his gravestone).
Since Musharraf backtracked on the issue of voting rights for Ahmadis in 2002, Pakistan has been graced with yet another democratic government, this time led by Asif Zardari. And yet, there has been no public discussion regarding the re-enfranchisement of Ahmadis, and the religious parties have consistently blocked any attempts to amend the constitution to remove the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims. It bears noting that Mr. Zardari’s father-in-law, the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was responsible for the enactment of that declaration into the constitution.

There can be no doubt that something is rotten in the state of Pakistan. Secretary Clinton’s remarks provide an astute diagnosis: state-sanctioned religious intolerance lies at the very heart of Pakistan’s problems, and there is nothing that the extremists are more willing to fight to preserve than the apartheid regime enforced upon Ahmadi Muslims by the Pakistani state. These extremists include not only the terrorists but also their fellow travelers, such as the Jamat-e-Islami, a political party which has made the anti-Ahmadi cause its raison d’etre.
Thus, the true test of Pakistan’s mettle will be if it can stand up and finally rid itself of the ugly stain of religious persecution and once again be counted among the community of free and democratic nations. And President Zardari can demonstrate that he is committed to that goal by signing an executive order re-enfranchising Ahmadis. And it is incumbent upon the United States, along with the wider international community, to match its rhetoric with action in pressing for equal voting rights for Ahmadis.

UN body accuses Pakistani govt of ‘religious apartheid – Daily Times Aug 9, 2007… accused the Pakistani government of committing “religious apartheid” and practising “rampant discrimination based on the ethnic, …


India-Bangladesh cooperation broadening measures
Burhanuddin Khan Jahangir, Jayanta Kumar Ray, University of Calcutta. Dept. of History – [K.P. Bagchi & Co.,] 1997 – 129 pages – Page 104
There is no reason why India should continue to abet Islamic apartheid in Bangladesh. The emergence of a small section of enlightened people in Bangladesh is a matter of great hope. But they might lose heart in their campaign against …

Organiser: Volume 40 – [Bharat Prakashan.,] 1988 – Page xvii
FRANKLY SPEAKING JULY 3, 198* ORGANISER Islamic apartheid in Pakistan and Bangladesh BANGLADESH has been declared as an Islamic State. The resistance movement in Bangladesh is catching on.



Congressional Record, V. 144, Pt. 17, October 7, 1998 to October 9, 1998 – Page 24523 – 2004 – 1374 pages

In Iran, those who believe in the Baha’i faith are forcibly repressed by the Iranian Government. They are denied the right to assemble and elect their religious officials, their property is confiscated and they are denied basic civil and legal rights. More than 200 Baha’is have been killed in Iran since 1989. Christians and Jews likewise face persecution in Iran, including discrimination, imprisonment, and death.
One Christian human rights groups describes the treatment of Christians and Jews as “Religious apartheid.” In Saudi Arabia, only the practice of the Sunni form of Islam is permitted. No public expression of Christianity is allowed. …


Hoover digest, Issues 3-4 – Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, 2003 – Political Science – Page 48
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace – 2003
As soon as Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and realized the organizational weakness of the middle class, he began to renege on his promises. The new democratic constitution that was drafted during the months leading to the revolution was scuttled, and in its place a draconian set of laws was rammed through the mullah-dominated Constitutional Assembly. Instead of the promised democracy, a veritable apartheid was created, where a small band of mullahs gave themselves an exclusive monopoly on power, privilege, and wealth…
Saddam Husseins attack on Iran in 1980 delayed, for the duration of the eight- year war, an open confrontation between the advocates of democracy and the supporters of the new Islamic apartheid.

Ahwaz Human Rights Organization…

but since 1925 its been dominated and ruled by the Persian ethnic group –thus creating a cultural and a linguistic apartheid. I am here to speak to you on behalf of Arab-Iranian or Ahwazi Arab minority in Iran.

Working to save the life of a Christian pastor in Iran‎
Washington Post (blog) – Jordan Sekulow – Sep 30, 2011

As Pastor Firouz Sadegh-Khandjani, a Member of the Council of Elders for the Church of Iran and a close personal friend of Nadarkhani, told me on my radio show, Iran’s “Constitution makes it clear . . . that Christians have the right to accept their faith,” but Christian face “a religious apartheid because the tendency is not to respect the rights of minorities, minorities are not considered citizens, it is worse than apartheid because in apartheid it was written that we have apartheid, but in Iran it is not written . . . but legally we are in apartheid.”


Iranian pastor’s life still in jeopardy

Catholic News Agency – Kevin J. Jones
Washington D.C., Oct 4, 2011 / 10:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Iranian Christian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani still faces imminent execution, though officials no longer say he is charged with apostasy
Sekulow said that one Iranian pastor described the situation as an unwritten “Apartheid” system like that which once governed a South Africa segregated along racial lines.

Even an explicit “Apartheid” system would be preferable for providing regularity, that pastor said. But at present, Iranian Christians “don’t know when they are going to start these waves of arrests.”


UNPO: Iran An Unknown Apartheid [2010]

Iranian representatives plead for international community to address bigotry towards minorities.
UNPO representatives addressed Permanent Missions in the UN on Friday 12 February to decry the situation of minorities within the Islamic Republic of Iran, just days before Iran comes under examination in their first ever Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.

The event hosted by Interfaith International and UNPO provided a platform for debate and discussion of rights violations with a particular focus on the Baloch, Ahwazi Arab, Azerbaijani Turk and Kurdish minorities.

In reference to the obstacles placed before religious and ethnic minorities in the workplace and to gain access to university, Mr. Nasser Boladai from West Balochistan denounced life for many citizens in Iran as a form of “apartheid about which the world is unaware”.



[July 2003]

TEHRAN 8 July (IPS) As Iranians are taking their breath and the world is watching carefully what will happen on Wednesday 9 July, a crucial date that the clerical authorities have mobilised all their forces for preventing any demonstrations or meetings, leaders of Iranian students, in an open letter to Mr. Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of the United Nations, have complained from the present regime in Iran, one that they described as a “political apartheid that ignores systematically the right of its citizens for human rights and deny them any freedom”.

“We are complaining to you because the political apartheid has taken all hopes from the Iranian people, because it is denying us self rule and the right of choice, the right to be master of our own destiny, because it has lowered our expectations to the lowest limits possible and also because we are worried to see the experience of our neighbours be repeated here”, the signatories, representing students associations from thirty Iranian universities said.

In the letter, the students not only openly call for a secular, free, democratic State in Iran, but also the removal of all kind of discriminations, being it political, social, religious, ethnic and cultural and denounce the privileges the clerical cast and their families enjoy against the rest of the population, regarded as a second class cast.


Clenched With A String Of Human Rights Atrocities, Apartheid Policies Against Iranian Baha’is

By Omri Ceren – June 9, 2010

eligious Minorities In Iran: It’s been more than two years since Iranian authorities arrested seven leaders of Iran’s Baha’i community. The two …


Islamic apartheid Regime in Iran can’t stop our wish for freedom



From Salman Rushdie to WTC

The atrocities of Islamic Apartheid has been around long before they took power in Iran in 1979 Revolution. The fatwa to kill Ahmad Kasravi, by the mullahs in


Help us in defeating religious apartheid in Iran. …10/13/2008


Evangelical Pastor Faces Imminent Execution in Iran – AOI Observer

Sep 30, 2011 – Working to save the life of a Christian pastor in Iran … As Pastor Firouz Sadegh-Khandjani, a Member of the Council of Elders for the Church of Iran and a close personal friend of Nadarkhani, told me on my radio show, Iran’s “Constitution makes it clear . . . that Christians have the right to accept their faith,” but Christian face “a religious apartheid because the tendency is not to respect the rights of minorities, minorities are not considered citizens, it is worse than apartheid because in apartheid it was written that we have apartheid, but in Iran it is not written . . . but legally we are in apartheid.”


“Academic apartheid” in Iran

This is the Official WebSite of the Bahá’ís of Norway.


This is not just about my faith, but of violation of fundamental human rights, says NTNU student Samina Kamali in an interview with student newspaper “The tassel.”

“As a consequence of the persecution was Samina Kamali and his family had to flee to Norway,” the student newspaper. “If the family had been in the country would not Kamali had access to Iranian universities. Now you want the 26 year old NTNU student to focus on one of the Iranian regime’s lesser-known crimes. “

Members of the largest religious minority in Iran, the Baha’i community, have no right to higher education in the country. The student newspaper called it “academic apartheid”.

See “The tassel” No. 16 2011:





Human rights and the Chinese in Indonesia [Gender for Minority, Gender and Human Rights]
Aimee Dawis | August 13th, 2009
by Aimee Dawis
The SBKRI (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia) or the Proof of Indonesian Citizenship is a form of apartheid ( segregation) or state racial discrimination.

Genocide in West Papua? The role of the Indonesian state apparatus and a current needs assessment of the Papuan people
by John Wing with Peter King

A report prepared of the West Papua Project at the Centre of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, and ELSHAM Jayapura, Papua.
August 2005
… Genocide in West Papua?
2 A New Apartheid?
Freedom of movement is being severely restricted in Papua. This restriction has been compared to thesystem of apartheid in South Africa during the era before democratic elections and self-rule. Types of acts
of apartheid in West Papua include the following:
• Freedom of movement in many regions is very difficult due to arbitrary acts of the security
• People have to have a surat jalan, or travel permit, when traveling to their home villages
• People are detained with no clear reason for unspecified periods, for months or even years, and tried with no clear charges
• Papuans who are members of the military apparatus of the Republic of Indonesia will sometimes not be given any arms to equip themselves to handle crowds, whereas those coming from Indonesia will always be fully equipped with rifles, and/or pistols
• The Indonesian newcomers to Papua looking for jobs can easily get one, often within a week.
Meanwhile, Papuans have to wait for years to get one. This is a form of deliberate or “structural”
discrimination over the right to work
• Papuan churches and schools in the military-targeted or military operation areas always become targets of vandalism and arson by the security apparatus
• The security apparatus uses terms of denigration that degrade the dignity of West Papuans, e.g., that Papuans are animals (e.g., monkeys). A clear example can be found in the Abepura case of
• HIV/AIDS has never been seriously handled, even though the Province of Papua records the highest number of victims in Indonesia. Especially in regions rich with gaharu, the military is involved as
pimps bringing in HIV/AIDS affected prostitutes from Java and other parts of Indonesia…



The Indigenous world – Page 268
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs – IWGIA, 07/31/2006 , 2006 – 575 Pages
…. and prostitution and the spread of HIV/AIDS. The deployment of 15000 additional troops is planned for the period 2005 to 2009, which will bring troop presence of 15000 additional troops is planned for the period 2005 to 2009, which will bring troop presence up to between 45000 and 50000. It is part of the armed forces’ plan to set up a new division of elite troops in West Papua. Most of these will be stationed in the border area with Papua Niugini. A new apartheid? In their second chapter, the authors compare the restrictions on freedom of movement imposed by the Indonesian state to the system of apartheid in South Africa during the era before democratic elections and self-rule.


West Papuan rebels struggle for freedom
(Nov. 11, 2010)

Defying Indonesia’s foreign media ban on West Papua, English filmmaker Dominic Brown risked his life to spend two months undercover with West Papuan rebels and returned with the story the Indonesian government has tried so hard to suppress.

“It was like apartheid. Indonesia’s transmigration policy has resulted in thousands of Indonesians being shipped over to West Papua, taking control of the towns and the jobs to the point where the West Papuans have been marginalised to near-extinction. Resistance results in death “Amnesty International puts the West Papuan death toll at anything between 100,000 to 400,000 in the last four decades. It’s genocide, make no mistake.”


The Apartheid That Dare Not Be Named… 2.0: The Blogmocracy
22 Oct 2011 – Islamic Indonesia brutally invaded Christian West Papua, the western half of the … The apartheid against the West Papuans, contemporary…



BBC NEWS| Asia-Pacific | Malaysia women ‘suffer apartheid’

Last Updated: Wednesday, 8 March 2006, 06:29 GMT

By Jonathan Kent

BBC News, Kuala Lumpur

Marina Mahathir says new laws will make daily life worse for Muslim women

The daughter of Malaysia’s former prime minister has launched a scathing attack on the roles and status of Muslim women in the country.
Marina Mahathir, a prominent campaigner for women’s rights, compared the lot of women to that of black South Africans under apartheid.

She described Muslim women as second-class citizens who were held back by discrimination.

The comments were written for her regular newspaper column.

The column, which was due to be published in Tuesday’s Star newspaper, did not appear.

‘Bound and gagged’

Few comparisons could be more hurtful.

Malaysia led by Mahathir Mohamad was in the forefront of the international campaign to end white minority rule in South Africa.

But his daughter Marina has described Muslim women in Malaysia as subject to a form of apartheid – second-class citizens held back by discriminatory rules that do not apply to non-Muslim women.

Her outburst appears to have been prompted by recent changes to Malaysia’s Islamic family law that makes it easier for Muslim men to take multiple wives, to divorce them and to take a share of their property.

The women’s ministry encouraged female lawmakers to vote for the measures, saying they could be amended later.

That prompted widespread criticism and has led Miss Marina to suggest the ministry be split in two – one to help non-Muslim women fight discrimination, the other to keep Muslim women, in her words, bound and gagged.

However, compared to many other countries both in South East Asia and the wider Muslim world, Malaysian women – Muslims included – play a prominent role both in business and public life.


Learning from Malaysia’s mistakes
Chinese Indonesians must re-enter politics in order to fully exercise their citizenship
Christianto Wibisono
Global Nexus Institute
[Inside Indonesia 95: Jan-Mar 2009]
Chinese Indonesians today enjoy social and political freedoms that can be compared with the earliest period of Indonesian independence…This statement may have just been a cynical ploy to attract the support of Chinese and Indian Malaysians – when Anwar was deputy prime minister he was a strong promoter of pro-Malay policy. But his comments were quite remarkable as they took aim at the very roots of the NEP. However, it will take more than statements if Malaysia is to deal with the challenges of integration after 50 years of ethnic apartheid. In the meantime, Malaysia risks a return to ethnic violence.

Knocking Malaysia Back To Days Of Apartheid With “1Melayu 1Bumiputera”

Friday, 22 April 2011 15:57

KUALA LUMPUR – Loh Seng Kok said that twitching the idealism of 1Malaysia which was mooted by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak into a racial superiority concept of “1Melayu 1Bumiputera” is no different than to regress Malaysia into legalized racial discrimination.

In his statement today, Loh said that to punish the Chinese voters for exercising their democratic right to choose is to punish democracy itself.

“It would be more appropriate if Utusan called on the government to address the grievances of the Chinese community. Utusan should not be ignorant of the fact that Brisan Nasional is not made up of one party solely, but composes 13 political parties – each representing the aspirations of the respective community. Thus to push for “1Melayu 1Bumputera” defeats the very basis of BN itself and will backfire against the BN coalition as a whole at the ballot box.”

He added that Utusan’s racist diatribe appears to be a hidden agenda at helping to swing votes to the Opposition, in particular DAP which during the recently concluded Sarawak state elections had played on Chinese emotions.

Loh further questions “As an afterthought, would Utusan’s take on “1Melayu 1Bumiputera” include indigenous Malaysians like native Christian Sarawakians who make up 50% of Sarawak’s population? Would this “1Melayu 1Bumiputera” also include the likes of Dr Mahathir Muhammad who has acknowledged that he has Indian ancestry, Rafidah Aziz (who in the book Found in Malaysia in her own words) acknowledged she is of “pendatang” stock from Sumatera or Hishamuddin Tun Hussein Onn who has Turkish lineage?”

The MCA Central Commitee member said that to give Utusan Malaysia a detailed response on its typical publication of race-incitement is to actually give it unwarranted publicity which the newspaper does not deserve at all. He added that it is unfortunate that when media independence is misused to be a harbinger of race sectarianism, it might work against the party and community it intends to help.



The Weekly review – Stellascope Ltd., 1993 – Page 44

The Weekly Review, May 28, 1993


[…] Africa Khartoum have changed the status quo with the present one having imposed the contentious sharia as the law of the land. The rebels content that these policies have resulted in the severe discrimination of the non-Muslim and non-Arab segments of the population in economic, political and social spheres — a form of “religious apartheid.”
[…] uncompromisingly to such an extent that the southern Sudanese and international human rights groups charge that the government is prepared to wipe out any of southern Sudan’s more than 8 million non-Muslims who refuse to’ convert. One tactic, according to western diplomats, is the export of food surpluses harvested in the north to other Muslim countries while the south continues to starve. The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that 800000 Sudanese face..


Burden of Nationality: memoirs of an African aidworker/journalist, 1970s-1990s – Jacob J. Akol [Paulines Publications Africa,] – 2006 – 288 pages – Page 65
Except for the period between 1972 and 1982, during which the South exercised limited autonomy, the close to four decades of independence had been mostly bloody, with the North reverting to the 19th century policy aimed at forcing Islam, the Arabic language and Arab culture on the African peoples of the South.

Both the Government of Sudan and the rebel Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/ Army, SPLM/A, stand accused of human rights abuses by human rights bodies such as “Human Rights Watch Africa.” In its latest report, “In the Name of God,” the human rights body accused the government of, among a long list of abuses, belligerent discrimination against non-Muslims… Christian leaders in Sudan feel the persecution of non-Muslims even more keenly. In his 1994 Christmas message, Bishop Paride Taban of the Catholic Diocese of Torit in Southern Sudan, likened the Sudan’s situation to the former apartheid system in South Africa : It was very sad to hear that the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) disbanded its Committee Against Apartheid at its last meeting in Tunis, telling the world that it has no longer an objective now that there is no more apartheid in Africa, while in reality the Islamic Fundamentalism in Sudan is worse than apartheid. The policy of all the successive governments of Khartoum has been one of conquest, exploitation, slavery, Islamisation and war.

Racial, and Islamic apartheid in Sudan..

Sudan: Will the Republic of South Sudan Accept Another Baqt the Dilemmas of Post Independence Agreement

By Deng Dongrin Akuany

AllAfrica.com – Jan 6, 2012

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


[Muslim controlled areas of] NIGERIA

This is the News Analysis segment of the Voice of Biafra International (VOBI) broadcasts

For November 25th, 2006


And in spite of all that, the State of Nigeria’s anti-Igbo anti-Biafra policies today are even more brazen than the known arrogantly mean and racist Apartheid’s laws against the African owner-dwellers of South Africa. What could be more macabre than an Igbo such as Mr. Nweke, mounting the podium to try to sell the UK audience that Nigeria is doing well? In what? we ask. For whom? we ask. And, by whom is Nigeria doing well?

Seated in that audience were other Igbo efulefu: what was going on in their minds as Nweke was lying through his teeth about how good Nigeria is getting? If these Igbo no-gooders have forgotten that in Nigeria today, the so-called President is misusing all the instruments of State to hound his perceived enemies and opposition, including even the so-called Vice President of Nigeria; that there is no chance of credible elections come 2007 for Nigeria—if any at all; that the 2006 Nigerian Census cannot even be released un-tampered with or un-afraid of the consequences; that Nigeria cannot manage its own Roadways, its own Railways, its own Waterways, nor its own Airways; that there is no reliable potable Water system, no reliable Electric Power system, and no reliable fuel for even domestic cooking activities; that Sharia rules in Muslim Northern Nigeria in place of and superior to Nigeria’s constitution and laws; that Obasanjo is the most corrupt usurper of all the other usurpers of Nigeria’s throne while yet, he pretends to be an anti-corruption crusader;—if the efulefu Igbo there could forget all that—how in hell could they also forget that as Nweke spoke, all of Igboland-Biafraland is under armed occupation by Nigeria, and treated as such; that Igbo and Biafran Youth have no jobs, can’t go to school, can’t graduate from schools; and are constantly hounded by the Nigeria Police on Obasanjo’s specific orders, detained without reason and without charge in Police cells where they are killed by the police; or shot in the back as they flee from the police on our own streets—crimes the Nigeria Police got tired of pretending did not happen, and are now gleefully announcing their own Police’s criminal action against our people—in public and to the press, to boot? How could they forget? Just because ignoramus Nweke is paid to forget all that, they, too, also forget? Heavens help them…


The Advocate : Sanctions will work in Nigeria
The Advocate – Jun 20, 1996
The sanctions against the oil which is produced in the predominantly Christian south will deny the Northern-Islamic apartheid-tribalists the resources for building

Oil-rich Nigeria will become Islamic soon, warn Dutch MPs
DigitalJournal.com – Mar 16, 2009
By Adriana Stuijt
Islamic Apartheid: Sharia law:
“Already, in twelve of the 36 states of Nigeria, Sharia has already become the law – this is the Islamic Apartheid law which discriminates against all non-muslims and which treats women as inferior creatures’.
“And once the Jihadists have gained the majority in only seven more Nigerian states, the federal government of Nigeria will be forced into adapting the country’s constitution to include Sharia law – which means that in effect, all of Nigeria will then become an Islamic country’.
Plateau – it’s not ‘sectarian violence’ but a Jihad..



Christians Marginalized in Lebanese Elections

Compass Direct (http://www.compassdirect.org), Oct 17, 1996. Country: Lebanon. Region: Middle East & North Africa. Used by permission of Compass Direct.


BEIRUT, Lebanon (Compass)–Many Lebanese believe that their five-round Parliamentary elections concluded on September 15 were a fraud. Half of the Lebanese Parliament’s 128 seats are reserved for Christians. But most popular Christian leaders lost, while Christians with minimal backing were able to win seats.

A new electoral law was introduced just days before the election which created electoral districts that favored Muslim candidates, along with Christian candidates endorsed by Muslim leaders–leaving opponents with little time for criticism.

The law also stipulated that every Lebanese citizen had to vote in the place where he lived before the civil war started in 1975. Yet approximately 80 percent of the more than 600,000 persons displaced by the war are Christians, according to the Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon. This put thousands of Christians at a serious disadvantage.

According to former army commander Michel Aoun, in exile in France, “The new law establishes the political persecution of Christians and constitutes a law of apartheid.”



Palestinians: Aggressors, Not Victims

By: David Meir-Levi

November 27, 2007

reading of Khalidi’s treatment of this subject reveals that the only early example of what he calls “Palestinian National sentiment” is actually an example of Muslim religious apartheid. The Muslim religious leaders of Jerusalem protested the Sultan’s permitting French representatives to establish an office in Jerusalem in the late 18th century. The Jerusalem Muslim religious elite were affronted that an infidel “Ifrangi” (Frenchman) not under a dhimmi treaty should be allowed to pollute the sacred precinct with his presence. Disdain and disgust for someone of another religion is hardly an example of nationalist sentiment.


For Zion’s sake – Page 106
Yehuda Zvi Blum – 1987 – 242 pages
Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is no better than an advocate of apartheid… Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Jordanian Nationality Law of 4 February 1954 expressly prohibits Jews from holding Jordanian citizenship. Another Jordanian enactment stipulates that the sale of land to a Jew is punishable by death, …

Bethlehem Christians Break Silence on Muslim Oppression – IRIS – Jan 26, 2011

After many years… the truth has been revealed. Christians are fleeing every Muslim-majority territory because of the apartheid discrimination encouraged by Muslim sharia law. Land theft works because the testimony of non-Muslims is weighed less in every sharia court in the world.


Public Diplomacy in the Fight against Radical Islam – Jerusalem Summit

APublic Diplomacy in the Fight against Radical Islam – Jerusalem Summi
In addition to this rampant gender apartheid that prevails throughout most Muslim society, there is an additional variant of pernicious and pervasive persecution – on the basis of faith and creed. This discrimination against nearly all non-Muslim faiths is nothing less than what can – and must – be termed creed apartheid.
The fate of Christians under Palestinian administration has not been reassuring either. According to CAMERA ( Committee for Accuracy in Public Diplomacy in the Fight against Radical Islam – Jerusalem Summit
Middle East Reporting in America), the Christian population declined 29 percent in the West Bank and 20 percent in the Gaza Strip from 1997 to 2002. (Interestingly enough, in the period 1995–2003, Israel’s Arab Christian population grew 14.1 percent.)

Indeed, under the Palestinian regime, Christians also have to face policies of discrimination and intimidation, which are reducing the Christian population at an alarming rate and obliterating signs and symbols of Judeo-Christian heritage in the Holy Land . Documented research on the persecution of Christians by the Palestinian Authority includes social and economic discrimination; boycott and extortion of Christian businesses; violations of real property rights; crimes against Christian women; incitement by Palestinian Authority against Christians; and failure of the Palestinian security forces to protect Christians.


South African Charge of Israeli Apartheid Rings Hollow … Apr 5, 2011

I am critical of Bishop Tutu’s call for boycotts against apartheid Israel, because it is a totally false charge. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that does not practice any form of apartheid: Jordan prohibits Jews from becoming citizens or owning land; Saudi Arabia practices gender apartheid; all Muslim countries engage in sexual orientation apartheid; Hamas is notorious for its anti-Christian apartheid; and the Palestinian Authority has said that “no Jew” will ever be allowed to live in a Palestinian state. Israel, on the other hand, is a racially diverse country in which Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, on university faculties and even in the Cabinet. The court that recently convicted Israel’s former president of rape included an Arab judge. Nothing like this ever happened in apartheid South Africa.

Indeed, Tutu’s South Africa, remains a far more segregated country today than Israel. Poor blacks live in segregated temporary settlements, and de facto apartheid can be seen throughout South Africa.


April 28, 2009 Who is the Apartheid state?
Palestinian gets death sentence for selling land to Jews A Palestinian military court has sentenced a man to death by hanging for selling land to an Israeli company. Land sales are considered treason by the Palestinians because of their long-running dispute with the Israelis, however the sentence is unlikely to be implemented. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas routinely withholds the required approval for executions. Several others are on death row as suspected informants for Israel. The sentence was handed down Tuesday in a military court in the West Bank city of Hebron after two days of closed-door hearings.

PA: Death penalty for those who sell land to Jews By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

Apr 1, 2009 23:24 | Updated Apr 2, 2009 14:09

Palestinian Authority, Jerusalem, Salaam Fayad The Palestinian Authority has issued yet another warning to Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of “high treason” – a charge that carries the death penalty. The latest warning was issued on Wednesday by the Chief [Islamic] Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, who reminded the Palestinians of an existing fatwa [religious decree] than bans them from selling property to Jews.

Article: PA: Death penalty for those who sell land to Jews 51. Nothing in South African apartheid came close to this racism. Where is the UN Human Rights Commission? Rhetorical question. They probably wrote it.

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine

September 21, 2011

The new Palestine will have the very “law of return” that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!..


IDF Confronts Terrorism, Islamic Jihad in Israel As Abbas Declares
Palestine At UN

[Sep. 23, 2011]

The PLO’s ambassador wants an Apartheid Palestine. No Jews or Christians, a state based on Islamic Sharia law.


Arab League and PA are Real Apartheid Entities
Steven Shamrak
Mar 11, 2010

Countering Israel Apartheid Week folly
In 1948, the Arab League of Nations applied the Apartheid model to Palestine, and declared that Jews must be denied rights as citizens of Israel, while declaring a total state of war to eradicate the new Jewish entity, a war that continues today.

In 1948, at the directive of the Arab League of Nations, Jordan devastated the vestiges of Jewish life from Judea and Samaria, and burned all synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

In 1948, member states of the Arab League of Nations began to strip the human rights of Jews and to expel entire Jewish communities who had resided in their midst for centuries. And since its inception in 1994, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority, created by the PLO, has prepared the rudiments of a Palestinian State, modelled on the rules of Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination:

1. The right of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents to return to Arab villages lost in 1948 will be protected by the new Palestinian state. (Jewish refugees are not allowed to return to Gaza and other Arab controlled lands)
2. While 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, not one Jew will be allowed to live in proposed Palestinian State.

3. Anyone who sells land to a Jew will be liable to the death penalty in the Palestinian State. (This law is already enforced by the PA)

4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official Palestinian media outlets (and by ruling officials, like Abbas).

5. PA maps prepared for the Palestinian State depict all of Palestine (including Israel ) under Palestinian rule.

6. PA maps of Jerusalem for the Palestinian State once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem.

7. Recent PA documents claim all of Jerusalem for the future Palestinian State.

8. The right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places is to be denied in the new Palestinian State.
9. The Draft Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion except for Islam. (In the West Bank under Jordan, since 1948 till 1967, the practice of Judaism and Christianity was ‘only’ restricted)

10. No system which protects human rights or civil liberties will exist in a Palestinian State. (Since the Oslo Accord was signed, the PA has shown its complete disregard for the human rights of individuals, political groups and religious minorities)

If that is not a formula for a totalitarian apartheid state of Palestine, then what is?


Saudi Arabia’s Apartheid

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, December 22, 2001; Page A23

In response to last week’s column concerning treatment of women in the Middle East, an American official who just completed a tour of duty in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wrote: “As a husband and as a father of a teenage daughter, I can assure you that life even for Western women in Saudi Arabia is every bit as bad as you describe. Saudi official assurances that non-Muslims need not follow Muslim codes of dress and behavior are utter nonsense, and the very real threat of punishment or abuse for not wearing abbayas [head-to-toe black cloaks] or for going out unaccompanied leaves most Western women in Riyadh to live lives of silent depression.”

He said he and his wife were amused to read early press reports from Afghanistan about the oppression of women and religious minorities. “Virtually everything described there was taking place in Saudi Arabia, with the exception that at least the Taliban permitted other religions to exist in their country. This is absolutely forbidden in Saudi Arabia.”

Then he threw in this grabber: “One of the (still) untold stories, however, is the cooperation of U.S. and other Western companies in enforcing sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia. McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other U.S. firms, for instance, maintain strictly segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The men’s sections are typically lavish, comfortable and up to Western standards, whereas the women’s or families’ sections are often run-down, neglected and, in the case of Starbucks, have no seats. Worse, these firms will bar entrance to Western women who show up without their husbands. My wife and other [U.S. government affiliated] women were regularly forbidden entrance to the local McDonald’s unless there was a man with them.”

He said the only exception to their humiliation was Dunkin’ Donuts, “which had an open seating area in which men and women freely ate at adjoining tables just as in the West.

“This willing compliance with apartheid on the part of U.S. firms was perhaps the most galling.” I was in Riyadh and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia during the 1980s; the forced seclusion of women from public life is nothing new. But Riyadh didn’t have a McDonald’s at the time. The kingdom got its first Mickey D’s in 1993. Therefore, I don’t pretend to know whether McDonald’s or U.S. restaurants have a policy of aiding and abetting sexual apartheid. But something told me the McDonald’s Corp. in Oak Brook, Ill., would have the answer.

So I called the McDonald’s communications office this week and got Ann Rozenich. She checked around and called back to say: “All restaurants in Saudi Arabia, no matter what kind — formal or quick service — have two dining areas. McDonald’s, like other quick-service restaurants — for example, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King — all have two designated areas: one for families and the other for singles, all males. The restaurants also have two separate entrances.”

Rozenich said McDonald’s, like other companies operating in Saudi Arabia, must respect and observe local customs. Which calls to mind an old 1940s lyric: “It seems to me that I have heard that song before, with that same old familiar score.”

Ah, yes. South Africa.

Once upon a time, that country also had a longstanding official policy of strict segregation. As with Saudi Arabia today, South Africa maintained a system in which a huge segment of its society faced discrimination in all walks of life and was under the authority of men wielding power without any fear of being held accountable for their actions. The only difference: South Africa’s victims were black; in Saudi Arabia, they’re women.

As with Saudi Arabia, white-ruled South Africa viewed external criticism as a violation of its sovereignty and interference with its internal affairs. And U.S. corporations in South Africa, as with their Saudi Arabian counterparts, pleaded that they had no choice but to defer to the local “culture.”

But something happened in apartheid South Africa.

In 1971, a Philadelphia Baptist preacher named Leon Sullivan joined the board of directors of General Motors, an investor in South Africa. Sullivan used his GM post to apply pressure on the racial apartheid system. He first lobbied GM to pull out of South Africa. Next, Sullivan drafted a set of workplace principles in 1977 that essentially required U.S. companies to practice corporate civil disobedience against apartheid. The first principle on the list: “Non-segregation of the races in all eating, comfort and work facilities.”

Two years later, a dozen top U.S. corporations in South Africa had bought into the Sullivan principles, refusing to tolerate apartheid under their roofs. But that country’s white minority government resisted broader demands to improve the quality of life for black South Africans, and to eliminate laws and customs that impede social, economic and political justice. So Sullivan led a divestment campaign. By 1979, more than 100 businesses had withdrawn from South Africa, other businesses were avoiding new ventures in the country, international banks were refusing to lend there, and universities and pension funds where withdrawing their investments.

The rest, as they say, is history.

The question is whether Americans are as concerned today about U.S. corporate support of gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia as the late Leon Sullivan and a host of others in the anti-apartheid movement were disturbed by the obedience of American businesses to racist apartheid policies in South Africa.

The Feminist Majority Foundation led the public outcry over the Taliban’s human rights abuses against women and girls in Afghanistan. What do they and other opponents of gender discrimination think of the complicity of America’s fast-food joints in Saudi Arabia? Or do American businesses, the golden arches, and American quick service purveyors of hamburgers, fries, pizzas and fried chicken in the Saudi kingdom get a free pass?


Defeating Islamic Terrorism: The Wahhabi Factor – Pages 59-60
Patrick Bascio – 2007 – 256 pages

Saudi Arabia, Mr. Ahmed pointed out, does not allow religious freedom to its Muslim citizens, even to those who are Wahhabi. It practices a rigid form of control on the interpretation of Islam in every sphere of life… He points out that Saudi Arabia is a glaring example of religious apartheid. The religious institutions, judges, religious curriculums, and all religious instructions in the media must conform to the Wahhabi understanding of Islam, adhered to by less than 40% of the population. … Religious apartheid, he said, is the order of the day in Saudi Arabia. Christian and Jewish symbols are banned from public display.

A Brief Profile of Saudi Apartheid Names that are not suitable to the official religious institution are banned. In 1992 a new directive was issued banning any name derived…


Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women … Islam is religious apartheid

Aparthied Saudi Style

National Writers Syndicate – Islamic Apartheid Muslims Only

Islamic Apartheid in Mecca and Medina is a legal, political, and religious segregation enforced by the Shariah compliant country of Saudi Arabia, …


Islamic Apartheid: Mecca and Medina
Alan Kornman
November 23, 2011

According to Saudi Arabian Law it is illegal for any non-Muslim to step foot in the cities of Mecca and Medina. In Medina however, non-Muslims are allowed to enter the Sheraton hotel on the outskirts of town. The Islamists allow a man made exception in their divinely inspired Shariah for the Sheraton Hotel Corporation, yet they make no exception for anyone else.
The equivalent of the Mecca/Medina Apartheid would be the Vatican issuing a decree excluding all non-Catholics/Christians from entering Vatican City, at threat of arrest and imprisonment. The Vatican however, welcomes all people without regard to race, religion, or national origin. Israel also welcomes all faiths, including Muslims, to their most holiest of places, the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Conversely, during the period of Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, all Jews were barred entry into the entire Old City and the Wailing Wall was desecrated by the Islamists.
So what it is about non-Muslims that Muslims find so revolting that it is illegal for them to step foot inside the city limits of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina? 
In order to understand the Islamist ideology we must understand what the codified Islamic texts teach at the most basic of levels. Once we connect with what the Islamists believes to be true, we can understand the foundation for the actions of the Islamist.
The only thing that matters now is what the codified Islamic texts say and what most Muslims believe. What you as a non-Muslim think and feel is irrelevant. The Islamist believes they are helping the non-Muslim find peace and the straight path through both violent and non-violent Jihad. If an Islamist is forced to use violence on the non-Muslim it is always the non-Muslims fault for not choosing the Islamic path that is “best” for them.
“The Holy Qur’an is the Divine Word of Allah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel to save mankind from darkness unto light.”
(Qur’an 14: 1). 
“Allah sent it as the Book in truth and the balance to judge between right and wrong.”
 (Qur’an 42: 17).
“Since it is the Book of Allah, He Himself guards it from corruption (Qur’an 15: 9) for man to learn wisdom.”
 (Qur’an 12: 2) and, hence, receive the most righteous guidance (Qur’an 17: 9). “Allah enlightens mankind to the truth.” (1)
“Allah the Almighty sent Muhammad (the seal of all the prophets) as His universal Messenger to mankind, giving them glad tidings, and warning them against sin .”
(Qur’an 34: 28).
“Allah sent him to perfect all moral values and to serve as the best example for mankind to follow.”
(Qur’an 33: 21).
Islamists believe Muhammad is the last Prophet on earth and the Qur’an is the final divine revelation for all mankind. The Islamist believes every word of the Qur’an is the exact word of Allah, uncorrupted by man, down to the last letter. As the final divine revelation on earth, the Qur’an, is considered superior to all previously written man made texts like the Old Testament, New Testament, Torah, and U.S. Constitution to name a few. Shariah/Islamic Law is the practical application of Allah’s revelations to Muhammad. The followers of Islam believe the Shariah (Islamic Law) is the perfect divinely inspired legal system and code of life for all mankind.    
Islamic scholars teach that the divinely inspired Qur’an and Shariah outline the specific obligations for all mankind to follow, ushering in an era of peace and coexistence among all men. The Islamist believes, in his heart, he is bringing peace to the world by utilizing violence and terrorism, if necessary, to show the non-Believer the way back to the social, religious, and political governmental system known as Shariah Compliant Islam. Da’wa is the Arabic word for the obligatory proselytizing of Islamic doctrine to the non-Muslim. In the eyes of the Islamist, it is up to the non-Islamic individual or country to decide if they accept Political Islam by the word or the sword. The followers of Islam believe that when they use coercion and violence it is because the non-Muslim left him no choice. The Islamist believes in his soul they are the compassionate peacemakers either through violent or non-violent means. 
In this video Imam Musri blames the United States for radicalizing the Muslim youth . “This radicalization culminated in 9/11”, Musri says.
Musri implies we left our Islamist adversaries no choice but to attack us. 
There is no difference in the “Supremacist Islamic Ideology” of the violent and non violent Jihadist, only a difference of tactics. You can put the Jihadist in an Armani suit but the goals of “peace” through Jihad will always be the same no matter if it is in the USA or Afghanistan. It doesn’t matter if it is the well dressed Americanized stealth Jihadist’s of CAIR, ISNA, and the Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States. The only ideological difference between the violent Jihadist’s and non-violent stealth Jihadist’s is one of tactics. The Muslim advocacy groups in America like ISNA and CAIR will condemn the “act” of terrorism but will “never” condemn the Islamic doctrine that justifies violence to further advance Shariah Compliant Islam in America. 
Understanding how the Islamist views the Kufr or non-believer is one of the most important elements of this equation that is misunderstood by Western culture.
“The Qur'aan uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities. The Qur'an uses this word to identify those who denied Allaah's favors by not accepting His Dominion and Authority. Kufr thus is an antonym for Iman or disbelief in Allaah and a Kaafir is a non-believer. This type of Kufr is called AL-KUFR UL AKBAR or major kufr.”2
Make no mistake, when you hear or read a Muslim calling you a Kufr, Kufar, or Kaafir it is considered a derogatory term by the Muslim aimed directly at you as an individual. The word Kufr or Kaafir is meant to be as offensive as calling someone the “N” word, a kyke, cracker, racist, etc… When a Muslim calls someone a Kufr it is pure bigotry, intolerance, and hatred. Take offense because offense is intended by those who use the vile epithet, Kufr or Kaafir, when describing you. Kufr is modern day hate speech.
The Islamist must take disbelief of Political Islam very seriously because Muhammad and Allah, made disbelief a punishable offense. For an Islamist to publicly state his disbelief in Islam, he then becomes an apostate. Umdat al-Salik Wa-‘Uddat al Nisak  or “Reliance of the Traveller” is a codified Islamic text, with Ijma (consensus), of Shariah / Islamic Law. Ijma means there can be no debate about the legality of what I’m about to tell you. Page 595, o8.1, of Reliance of the Traveller states,
“When a person who has reached puberty, and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
o8.0 of Reliance states,
“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (Kufr) and the worst.”
Watch this video taken at the 2011 Dearborn Arab International Festival (WARNING – contains bad language and scenes of intimidation).
You will see many different street scenes of how the Dearborn 46% Muslim majority feel and act during their most emotional and unscripted moments. Many say that Dearborn, MI is an “emerging No Go Zone” and this explosive video validates that claim.
Muslim on Muslim violence began immediately after Muhammad died. Scores of Arab Muslim tribes left Islam after Muhammad’s death and those that remained loyal to Muhammad’s successor Caliph Abu Bakr considered this a political rebellion. These Muslim apostates were graciously given the opportunity to submit to Islam or die. These bloody wars became known as the Ridda or Apostasy Wars lasting from 632-633 AD. The practice of death to apostates is considered the worst of offenses to Allah. Muslims here in the United States who leave Islam are persecuted and often killed by their fellow Muslims. Visit the website, Former Muslims United, to hear their heroic stories. 
If a Muslim deserves to be killed by his fellow Muslims for leaving Islam, it is factual to conclude the apostate is viewed by the Islamist as subhuman and worthy of death according Islamic Shariah doctrine. 
We learned earlier a devout Muslim believes the entire Qur’an is the word of Allah and infallible down to the last letter. For a Muslim to challenge the word of Allah is blasphemy and carries severe punishment in Shariah Islam. Therefore, most all Muslims keep their mouths shut if their voice strays from the Shariah Compliant line.
Islamist superiority over all non-Muslims comes straight from Qur’an verse 3:110,
“Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it would be best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.”
The arrogance and superiority dripping from this Qur’an verse offends me. I am offended the devout Muslim believes in this Allah given Qur’an verse that infers most all non-Muslims are second class citizens, perverted transgressors, and sub human. I am offended for all the Muslims who choose to leave Political Islam and risk death by their fellow Islamists’ hands. I am offended that Muslim Advocacy Groups in America try to attack and silence anyone with vile epithets and frivolous lawsuits who publicly criticize Shariah Compliant Islam. I am offended that Muslims make up only 1% of the U.S. population but are demanding Shariah Compliant accommodations on the other 99% who are non-Muslim. Our founding fathers called this practice the tyranny of the minority. I see the signs that American Muslim Advocacy Groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and The Muslim Student Association (MSA) want to change American culture rather than assimilate. I am offended the Islamists see themselves as culturally superior to our man made laws and refuse to submit to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states, “United States Law shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.”  
It is this Muhammad inspired Islamist cultural superiority that makes Apartheid possible in Mecca and Medina. I am offended that every Mosque and Islamic Center in America supports these Apartheid practices by promoting trips to Mecca and Medina knowing the other 99% of their fellow American’s would be arrested or not allowed admittance for the crime of being non-Muslim.
I am outraged Eric Holder’s Department of Justice filed a civil rights lawsuit in December of 2010 against a Chicago School on behalf of, Safoorah Khan. Khan requested three weeks off in the middle of the school year to attend the pilgrimage to Mecca. Ms. Khan’s Shariah compliant superiority over manmade rules and contracts is in accordance with Islamic doctrine. When the non-Islamic government school district failed to submit to Ms. Khan’s extraordinary demands and special rights, she viewed herself as the victim. Khan filed a discrimination lawsuit costing our government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Khan is not the victim but a player in the game of Legal Jihad and you should be angered, outraged, and offended by Ms. Khan’s and The Department of Justice’s pro-Shariah Compliant position over our manmade laws.
The next step in the evolution of Shariah Compliance in America will be the obscene demand that Shariah Family Courts become a legal and parallel court system in America, just as they are in Europe. Now why in the world would an American Muslim wish to challenge Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution which states that, “…United States Law Shall be the Law of the Land…”?
Now you know the answer: The followers of the Qur’an, Muhammad, and the Shariah Compliant Islam believe their divinely inspired texts are superior to our man made laws such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. 
You must understand the devout Islamist believes they are helping us to shed our corrupted man made laws by forcefully introducing Shariah Compliant Islam into our unique Representative Republic form of Government. The devout Islamist believes in their heart they are leading us as a country down the “right path” as transmitted by Allah to his last and final messenger Muhammad. They believe that Shariah Compliant Islam is the right path for all mankind. 
The Muslim Advocacy Groups and The Muslim Brotherhood are achieving their strategic military objective of Shariah Family Courts in America one lawsuit at a time mixed in with terrorism to instill fear into the hearts of non-believers. 
Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood in America:
– Allah is our objective.
– The Prophet is our leader.
– Qur'an is our law.
– Jihad is our way.
– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
God Bless America and God Bless our Troops
As Vito, my Radio Jihad cohost,  says, “Mama Mia, No Shariah!”
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is Regional Coordinator for The United West – Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. He can be contacted at: alan@TheUnitedWest.org.


Islam and the State of the Union – Andrew C. McCarthy – National …24 Jan 2011 … The latter, in fact, explains not only Saudi Arabia’s official policy of apartheid in Islam’s major cities…

Hypocrisy on Parade [The Huffington Post]

Posted: 06/28/11 04:36 PM ET

In an interview in London, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince has eased human rights concerns about religious authoritarianism in the Middle East by explaining: “It’s fun being in Islamic countries, to know there’s only one religion. There’s order. You wear a burqa. There’s no choice. People are happy with that.”

Less clear is whether Prince also approves of the Kingdom’s systematic discrimination against Christians and Jews, treated either as second-class aliens with no right to worship or banned from stepping foot on Saudi soil altogether.

Now, Delta Airlines has added Saudi Arabian Airlines to its SkyTeam Alliance of corporate partners. By extension, this puts Delta Airlines in a position to facilitate the Saudi ban on Jews, holders of Israeli passports and anyone who even has an Israeli stamp indicating a visit to Israel.

Delta, of course, denies all discrimination while kowtowing to discriminatory Saudi regulations. No one forced Delta to choose such an international partner with a track record of religious apartheid. But Delta’s spokesmen are right about one thing: Ultimate responsibility lies with governments, not companies. Our government’s response? In a break with the past, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned the Saudi refusal to issue driver’s licenses to women, but in keeping with previous U.S. policy has apparently been silent over the Kingdom’s embedded rules of religious apartheid.

It’s this context of Saudi apartheid that renders so blatant the hypocrisy and double standards of so many of the world’s gatekeepers of civil society. NGOs have zero tolerance regarding Israel naval blockade against Gaza arms smuggling. The Second International “Gaza Freedom” Flotilla, including the American ship, “The Audacity of Hope,” is enroute to Gaza. Their goal: breaking Israel’s sea blockade of Hamastan, thus depriving Israel of the right of every U.N. member state to defend itself against threats to its sovereignty and survival. In the case of Gaza, the Jewish state is confronted with the growing threat posed by a Hamas government determined to re-arming with new Iranian missiles and enhancing their capacity to wreak mass destruction on the Jewish state.

Let there be no mistake about it: “The Audacity of Hope” is a ship of fools, dupes and agents provocateur. The New York Times, no friend of the Jewish state, is forced to admit that the reality on the ground in Gaza is not “a humanitarian crisis” caused by “the Israeli blockade,” but instead a building boom and unprecedented prosperity: “Two luxury hotels are opening in Gaza this month. Thousands of new cars are plying the roads. A second shopping mall — with escalators imported from Israel — will open next month. Hundreds of homes and two dozen schools are about to go up. A Hamas-run farm where Jewish settlements once stood is producing enough fruit that Israeli imports are tapering off,” The Times reported.

So it seems the only place where the Arab Spring appears to have produced better economic times is precisely the place where Israel is accused of brutally stifling it.

Now Turkey, the prime mover behind the first Gaza Flotilla manned by “peace crusaders” armed with pick axes and knives, has backed off from participation in the brazen Flotilla II, given Ankara’s angst over the bloody Syrian regime’s behavior around Turkey’s borders. Turkey’s leader is incensed that Bashir Assad’s desperate attempts to suppress Syrian dissenters have caused a specter of Syrian refugees suddenly pouring over the border seeking Ankara’s protection.

But nothing — not improved conditions in Gaza; not Assad’s thuggery and murder of its own citizens; not the duplicity of Iranian Revolutionary Guards supplied by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abet Assad’s butchery — is enough to change fundamentally the master narrative embedded among so many elite among human rights NGOs, media and church “activists.” Israel can do no right and its enemies, who are also the enemies of human rights, can do no wrong.

As a result, it’s a safe bet that the 50+ international media outlets embedded in the Gaza II Flotilla will most benefit not the Palestinians but two tyrants: Gaddafi and Assad. They’ll be able to breathe a temporary sigh of relief. With any luck, the “Audacity of Hope’ will yield enough dramatic footage and sound bytes to knock the tyrants of the Arab Spring off the top of the news on Al Jazeera for a couple of days.

This essay was co-authored by Dr. Harold Brackman.

Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia

November 11, 2002
by Center for Religious Freedom


How we’ve won the war in Iraq – Times Online‎

Sep 30, 2007


Three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide and anti Shi’ite apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis.



Is this Apartheid in Bahrain? – NYTimes.com Feb 22, 2011 … Some scattered thoughts — and fears — about Bahrain and the dangers it faces.

How About a Bahraini Apartheid Week?
February 22, 2011 12:36 by Pesach Benson
Can you imagine the outrage if Israel treated Israeli Arabs and Palestinians the same way Kristof describes Bahrain’s Sunni elite treating Shias?

There’s a fear of the rabble, a distrust of full democracy, a sense of entitlement. Apartheid isn’t exactly the right metaphor, because there isn’t formal separation (although neighborhoods are often either Sunni or Shia), and people routinely have very close friends of the other sect. But how can a system when 70 percent of the population is not eligible for the army be considered fair? How can a system in which the leading cabinet positions are filled by one family be considered fair?

The government talks about “unity” and complains that the opposition is encouraging sectarianism. Please! An American friend was on the roundabout Thursday morning when police attacked. They caught him but when they saw he was American they were friendly and said they were hunting Shia only. My friend said the experience left him feeling icy, as if they were hunting rats. And several people I talked to who were there said that the police used anti-Shia epithets and curses as they were beating prisoners.

Bahrain: The Missing ‘A’ Word

In all the coverage of the freedom protests in Bahrain, a certain word beginning with the letter ‘A’ has been strikingly absent.

I don’t mean ‘autocratic.’ Nor ‘authoritarian.’ Both of those have been invoked, and rightly so.

I refer to the word ‘apartheid.’ The Afrikaner term for ‘separateness,’ apartheid prevailed in South Africa from 1948 until 1993, when that country was under white minority rule.

While apartheid as a system was snuffed out in South Africa, it has survived as a descriptor that is deployed, in the main, by the bitterest detractors of Israel, but is arguably more relevant in the case of another Middle Eastern country: Bahrain.

It’s always worth recalling what the original model of apartheid involved. In South Africa, 90 percent of the population was composed of non-whites (blacks in the main, but also mixed race and Indian communities) who were disenfranchised and deprived of fundamental human and civil rights.

Through such measures as the Group Areas Act (1950), the Bantu Education Act (1953), the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953), the Suppression of Communism Act (1950), and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949), the apartheid regime micromanaged the lives of its subjects on the basis of their skin color. Under apartheid, it was the law that determined where blacks could live, what they could study, which seats they could occupy on public transport, what they could say or write publicly, with whom they could share a bed or marry.

It was this reliance on law that made apartheid South Africa peculiar. Discrimination is a feature of most countries, but very few enshrine it within a legal framework.

In Bahrain, where 70 per cent of the population is Shi’a, and power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of the Sunni minority, the constitution speaks of equality — formally, then, it’s very different to apartheid South Africa. Yet when it comes to actual practice, the similarities are striking, as this report from the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) makes painfully clear.

Residency rights, for example, are at least partly determined by ethnic origin. The report discusses “one of Bahrain’s largest district, Riffa,” which occupies “more than 40 percent of Bahrain land, in which a majority of the members of ruling family reside.” Shi’a and some Persian origin Sunnis, the report continues, are prohibited from living there. A Reuters report last October highlighted a related problem: the 53,000 Shi’a who have been denied government housing because of their origin, some for as long as 20 years.

It’s a similar story in the labor market. “Employment in government bureaus does not follow a clear and specific standard, but is governed by family and sectarian connections,” the BCHR report says, pointing out that the Shi’a majority occupies, at most, 18 percent of the top jobs in government. When it comes to unemployment, 95 percent of those without jobs are Shi’a.

Do these facts about discrimination in Bahrain add up to apartheid? A sober analysis based on the understanding of apartheid as a system, rather than a pejorative term to be thrown at those you don’t like, would conclude that the overlap is hardly precise. At the same time, there is no arguing against the claim that Bahrain is a society where inequality is ethnically rooted, and then buttressed by the denial of civic and political freedoms.

Bahrain is not the only Arab country where minorities rule over majorities: Syria is another, as was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In none of these cases has the word “apartheid” ever been uttered. Those South Africans, such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, who have eagerly franchised the word in the case of Israel have been absolutely silent when it comes to Arab parallels. And believe me, it’s not because they are worried about social scientific rigor.

This lack of a consistent, trained spotlight on countries like Bahrain, and the absence of a chorus of luminaries ready to denounce each of its repressive actions in colorful, emotive language, is one reason why the rest of the world has only now discovered that there has long been a thirst for freedom in the Middle East. If that heralds a final break with the platitudes and double standards that characterize the voguish, “anti-imperialist” discourse about the region, so much the better.



The Kurdish political struggles in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey: a critical analysis – A. Manafy – University Press of America, 2005 (ISBN 0761830030, 9780761830030) – 172 pages

Page 99

The Kurdish deprivation of their own culture, language, and tradition is incompatible with democratic norms. It reflects an apartheid system that victimizes minorities like Armenians, Kurds, and Shij Muslems. The Turkish government systematically failed to learn from the historical evidence. Forced assimilation is not a solution for national solidarity, and the continued repression of the Kurds cannot indefinitely secure Turkish unity.


Page 149

It is not a “mass line,” but a feudal line devised by the Kurdish people’s enemies to inhibit the Kurdish liberation …villages do not have drinking piped water, roads, or electricity. Deprivation in southeast Turkey is the critical variable that triggered the PKK’s armed struggle to liberate the Kurds from the discriminatory apartheid situation.


Crimes of war: what the public should know – Page 39 – Roy Gutman, David Rieff, Anthony Gary Dworkin – W. W. Norton & Company, 2007 – 447 pages
Groups such as the Kurds, the Tamils, the South Sudanese, or other indigenous peoples do suffer systematic discrimination that might well meet the definition of apartheid, even if those practices lack all …

The Kurdish conflict in Turkey: obstacles and chances for peace and democracy  – Page 159 – Ferhad Ibrahim, Gülistan Gürbey – Palgrave Macmillan, 2000 – 208 pages
Norman Paech INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KURDISH STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM Without a doubt, the fight of the Kurdish people for … This is similar to how the white Apartheid government took action against the members of the African National …

Turkey’s Kurds: A theoretical analysis of the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan – Page 71 – Ali Kemal Ozcan – [Routledge]
… Beşikçi makes a comparison between South Africa and Turkey: In South Africa, the Apartheid policy..

Underappreciated At Home, Kurdish Filmmakers Struggle For Identity
RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty – Oct 28, 2009

By Nikola Krastev


Bahman Ghobadi from Iran, whose film “No One Knows About Persian Cats” premiered at the New York festival, is among the better-known contemporary Kurdish filmmakers.

Also offering a film in New York was Hiner Saleem, an Iraqi-Kurdish cinematographer based in France. Saleem’s latest comedy, “Vodka Lemon,” is a gentle love story about an ex-army officer and a barmaid set in a Kurdish village in Armenia that dismisses the notion that there is a common underlying theme for all Kurdish filmmakers.

“We can live in the same city or the same village but think differently or have different sensibilities,” Saleem said. “Unfortunately today for Kurds in Turkey, in Syria, in Iran, it is very hard to make movies. It’s very difficult to work because there is an apartheid against Kurdish [people], there is no equality, there are no human rights, there is no freedom. But some very courageous, brave Kurdish girls and boys [are] making movies in very hard conditions.”


Implimentation of the Helsinki Accords Criminalizing Parliamentary Speech in Turkey
Briefing by the International Human Rights Law Group

May 1994

Before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Washington DC


the problem in Turkey is the Constitution is against the Kurds and the apartheid constitution is very similar to it. As long as that continues, there will be PKK, there..



[21 March 2011]

The application of Kurdish politicians Aysel Tuğluk and Ahmet Türk to restore their status as members of parliament was dismissed. Both politicians were subjected to a five-year political ban after the ban of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party in 2009. The Presidency of the Turkey Grand National Assembly (TBMM) rejected the applications of Kurdish politicians Ahmet Türk and Aysel Tuğluk related to restoring their status as members of parliament. Following amendments enforced after the referendum on the constitutional reform package in 2010, the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) had applied to parliament for restoring Türk’s and Tuğluk’s status as MPs. Upon the TBMM’s rejection of the application, lawyer Öztürk Türkdoğan brought the issue before the Constitutional Court on behalf of Türk and Tuğluk. On Thursday (17 March), the High Court dismissed the request “by majority vote”.


Foreign assistance legislation for fiscal year 1994: Part 2; Part 2 – Page 396 – 1993

Turkey’s violations of law are extensively discussed and documented in my article,
“Cyprus and the Rule of Law ”

No one in the State and Defense Departments wants to talk of these violations of law
by Turkey which are more extensive than the violations of law by Iraq in its invasion of
Kuwait. The double standard for Turkey must end.

The Cyprus issue is one of aggression and land grab through brute force by Turkey in
violation of the UN Charter and international law It is not a question of minority rights The
substantive proposals made over the years by the Greek Cypriots encompass the language ofthe
Universal Declarations of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights
Protection of minority rights can also be aided by allowing for appeal to outside institutions such
as the United Nations, the European Commission on Human Rights and the International Court of
Justice at the Hague.

Turkey and Denktash have used this issue to create an excuse for their apartheid and partition policies.

11. Turkey’s human rights violations against its own citizens generally and in particular against its 12 million Kurdish citizens…


Full text of “Foreign assistance legislation for fiscal year 1994 : hearings and markup before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session


Op-Ed on “Turkey’s Aggression, War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Apartheid Policy in Cyprus…”
Washington, DC—The following Op-Ed appeared in the National Herald, the Hellenic Voice, the Greek News and the Hellenic News of America.


End the illegal Turkish occupation

The 3Rs: 1 Remove all Turkish troops from Cyprus 2 Repatriate all colonists 3 Return all refugees to their homes without preconditions, restrictions or discrimination

In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus, illegally dividing the country and committing war crimes and mass human rights abuses. Hundreds of thousands of Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed by the Turkish army.

Turkey continues to violate international law and United Nations resolutions that demand the withdrawal of the Turkish army and the right to return for Greek Cypriot refugees.

We are protesting because Turkey still maintains its illegal apartheid regime that racially discrimates against Greek Cypriots by preventing them from returning to their homes and lands.

The Greek Cypriots are the legal owners of 82 percent of land in the occupied north and we want to return. We will never give up our properties to those who seek to profit from their theft and illegal purchase.

Is it right that Turkey, which aspires to join the European Union still maintains military occupation of one third of the Republic of Cyprus, a country which is a full member of the EU?

The human rights of the Cypriots must be restored, so that we may live in a truly reunited Cyprus with the full rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens.

While Turkey continues violating the human rights of EU citizens and destroying the European culture of occupied Cyprus, it is unacceptable that it is allowed to proceed with EU accession negotiations.

We call on your support to put pressure on EU governments to help end the illegal occupation of Cyprus and to end Turkish apartheid in Cyprus.

The 3Rs: 1 Removal of all Turkish troops from Cyprus 2 Repatriation of all colonists 3 Return of all refugees to their homes without preconditions, restrictions or discrimination


The Cyprus Problem Cyprus maintained that Turkey’s policy was aimed at dividing Cyprus along racial lines. Subsequently, 200,000 Greek-Cypriot swere displaced. […] In addition, in August and September 2001, the international community had a meeting for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, declared its universal recognition of “the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge[d] all States to facilitate such return.”

Official report of debates: Part 4 – Page 743 Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly – 1990
A viable and just Cyprus settlement cannot be based on a situation of apartheid, under which Cypriots are forcibly segregated on the grounds that Muslims and Christians, people of Turkish origin and people of Greek origin, cannot live together. Such segregation not only contradicts fundamentally Turkey’s own policy of integration with the European Community, but also constitutes a recipe for suspicion, resentment and conflict.

The Middle East, abstracts and index: Part 4 Library Information and Research Service – Northumberland Press, 2005 – Page 623
The plan would allow settlement of Greeks in the Turkish zone, but creates an apartheid system of careful quotas of Greek resettlement to maintain a Turkish Muslim majority in the north and links the desire of Greek Cypriots to Btum to their home with Turkey accession into EU: up to 18% of the population could be Greek under the plan.. … Therefore it is no surprise either that the leaders in the Uthmani Khilafah like Sultan Abdul Hameed valued Islam,

Turkish human rights violations in Turkey and Cyprus (2007)
Ismail Cem, Turkey’s Foreign Minister recently complained that the European Union had offered Turkey only a “third class ticket” on the train of accession to the European Union. Others would say that Turkey was extremely fortunate to have even been considered for membership given its appalling tradition of human rights abuses.

For the past two hundred years, Turkey has achieved what is undoubtedly one of the worst human rights records in the world. The Turks have ethnically cleansed or otherwise mistreated ethnic minorities within Turkey and the peoples of neighbouring countries.

These include the Armenians, Bulgarians, Cypriots, Greeks, Kurds, Romanians and the Serbs. Turkey has the unenviable record of having conducted the first genocide of the 20th century when from 1915 to 1918 one and a half million indigenous Armenians were annihilated.

Lately, the Turks have turned their attention to those of their own people who have the courage to speak out against human rights abuses in Turkey.

Killings, disappearances and torture of lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, intellectuals and others remain well documented and are frighteningly commonplace in modern day Turkey.

Amnesty international recently reported that Turkey is the 5th worst country in the world for torture in jails, whilst the US State Department reports that the human rights situation in Turkey continues to deteriorate despite the promises of the Turkish government. In its annual report to Congress on human rights the Clinton administration stated that Turkish security forces committed “serious human rights abuses” during 1997.

Today, Turkey wages a dirty war against the Kurds who are fighting for recognition of their identity, and the right to express their language and culture. Almost 30,000 Kurds, government forces and civilians have been sacrificed. Three million Kurds are now refugees, and 3,000 Kurdish villages have been razed to the ground by Turkish troops.

This policy of human rights violations and ethnic cleansing is just as evident in the occupied north of Cyprus.

Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus in 1974 under the most spurious circumstances, causing death, rape, torture and forced displacement of persons, acts which are well documented by the European Court of Human Rights.

Turkey has created an illegal apartheid regime in the occupied area forcibly separating the Greek Cypriots from the Turkish Cypriots, violating a fundamental tenet of the European Union – the principle of free movement.

The few remaining Greek Cypriots enclaved in the occupied north are subject to continuous attack, harassment and intimidation, relying on United Nations protection and hand-outs in order to survive. They are also denied the right to secondary education, in violation of international law and the UN Charter on Human Rights.

No one can treat the hapless Mr Cem or Turkey itself with any credibility for so long as Turkey persists with her atrocious tradition of human rights violations. Sadly history teaches us that Turkey’s policy on human rights has not and is unlikely to change.

Lobby for Cyprus urges the European Union leaders not to pursue a policy of appeasement with Turkey.

Human rights violations in Turkey 1994 1995 1996 1997 (Jan-Nov) Assassinations 292 89 78 103 Civilians killed by military 458 230 119 133 Disappearances 328 220 194 62 Deaths in custody 298 122 190 97 Killed in clashes 5,000 3,894 2,859 2,323 Torture cases 1,000 1,412 348 343 Number arrested 14,473 14,473 20,434 24,999 Number imprisoned 1,209 2,101 2,071 1,197 Journalists arrested ? 461 421 284 Bombed villages 191 184 109 119 Villages burnt down/evacuated 1,500 243 63 15

Human rights violations by Turkey following its invasion of the Republic of Cyprus In 1974 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forcibly removed from their homes 6,000 civilians and non combatants were murdered or tortured to death 1,000 women and girls were raped 1,619 missing persons are still unaccounted for by Turkey. The Red Cross documented that many were sent as prisoners of war to Turkey 100,000 colonists were transplanted to the occupied area to alter the demographic composition of the island more than 40,000 Turkish Cypriots have fled the occupied area unable to coexist with the colonists over 800 churches have been looted, destroyed or turned into stables Turkey continues to ignore more than 90 United Nations and Security Council resolutions calling for the respect of human rights in Cyprus and the restoration of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus.

European Armenian Federation Urges EU to Denounce Turkey’s Anti Armenian Apartheid Policies

BRUSSELS (CDCA)–Media sources revealed that the soon-to-be-released 2003 European Commission report on Turkey’s accession to the EU–documen’s a growing gap between Turkey’s stated reform efforts and the actual implementation of such reforms–reported the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (formerly ANC-Europe). The report–however–appears to rationalize this action–faulting local administrators and judicial officials as opposed to top government officials.

“The European Commission should be well aware that blaming low level officials for continued human rights abuses and violations is the Turkish Government’s usual alibi in its effort to clean up its image with international organization,” stated European Armenian Federation Chairperson Hilda Tchoboian.

“In essence–this document’s tone serves to encourage the Turkish authorities in their failure to enact real reforms rather than warn them of the consequences of such action.”

Early news items on the EC report–set to be unveiled on November 5–reveal that while the report cites a number of human rights violations related to freedom of speech–rights of minorities–torture–and the lack of constitutional law–it does not highlight the lack of political will to bring about positive change. Further–while the report apparently discusses the hardships of most non-Muslim minorities in Turkey–it refrains from focusing on the ongoing policy of oppression against the Armenian minority in that country.

“In addition to the religious discrimination that all Christian minorities suffer in Turkey–the Armenia’s–who are descendants of the victims of the genocide committed by the Turkish government–are subjected to a distinct policy of racism–an anti-Armenian policy of apartheid,” added Tchoboian.

“Their collective rights continue to be violated through threats of confiscation and expropriation of school facilities–churches and community institutions and daily attacks on their freedom of speech–opinion and conscience. Here again–despite the promise of reforms–the government has erected insurmountable obstacles and attributed them to the poor application of the law by “local officials.”

Tchoboian cited a directive issued by Turkish Minister of Education Huseyin Celik earlier this year as a flagrant example of the ongoing oppression of the Armenian minority. The April 14–2003–decree mandated that all schools in Turkey–including Armenian schools–sponsor essay competitions and events denying the Armenian Genocide. Turkish teachers who questioned the circular have been arrested and dismissed from their jobs. “This policy was orchestrated by top government leaders–not by local officials,” remarked Tchoboian.

On July 24–a coalition of more than 200 European associations and organizations urged the EU Presidency–the European Commission and the European Parliament–to suspend the financial aid given to the Turkish educational system through various European programs in light of this policy of genocide denial.

“Three months after public objections registered by members of European civil society–and calls by 360 Turkish intellectuals urging the Minister to rescind the decree–we see that the absence of firm action by European authorities serves to encourage the Turkish authorities to extend with impunity their policy and practices of denial to the university level. The European Parliament’s concerns regarding this issue–as expressed in the Oostlander report–should trigger a response by European executive authorities against Turkey’s racist decrees,” stated the Chairperson of the European Armenian Federation.

“We remind the EU Presidency–the European Commission and the European Parliament that the Reinforced Pre-Accession Strategy vis–vis Turkey is dependent on that country’s fundamental respect for human rights. As such–European subsidies given to a country guilty of blatant human rights double-talk must be reconsidered,” concluded Mrs. Tchoboian.

In Turkey non Muslims are listed as Foreigners



Akcam: Genocide Recognition is about Justice, Not Freedom of Thought – Armenian Weekly

Posted by Taner Akcam on January 25, 2012

This is something that the West needs to realize. It just isn’t possible to change Turkey’s position regarding the subject of 1915 based solely on internal democratic opposition. Turkish democratic and civil society activists don’t possess that kind of strength. The assassination of Hrant Dink is evidence of this weakness. Today, there’s a very genuine activist movement that goes by the name “Friends of Hrant” that has gained significant public support in Turkey, yet Hrant’s real murderers still roam the country freely.

Those countries that condone and enable Turkey’s politics of denial for their own economic, political, and strategic advantage should understand one thing: “Denial” is a structure. To understand why Turkey continues to deny what happened in 1915, you should compare it with the racist regime of South Africa. The institutions, system, and mindset of apartheid were established upon racial differences, and the denial of genocide is similar. By denying what happened in 1915, Turkey reproduces the institutions, social relations, and mindset that created 1915.

Genocide denial goes beyond the defense of a former regime whose institutions and mindset were realized as genocide in the past. Denial also fuels a politics of continuing aggression, both inside and outside Turkey, against anyone who opposes the denialist mentality.
This is why Hrant Dink’s actual murderers are still at large. This is why attacks are organized against Armenians and their memorials in Europe…

What should be clear to everyone is this: In Turkey, genocide denial is an industry. It is also a state policy of primary importance. The National Security Council, Turkey’s highest constitutional authority, established in 2001 a Coordinating Committee for the Fight Against Baseless Claims of Genocide. All of the important ministries, including the Armed Forces, are represented on this committee, which is chaired by the vice prime minister. I repeat: Denying the genocide is one of the most important national policies of the Turkish state. You need to realize that you aren’t just confronting a simple “denial,” but you’re up against a “denialist regime.”

As long as Turkey continues this state policy of genocide denial through its institutions, relations, and mentality, Ankara will be sensitive to external pressure. In fact, this pressure should be increased. What happened in Libya and Syria needs to happen in Turkey also, with regard to genocide denial, even if the content and scope of the pressure are different.

If the West is serious about democracy in the Middle East, it cannot build democracy by supporting a denialist regime. Historical denial, both as institution and mindset, is probably the greatest stumbling block to peace and democracy in the Middle East. Why do Christians, Kurds, and Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq feel intimidated by Turkey? Why aren’t they keen on Turkey’s intervention for democracy and human rights? Because they see, in today’s denialist regime of Turkey, the Unionists’ mentality that committed crimes against them in the past.

The South African regime didn’t collapse from internal pressure alone. The support of international public opinion was also very important. As long as the West allows Turkey’s denialist politics to continue, genocide denial will go on.

We are faced with the huge issue of how to prevent mass murders and genocides in today’s global community. To that end, the space for genocide denial in the international arena must be narrowed and ultimately eliminated. Turkey’s denial policy should be reconsidered within this perspective of prevention of genocide in the global world.


Islam Today: Alevis in Turkey – Victims of Islamist Discrimination …May 22, 2009 … Alevis are a religious, sub-ethnic and cultural community in Turkey, numbering in the tens of millions. Alevism is considered one of the …



Alevi Apartheid in Turkey (Academic Research Results)

Today Vatan Daily one of the most popular newspapers of Turkey published a summary of an academic research about Alevi Apartheid.



Copts in Egypt: a Christian minority under siege : papers presented at the First International Coptic Symposium, Zurich, September 23-25, 2004 – Page 95 – Martyn Thomas, Adly A. Youssef – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006 – 192 pages
Keith Roderick Besieged Christians under Islamic Rule… Apartheid, injustice, oppression…

Victims of the Revolution
Mubarak’s downfall has proved a mixed blessing for Egypt’s persecuted Christian minority.
Article | 31 May 2011 – 1:31pm | By Menelaos Agaloglou
The treatment of Copts – Egypt’s Christian minority – was described in 2010 as “akin to apartheid”.

Egypt’s New Rulers Must Protect the Copts, Not Persecute Them
By Elias Bejjani
Added: May 13th, 2011
Were we all fantasizing, naive and foolish when the recent peaceful and civilized Egyptian revolution led by the new youthful generation made us and the whole world believe that its prime objectives were stability, freedom, justice, peace, equality, democracy, openness, respect for human rights, a dignified life with no oppression, education about hatred and discrimination and a secular constitution that secures equality in rights and obligations for all Egyptians citizens of all religions?
The first and major failure and setback committed by the “Higher Military Egyptian Council” members was in their stubborn clinging to Article Two in the country’s constitution that legalizes discrimination and apartheid. It states verbatim: “Islam is the religion of the state, Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation”.

Posted on Jun 5, 2007
The tragedy in Bimha takes Egypt another step backward into religious apartheid [and] presents Egyptians with yet another precedent which demonstrates that Copts can be terrorized, robbed and killed with impunity.”

Apartheid Of The 21st Century | www.persecutedcopts.com

united copts .org – Please stop religious apartheid in Egypt

Wednesday, 05 October 2011

Please stop religious apartheid in Egypt
Shame on you Egyptian army and police Beating up viciously Christians peacefully protesting the burning of church in Edfu
Why you do not arrest the mob who burnt the church? Why do not you arrest the mosque imam who incited and urged the burning of church?
Is Egypt becoming a State who sponsor of terrorism?



BBC News | EDUCATION | ‘Apartheid’ row over Islamic school

Muslim apartheid: Getting behind the veil By Peter C. Glover … by The British Islamic Human Rights Commission

Bethlehem Christians Break Silence on Muslim Oppression – IRIS Blog Jan 26, 2011

After many years… the truth has been revealed. Christians are fleeing every Muslim-majority territory because of the apartheid discrimination encouraged by Muslim sharia law. Land theft works because the testimony of non-Muslims is weighed less in every sharia court in the world.


Against Islamic Apartheid
By Mark D. Tooley | Christian Post Contributor
When others in his church and nation are often blinded by multiculturalism and rigid political correctness, the Church of England’s ethnically Pakistani Bishop of Rochester often speaks boldly. His recent column in The Daily Telegraph warning against encroaching self-segregation and even the growing practice of Islamic Sharia law within British Islamic communities has aroused the ire of some Muslim clerics in Britain.
“There has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism,” Nazir-Ali wrote. “One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.”

The Islamization of some parts of British cities has happened thanks to high immigration from Muslim countries, low birth-rates among the native British, and the growing secularization of once Christian British society, where only about ten percent or less are Christian church-goers. As Nazir-Ali noted: “In fewer than 50 years, Britain has changed from being a society with an acknowledged Christian basis to one which is increasingly described by politicians and the media as ‘multifaith.'”

Britain has lost “confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of [its] culture, Nazir-Ali regretted. And the nation has sought to accommodate its Muslim immigrants with a multiculturalism that encouraged “separate communities” that had “minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.” The bishops warnings drew reactions from some Muslim leaders.

The Ramadhan Foundation’s Mohammed Shafiq responded by telling the Daily Telegraph: “Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign.” Muslim Council of Britain Assistant Secretary General Inayat Bunglawala was similarly pained: “Bishop Nazir-Ali appears to be exercised by what he perceives as the decline in the influence of Christianity upon this country, but trying to frantically scaremonger about Islam and Muslims seems to us to be a rather unethical way of trying to reverse this.” Bunglawala preferred to fault Islamist extremism on the British and U.S. governments: “He talks about the rise of ‘Islamic extremism’ but fails to mention how some of the policies of our government and especially that of the United States in the Middle East over several decades now has clearly contributed to this phenomenon.”

But Nazir-Ali warned that in some of Britain’s self-segregated Islamic communities, “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence.” He described some efforts to impose an “Islamic” character on neighborhoods by electronically amplified broadcasting of Islamic calls to prayer. The bishop wondered whether non-Muslims “wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker.”

The bishop also noted efforts to insert some aspects of Islamic Sharia law into Britain’s civil law, starting with Sharia-compliant banking. Growing Islamization, combined with secularization from other quarters, is helping to squeeze traditional Christian symbols out of Britain’s public sphere, Nazir-Ali complained. The “Christian character of the nation’s laws, values, customs and culture” are being diminished” and in the end, “nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat.”

Nazir-Ali observed that only the growth of Christian churches among African and East European immigrant communities has prevented the extinguishing of active Christianity in many British cities. Although he did not mention it, Britain’s largest church is now a congregation of Nigerian Anglicans. Meanwhile, Polish immigrants have helped to stem the decline of Britain’s Roman Catholic Church, whose active church goers now equal the typical numbers in the nation’s still officially established Church of England.

Some of Nazir-Ali’s colleagues within his lethargic church defended his warnings against Islamic self-segregation in Britain. Bishop of Burnley John Goddard told The Daily Telegraph that Christians in some areas of his diocese are outnumbered by Muslims and often feel intimidated from openly practicing their faith. “It is not fear that there is going to be retaliation but it is a fear that you get it badly wrong and cause hurt to others of integrity of other faith you did not intend.” He added: “When you engage in proclaiming the Christian faith in an area dominated by another religion, I and others tread very carefully so that the message is heard and not seen as some sort of oppression.”

In response to Britain’s balkanization thanks to secularists and Islamists, Bishop Nazir-Ali urged upholding the importance of the English language, greater integration, and more British citizenship education. “But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great,” he concluded. “That has to do with the Bible’s teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God’s image.”

Extreme secularists in both Britain and the U.S. naturally prefer to ignore the Jewish and Christian origins of their cultures and democracies. Their extreme version of multiculturalism, while ostensibly intended to protect the dignity of various cultures, instead denigrates Western culture and religion, while enthroning cultures that are hostile to Western democracy. Mainline Protestant clerics, presiding over emptied churches, often enthusiastically endorse this trend. But at least one Church of England bishop of Pakistani origins is warning against the swelling dangers.

This article was originally published on January 21, 2008.

Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.


Anger in Holland over ‘apartheid’ Islamic hospital | International …It has also been dubbed “apartheid” by a prominent nationalist MP, Geert Wilders. But construction work on the clinic is about to start and it aims to open …

the facts that the Palestinians have adopted Islamic law into their constitution, or that they are governed currently by an Islamic party. Why aren’t they labeled as an “Islamic apartheid state”?

American Thinker: Islam’s Apartheid
It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their … Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, …

Catholic Insight : Culture : Muslim apartheid: Getting behind the veil1 Jan 2007 … Peter C. Glover discusses the issue of the wearing of the veil by Muslim women and explains how various European nations are tackling it.

From Salman Rushdie to WTC The crimes against humanity of supporters of Islamic Apartheid and their attacks on progress and human rights has not started with their brutal terrorist …

An Unveiling – NRO Symposium – National Review Online 25 Oct 2006 … It is a way of rejecting sexual promiscuity, sexual availability in the West and paradoxically, embracing Islamic gender apartheid (arranged …

Islamic Apartheid – penetrating the West

The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad – Page 46 – Walid Phares – Macmillan, 2009 (ISBN 0230611303, 9780230611306) – 304 pages
Jihadi ideologies promote the agenda of separating Muslims from non-Muslims — even within democracies — and of … depending on their readiness and physical capacity to wage it) to establish this apartheid system within the West. …

“Sharia law may result in ‘legal apartheid'”
Senior religious leaders attacked multiculturalism and sharia law, warning that they are “disastrous”, socially divisive and are destroying Britain’s culture and values

Shariah Islamic Law: Legal Apartheid Sep 1, 2009 … They have implicitly accepted a system of “legal apartheid” with different legal systems for Muslims and non-Muslims. …

World Politics Watch | Muslim Apartheid in Britain: A Veiled Threat? The issue of Muslim women wearing veils in public has ignited an unprecedented national debate on the subject and on multiculturalism generally across …

Shame of Britain’s Muslim schools: Secret filming shows pupils being beaten and ‘taught Hindus drink cow p***
‘By Tazeen Ahmad
Last updated at 12:16 PM on 13th February 2011
Undercover footage shows pupils being taught religious apartheid
Muslims who adopt Western ways will be ‘tortured in afterlife’
Unprovoked beatings captured on camera in Yorkshire madrassa
Boy threatened with bench by senior student left in charge of class…
… He refers to the ‘non-Muslims’ as the ‘Kuffar’, an often derogatory term that means disbeliever or infidel…
This school is required by its inspectors to teach tolerance and respect for other faiths. But the Channel 4 current affairs programme Dispatches filmed secretly inside it – and instead discovered that Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.

The Arab-Islamic bigoted ‘apartheid slur’ / links

11 Jul

The ‘apartheid slur’ – links that mention the term

The Canadian Jewish News – The apartheid slur
Dec 1, 2004
The apartheid slur
Wednesday, 01 December 2004
Apartheid, in its literal translation from Afrikaans, means separateness, and as applied within the unique context of 20th century South Africa, it embraced racial segregation as the cornerstone of government policy and practice. From cradle to grave, skin colour was the sole determinant of where you lived and worked, what job options you had, where you went to school, how you travelled, and which health care and sports facilities were available to you. A comprehensive and rigorously enforced set of laws and prohibitions ensured that transgressors would be severely dealt with. And they were.

With the transition to majority rule under Nelson Mandela in 1994, the infrastructure of the apartheid state was dismantled and its long-hated ideology of systematized racism was dispatched to the dustbin of history. But while apartheid no longer has legal tenure in South Africa, accusations that it has found new application in Israels dealings with the Palestinians have become increasingly prevalent. Thus, we all too frequently see Israels law of return portrayed as just another instrument of a racist apartheid state, while the emerging seam zone is ominously referred to as the apartheid wall. The word bantustans connoting tribal homelands for black South Africans in the apartheid model is often used by Israels detractors to describe any emerging Palestinian state that doesnt include all of the Jewish one.

Such comparisons are fallacious. They are also calculated and malicious. Writing in the Guardian (Nov. 14), Benjamin Pogrund, one of South Africas most distinguished journalists and currently director of Yakars Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem, astutely notes that anyone who says that Israel is apartheid does not appreciate what apartheid was. He attributes clear purpose to those who are striving to make the apartheid stigma stick. That objective, he believes is to have Israel viewed as, and declared, illegitimate and to ensure that Israelis are made unwelcome abroad and that it becomes politically correct to boycott Israeli products and to discourage investment in the country.

Such punitive treatment, incidentally, is precisely what was imposed on South Africans during the apartheid era, so the trends in this propagandist charade are not that difficult to interpret.

In a world where Israel-bashing needs no calling card, the partheid slur adds yet another weapon to an already replete stockpile. By overplaying the apartheid card at the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, the anti-Israel lobby may have lost some momentum in its nefarious crusade. More recently, however, the security fence has provided that same lobby with a renewed opportunity to invoke its vile apartheid constructs as a basis for attacking Israel and Israeli interests. Promptly debunking the myths and misconceptions of these inherently false analogies, therefore, becomes that much more important.

(2002): Bishop Tutu: Compares Apartheid & NAZIs: Outrages Jews
Jun 20, 2005 Jewish allies of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu to publicly protest. Tutu’s latest anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slurs.

Aftershock: anti-zionism and anti-semitism – Page 122 – David Matas – Dundurn Press Ltd., 2005 – 256 pages
Anti-Zionist slurs against Israel are not just overblown general accusations of genocide, apartheid, and so on. They are also very specific detailed accusations of alleged wrongdoing.

Bad word banned Legislature passes Tory MPP’s condemnation of ‘apartheid’
JONATHAN JENKINS, Queen’s Park Bureau
First posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:02:18 EST PM | Updated: Thursday, February 25, 2010 10:04:06 EST PM
[…]”I want the name changed. It’s just wrong,” he said, emphasizing that “respectful” debate about the Middle East is much more constructive than slinging slurs.
http://www.marl.mb.ca/content/hate-speech/banning-israel-anti-apartheid-weeks-universities-david-mat as

“Road apartheid slur” debunked | Anglican Friends of Israel
21 Oct 2005 – “Road apartheid slur” debunked. Truth and Lies… Thousands of Christians march in solidarity… On Sunday (Oct. 16), Palestinian terrorists killed three young Israelis in a drive-by terrorist shooting …

Guardian Promotes Apartheid Slur – honest reporting [February 12, 2006]

Debunking Apartheid Slurs | HonestReporting
Nov 15, 2006 Debunking Apartheid Slurs. Stan. 12:12 am. Nov 16, 2006.
The analogy between apartheid and Israel is absurd. The revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland is not a manifestation of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers (Afrikaans, English and others) who created Johannesburg and Pretoria. Jews are indigenous to the Middle East as is the Jewish national language, Hebrew. Anyone who has ever visited Israel knows that it is one of the most diverse multi-ethnic democracies in the world.
It is interesting how effective the use of buzzwords are…

CAMERA: Jimmy Carter Man from Plains
A reviewer for the Washington Post charged Carter with “manufactur[ing] sins to hang around the necks of Jews when no sins have actually been committed.” A reviewer for the New York Times called the book “a distortion.” According to a New Republic blog, the book is “tendentious” and “dishonest.” And CAMERA has meticulously documented and rebutted dozens of specific factual errors from Carter’s book and media appearances.

But the documentary glosses over these challenges to the accuracy of the book, and instead frames the controversy as mostly revolving about the Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” in the title. Again and again, the film shows interviewers asking about the title. Again and again, we hear Carter’s rehearsed response. To be sure, the wrongheaded association of Israel with the racist South African regime elicited its share of criticism; but it may have been more interesting, not to mention educational, had the filmmaker also explored the specific challenges to the “facts” upon which Carter rests his apartheid slur.

Instead, the documentary propagates some these false facts by allowing Carter to repeat them unchallenged.

After Carter sketches a map of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, telling the camera that “this is how the holy land was divided after the 1967 war” (actually it is how it was divided after the 1948 war), he asserts that the “wall” (actually a protective barrier that is mostly fence) is “all built on Palestinian land.” Later in the film, Carter is seen repeating this assertion and pushing a reluctant CNN interviewer into parroting the claim, which originates on page 190 of Peace Not Apartheid. It is a complete fabrication. According to United Nations numbers, roughly 60 miles of barrier is being built not on “Palestinian land” but along the 200 mile boundary line between the West Bank and Israel, or in some cases inside Israel itself. Demme does not share this fact with viewers.

Even the sections of the barrier that veer into the West Bank are not built on “Palestinian land,” but rather on land claimed by the Palestinians. Despite Israeli willingness to hand over large swaths of the West Bank, this land especially territory along the barrier path remains for now disputed. In fact, sections of it would have officially become part of Israel under some international peace plans.

Carter similarly invents facts about the barrier between the Gaza Strip and Israel, telling viewers that the Gaza Strip is surrounded by a “complete wall” (false) with “only two openings” (false) and that Israel controls both (false.)

‘Lobby’ Lies Make a Comeback
New version of anti-Israel screed finds discredited authors gaining unlikely allies
September 13, 2007 – Jonathan S. Tobin, Executive Editor
… Later in the year, former President Jimmy Carter stepped into the controversy by issuing his own anti-Israel tract Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, which, along with many of his own original slurs (the scurrilous title comparison of Israel’s presence in the territories to South African apartheid being the most notorious), supported the Walt-Mearsheimer conspiracy thesis, and also alleged that such critics of Israel were being “silenced” by the all-power “Lobby.”

Gil Troy: Jimmy Carter’s no saint
[19 Feb 2007]
To the Editors:
According to your report about Jimmy Carter’s Brandeis University speech, he said: “This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” The implication, along with previous self-pitying remarks, is that he is blameless and critics are overreacting to his Israel-Apartheid slur to squelch debate. In fact, in Carter’s bruising 1970 campaign for Georgia governor, the incumbent Carl Sanders called him “Jimmy the fabricator.” Carter was accused of bigotry when pamphlets picturing Governor Sanders with two tall, African-American basketball players were mailed to white barber shops and churches.

In 1980, fighting Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, President Carter announced the morning of the Wisconsin primary that the Iranians had made a “positive step” in solving the hostage crisis. No progress occurred but Carter won the primary. The president “no longer seemed decent and honorable, but manipulative” an aide admitted. That campaign Reaganite Republicans repeatedly condemned Carter’s foreign policy as cowardly.

“Saint Jimmy,” like all politicians, has never been above reproach. His Brandeisian amnesia simply slurs his opponents and dismisses their substantive critiques. Forty percent of Carter’s statement may be true – judging by the distortions in his recent book that seems to be his accuracy rate these days.

SPME: Gil Troy: Emboldening the Anti-Semites
1 Mar 2007 – … to note the existence of initiatives such as the week in February devoted to perpetuating the apartheid slur, made the crowd restive…

April 30, 2007, p. 50
Gil Troy
[…] one Israeli academics 1991 article which popularized the apartheid slur.
I wish we could note these academics unpatriotic poison, applaud Israels vigorous democracy, toast Israels academic freedom, and leave it at that. But words can kill. The intellectual demonization of Israel has helped isolate Israel diplomatically, emboldening the terrorists. Moreover, I feel snookered when I hear university leaders entreating donors to build the Jewish state, without acknowledging that some of that money is used, even indirectly, to libel the Jewish national project. And I am outraged by reports of anti-Zionist intellectual bullying in some departments. We need vigorous, nuanced responses that preserve academic freedom. The flow of ideas, like blood flowing to the brain, cannot be restricted without causing harm. Academics must remain free to pursue foolish, subversive, distorted ideas, so that tomorrows wisdom can be born today. We should not starve or boycott Israeli universities. Investing in Israeli research and teaching pays great dividends, creating literate,
sophisticated, citizens and maintaining Israels leading role in todays information revolutions.
Still, a more balanced campus culture would combat educational malpractice in the classroom and promote national sanity. Universities should offer calm, broad-minded, civil alternatives to Israels bruising, polarizing political culture, not replicate it.
Paradoxically, while fighting intolerance and indoctrination, universities should also cultivate pride, patriotism, altruism, democracy, and yes, Zionism, in Israeli society. Even as professors and students think freely, universities should act responsibly. Whether they acknowledge it or not, universities express their values through the projects they fund, the problems they pinpoint. If donations can attract scientists to brain research, business professors to information systems, scholarship to womens studies, strategic investments can shape a civics agenda too. Just as plants lean toward sources of light, professors and students will respond to visionary leadership.
Recently, Yeshiva University generously endowed a Center for the Jewish Future, an in-house, activist think tank harnessing the universitys different resources to build an exciting Jewish tomorrow. Imagine what Israeli universities could accomplish with similar entities. Historians, philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and economists could develop an updated Zionist vision for today.
http://www.israel-academia-monitor.com/index.php?type=large_advic&advice_id=5147&page_data%5 Bid%5D=176&cookie_lang=en&the_session_id=56a7b518587f0d05303e9832f40cf0b0&BLUEWEBSESSION SID=b324035e01b59ef66708f9fb8ec4be9b

LGF Pages – UWisconsin: Israeli journalist spits apartheid slur
[Apr 4, 2008]

israelinsider: Views: Where Left and Right can meet
By Gil Troy May 21, 2008
[…]Just as they discount Israel’s Russian roots, many today ignore Zionism’s liberal heritage. The kibbutz, the Histadrut labor union, the collectivist sensibility, all once made Israel the darling of the left. The Palestinians’ propaganda assault against the Jewish state, libelous arguments such as the apartheid slur, politically correct anti-Americanism, along with — let us be frank — Israel’s capitalist revolution and prolonged presence in the disputed territories — triggered this switch. To the world, today’s Zionist poster child is more likely to be a religious settler, a neoconservative intellectual, or an AIPAC lobbyist rather than the pioneering kibbutznik wannabe, fulfilling Jewish-tinged universal dreams in Israel of Marxist revolution before the 1930s or student radicalism in the 1960s.

Jennifer Rubin
[Sep. 2008]
Abunimah co-founded and operates the Electronic Intifada, a website replete with anti-Israel slurs and which declares Israel to be an apartheid state.

Combatting the charge of Israel as a racist state
by David Matas
[February 17, 2009]

(Remarks prepared for delivery to the European Union of Jewish Students, Geneva, Switzerland 8 February 2009)

Antisemitism is a mutating virus. Defeat the virus in one form; it appears in another. It is possible to stamp out one anti-Jewish libel or another; but antisemitism remains.

Jews are accused of double loyalty. To show their undivided loyalty, they join the military forces of their countries. So, in the case of French Captain Alfred Dreyfus, documents were fabricated to frame him as a spy for Germany.

Jews are accused of rootlessness, being cosmopolitan. So they form a state. Then antisemites demonize the state as a criminal state, mutating antisemitism into anti-Zionism.

Jews are accused of killing Christ, of killing Christian children to use their blood for the baking of matzoh. The various Christian denominations finally take a stand against these libels. So antisemitism leaps from Christianity to Islamic fundamentalism. Jews are accused of killing Palestinian children.

Antisemites killed Jews in such numbers and with such barbarity in the Holocaust that the very idea of antisemitism was discredited. So antisemites deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Racial typology in the nineteenth and early twentieth century was a popular and scientific fad. Jews were called an evil, greedy race bent on world domination. In reaction to the racism run rampant of the Holocaust, the global community created anti-racist standards. Since the Holocaust, anti-racism has become as widely accepted as racism was before the Holocaust. So, now the Jewish state is accused of racism.

The constancy of antisemitism, its ability to mutate to overcome all defenses, means that antisemitism will always be with us. A bigotry which could survive as thorough a refutation as the Holocaust will survive anything.

We who would defend against antisemitism must be aware of its infinite adaptability. Fighting only against old forms of antisemitism will not get us very far. We have always to be prepared to identify its changed modern guises and combat those.

Here, I want to address one mutation in particular, the accusation of the Jewish state as racist. Labelling as racist the worst victims of racism both demeans the victims and stretches credulity. Yet, it has become a commonplace of modern antisemitic discourse.

We are approaching the review of the World Conference against Racism. The Conference was held in Durban South Africa in September 2001. The review is coming up in Geneva in March this year. Though the Durban review is nominally supposed to be against racism, you can be sure it will inundated by bigots attempting to pin the racist label on the Jewish state.

What I would propose to do here is to attempt to describe three of the forms the charges against the Jewish state for racism would take and suggest answers to those charges. In doing this, I am well aware that antisemites and anti-Zionists will not be convinced. Refute one form of antisemitism and they will simply move on to another. But there will be some people who do not follow these matters closely and will be bewildered by these strange accusations. To them, explanations must be given.

1. The Law of Return
It is said that the Israeli Law of Return is racist because it allows Jews admission to Israel on the basis that they are Jewish. One answer to that is that the Holocaust was possible because there was no state to which the Jews could flee. If Israel had existed before World War II, the Holocaust would not have happened. Indeed, if Israel had existed before World War II, it is possible that World War II would not have happened. Lucy Davidowicz, in her book The War against the Jews 1933-1945 writes that, in the minds of the Nazi German Leaders, World War II was a cover for its planned murder of the Jews .

Even after the War, it was easier for the Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust to get out of the displaced persons camps and find resettlement than it was for the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Before the creation of the state of Israel, Jewish survivors sat in refugee camps in Europe with no relocation in sight.

A right of refuge is recognized in the Israeli Law of Return. The Israeli Law of Return is more than righting a historical wrong. By providing a haven to survivors of the Holocaust, it realizes a fundamental principle of refugee protection, that it is inhumane to require a severely persecuted refugee to return to live in the country of persecution .

Moreover, the Law of Return has contemporary relevance because of the wave of antisemitism unleashed in the Middle East by the wars against Israel and in Central and Eastern Europe by the collapse of Communism and its replacement by chauvinism. Only Israel offers an escape to every single victim of continuing antisemitism.

The United General Assembly passed a resolution in 1975 which said “Zionism is racism”. The resolution was repealed in 1991. The phrase is a blatant form of language distortion. Its repeal did not mean that the desire to obliterate the State of Israel and right to self-determination of the Jewish people has ended. The desire rather takes other more indirect linguistic forms. At first in addition to, and subsequently, instead of calling Zionism a form of racism, member states of the United Nations have called the Israeli Law of Return racist.

This bandying about of the charge of racism, throwing it at Israel, the state of the survivor community of the most vicious racism this planet has ever seen, aside from its perversity and cruelty, ignores what racism is. Race has no objective, scientific, anthropological meaning. There are no human races, only one human race. Race exists as a persecutory concept only. The concept of race survives only to identify discrimination and persecution, and to provide protection against it.

The United Nations Convention on Refugees obligates signatory states to provide protection to those who have a well founded fear of persecution by reason of five listed grounds. One of those grounds is race. To fit within this ground, the person does not actually have to be of a certain race that is targeted for persecution. Such a requirement would be meaningless, since objectively there are no races. Rather, the person has to be perceived by the persecutor to be of a certain race that the agent of persecution has decided to victimize. Race is what ever the persecutory agent thinks it is.

The concept of a race has to be distinguished from the concept of a people. The concept of a people is the exact opposite of the concept of a race. A race is defined by the other, by the persecutory agent. A people is self defined, by the people themselves. Integral to the right of self-determination of peoples is the right to determine their own membership. Once outsiders can say who is and who is not a member of any given people, the right to self-determination of that people is gone.

The Israeli Law of Return is an integral part of the exercise of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people, because it is an expression by the Jewish people of who are their members. Labelling the Law of Return of Israel as racist is yet another form, like labelling Zionism as racism, of delegitimization and denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.

Just as anti-Zionism is a form of racism, by denying to the Jewish people the right of self-determination, so is opposition to the Israeli Law of Return a form of racism, by denying to the Jewish people the right to determine their own membership. The right to self-determination can not exist without the right to self definition. To say that the Jewish people do not have the right to self definition is to say that the right of self-determination exists for other peoples, but not for the Jews.

It is also said against the Israeli Law of Return that is racist because it is based on ancestry or blood lines. But the law is not based on blood.

The Israeli Law of Return considers a person as Jewish if the person has become converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion . Judaism is a religion which anyone can join. Judaism does not proselytize, but does accept converts. It is impossible to call a law racist when anyone who chooses, by converting to Judaism, can take advantage of the law.

Race is sometimes identified with colour. Yet, Jews come in every colour. There are black Jews, Falashas, who were granted the benefit of the Law of Return, and indeed airlifted from Ethiopia to Israel by the Israeli government. It is impossible to consider a law racist that encompasses all races.

Every citizenship law of which I am aware allows parents to pass on their citizenship to their children. For instance, a child born of a Canadian parent is Canadian, no matter where in the world the child is born. The child can maintain Canadian citizenship throughout his or her life without ever entering Canada, provided that the person establishes a substantial connection with Canada . A citizenship law cannot be racist simply because it is based on birth.

The basic law of Germany allows anyone to become a citizen who is the descendant of a person who was a German citizen and was deprived of that citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945 . The person does not have to be a first generation descendant. This German law is itself informally called a Law of Return. No United Nations resolution has ever suggested that this German Law of Return is racist.

The Israeli Law of Return distinguishes between those who are Jewish and not Jewish, but does not discriminate against those who are not Jewish. Not every legal distinction amounts to discrimination. A prohibition against discrimination does not encompass any law that has as its object improving the lot of the disadvantaged, including those disadvantaged because of race or religion .

The Israeli Law of Return exists as a protection against the racism Jews have suffered and continue to suffer. The law is a form of affirmative action, affirming that Jews who are at risk elsewhere around the world can seek and obtain protection in Israel.

In principle, every person who is the victim of antisemitic discrimination should be considered Jewish under the Law of Return, whether, objectively, the person has any cultural or religious ties with Judaism or not. If racists target a person as Jewish, then a law and a state created to protect Jews should offer protection to that person. Offering protection to the victims of racism does not make the helpers racist. Acknowledging the existence of racism and the need to defend against it is the antithesis of racism.

The Law of Return encompasses within its definition of a Jew those that had been targeted by the Nazi race laws. The Law or Return includes in its definition of a Jew every person who was born of a Jewish mother . The Law further provides that the rights of a Jew are vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and who has voluntarily changed his religion .

The Jewish community has learned through bitter experience who the people are that are likely to be targeted by antisemites for their 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.

Calling the Israeli Law of Return racist means rejecting the notion that Jews have been disadvantaged and, in many countries, are still disadvantaged. This sort of labelling of the Law of Return is Holocaust denial or Holocaust trivialization in another form.

2. Discrimination
There is constant criticism that, in Israel, there is discrimination against Palestinians or Arabs or Moslems, or non-Jews. Despite that criticism, Israel is committed to equality in principle and the vocation of Israel as a Jewish state does not change or temper that commitment to equality. The Israeli Declaration of Independence provides that the State of Israel “will establish equal social and political rights for all its citizens without distinguishing on the basis of religion, race or gender.” One of the five books of Moses states: “you shall have only one law, the stranger shall be as a citizen” .

Israeli Justice Aharon Barak, in a speech given to the Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University in June 2000, in Toronto said:

“Zionism was born to negate racism. It learned to know the extent to which racist treatment, dictated by religious or national belonging, can degrade human character. This Zionism is opposed to any patterns of discrimination on the basis or religion or nationality.”
The Asian preparatory meeting for the Durban World Conference against Racism, held February 2001, in Teheran, said nothing about the imprisonment in Iran of thirteen Jewish community activists for no other reason than that they are Jewish. Nor did it condemn or comment on racism in any of the countries that actually attended the Conference. Israel, though physically located within the region from which countries were invited to the Teheran conference, was not allowed to attend. Yet, Israel, at Teheran, was criticized as being racist.

Israel is the only Jewish state. For the regional gathering for the area of the world that includes Israel to deny admission to Israel, to condemn racism in Israel and to say nothing about racism in any other country, is blatant discrimination not only against Israel as a state, but against Jews generally.

No state should be judged only by its professed ideals. It should as well be judged by its practice. It is legitimate to criticize discriminatory practices wherever they are found, whether in Israel or elsewhere. However, to criticize racial discrimination only in Israel and in no other country of the world becomes a political act of selective criticism, itself a form of discrimination against the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

Moreover, Israel is a democratic state which lives by the rule of law. There are internal remedies for discrimination – an independent judiciary, access to the courts, a free media.

The principle of equality has, in Israel, the force of law. Any minority subject to discrimination in Israel has access to the courts and a legal remedy available to counter that discrimination. As noted by Court President Barak in a 2006 Supreme Court case:

“It has therefore been held, in a long line of cases, that discrimination against Israeli Arabs merely because they are Arabs violates the equality that is enjoyed by all Israelis.”
Here is one example, amongst many. The government adopted a decision to establish national priority areas in outlying parts of the country. The towns and residents of these areas were to be given benefits, including in the field of education.

Petitioners attacked the legality of the government decision on the the basis that hardly any Arab towns were included in the national priority areas. The government argued that the criterion for determining the national priority areas was purely geographic and that there were few Arab towns in the outlying parts of the country. The government also argued that other measures had been adopted to improve education in Arab towns. The Court held in February 2006 that the government decision should be set aside because it was discriminatory in its result.

When domestic remedies are available, international remedies are unnecessary. Accessing the international remedies for claimed Israeli breaches of the principle of equality without first exhausting domestic remedies is an abuse of these remedies.

3. The charge of apartheid
The attacks on Israel as an apartheid state, for anyone who knows both Israel and apartheid, have to be, at least, superficially, bewildering. Attacking Israel as an apartheid state is similar to attacking the Jewish community for using the blood of Christian children to make matzos.

The suggestion that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make matzos is disgusting. But it is more than that. For anyone who knows Jews and matzos, the attack is odd. The accusation is so obviously at variance with reality, one has to wonder how or why anyone could possibly come to that conclusion. The same can be said for the apartheid libel.

Basic to apartheid 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 person on the basis of identity. Israel has not created designated territories within its borders to which it has forcibly removed its own citizens who are different. Indeed, when one starts to look at what apartheid really was, any comparison between Israel today and South Africa at the time of apartheid becomes ludicrous .

The facts which critics of Israel marshal in support of the charge that Israel is an apartheid state are facts common to every state. Israel chooses its citizens. Israel has a nationality law. Some people under that law are citizens. Others are not. Some can become immigrants, residents and citizens. Others may not. Those who are or can become Israeli citizens can enter and remain in Israel. Others who have no right of entry must stay out or leave. Citizenship and the right to citizenship can be inherited or passed down from parents to children.

Every state in the world, to my knowledge, has principles like these. Calling Israel an apartheid state because it distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens means every state in the world is an apartheid state.

The charge of Israel is an apartheid state is not just a slur against Israel; it is a devaluation of the whole apartheid movement. To make a charge of apartheid against Israel, aside from its wild inaccuracy, its incitement to hatred and its hurtfulness, is a disrespect, a trivialization of the suffering of the true victims of apartheid. The fact that some are prepared to devalue the struggle against apartheid in their anti-Israel monomania shows how little regard those who levy this charge have for human rights.

Given its disconnect with reality, why is the charge of apartheid being laid? One can ask the same about any slur against Jews or the Jewish state. Why is the blood libel made against Jews? The answer of course is antisemitism, a hatred of Jews.

Once we refute unanswerably the accusation that Jews use Christian baby blood to make matzo or that Israel is an apartheid state, antisemites do not become philosemites or even tolerant. They just move on to other antisemitic slurs.

What matters so much is not the specifics of the slur as the fact that it is a slur. If one slur loses traction because it becomes to the public at large so obviously silly and refuted, antisemites just try on another slur for acceptance.

The slur that Jews use Christian baby blood to make matzo used to be common. But now it is less so because on its face it is implausible.

We are a more sophisticated world today than when the slur of Jews using Christian baby blood to make matzo held sway. But that does not mean that so much that antisemitism has disappeared as that it has taken more modern, more sophisticated forms.

The agenda of those who utter slur that Israel is an apartheid state and those who claim that Jews use Christian baby blood to make matzos is similar, a power agenda. In both cases, the purveyors of hate seek power on the backs of the Jewish community.

With the older antisemitic myths, the hate mongers seek power in a state where Jews are a minority by trying to solidify around themselves a coterie of hatred drawn from the majority. In the case of the newer antisemitism, centred on the Jewish state, in which Jews are the majority, the aim is the destruction of the state. Anti-Israel, anti-Zionist slurs aim to win public support for dismantlement of the Jewish state.

The traditional antisemitism demonized Jews as individuals, as a faith, as a community. The new antisemitism demonizes Jews as a people. The Jewish state is charged with every crime known to humanity. The Jewish people are indicted as actual or presumed abettors of these imaginary crimes.

Apartheid is a South African Afrikaans language word meaning apartness. The apartness to which anti-Zionists refer when they charge Israel with apartheid is not a separation between various Israeli citizens. It is an apartness between Israelis and non-Israelis. To be specific, the apartness to which anti-Zionists refer is the separation between Israeli citizens on the one hand and the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza on the other.

Those who say Israel is an apartheid state are saying that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are being kept apart from Israel. Yet, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel. When Israel keeps Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza out of Israel, it is acting no differently from any other state which keeps out non-citizens. Giving Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a right of entry into Israel would allow entry into Israel of a massive population different in religion, language and culture from the majority, ending the character and identity of Israel of a Jewish state, terminating the right of the Jewish people to self determination.

In South Africa, the ending of apartheid did not mean the end of South Africa. It did not mean introducing a huge foreign population with a different language, religion, and culture, a population larger than the local population. Yet, that is what those who say Israel is an apartheid state are advocating.

The attack on Israel as an apartheid state then is another way of saying there should be no Jewish state but a larger state including the West Bank and Gaza where Jews are in the minority. It is another way of saying that there is a right of return, that Palestinians have a right to move en masse to Israel and render Jews a minority within the current boundaries of Israel.

The advocacy of Israel as an apartheid state is not just an advocacy against the existence of Israel. It is also an advocacy against Israeli self defense. What are the primary exhibits in the case for Israel as an apartheid state? They are the check points and the security barrier. Yet the checkpoints and security barrier exist because of terrorism. If terrorist attacks, suicide bombings against Israel stopped, the security barrier and checkpoints would come down.

Checkpoints exist at every airport in the world, for the same reason, to prevent terrorism. No one anywhere else claims that the existence of these checkpoints is akin to apartheid. Criticising Israeli checkpoints or the security barrier means saying that Israeli self defense is illegitimate.

The checkpoints and security barrier at least are real, though their purpose is misdescribed. Another element in the charge of apartheid is not real, the charge that Arabs can not buy land in Israel.

80.4 % of the land in Israel is owned by the government, 13.1 % is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), and 6.5 % is privately owned. There are no state restrictions based on identity on the sale of private land.

None of the public land can be sold to anyone. The phoney charge of apartheid is based on the claim that 93.5% of land in Israel can not be sold to Arabs; a claim which ignores that this land can not be sold to Jews either .

The JNF, acting according to its charter, purchased land for the settlement of Jewish immigrants. JNF lands are administered by a government agency subject, in principle, to the restriction that the land is for the settlement of Jewish immigrants.

In practice, JNF land is leased to Arab citizens of Israel, on both a short and long term basis. The land in question is traded from the JNF to the government so that it can be leased out on a long term basis to non-Jewish immigrants and the JNF receives other land in return. Far from discriminating against Arabs, Israeli land policy, in some cases, favours Arabs, under the guise of affirmative action .

It is closer to reality to accuse the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza of apartheid than to accuse Israel of apartheid. Arabs and Muslims live in Israel proper in safety. It is impossible for Jews to live in the West Bank or Gaza except under armed guard. When Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Jews who lived there had to be evacuated for their own safety. The hatred against Jews in Gaza was so intense that the economic installations they left behind for Palestinians to use, Hamas and its followers destroyed out of spite. Arabs who sell land to Jews have been murdered because of those sales.

The old antisemites said that the only good Jew was a dead Jew. The new antisemites say that the only good Jewish state is a dead Jewish state, one which no longer exists.

The charge of Israel as an apartheid state is one of litany of charges, one member of a cast of Halloween characters which includes genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, colonialism, and ethnic cleansing. Discredit the charge of apartheid and anti-Zionists will levy other charges. Discredit them all and the anti-Zionism remains.

The aim of these charges is not improving the behaviour of the Israel government in place at the time. The last thing anti-Zionists want is a better Jewish state.

The aim is rather delegitimization through demonization. Anti-Zionists want to show that Israel has no right to exist by showing that the very existence of a Jewish state means giving scope to evil.

Anti-Zionist condemnations of Israel work backwards. Anti-Zionists move from opposition to Israel to charges against Israel rather than from wrongdoings by Israel to anti-Zionism. Their starting point is the vocabulary of condemnation rather than the practices of Israel. Any unsavoury verbal weapon that comes to hand is used to club Israel and its supporters. The reality of what happens in Israel is ignored. What matters is the condemnation itself. For anti-Zionists, the more repugnant the accusation made against Israel the better, because the more that accusation supports the anti-Zionist cause.

The purpose of the whole enterprise can be seen in the draft document circulated before the 2001 NGO Forum against Racism held in Durban South Africa . The working draft circulated before the Forum called the State of Israel, and not any of its specific practices or policies, as “this barbaric and inhumane project” .

Amongst all the fanciful charges anti-Zionists throw at the Jewish state, anti-Zionists have decided to give pride of place to apartheid. Apartheid is universally condemned. Its onetime supporters, primarily in South Africa, have long since abandoned it. There was a global coalition opposed to apartheid which helped to bring about its downfall.

Anti-Zionists saw and remembered this global anti-apartheid effort. They dream of constructing a similar global anti-Zionist effort. The simplest and most direct way for them to do so is to label Israel as an apartheid state.

Anti-Zionists pursue the strategy of constructing a new anti-apartheid like coalition against Israel. The NGO Forum held at Durban South Africa in August and September 2001 set out this strategy plainly. The Programme of Action stated: “We the NGO Forum…Call for the launch of an international anti-Israel Apartheid movement as implemented against South African Apartheid through a global solidarity campaign network….”

Apartheid serves as a front, a come on, for the anti-Zionist movement. The universal abhorrence of apartheid becomes a means to introduce the gullible into the anti-Zionist agenda.

Anti-Zionism has bred two siblings – incitement to hatred and terrorism. Those who fall prey to these twin incitements, those who are imbued with hatred and prompted to terrorism, become destructive and even suicidal in their terrorist ambitions.

Those cognitively distorted by hatred are disadvantaged. The disadvantage is not just mental, because of their poor grasp of reality. It is also physical because of their self destructive terrorist tendencies and the defences the targets of their terrorism naturally put in place.

This disadvantage is in turn used by anti-Zionists to generate sympathy for the devil. Anti-Zionist propaganda generally and the apartheid slur in particular are decontextualized from the terrorist threat. If Israel had no need for self defense, if their were no terrorism, if their had been no suicide bombers, both the check points and the security barrier would have been unnecessary.

As noted earlier, this denunciation of the check points and the barrier is a rejection of Israeli self defense. But there is more to these denunciations than that. They are an attempt, through decontextualization, through the label of apartheid, to attract sympathy for those subject to the check points or interrupted by the security barrier.

Anti-Zionists have designed a vicious circle. Incitement to hatred and terrorism leads to terrorism. The targets of terrorism develop mechanisms of self defence. The decontextualization of these mechanisms, the characterization of these mechanisms as apartheid, makes them seem inhumane. This apartheid characterization then becomes part of the incitement to hatred and terrorism, fuelling the fires of terrorism already well lit.

The fact that there is no resemblance whatsoever between true apartheid and the State of Israel have not stopped anti-Zionists for a moment. On the contrary, the true anti-Zionist is one loyal to the cause no matter what the reality.

David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer and senior honourary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada.

SPEAKER ON CAMPUS: Matas criticizes Apartheid Week
Lawyer argues event qualifies as hate-speech
By Bernard Rudny

Published: Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Updated: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 17:09

Human rights lawyer David Matas gave a speech at the Moot Court on Friday, arguing that Israeli Apartheid Week should be banned from university campuses.

Matas is the senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, and was recently awarded the Order of Canada for his work in human rights, immigration, and refugee law. His lecture, entitled “Free Speech, Hate Speech, and the New Anti-Semitism,” was co-sponsored by the Jewish Law Students’ Association and the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research’s Student Israel-Advocacy Program.

Oliver Moore, a fourth-year law student and head of the JLSA’s advocacy committee, explained that the lecture was a response to Israeli Apartheid Week at McGill and other universities.

“David Matas is a legal expert on legal questions relating to Israeli Apartheid Week,” Moore said. “The idea was to bring a little bit of hard legal expertise-especially given the fact that we’re law students-to bear on the issue.”

Matas argued that Israeli Apartheid Week demonizes Israel and the Jewish people, and is therefore a form of anti-Semitism. He called the comparison of Israel to Apartheid South Africa “ludicrous,” and suggested that such rhetoric qualifies as hate speech. Matas also repeatedly compared current criticisms of Israel to past anti-Semitic myths.

“The agenda of those who utter slurs against Israel for imaginary crimes, and those who claimed that Jews use Christian baby blood to make matzoh, is a similar agenda: a power agenda,” Matas said. “The aim of these charges against Israel is not to [change] the behaviour of the Israeli government. … The aim is rather delegitimization through demonization.”

However, Matas’s definition of “the new anti-Semitism” raised a few eyebrows at the lecture. Alexandra Dodger, a second-year law student, questioned whether Israeli Apartheid Week qualifies as hate speech under Canada’s Criminal Code.

“The term Israeli Apartheid Week might be inflammatory to some people,” she said. “But it’s a bit of a leap of logic, to me, to say that calling Israel any name is anti-Semitic. … I’m not confident that it crosses the line where it’s incitement to cause violence towards a specific group-and that’s usually the standard for hate speech.”

Matas was particularly concerned with the role of universities in hosting Israeli Apartheid Week events. He described these events as “self-contained propaganda exercises” which don’t represent the full diversity of viewpoints or promote open debate. Matas also compared Israeli Apartheid Week to the Institute of Historical Review, an American Holocaust denial organization, saying that both of them disseminate hate speech under the auspices of academic freedom.

“It’s not just advocates of the slur that Israel is an Apartheid state that gravitate towards universities,” he said. “All hatemongers do, because of the credibility it gives their propaganda.”

Although Matas asserted that Israeli Apartheid Week meets the standard of criminal hate speech,…

Do Arabs and Jews realize how much they look alike?
06/10/2009 23:43

Artist’s project asks: Can 2 people who look so similar really be enemies?

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.

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. The writer is a PhD student in geography at the Hebrew University and runs the Terra Incognita Journal blog.

Center Field: Treat the apartheid slur the A-word like the N-word
By Gil Troy, Jerusalem Post, 8-25-09

Cape Argus (South Africa) August 2009
Apartheid slur is an insult to Israelis.(News). August 13, 2009. Another missile fired from Gaza at the Israelis. Just a footnote at the bottom of the page, hardly noticeable. This apparently is the norm.

If the Israelis don’t reply, which they sometimes reluctantly do, the provocation will continue and indeed intensify – until hell breaks loose. What a tricky and horrid situation.

It’s easy to be an armchair critic and hurl stones at a man defending his sovereignty. It’s easy too to understand Palestinian anger and resentment. But to say that the situation over there is akin to apartheid is sheer mischief-making.

The Israeli state and indeed parliament (Knesset) consists of members from every ethnic group..

Israel’s equal rights for all – Letters, Opinion – Belfasttelegraph.co.uk … (1 Sep 2009) … sitting in the same parks, cinemas and theatres – so lets bin Eamonn’s apartheid slur straight away and address the very real issues of
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/israelrsquos-equal-rights-for-all-14475869.html?st artindex=0

Black Students Blast the “Israeli Apartheid” Slur

CAMERA: Simon’s Smear – Jan 30, 2009
In the January 25th episode of CBS’s 60 Minutes entitled “Is Peace Out of Reach,” correspondent Bob Simon teamed up with Palestinian politician and partisan Mustafa Barghouti to promote the Palestinian view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, heaping blame on Israel and exculpating the Palestinians for the absence of peace. In a caricature of Israeli villainy and Palestinian victimhood Simon presented a simple fable: a two-state solution, the key to peace, is thwarted by stubborn Israeli settlers.
propaganda including the slur that Israel practices apartheid

The “Israel Apartheid” Lie
March 5, 2009
The comparison is so inapt that it would be laughable were it not so insulting. In apartheid-era South Africa, black citizens were totally disenfranchised, subject to oppressive laws that controlled every aspect of their behavior, and completely segregated from the ruling white minority. In Israel, on the other hand, both Jewish and Arab citizens have equal protection under the law, enjoy freedom of religion and speech, and full voting rights. In fact, Israels 120-member parliament, the Knesset, includes 12 Arab Israeli members.

What could be the possible motivation of those who apply this word, which has such evil connotations, to the Middle Easts only democracy? Benjamin Pogrund, a South African Jew now living in Israel who saw firsthand the horrible oppression and misery caused by the apartheid system in his native country, sums it up like this: Apartheid is used in this case and elsewhere because it comes easily to hand: it is a lazy label for the complexities of the Middle East conflict. It is also used because, if it can be made to stick, then Israel can be made to appear to be as vile as was apartheid South Africa and seeking its destruction can be presented to the world as an equally moral cause.

Pogrund also sums up the vast difference between apartheid-era South Africa and Israel in human terms. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital, he says. The surgeon was Jewish, the anesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each others homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.
If they chose to do so, the Israel apartheid protesters could refocus their indignation on other countries and regions where real human rights violations are all too common. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is no such thing as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, and women are second-class citizens under the law. In Iran, politically motivated killings and kidnappings are common, ethnic and religious minorities are harshly repressed, and freedom of the press is nonexistent. In Zimbabwe, government security forces regularly kill, unlawfully imprison, and torture opponents in order to suppress dissent. In Hamas-controlled Gaza, as well as parts of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority, a small remaining population of Christians is regularly harassed, intimidated, and even murdered by radical Islamists.

Yet, the Israel Apartheid Week protesters have nothing to say about the gross human rights abuses that routinely occur elsewhere. Why? Because their real agenda is not to improve the plight of Palestinians, but to attack Israel. The apartheid slur is just another way for Israels enemies to try to delegitimize and undermine the Jewish state by comparing its self-defense measures to the brutal discrimination of an evil regime. The comparison is false. Those who make it reveal their own dishonesty, hatreds, and biases … and nothing about Israel.

WJC head urges Zuma to denounce unfair ‘apartheid – Jerusalem Post –
Aug 30, 2009 WJC head urges Zuma to denounce unfair ‘apartheid’ slurs against Israel … to denounce comparisons of Israel to apartheid South Africa.
WJC – WJC head urges Zuma to denounce unfair ‘apartheid’ slurs …
WJC head urges Zuma to denounce unfair ‘apartheid’ slurs against Israel.

Hate-Fest, Starring Jane Fonda – Op-Eds – Israel National News
Sep 16, 2009 They say “Apartheid” where there is no Apartheid. … Noam Chomsky, who can always be counted on when it’s time to slur the Jewish State

Worldview – Israeli Response: Accusations of Apartheid Slur Israel

Lost Worlds Year 2009 – 29 Jan 2010 – Then came remarks from former US President Jimmy Carter, … rebuttal in Washington Post from Michael Kinsley on “Carter’s apartheid slur”.

Israel, Democracy, and the Apartheid Myth
by David Saks
[1 Jan, 2010]

Israel has its faults, but it remains the only true democracy in the Middle East, one whose laws bear no serious comparison not only with the late, unlamented white minority regime in apartheid South Africa but with practically every other country in the region.

Widespread discrimination exists throughout the Middle East. Primarily, this is religious in nature, with the dominant Islamic faith being used in various ways to deny religious minorities, including Jews, equal status with their Muslim compatriots. It can, however, also take racial-ethnic forms, such as legalized discrimination against the descendants of Arab refugees in Lebanon and against the Kurdish minority in Syria. Gender discrimination, of course, is both notorious and ongoing throughout the Middle East.

That being said, in a matter such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that so sorely needs a clear-headed, sober analysis to clarify the many issues involved, it does not help merely to respond to propaganda with equally one-sided counter-propaganda. Israel’s many virtues concerning its treatment of ethnic and religious minorities (especially when seen in the context of how such minorities are treated in other Middle Eastern countries) need to be publicized. This alone can go a long way towards dispelling the lurid images of a rogue racist state that its detractors have conjured up.

In conclusion, in order to disprove an accusation that someone is a villain, it is not necessary to prove that he is a saint. In other words, it should not be required to demonstrate that Israel is a faultless utopia in order to refute charges that it is an apartheid state. Suffice it to say that comparisons between the notorious apartheid system and modern-day Israeli society are baseless, and should be dismissed for what they are–a politically motivated slur against the State and people of Israel.

Let’s Launch “Arab Apartheid Week” – Fundamentally Freund … [3/12/2010]
And so, as usual, the only democracy in the Middle East once again finds itself on the receiving end of yet another indefensible canard, accused of one of modernity’s greatest political sins without any basis or justification.

Simply put, this slur cannot be allowed to stand. It is an insult to Israel and its democracy, and dangerously analogousto asserting that Zionism is a form of racism. If allowed to take hold in the public’s consciousness, it could have far-reaching and extremely damaging effects on support for Israel in the near- and long-term.

Israeli Apartheid Week’s Distortion of Reality
The campaign against Israel is about dehumanization and elementary prejudice
by Asher Susser
JPC Exclusive
March 15, 2010
The association of Israel with apartheid is a propagandistic fabrication. Anyone even remotely familiar with Israel and apartheid South Africa would immediately recognize that this is an ignorant defamatory comparison. It is made not to de-legitimize Israel’s occupation of the West Bank but to de-legitimize the State of Israel itself and to pave the way for a Middle East without Israel. This is what these people are talking about. Those who allow their activities, unwittingly, or not, are partaking in this war against Israel. This is sending the Middle East peace process back by half a century.

The comparison of the apartheid South African ruling minority with the Jews of Israel does not hold any water for many reasons, but firstly because of the diametrically opposed demographic reality whereby the Jewish Israelis are the overwhelming majority in their country, which the whites never were in South Africa. The Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel constitute about 17-18 percent of the total population. Whatever one may have to say about Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, and they are not flawless nor free of tensions and problems of inequality and discrimination, as in many multi-ethnic societies, they are not founded on a legal infrastructure of racial discrimination.

Moreover, as is well known, the Arabs in Israel are equal citizens of the state by law and have equal access to the political process, the courts, the education system, universal health care and social welfare. One man one vote was an essential component of the Israeli political system from the day it was founded. None of this applied in apartheid South Africa where the black majority, which was some 85 percent of the population, was lorded over by a miniscule white minority, had no vote and could not share the same hospitals, stores, universities, buses or even park benches. The comparison is preposterous.

The occupation of the West Bank is an anomaly and like so much else a product of war and conflict between Israel and the Arabs and not an ideology of racial discrimination. The two-state solution that should replace this anomaly is precisely what these enemies of Israel oppose. It is not an agreement with Israel that they seek but a world without Israel. Their campaign, therefore, has a sinister purpose. It is the preparation of world opinion for the undoing of Israel as the State of the Jewish people. Israel was founded on the basis of a UN Resolution that called for the establishment of two states in Palestine — one Jewish and one Arab. The Arabs elected to go to war to defeat the resolution and lost, but make no mistake, the objective of those who presently pronounce Israel’s fundamental illegitimacy is still the same, only to be obtained by other means, political, diplomatic and quasi-legal.

The apartheid slur is demonizing and dehumanizing. After the spate of suicide bombings in Israel at the beginning of this decade Israel built a security barrier which its detractors like to call the “Apartheid Wall.” That would suggest, as Israel’s critics naturally intend to do, that the barrier was constructed for racist reasons. The barrier/fence/wall was put up after eleven hundred Israelis had been slaughtered in the restaurants and the buses by suicide bombers. Referring to the fence as if it were a racist exercise ignores Israeli losses as if Israeli lives were worthless, no more than human dust. Placing the fence in a context of racial discrimination deliberately distorts reality, removing it entirely from its conflictual context, completely devaluing the lives of Israelis, as if their humanity was imaginary.

Moreover, the fence, as Israel’s detractors often complain, is an inconvenience to the many Palestinians who live on both sides of the barrier. While it saves Israeli lives, it is most regrettable that it also causes inconvenience to so many Palestinians. But if there are so many Palestinians on both sides of the barrier, it might inflict all sorts of impositions, but a racist apartheid wall it just cannot be.

This apartheid campaign against Israel is about dehumanization and elementary prejudice. Prejudice is recognized by its three constituent practices: it singles out its subject; it then applies a double standard to the subject’s behavior; which is, of course, forever guilty. Israel’s detractors, in many cases, and especially the proponents of the apartheid calumny are the epitome of prejudice. They single Israel out for special treatment, apply a standard to Israel that applies to no one else and pronounce it guilty as charged.

It is a sad state of affairs that reputable and otherwise enlightened liberal-minded institutions of higher learning allow these demonstrations of hateful prejudice and dissemination of falsehood to take place on their campuses. Their laxity flies in the face of the most fundamental principles of academic integrity that such institutions should uphold.

Professor Asher Susser is a Senior Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is presently a visiting Senior Fellow at the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University.

Five Myths About Israel’s Security Fence | Stand for Israel
16 Jan 2010 – The “apartheid” slur is just another tool for Israels enemies to delegitimize and undermine the Jewish states right to exist.

More Proof of Obama’s Poor Judgment
March 4th, 2010 at 12:01 am David Frum
I see that President Obama’s one-time nominee as National Intelligence director has not only endorsed the “Israel apartheid” slur – but has taken to an explicitly Israel-eliminationist website to do so.
A reminder of how appalling the president’s foreign policy judgment can be.

making a difference around the world spring 2010 standwithus …
… particularly our brochures that tackle the apartheid slur often leveled at israel by extreme groups

Outpost of democracy | The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune [May 7, 2010]
Public Forum Letter
Published May 8, 2010 6:00 pm

Frances ReMillard decries the “apartheid” practiced by Israel (“Israel and apartheid,” Forum, April 27). Israel is surrounded by states in which it is illegal or very dangerous to be a Jew. I haven’t seen a similar letter by ReMillard criticizing the “apartheid” practiced by Israel’s neighbors.

The 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel enjoy more civil rights and greater prosperity than they would in any of the Islamic states that surround Israel. Israel is a tiny beleaguered outpost of liberal democracy in a sea of tyrannical despotism, and yet it is always Israel and only Israel that is singled out with the “apartheid” slur. Which one would you rather be, a Muslim living in Israel or a Jew living in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

ReMillard concludes with an appeal to America to abandon Israel out of American self-interest, stating that supporters of Israel aren’t interested in “justice.” The opposite is true.
D. Hodges

13 April 2010
SanFranciscoSentinel.com – Apr 13, 2010
… that despite all their advantages, the pro-Palestinian forces trying to delegitimize Israel with the apartheid slur have failed to mount a mass movement.

Does Jimmy Carter Deserve To Be Sued?

He doesn’t deserve censorship. But he does deserve the hassle.
By Mona Charen

February 4, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Mona Charen In a suit filed in federal court in New York, former president Jimmy Carter, along with his publisher, Simon and Schuster, is being sued by five readers of his 2006 book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The suit alleges that the defendants violated New York’s consumer-protection laws by committing “deceptive acts in the conduct of business, trade, or commerce.” The plaintiffs, who hope to be considered a class, were “members of the reading public who thought they could trust a former president of the United States and a well-established book publisher to tell the truth.”

Does Carter deserve this trouble? Oh yes, he deeply, richly deserves it. Should the suit prevail? More on that in a moment.

President Carter has preened that “my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents.” Considering that he had four years as leader of the free world, the post-presidency claim sounds more like a bleat than a boast. And even still, it’s false. In fact, no former president including Richard Nixon has behaved as dishonorably as Jimmy Carter. His post-presidency has been marked by truckling to America’s enemies (North Korea, Syria, the PLO, Nicaragua) and actively impeding U.S. foreign policies of which he disapproved. Before the first Gulf War, for example, when Pres. George H. W. Bush was attempting to assemble an international coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council urging members not to cooperate with the U.S.

Carter’s apologies for the United States make Obama’s seem chauvinistic. Meeting with Haiti’s dictator Raoul Cedras, Carter allowed that he was “ashamed of what my country has done to your country.” And explaining why other Americans took a skeptical view of Syria’s Hafez al-Assad and North Korea’s Kim II Sung, both of whom, he wrote, “have at times been misunderstood, ridiculed, and totally condemned by the American public,” Carter surmises that this is in part because “their names are foreign, not Anglo-Saxon.”
And then there is Carter’s festering abhorrence of the Jewish state, which reached its fullest expression in Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The title expresses his sympathies and antipathies succinctly. It’s a book about a land — Israel — that Carter would prefer became “Palestine.” How else to interpret the latter part of the title — “Peace, Not Apartheid”? The leftist/Islamist slur against Israel is that it is a racist, apartheid state akin to South Africa and therefore lacking in legitimacy. Carter embraces this calumny.

And more. So many more. The book is a skein of falsehoods. Carter repeatedly gets history wrong — as when he suggests that Israel attacked Jordan in the 1967 war. In fact, Israel pleaded with Jordan to remain neutral as it fought off Egypt and Syria. But Jordan elected to join the other Arab states in attempting to obliterate Israel. It lost Jerusalem and the West Bank as a consequence.

The former president surely knew, when he wrote this sentence, that it was completely untrue: “The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949-1967.” In fact, no U.S. government, including Carter’s, insisted on withdrawal to what Abba Eban called “Auschwitz borders.” Carter also repeatedly insinuates that U.N. Resolution 242 calls for such a withdrawal — another lie. The resolution does speak of withdrawal, but was carefully crafted (against the objections of the Soviets) not to call for such a total pullout.

Carter writes that in the years since the Camp David accords, “The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians.” Obviously, patently false. Concerning the 2000 Camp David/Taba negotiations, Carter suggests that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority rejected a compromise. But as former State Department chief negotiator Dennis Ross has countered, “Their [Israel’s] government, meaning the cabinet, actually voted for it. . . . This is a matter of record, not a matter of interpretation.” Carter’s good friend Arafat walked away and started the second Intifada.

The former president’s sloppiness — or mendacity — shows up on nearly every page of the book. He claims that an Arab document, the so-called “Prisoners Proposal,” called for “a unity government with Hamas joining the PLO, the release of all political prisoners, acceptance of Israel as a neighbor within its legal borders . . . ” Or not. Here is Abdul Raman Zidan, a Palestinian minister, on the BBC: “You will not find one word in the document clearly stating the recognition of Israel as a state.”

There’s more. Carter’s distaste not just for Israel but also for Jews is reflected in some of his anecdotes, as is his inexplicable attraction to autocrats and thugs in positions of power.

But a lawsuit is not the way to deal with this. The First Amendment trumps all. The courts cannot police books for accuracy — not in America.

But the rest of us can.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
[JWR, Feb. 4, 2011]

The Canadian Jewish News – IAW: a legacy of inaction – 3 Mar 2011 – In effect, what we see repeatedly is the slur of Israeli apartheid as a launch point in the abuse of podium that pervades the campus discourse not only during IAW, but year round. Portraying Israel as an apartheid state with all of its connotations of demonization, delegitimization, criminalization and dehumanization has been adopted as the weapon of choice for Israel-baiters and Jew-haters… Even if this assessment were correct although theres not a shred of measurable evidence to support it the damage has already been done. The canard of Israel as an apartheid state has become embedded in the lexicon of the academy, and, with each passing year, its imprint will become more indelible.
http://www.cjnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20895&pop=1&page=0& amp;Itemid=86

Among the slurs is the cry of racism. Israel has no moral right to exist because it is … racism, and apartheid and international Israel Apartheid Week.

Lettera a un amico antisionista
Pierluigi Battista (Author)

Product Details
Hardcover: 119 pages
Publisher: Rizzoli (Jan 1 2011)
Language: Italian
ISBN-10: 8817047430
ISBN-13: 978-8817047432
Treason of the intelligentsia, Jun 9 2011
By Pieter “Toypom” (Johannesburg) – This review is from: Lettera a un amico antisionista (Hardcover)
Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend explores the fact that European and American élites are being contaminated by a bias against Israel regardless of logic or historical fact. The narrative of the intelligentsia, burdened down with studies and statistics, promotes the idea that it would be better if the State of Israel never existed. That it ought not to exist and that it will be destroyed. Demolishing this intellectual perversion of ant Zionist hatred in five blistering chapters, Battista reveals anti-Zionism for what it really is: Anti-Semitism.

In general, opinion shapers in the media, academia and the world of cinema are fostering a public opinion based upon silent agreement; a climate that delegitimizes Israel’s right to exist, libels it with the ‘apartheid’ slur and accuses it of war crimes. In the words of a previous French ambassador to London: “that shitty little country.” This warped mindset indulges in the most outrageous double standards that absolve the worst dictators while denying Israel’s right to life.

Battista shows how the United Nations and the European Union operate in a fever swamp of lies and deception. These and other multinational organizations protect the violators of human rights while ignoring human rights abuses in places like China, Chechnya and Sudan. Yet they criticize Israeli checkpoints that deter terrorist attacks by using pornographic adjectives like “Nazi”.

Battista assails this mindset on two fronts, (a) by pointing out the correspondences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and (b) by highlighting the maniacal obsession that Robert Wistrich calls the lethal obsession. Battista demonstrates so convincingly that this obsession is rooted in anti-Semitism.

But there’s more to it, as the author explains. Israel is being judged by an ideological system that emerged during the Cold War, in which the poor are automatically “good” whilst westerners are automatically “evil colonialists.” This system of judgment has a logical flaw at its core: the double standard. There are millions of displaced persons around the world whose plight is ignored. Just consider the Uighurs, Darfur, Tibet, Kirghizstan and the cruelty that characterized the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Battista identifies the sources of the masked anti-Semitism by denouncing this double standard in a series of debates with prominent figures like Sergio Romano, Barbara Spinelli, Tom Segev and the late Edward Said. He makes it clear by analogy. Specific governments are criticized all the time but one seldom encounters blanket criticism of for example Italy or Sweden as a whole, whilst their right to exist is never questioned.

And this is the theme of Battista’s work, presented in lucid arguments and with moral clarity: that the despicable questioning of Israel’s right to exist derives from the mental virus of anti-Semitism. I also recommend the works of Robin Shepherd, Neill Lochery and Denis MacShane.

Divest This!: Cost
Apr 18, 2011 As that series pointed out, support for the Apartheid slur among actual Apartheid survivors is mixed (Tutu yes, Mandala not really).

Daily Kos: Arab-Islamic apartheid world bigoted ‘apartheid’ slur
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988261/-Arab-Islamic-apartheid-world-bigoted-apartheid-slur -campaign-upon-multi-racial-democratic-Israel

Letters to the Editor Winnipeg Free Press
Have your say
Posted: 09/30/2011
A vicious slur
Drawing an analogy between Israel and apartheid, as Jimmy Carter and Free Press letter writer Ron Gaffray have done (Unviable occupation, Sept. 27), is not only ill-informed, inflammatory and without any factual or logical basis, it’s also a vicious slur employed by those who seek to demonize and deligitimize the right of the Jewish state to exist.

In making this comparison, these activists seek to paint Israel, the paragon of openness, tolerance and human rights, as a racist and criminal pariah state that commits crimes against humanity.

Consider this: An Arab (Salim Joubran) serves on the Israeli Supreme Court, the former Miss Israel (Rana Rasian) is Arab, the captain of Israeli soccer team Hapolel Tel Aviv (Walid Badir) is Arab, the former deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset (Majalil Wahabi) is Druze.

Israel has accepted thousands of African refugees fleeing for their lives and welcomed thousands of Ethiopian immigrants. Jews and Arabs sing and dance together in Israel, swim in the Dead Sea, shop together and are educated at the same schools.

This farcical comparison should be unequivocally rebuked and condemned. Furthermore, contrary to Gaffray’s assertion, while there are roads prohibited to Palestinians in the West Bank, there are no “roads built solely for Jews.” Israel’s Arab citizens and, indeed, Israeli citizens of any religion or ethnicity, have just as much right to travel on those restricted roads as do Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs frequently use the bypass roads for business and to visit relatives.

The comment ‘rejected’ by pro-Arab racism of the HuffPost’s moderator
[30 June 2011]
[…] So much for your Arabic style of buzzwords like “graveyards” as if we don’t know who causes Arab civiian deaths. When is there going to be an outcry in the Arab world against Hamas/Hezbollah use of civilians to make sure Arab kids die in order to damn the Zionists? The same goes to the racist Arab “apartheid” slur on Israel’s true democracy where Arabs have more than equal rights, when you count the favoritism of the ‘affirnative action’ system in Israel.
http://conservativeamericannews.com/conservatism/the-comment-rejected-by-pro-arab-racism-of-the-huff posts-moderator

On CiF Watch and the fight against anti-Semitism
July 8, 2011
AL: Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany have been codified as anti-Semitic by the EU working definition of anti-Semitism.

When you compare Israel to Nazi Germany you’re saying, in effect, that, like Nazi Germany, Israel is morally beyond the pale and therefore has no moral legitimacy and no right to exist. It’s a way for those who seek her destruction to morally and politically justify their stance. Moreover, being asked to respond to such a hideous charge is not unlike asking the US to respond to charges by Iran that America is the great Satan.

In other words, such a charge against Israel is not a morally or intellectually serious argument, and it really shouldn’t be dignified as if it’s a serious charge. It’s simply abuse. The fact is that, by any measure (such as the annual country reports which are published by the highly reputable human rights monitoring organization, Freedom House), Israel is, by far, the nation with the best human rights record in the Middle East.

As far as the Apartheid slur, again, the main point of such a charge is to morally delegitimize Israel. The fact is that Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy full civil rights (in housing, education, voting, etc.) which South Africa’s blacks were denied. There are Arab Israelis in every sector of Israeli societyand their rights are protected by an independent judiciary.

In fact there is a Christian Arab on the Supreme Court, and Arab parties in the Knesset. In South Africa under Apartheid, Blacks weren’t permitted to live in White neighborhoods, go to White schools, or even date (or marry) Whites. There is no policy in Israel which even approaches such prohibitions.

The related charge that Israel “ethnically cleanses” its Palestinian/Arab/ethnic minority population are easily contradicted by population growth of every major religious/ethnic minority, both in Israel proper, and in the disputed territories.

11/4/2011: Internationalnews: Goldstone hits apartheid slur [The Australian Jewish News Sydney edition]
http://www.dailynewspapercovers.com/View/Australia/The+Australian+Jewish+News+Sydney+edition/Story/1 1-4-2011-Internationalnews-Goldstone-hits-apartheid-slur
[4 Nov 2011
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition JTA Goldstone hits apartheid slur

Israel and the Apartheid Slur
[American Thinker – July 24, 2011]
By Michael Weinberg
[…] as a Jew, and an Israeli, I do not wish a return to apartheid, in practice, but rather to closer examine this loaded, grossly distorted, and extremely misunderstood term. Apartheid bears no resemblance to the reality of day-to-day life in Israel…

These efforts to demonize a nation of survivors, from the biblical to modern era, are baffling and reckless. Israel assists in countless life-saving rescue missions and disaster relief operations locally and worldwide. We care for neighbors and strangers by saving lives of the injured or sick such as in recently devastated Haiti, refuge for thousands of African refugees fleeing horrific conflict. At the cost of precious lives, Israel’s best intentions and expertise are often refused as did the Iranian government after a catastrophic 2003 earthquake or grossly manipulated via horrific and unsubstantiated slander such as accusations against Jewish surgeons of harvesting organs of dead or injured Haitians. Such baseless and libelous accusations are dangerous to Jewish and non-Jewish lives, alike…

I live amongst people of all nationalities, colors, creeds, religions, sexual preference, and political affiliation. On any given day a multitude of languages can be heard spoken on the streets: Farsi, English, Thai, French, German, Finnish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew. Together we share government offices, waiting rooms, hospitals, shops, eateries, holy sites, pharmacies, medical facilities, zoos, malls, grocery stores, post offices, universities, workplaces, and neighborhoods. We serve and share roles as varied as doctors, nurses, surgeons, mechanics, rail-workers, clerks, soldiers, elected officials, lawyers, journalists, and taxi drivers. We are an integrated society…

When Israel does not actively prevent or defend against provocation, murder and massacre people will die. This includes civilians within Israel and civilians within areas under PLO or Hamas auspices. The precedent above defies logic and justice and renders survival of Israel impossible…

10-15-2011 10:26 pm

The collective intolerant Islamic apartheid systems one by one.

All minorities suffer from harsh discrimination in all Arab/Islamic societies, not to mention the wide ethnic cleansing of a Million Jewish refugees.
Among regimes accused of ‘apartheid’ are:

– Iran [Ethnic racist apartheid against: Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmen etc. Religious apartheid: against all other faiths: Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahai’, Jews, etc.].

– Sudan [Arab racist supremacist genocide and oppression motivated by racism against non-Arab natives. The Arab ruler al-Bashir is accused of genocide. There’s also a Sharia strict Islamic rule against non-Muslims].

– Mauritania [against non-Arab natives].

– Arab-Palestine, Palestinian Authority [against Christians, Jews (such as, a ‘Jew-free’ policy, with a racist law punishable by death of anyone selling land to Jews), Ahmadis, blacks].

– Jordan [against Christians, Arab-Palestinians, non-Bedouin Arabs, Jews (in fact, already in 1948, it instituted a real ‘legal’ religious apartheid system in its occupied Jerusalem, which was abolished when Israel liberated it in 1967), Gypsies].

– Syria [against the majority who is not Alawi… Still, Kurds are among the non-Arab groups who suffer probably the most of Arab racism.

– Kuwait / UAE [against Asians, Blacks].

Saudi Arabia [against Asians, Jews, Christians, Blacks].

– Bahrain / Saudi Arabia [anti-Shia apartheid].

– Egypt [against Christian Copts – the pre-Arab invasion indigenous people, and against blacks].

– Iraq [still, post Saddam’s era, anti-Black discriminations, anti-Assyrian and anti-Kurd].

– Lebanon [anti-Blacks, anti Arab-Palestinian and deep Muslim Christian divide].

– Libya [anti-black racism, oppression].

– Turkey [against (Christians as a whole) Greeks (plus the apartheid on Cyprus), Armenians, Kurds.

– Yemen [against indigenous al-Akhdam].

– Morocco / Tunisia / Algeria [against Berbers – indigenous people, before the Arab invasion].

– Malaysia [racial superiority against non-Malaysians].

– Indonesia [non-Muslims, especially Chinese, Christians, also long bloody history on ‘others,’ in Papua and in E. Timor].

– Pakistan [non-Muslims in general, especially Indians, incuding certain election laws desinged to block non-Muslims].


Worth mentioning that while Christians dwindle all over intolerant Middle East, they flourish only in Israel…

Israeli Arabs enjoy preferential treatment (affirmative action on campus, employment) and reach all high positions. Including a 2007 Arab president of the Jewish democratic State.
Case after case in Israeli courts systems, Israeli Arabs are often given preferences, especially in issues involving land.
On top of it, there’s a serious gross imbalance which Israeli-Arabs have an advantage in. Unlike Israeli Jews, the Arabs are not obligated to serve in the military, yet possess all rights Israeli Jews have.

Anti-Israel radicals try to portray, what Israel defends against a racist ‘ocean’ of entities who openly seek to wipe it off, as “racist”. If denying its right to survive is not racism, what is?
Just because Carter (has copied M. Bishara’s 2002 book title, after he was paid by the Arab lobby, and so irresponsibly used) the “apartheid” slur, doesn’t make it true.

[see also: Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby, by: Jacob Laksin, FPM Dec 18, 2006, The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East, by Mitchell Bard, (HarperCollins, 2010), p. 135 “…deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received.”


Let’s not forget, that it was the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmad Shukairy –who, aided the Mufti during his pact with Hitler in WW2 (Congressional record: proceedings and debates of the United States Congress: Volume 113, Part 12, United States. Congress – Govt. Print. Off., 1967. p. A-525)– in 1961 in his UN hate speech, with the racist idea of erroneously comparing democratic Israel to “apartheid.”


In fact, Carter’s use of the slur was/is only intended to provoke and incite, to provoke debate and to provoke discussion as Carter admitted himself (CNN, Nov. 27, 2006).
He also said: “I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.” (CNN, Dec. 12, 2006).


Columbia: Vanguard Decries Apartheid Slur
October 12, 2011
Jewish Week: SJP gathering in NY this weekend

HRC Challenges Vicious Slurs Against Israel in Winnipeg Free Press
Oct 3, 2011 – HRC Challenges Vicious Slurs Against Israel in Winnipeg Free Press … slurs against Israel which falsely claimed that it was an “apartheid”


Have your say – Winnipeg Free Press
Sep 30, 2011 – A vicious slur. Drawing an analogy between Israel and apartheid, as Jimmy Carter and Free Press letter writer Ron Gaffray have done


Amnesty refuses to reconsider anti-Israel activist speech

01/20/2012 03:44

Journalist Ben White to discuss his new book ‘Palestinians in Israel…

LONDON – Human rights organization Amnesty International refused to heed a request from a Jewish community organization to withdraw a platform it is giving to an anti-Israel activist.
… Comment is Free Watch, an organization that monitors the Guardian’s blog Comment is Free, where White blogs, said that he regularly attributes the malicious slurs of colonization, racism and apartheid to Israel, acts as an apologist for Islamist violence against the Jewish state, draws parallels between Nazi Germany and Zionism and flirtation with Holocaust denial.


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


11 Jul


Ahmad shukairy Arab-nazi has invented the apartheid slur (upon pluralistic democratic Israel. Where Arabs are not only treated equal in all aspects, but often enjoy more rights than Jews, in ‘affirmative action’ and other preferential treatments. [“Affirmative Action?” the Israeli Edition – Op-Eds – Israel National News, 7 Feb 2002] [“Israel: The Jewish affirmative action state,” by Ariel Natan Pasko, IsraelInsider, July 1, 2005] [‘Israel Government Action in the Arab Sector’, Jewish Virtual Library, February 21, 2000)] [“Israel National Radio – Zionist Affirmative Action.” 12/7/2010 3:58:00 PM. A7 Radio’s “Behind the Scene” with David Bedein. Israel National News] [‘Affirming affirmative action’ – by Mohammad Darawshe, Haaretz, 02-04-10] [‘Israel a safe haven for Arabs’ – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews 27 Apr 2011] [“Government approves affirmative action in civil service
Government offices will be encouraged to recruit staff from ethnic minorities, especially Arabs.” 12 March 06 18:42, Zeev Klein. Globes
][“Zionism as Affirmative Action” – The Israel Report April 2001] [2000 students owe university place to affirmative action – Haaretz. 19 Nov 2009]
), six years before the so-called “occupation” excuse came about) in 1961. [Middle East Record Volume 2, 1961 By Yitzhak Oron, Ed., Page 188] He helped the (ally of Adolf Hitler, al-Husseini, better known as the) Mufti and aided in extermination of Jews in WW2, according to testimony in Congress. [Congressional record: proceedings and debates of the United States Congress: Volume 113, Part 12 – United States. Congress – Govt. Print. Off., 1967 – Page A-525]. The same Shukairy admitted in 1956 that so-called “Palestine” is NOTHING but a part of Syria… [United Nations review: Volume 3 – United Nations. Dept. of Public Information, United Nations. Office of Public Information – 1957 – Page 8] [Politics, lies, and videotape: 3,000 questions and answers on the Mideast crisis – Page 392 – Yitschak Ben Gad – SP Books, 1991 – 479 pages] Then, in 1963, he changed his mind, and the ‘new nationalism’ is ‘conveniently’ used -since then- by Arab immigrants’ children who call themselves as “Palestinians” (mainly) since about that same year. He’s more famous for coining the Palestine Liberation Organization’s genocide slogan ‘Drive the Jews into the Sea’ [America’s Two Holy Wars – John Tyler – Page 246]. And if all that wasn’t enough, he also identified himself with Nazi groups in 1962. [The re-emergence of fascism – by Dennis Eisenberg, MacGibbon & Kee, 1967, 348 Pages – Page 322]


All the while, the Arab world and the Muslim world are the largest practitioners of racial and religious apartheid. Where not one minority has equal rights with the governing power’s ethnic-group/race/religion. Not to mention the still-practiced racist slavery on Asians and on blacks by Arabs. And the ethnic cleansing by the Arab world including by anti-Christian, anti-Jewish Arab-Islamic-Apartheid-Palestine.
To quote from books: The Islamic world “the world’s largest practitioner of both religious and gender apartheid.” [Israel: And the Palestinian Nightmare – Page 158 – Ze’ev Shemer – 2010 – 244 pages] “The Islamic culture of “religious intolerance, economic backwardness, gender apartheid, muzzled press, militarism, terrorism.” [A theory of international terrorism: understanding Islamic militancy – Page 153 – L. Ali Khan – 2006 – 371 pages] The “antisemitism of the Arab world and the Muslim world.” The racist “long history of oppression against minorities in Arab countries.” [U.S. news & world report: Volume 131, Issues 8-18 – U.S. News Pub. Corp., 2001 – Page 120] [“Beware Palestinian apartheid,” ‘Op-ed: Palestinian leader Abbas seeks to adopt racist policy based on ethnic cleansing of Jews.’ Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, Ynet, 08.04.10] [The Real Apartheid State, by David Bedein, 2011]


The lying Arab-Palestinian Goliath machine not only lies and denies Israel’s extending more rights to Arabs than to Jews (like favortism in court, affirmative action and exemption from military service), but also fabricates “memorandums” like a supposed speech by N. Mandela which was actually written by an Arab residing in the Netherland… The Arab lobby also aided J. Carter (the one who wrote a hate book in 2006 with almost an exact title of that by Palestinian-Arab M. Bishara in 2002), who uttered anti-Jewish bigoted statements like: ‘stating Freeman’s recommendations for council board members contained “too many Jews.”‘ [Living in the Times of the Signs – Page 219 – David R. Barnhart – 2007 – 492 pages]


The racist Arab “apartheid” slander campaign (like infamous ‘apartheid week’) has been accompanied by usual anti-Jewish hatred outbursts, including calls to kill Jews, Swastikas, etc. [M. Ignatieff: Israel Apartheid Week and CUPE Ontario’s anti-Israel posturing should be condemned.” National Post, March 05, 2009] [“A Double Standard For Campus Free Speech,” The Jewish Press, 25 Feb 2009] [Swastikas and Ku Klux Klan Symbols during ‘Apartheid Week…” Israel National News, 3 Mar 2010]

Anti Semitism always refered to exclusively anti-Jewish bigotry [see: (renowned historian and scholar) Bernard Lewis, “Semites and Antisemites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice,” New York: WW Norton, 1986], including by: Arab anti-Jewish racism and Islamic anti-Jewish intolerance which is the thrust of the “conflict” that began by al-Husseini the Mufti in the 1920s.

From the Wall Street Journal, “The Mufti of Berlin” – September, 2009: ‘Arab-Nazi collaboration is a taboo topic in the West. …venom pioneered by the mufti as do Islamic hate preachers around the world. Muslim Judeophobia is not as is commonly claimeda reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main “root causes.” It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel’s creation.’

Hello world!

11 Jul

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can alway preview any post or edit you before you share it to the world.