RACIST ARAB APARTHEID

14 Jul

RACIST ARAB APARTHEID


RACIST APARTHEID ARABIA

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.

http://books.google.com/books?&id=AJ9IAAAAMAAJ&dq=apartheid


Let’s launch ‘Arab Apartheid Week’


By MICHAEL FREUND 
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.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=170729


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.”

http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/blogs.php?Itemid=3053

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.

http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=47274

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.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1937/arab-apartheid-week


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.
http://www.factsandlogic.org/flame_hotline_031610-p.html

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.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3842037,00.html

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?

http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_126.html

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

http://www.jeffreybergman.com/alan-dershowitzs-response-to-israel-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.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10067

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.




Egypt:



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.


___

Jordan:



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.


___

Syria:



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.


___

Lebanon:



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.


___

Kuwait:



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]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YXt1QMxVyjbE_biHw9IAAi_SigLWLneI3QEJvQKsBQw/edit?hl=en


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).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tlCHQ6LU988C&pg=PA220


___



Arab Apartheid AGAINST AFRICANS: SUDAN, MAURITANIA, TANZANIA

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,..

http://books.google.com/books?&id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=Front+of+SADR

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.

http://books.google.com/books?&id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=Syrians+and+Lebanese

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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22

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);

http://books.google.com/books?id=PGwYMojX06wC&pg=PA307


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);

http://books.google.com/books?&id=v6LyAAAAMAAJ&dq=Patterns+of+the+concentration+of+power+by+the+state+as+of+1992+have+been+outlined+in+these+words%3A+The+state+was+captured+by+the+white+race+in+South+Africa+%28apartheid%29%3B+by+Arabs+in+Mauritania+and+Sudan+%28Arab+apartheid%29%3B

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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=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…


http://books.google.com/books?&id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=slave


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.

http://books.google.com/books?&id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=defacto

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. …
http://books.google.com/books?&id=d_IPAQAAMAAJ&dq=arabism


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 …
http://books.google.com/books?id=8duB0b-C1WAC&pg=PA152


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.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PGwYMojX06wC&pg=PA124


Book review: Sudan – WSJ.com

Anatomy of Misery

By GEORGE AYITTEY

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421901117532376.html


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.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=NLC0AAAAIAAJ&dq=persecuted


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…

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB0F196209DE024&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM


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.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22institution+of+Arab+apartheid,+slavery+and+oppression+of+blacks+in+Mauritania+and+Sudan%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers


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…
http://books.google.com/books?id=jVI1jF5ireQC&pg=PA126


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, …
http://books.google.com/books?id=5HtUn_dUmSYC&pg=PA50


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.”
http://books.google.com/books?&id=d_IPAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22


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 
http://books.google.com/books?id=JLpTSC26yNEC&pg=PA39


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. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=R-DoqvVmqQsC&pg=PA13


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

ARAB COLONIALISM AND SANCTIFIED RACISM IS RAMPANT IN AFRICA…

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.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/09122001.htm

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 …

http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/racism-in-sudan/

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.
http://www.indyact.org/news_details.php?news_id=MTAz


Lebanese apartheid, blacks are not allowed to access swimming pool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARCkjx9B_Q


___



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. …
http://www.ece.umd.edu/~sellami/DEC95/review2.html


[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…
http://www.tamazgha.org/uploads/4/2/2/3/422318/amazigh_voice_vol9_n1.pdf


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 …
http://www.tamazgha.org/1/category/news/5.html


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…
http://www.amazighworld.org/eng/human_rights/index_show.php?id=22


[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…
http://cmamazigh.com/documents/ver-english.swf


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 …
http://intercontinentalcry.org/world-amazigh-congress-reviews-the-state-of-amazigh-rights/


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.
http://www.amazighworld.org/eng/human_rights/index_show.php?id=97


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

http://www.ansamed.info/en/marocco/news/ME.XEF11865.html


Apartheid today: racism definition… persecution and discrimination against native Berber tribes and their culture: Morocco and Libya…
http://www.standwithus.com/ONLINE_BOOKLETS/Apartheid%20Today/files/search/searchtext.xml


___


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.

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

“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!!!

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9775


___



ANTI-ISRAEL ANTI-JEWISH Arab Apartheid


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.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w3wMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22arab+apartheid%22

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

http://books.google.com/books?&id=RYVtAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22

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…

http://www.israelifrontline.com/2011/03/1947-arab-apartheid.html

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.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LTssAQAAIAAJ&q=%22arab+apartheid%22

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.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/apartheid_is_alive_and_well_in.html

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…
http://books.google.com/books?id=gH9hRRmYCCoC&pg=PA157

[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.

http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/dershowitz-carter.pdf


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.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/03/by_alan_m_dershowitz_every.html

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…
http://books.google.com/books?id=tlCHQ6LU988C&pg=PA106

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.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/06/24/delta-and-saudi-arabia-flying-the-friendly-anti-semitic-skies/

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

___



Arab Apartheid AGAINST ARAB-“PALESTINIANS”


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.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/832423–cohn-not-all-apartheid-is-created-equal


Middle East  Where’s the international outcry against Arab Apartheid?
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH 
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?
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212512


___



ARAB ANTI-SHIITE APARTHEID


Is This Apartheid in Bahrain?
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
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.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/is-this-apartheid-in-bahrain/?scp=3&sq=bahrain&st=cse


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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/africa/25arab.html


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…

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAJEmdy-wPPTPdOA5ZNPwBeUwxeg?docId=43583d9b80b24cca9a859fadc193c089


___



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. …

http://www.kurd.org/kcrf/SalihKCRF.html



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.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=8805



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 …

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=7915



…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.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=8259



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, …

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=12624


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.”

http://www.rferl.org/content/Underappreciated_At_Home_Kurdish_Filmmakers_Struggle_For_Identity/1863582.html


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 …

http://kurdishhouse.com/en/halabjaandanfal.asp



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

http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Genocide_in_Kurdistan.pdf



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 …

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-18/news/0512180298_1_saddam-hussein-ethnic-cleansing-repression




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.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=214197


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.
http://www.chak.info/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=2


___



ARAB APARTHEID – AGAINST AL-AKHDAM (Yemen)



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

HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE AL-AKHDAM IN 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.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/ngos/AYNSD_IDSN_Yemen46.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56712005


___



EGYPTIAN ARAB APARTHEID – AGAINST THE NUBIANS


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
governments.
http://www.sudaneseonline.com/en/article_740.shtml


___



ALAWITE APARTHEID – SYRIA


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.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/722/us-rapprochement-with-syria


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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/19/syria-bashar-assad-opposition-suppression


___



Jordan – apartheid


BRIEF FACTS ON THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY […]
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.
http://www.jr.co.il/articles/politics/facts.txt
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-facts.php


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>
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34092


The Hashemite Kingdom of Apartheid?
By SAMER LIBDEH
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.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=173919


Jordan, Dr. Peace and Mr. Apartheid
By MUDAR ZAHRAN
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.  
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=182474


___



ARAB “PALESTINE” – REAL APARTHEID


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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sne8eZe8evQC&pg=PA282



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.

http://books.google.com/books?id=OvV69F3yLukC&pg=PA74



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,..

http://books.google.com/books?&id=DYXmAAAAIAAJ&q=racist

,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…

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sne8eZe8evQC&pg=PA282

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.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/rneuwirth_20030109.html

Our World: Why is Muhammad Abu al-Hawa dead?
By CAROLINE GLICK
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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070815223617/http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498874080&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2006/04/why-is-muhammad-abu-alhawa-dea.php


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.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929819,00.html


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.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/mahmoud_abbas_promises_aparthe.html


SHMUEL TRIGANO: THE OPEN RACISM OF THE FUTURE STATE OF PALESTINE

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.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3739588,00.html


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?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4043.html


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?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9335


US-Funded Racist Apartheid Government Will Execute Man Who Sold Land To Enemy Religion. [MereRhetoric – 2009]
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275571.html


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.

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3800


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.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/04/a-wrong-turn-in-east-jerusalem/



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
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4122473,00.html


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.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147908


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.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147927


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!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/judenrein-palestine_593537.html


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.
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/News/tabid/178/nid/22948/language/en-US/Default.aspx


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 …
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/09/apartheid_palestine_not_in_was.html


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.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2442/united-nations-palestine

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 …

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/09/21/2011-09-21_push_for_palestinian_state_at_un_must_be_rejected_it_will_hurt_arabs_and_jews_al.html


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?”

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/unprotestsdemonstrationshamaspalestinepaabbasnetanyahuvoteterrorismisraeljewishchristianswarislamicjihadiransyriafacebookgroupusidfwar48092011.html


___



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.
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/8352

top

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s