European Union Against Israel, Not against Occupation in Principle

UPDATED 4-3-2016 see at bottom

We do not agree that Israel is now occupying any territory that does not belong to Israel according to international law. But suppose it were. Suppose for the sake of argument that Israel was occupying Judea and Samaria, the heart of ancient Judea, the ancient Jewish homeland that the Jews have traditionally called the Land of Israel and that Greece and Rome called Judea ( IVDAEA, Ioudaia). The European Union claims this all the time and uses this false claim to deny the human and civil rights of Jews. The EU denies Jewish rights to inhabit any land over the 1949 Israel-Transjordan [now Jordan] armistice line. But the EU seldom complains about Turks settling in the Turkish occupation zone of northern Cyprus. We will get back to the EU and Cyprus below.

The EU does not agree to Jews doing business over the 1949 armistice line or running factories or farms there in what was the Jordanian occupation zone from 1948 to 1967 in Judea-Samaria or doing any productive activity there.

The EU also denies those rights to Jews in those parts of Jerusalem captured by Transjordan in 1948 from which Arab irregular forces and the Transjordanian Arab Legion had driven Jews out starting on 30 November 1947 up to the summer of 1948, although Jerusalem was to be an internationally governed enclave where both Jews and Arabs could reside, according to the UN General Assembly recommended partition plan. These areas were captured by Israel in the June 1967 Six Day War after 19 years of Transjordanian [now Jordanian] occupation. Now the EU gets up on a moralistic high horse of hypocritical outrage when Jews again live in those formerly Arab-occupied parts of Jerusalem, whereas there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem going back to 1853, if not before. But the EU says that those areas are occupied. 
This is what the EU said about a recent Israeli decision to recognize a tract of unused land without private owners near Jericho as state land, as it was recognized in the days of the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim empire to be sure, which as such was seen by the Arab Muslims in the Land of Israel as representing them: 

“Israel’s decision … is a further step that risks undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and therefore calls into question Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution,” the EU says in a statement.

“Any decision that could enable further settlement expansion, which is illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace, will only drive the parties to the conflict even further apart,” the EU continues. 

 “The European Union remains firmly opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and actions taken in this context . . ." [here]

The claim of illegality is based, as we know, on two false claims: One, that Israel is an occupying power in Judea and Samaria and the formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem. Two, that people cannot voluntarily migrate to an occupied territory. This second claim is based on a false interpretation of Geneva Convention IV:49:6 (The point is that people are permitted to voluntarily migrate to such territories, even if "occupied."). See here for clarifications on these legal issues.

But the question is whether or not the EU is actually against occupation in principle or simply hostile to Jews and Israel. The question is easily answered. The EU is quite comfortable with living with occupying powers and trading with them without demanding, for example, the labeling of goods produced in the supposed occupied territory as settlement goods or products of an occupied territory.

The proof of EU hypocrisy on this issue is very close at hand. The island republic of Cyprus is very close to Israel, a few score kilometers northwest of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea. Cyprus is also a member of the EU. Yet, about 35% of the island is occupied by Turkey. The fact that northern Cyprus is occupied is recognized by just about everybody, although not by Turkey. Do these facts cause or lead to any massive EU denunciation of Turkey as an occupying power abusing the native population of the occupied territory in an illegal and/or inhuman fashion?
The question is itself laughable. The EU is happy to do business with Turkey and is now agreeing to work to bring Turkey into the Union. But the British press agency, Reuters, does not even want to call Turkey an occupying power which it is. See below how Reuters' wordsmiths get around the O word by using a long euphemism

Addressing a threat by Cyprus to block parts of the deal unless Turkey stops opposing the reunification of the divided island, the Commission paper will propose that opening five new "chapters" in Turkey's negotiations to join the EU -- another promise made in March -- would be "conditional", the official said. [here]

For Reuters, the island is not occupied but merely divided. It had once been unified and the Republic of Cyprus wanted it to be reunified. But how did it become divided? Reuters coyly hides that information.

The French state-owned broadcaster France24 does the same as Reuters:
       EU president Donald Tusk warned Tuesday that hard work lay ahead to finalise the             deal, after Cyprus threatened to derail it over long-standing disagreements with               Turkey. . . . . [here]

How is that for a euphemism for Turkish occupation of part of Cyprus? Long-standing disagreements, no less!!! But further on, the same article gets a little closer to the fact of occupation without actually stating it frankly:
      The island of Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded its          northern sector . . . [here]
France24 answers the question of how the island became divided. The Turkish troops invaded in 1974 and they are still there. But we must not call it "occupation" for that word is reserved for Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, that the League of Nations recognized as parts of the Jewish National Home in 1922.

Far from calling for Turkey to end its occupation of northern Cyprus, the EU leadership is asking Greece and Cyprus for concessions to Turkey on account of the migrant issue. This is despite the fact that Turkey has actually encouraged the refugee flow across the dangerous waters of the Aegean Sea to Greek islands. After all, people smugglers are putting migrants onto unseaworthy craft and/or without life jackets or otherwise letting people go out to sea to die. The Turkish police do not interfere with this. Turkey is a country with thousands of political prisoners. No doubt the police could stop the people smuggling, if the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu wanted them to. The Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras made this point to EU leaders and they most likely knew of and understood the Turkish encouragement to people smugglers before Tsipras told them. The Greek defense minister had also made this point while on a trip to Israel a few weeks ago:
       Mr. Tsipras insisted that the EU must exert pressure on Ankara to put an end to the              flow of refugees and migrants to Greece [here] 

Is it not obvious to all but fools that the EU is not especially against occupation, even the occupation of part of an EU member state? Is it not clear to all that the EU is really against Israel, against Jews, against Jews having rights and safety, and respect? The EU policy towards Jews in Judea and Samaria could rightly be called apartheid and anti-Jewish racism.
- - - - - - - - - 
5-3-2016 Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, despite the treaties around the founding of that state which Turkey also signed:
"Greek Cypriots will no longer require visas to visit Turkey under an EU-Turkey agreement on visa liberalization but this does not amount to Turkish recognition of Cyprus, a Turkish official said on Tuesday.
"Turkey's cabinet has approved waiving visas for EU citizens once the EU relaxes its visa requirements for Turks, according to a decision published in the Official Gazette. The move is one of the 72 criteria required by Brussels.
"The official confirmed the deal would also apply to Greek Cypriots."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See how Turkish president Erdogan operates outside of his own country:
4- 1-2016 Report in Foreign Policy of thuggish, unacceptable behavior by Erdogan's bodyguards in Washington at the Brookings Institution which had invited Erdogan to speak [here]
7-17-2016 Steve Kramer writes on BDS and particularly discusses the EU hypocrisy in regard to boycotting Israel [here]

Again Arabs Refute "Israeli Apartheid" Lie

An Arab reporter for the New York Times filed a report [3 January 2016] about Arab life in Israel, specifically about Arabs who might be considered Yuppies or Bohemians. The report exposed the fraud of charges of apartheid in Israel. It reports Israeli Arabs talking about their  living in Jewish neighborhoods, and even that Arab women, especially single women, have more freedom living among Jews than they would have if they lived among Arabs. For instance:

“If you are in an Arab neighborhood, you have a community. If you live in a Jewish neighborhood, you are a stranger, and that gives you freedom as an Arab woman,” said Fidaa Hammoud, 32. “There are many de facto couples, and older women living alone without having to hear gossip.”

Consider this too:
Ms. Hammoud moved to Haifa in 2011 after studying speech therapy for four years in Barcelona, Spain. She and her partner live together in a Jewish neighborhood where they run a Palestinian cafe called Rai. “I couldn’t do this anywhere else,” she said.

Or this:

The liberal Arab renaissance in Haifa began with the opening of Fattoush, a Palestinian restaurant, in 1998. The restaurant, which hosted cultural discussions and art exhibitions, was once a scandal to polite Arab society because men and women openly drank alcohol and flirted. Now, it is a tourist-friendly fixture on Ben Gurion Boulevard, Haifa’s main drag.

More Arab-owned businesses opened on that street in the years since, with signs welcoming all people in Arabic, English and sometimes Hebrew. Many of these bars, cafes and restaurants were crowded on a recent weeknight with couples strolling along teeming sidewalks decked with Christmas lights.

Arabs operating shops on Haifa's main drag. Not quite apartheid but no doubt that Nazi-like charge will continue to be made by Arabs and partisans of the Arabs in Europe, the US, and elsewhere. Moreover, the Arabs interviewed for this article by Diaa Hadid, an Arab woman reporter for the NYT, expressed a desire to live separately from Jews eventhough they were forced by circumstance to actually live among Jews, at least in order to satisfy some other of their values, specifically the values of tolerance of unmarried couples living together, of homosexuals, etc. See below:

 “Haifa is a center for Arabs, like Tel Aviv is a center for Jews,” said Asil Abu Wardeh, the Elika patron who practices a performance-based form of psychotherapy. “There is a cultural movement. There is a youth movement. There’s a kind of freedom here.” “We have our own parties. Our own places. Our own discos. We dance. We drink. We do it all in Arabic,” she added. “This all began in Haifa.”

Furthermore, some of those interviewed seem to aim for a future with no Jews around. They want a new "palestinian society."
 “This is the new Palestinian society we are aiming for.”

 For those who are unaware, the draft constitution for a "palestinian state" drawn up by persons working for Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas/ calls for a Judenrein society, a society which excludes Jews, an apartheid society which excludes Jews. It is especially outrageous that the Palestinian Authority looks forward to a "palestine" without Jews, a state of apartheid against Jews, while in the West and elsewhere Israel is falsely accused of being an "apartheid state."

Just incidentally, labeling Israel an "apartheid state" is a big lie of Goebbelsian dimensions. It is a Nazi type lie. Those who repeat this lie are Nazi allies and collaborators. The lie of "Israeli apartheid" is meant to justify the killing of Jews in the West where the original apartheid system is justifiably abhorred. Those who utter this big lie are Nazi collaborators at best.
- - - - - - - - -
We have posted several times before on Arabs refuting, at least with their feet, the "Israeli apartheid" lie. Search this site for apartheid + Arabs.
-- What was the real apartheid like in South Africa in the old days? [here]
-- Arabs refute "apartheid" lie in the Land of Israel here & here.
-- Euros want apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel here.
-- Euros slander Israel on false "apartheid" charge [here]
-- Condoleezza Rice smears Israel as an "apartheid state" [here]
-- Obama demands apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel [here]

Once Respected French Monthly Descends to the Level of Propaganda Rag

Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est allemand.
[Slogan of the Free French during WW2 -- Paris Radio lies,
Paris Radio is German--rhymes in French]

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Once upon a time when reason was more prevalent in the world than nowadays, Le Monde Diplomatique provided intelligent commentary and important facts about contemporary events, going into depth about various subjects. However, over the years Mondiplo --said to be linked to the French foreign ministry-- became more and more the captive and the vehicle of simplistic slogans about the "Third World", "palestine liberation" and such. Now it takes an outrageously simplistic anti-Israel stance, at the cost of making itself ridiculous. As the Free French and the French Resistance used to say during the German occupation of France, Paris Radio lies, Paris Radio is German [Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est allemand -- rhyming in French] we may say today: Mondiplo Lies, Mondiplo resembles Nazi propaganda.

Is that unfair? Consider a headline in Le Monde Diplomatique [English ed. translated from the French--February 2007]: "Jerusalem's Apartheid Tramway." This headline is used although nothing in the article justifies it. Now, more than four years after the agitprop article appeared, the tram has begun service and Jews and Arabs are riding the tram in the same cars. And the tram stops in Arab neighborhoods, Beyt Hanina and Shu`afat [two stops] as well as near Damascus Gate where it can serve both Jews and Arabs. Indeed, Arabs ride the tram and wait at the stops in Arab neighborhoods. I rode the tram southbound yesterday and stood next to an Arab woman and her two daughters. They got on in Shu`afat neighborhood and were standing next to me. Interestingly, they were not wearing head coverings. The mother was relaxed but the older, teenaged daughter --dressed in tight pants and with painted fingernails-- was looking around in a very suspicious way, maybe to see if we had horns. Since the tram was air-conditioned, I didn't mind standing.

How do the mendacious journalists for LeMondeDiplomatique [English ed.] get to defining the tram as an "apartheid tramway"?? Their reasoning is strikingly flawed. They quote an Israeli official spokesman as saying that: "the tram must serve the Jewish quarters (Israel’s politically correct term for settlements) such as Pisgat Ze’ev, as well as Arab quarters like Shu’fat." They do not deny that Arabs would be allowed to ride the tram but speculate if Arabs will be able to afford to travel on it. Then they insinuate apartheid or what used to be called jimcrow in America: "How will the settlers react to seeing Arabs travelling on the tram? One person we spoke to wondered whether there should be separate carriages for Arabs and Israelis." This is all speculation at best, contradicting the pains taken by the Israeli spokesman to explain the intention to make the tram available to all. Yet the Mondiplo authors insinuate the possbility of apartheid. Nevertheless, despite having no real grounds to claim "apartheid" they still entitle the article: "Jerusalem's Apartheid Tramway." This brings LeMonde Diplo close to the level of pre-WW2 Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. Maybe not quite there. But on the way.

So here was another lie about "apartheid" in Israel that turns out to be totally false. Further, some anti-Israel group in France sued French firms involved in the tram project. Supporters of the suit throw around slogans and pejoratives like: apartheid, illegal, "occupied" territory, international law, "judaizing" Jerusalem [which has had a Jewish majority since 1853 or earlier] and other usual epithets. Here is a video in French from France24 in which Arabs interviewed claim that it would be of no use to them, because --inter alia-- there would be no stops in Arab neighborhoods [ici&ici][I originally saw this story on France24 in English but cannot find the English], which is false, as we have seen.

Another lying slogan thrown around in the context of the tram claims that Jewish neighborhoods in "east Jerusalem" were built on "stolen land." The stolen land argument is also false since Jews began to purchase much real estate in and around Jerusalem in the late Ottoman period --from the 1860s to 1914-- when it became possible for Jews to purchase real estate. This "stolen land" claim is a big lie but a separate issue. Suffice it to say that Neveh Ya`aqov and much of Pisgat Ze'ev --served by the tram, among other areas -- were built on land belonging to the pre-1948 agricultural village of Neveh Ya`aqov [founded 1924].

Here's a pix of a flyer in Arabic distributed by the CitiPas [OR City Pass] company that operates the tram for the purpose of attracting Arab riders.

Note the diagram of the tram's route. The three tram stops encircled in blue ink on the diagram are in Arab neighborhoods [Beyt Hanina and Shu`afat (two stops in Shu`afat)].

Will Mondiplo admit its gross misuse of the apartheid label?

Mahmoud Abbas, Salim Fayyad, & PLO Plan an Apartheid Judenrein State - Shmuel Trigano

UPDATING 11-1&5-2010

The peace in "peace process" refers
to peace of mind for antisemites.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

The PLO charter already made clear in its two versions, of 1964 and 1968, that the state envisioned by the PLO would be an Arab state in which Jews would not have a place, or if allowed to live in it, would be legally inferior to Arab Muslims. Thus, the envisioned "State of Palestine" would enforce the old Muslim principle of inferiority of rights of non-Muslims in the Islamic domain. Jews would be especially cast in an inferior status with few rights or circumscribed rights, if they were allowed rights at all. Shmuel Trigano makes an analysis of official PLO and Palestinian Authority documents. Shall we call the plan for a future Palestine state --not unlike the present semi-state, the Palestinian Authority, which enforces apartheid and/or exclusion on Jews-- an apartheid state??

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 understand 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 planned 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 explain 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 true 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 discover 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 however, 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.” Actually, 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 old-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 [link to site of SPME]

Trigano demonstrates what should have been common knowledge long ago, that the PLO and its outgrowth, the Palestinian Authority, are really pan-Arabist entities, masquerading to the West as representatives of a "separate, distinct, palestinian people." The PLO charter demonstrates that there is no such people. The PLO's representation in the Organization of the Islamic Conference demonstrates that it does not believe in human rights.
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-1-2010
Lee Smith has also noted PA/PLO plans for a Judenrein, apartheid state where Jews are forbidden to live and those now living in areas claimed by the PLO/PA will be forcibly transferred or "ethnically cleansed" from their homes. Smith points to this interview in particular.
Shmuel Trigano writes on the process of expulsion of the native Jews from Arab lands which he dates from 1920 to 1970. It was in this period that liberal freedoms and equality introduced in some Arab lands began to be eroded in law and the Jews' status declined before the rise of the State of Israel in 1948.
Yaron Harel writes that the Jews of Syria began leaving after the Damascus Affair of 1840 [in which French diplomacy had encouraged persecution of local Jews]. Harel's book is In Ships of Fire to the West: Changes among Syrian Jewry in the Period of Ottoman Reforms, 1840-1880 [בספינות של אש למערב] (Jerusalem: Merkaz Shazar 2003).
Books by Michael Lasker and Bat Yeor may also be helpful in studying this general subject, as well as Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East (London: McFarland 1991). Bat Yeor takes up the general history of the non-Muslim subject peoples in the Islamic state going back to early Islam. They were oppressed as dhimmis. Nisan takes up non-Arab Muslim peoples & non-Muslim subject peoples and minorities.
Elliott A Green takes up the oppression of Jews in Arab lands generally and in Jerusalem in particular [& here].

More on Apartheid -- Arab-Muslim Religious Apartheid in Egypt

UPDATING 10-1-2010 &1-12-2011

Responsible Arab & Muslim bodies advocate religious apartheid. Of course, the dhimma system which began as a means for the Arab-Muslim conquerors to oppress, economically exploit and humiliate native subject peoples in their new empire always had aspects of apartheid, although based more on religion and nationality than on skin color and biological race. In order to accommodate modern times and modern medical science, the Muslim apartheid system has been updated.

"The Union of Egyptian Physicians has recently announced [2008] that transplants between persons of 'divergent creeds or nationalities' should be forbidden, the transgressors punished. This decision not only surpasses the Parliament [of Egypt] (where a new law on this matter is still under discussion) but it especially signals an aggravation of the tense relations between Egyptian Christians and Muslims." [Corriere della Sera, 20 August 2008]

Il Sindicato dei Medici egiziani ha da poco annunciato [2008] che trapianti tra persone di "diverso credo o nazionalita" vanno proibiti. [Corriere della Sera, 20 Agosto 2008]

The idea for this ban came from the Muslim Brotherhood who control the Physicians Union, according to Nabil el-Gindi, a doctor. He adds that the Islamist physicians "say that it is needed to avoid the organ trade, that rich Christians now buy them [organs] for two pounds [Egyptian pounds] from poor Muslims."

I have not ascertained whether this decision by the physicians union was written into law or if some similar bill became law. However, this is how the majority of Egyptian physicians think, this is how the Muslim Brotherhood thinks. And some people in Washington and London are eager to negotiate with the Hamas which is the Palestinian Arab affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in DC and London are eager to have the MB allowed to take over the Egyptian govt since it probably has majority support in Egypt. Then the anti-democratic MB could be dealt with as a democratically elected governing party because it could probably win a majority vote.

El-Gindi informs us that in Egyptian hospitals and medical schools, Coptic Christians, the purest native Egyptians, are discriminated against. He reports that some of the best Coptic physicians leave the country, forced to emigrate. One of them, Magdi Yacoub, is a world famous cardiologist, now living in London.

Jimmy Carter has not noticed this situation. Or if he has, he has been quiet about it. Of course, neither the well-funded "human rights" and civil rights bodies, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, nor the UN's so-called "human rights council", is interested in the openly avowed support for apartheid by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor in the regular oppression and humiliation undergone by Copts, native Egyptian Christians, in Egypt. Only Israel can do wrong. Only Israel is to be accused.

These "human rights" and "civil rights" bodies are manipulative instruments trying to influence and manipulate public opinion. They can rightly be called Judeophobic or antisemitic.

UPDATING 10-1-2010
As of early 2010, Egypt had not yet passed a law on transplants. What is significant is the attitude of Egyptian physicians themselves who favor banning transplants between persons of different religions or nationalities. Bear in mind that Muhammad Atta's family were Egyptian physicians and Dr al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden's second in command [or perhaps top commander of al-Qa`ida, if Ben Laden is indeed dead, as some believe] is an Egyptian physician.

Here is another report:

The Egyptian Medical Association, through its spokesman on August 18 [2008], denied that a bill in the Egyptian parliament would discriminate between Christians and Muslims by prohibiting organ transplants between members of the two faiths. The Association supports the controversial measure. “This is all to protect poor Muslims from rich Christians who buy their organs and vice versa,” explained Hamdi Al Sayed – the director of the Medical Association. Under the bill, physicians who violate the proposed law would face retribution.

Al Sayed denied any sectarianism in the proposed law saying that “if some Copts are angered by the law then why is it that Muslims are not.” Even so, Al Sayed said that under the draft law, it’s not possible for a Coptic Christian to donate organs to a Muslim and vice versa simply because donations have been restricted to family members up to the fourth degree. Al Sayed continued “…it is degrading for both religions if lets say, a poor Christian has to sell his kidney to a rich Muslim, or a poor Muslim has to sell his kidney to a rich Christian. It is not right for either religion and that is why we made this law so we can stop organ trafficking.” Finally, Al Sayed continued, “It is not about trying to promote differences between religions but it’s just to minimize the trade of organs as much as we can.”

Speaking for Coptic Christians, Bishop Marcos said “We all have the same Egyptian blood, but if the reason for the measure is to end organ trafficking, we reject it because it may also occur between believers of the same religion.” For Bishop Marcos, the Association’s decision is “very grave” since it can lead to prohibiting blood donation between Christians and Muslims [here]

More links
in English [here&here&here]

in Italian [qui & qui (citato della Repubblica)]
1-12-2011 Aftermath of Alexandria massacre on New Years Eve [here]

More on "Apartheid" in Judea-Samaria -- Rami Levy Plots against the Arab Consumer with Low Prices

An official of the "palestinian authority" accuses officials of the Authority of shopping in the Rami Levy supermarkets in defiance of the boycott of those stores declared by the "Authority." Levy is plotting against the "palestinian" consumer with his low prices [Kalkalist 9-19-2010; here]. See below the original Hebrew article and my translation. We have dealt before with the boycott declared by the Palestinian Authority against the Rami Levy supermarkets as an implicit rejection of the "apartheid" charge made against Israel by Jimmy Carter and other professional slanderers of Israel.

The Palestinian Authority against The Rami Levy Chain

The head of the Consumer Society in the Hebron District claims that officials of the Authority are making purchases in the Rami Levy branch in Gush Etsiyon. Thereby they violate the law [of the PA] that forbids purchasing goods in the settlements. If the phenomenon does not stop, he will publish the names of the senior officials [who do that]

Doron Paskin 9-19-2010

The Palestinian Authority has put Rami Levy in its gunsight. `Azmi Shayukhi, head of the Consumer Society in the Hebron District, claims that officials of the Authority violate the law [of the PA] that forbids purchasing goods in the settlements, when they come to the Israeli chain to make purchases. Shayukhi called on the authorities to stop those people and stressed that it was very shameful that they arrive in Palestinian Authority vehicles with red license plates [denoting official vehicles] in order to make purchases at Rami Levy. He promised that if the phenomenon did not stop, he would publish the names of the senior officials who make purchases in the Israeli chain.

Shayukhi claims that the Rami Levy chain operates several branches on the West Bank, and that the branch preferred by Palestinians is in Gush `Etsiyon. According to him, the chain offers especially cheap prices in its branches on the West Bank in order to attract Palestinian customers. Shayukhi claims that a large part of these products are produced in the settlements and therefore purchasing them is forbidden in the context of the boycott on settlement products which the Palestinian Authority promulgated. Moreover, according to the same spokesman, a considerable part of the employees in the Rami Levy stores are Palestinians who "have lost their national conscience," as he defined it. He attacked them with harsh words like "agents of the settlement" and "traitors."
The author is director of the research department of the Info Prod Research Co. (Middle East). www.infoprod.co.il [Kalkalist is a business section published by Yedi`ot Ahronot]

הרשות הפלסטינית נגד רשת רמי לוי
דורון פסקין 9-19-2010 כלכליסט

ראש אגודת הצרכן במחוז חברון טוען כי פקידים ברשות עושים קניות בסניף של רמי לוי בגוש עציון ובכך מפירים את החוק האוסר לרכוש מוצרים בהתנחלויות. אם התופעה לא תיפסק הוא יפרסם את שמות הבכירים
דורון פסקין
14 תגובות

ברשות הפלסטינית שמו את רמי לוי על הכוונת. עזמי שיוחי, ראש אגודת הצרכן במחוז חברון טוען כי פקידים ברשות מפירים את החוק האוסר רכישת מוצרים בהתנחלויות כשהם מגיעים לעשות קניות ברשת הישראלית. שיוחי קרא לרשויות לעצור את אותם אנשים והדגיש כי למרבה הבושה הם מגיעים ברכבי הרשות הפלסטינית עם לוחיות זיהוי אדומות כדי לעשות קניות אצל רמי לוי. הוא הבטיח כי אם התופעה לא תיפסק הוא יפרסם את שמות הבכירים העושים קניות ברשת הישראלית.

שיוחי טוען כי רשת רמי לוי מפעילה מספר סניפים בגדה המערבית כשהסניף המועדף על ידי הפלסטינים נמצא בגוש עציון. לדבריו, הרשת מציעה בסניפים בגדה המערבית מחירים זולים במיוחד כדי למשוך את הלקוחות הפלסטינים. שיוחיי טוען כי חלק גדול ממוצרים אלה מיוצרים בהתנחלויות ולכן רכישתם אסורה במסגרת החרם על מוצרי ההתנחלויות שהכריזה הרשות הפלסטינית. יתרה מזאת, לפי אותו דובר, חלק ניכר מהמועסקים בחנויות רמי לוי הם פלסטינים ש"איבדו את המצפון הלאומי שלהם" כהגדרתו. הוא תקף אותם במילים קשות כמו "סוכני ההתנחלות" ו"בוגדים".
הכותב הוא מנהל אגף המחקר בחברת אינפו פרוד מחקרים (המזה"ת

- - - - - - - - - -
More on the Rami Levy supermarket in Gush Etsiyon [here]

The Big Liars Claim "apartheid" in Israel --but Obama demands apartheid against Jews in the Land of Israel

When fascism comes to America, it will
be called anti-fascism
attributed to Huey Long

While the Big Liars, such as Jimmy Carter, claim apartheid in Israel, in fact both Carter and his spiritual child in Judeophobia, Barack Hussein Obama, want to impose apartheid on Jews in the Land of Israel. What else can Obama's call on Israel to stop building for Jews in Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria mean?? Obama intends to press this horrendous racist demand on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to Washington in this coming week. Obama's demands in regard to Jews living in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are based on a whole series of lies. Some depend on the falsification of history, others on misrepresentations of international law, as well as on lies about what is actually occurring on the ground.

We have considered the Big Lie of "apartheid" in Israel in previous posts [here&here&here].
Asher Susser too takes up the fraud of "apartheid" in Israel [here] . I understand that Bret Stephens, a correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, has also issued a video denouncing that Big Lie [here].

Nevertheless, the so-called "peace camp" in Israel is manipulated by powerful, wealthy forces in the West and the Arab world and joins in the demands for apartheid to be imposed on Jews in the ancient Jewish homeland. Such was a demonstration in the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter of Jerusalem whence Jews were driven out of their homes by Arab irregulars in December 1947, later recaptured by the Haganah in April 1948 but soon given to Arab forces again by intervention by the British army, later taken over by the Arab Legion of Transjordan, a British-officered and commanded armed force. The Jews of Shimon haTsadiq Quarter were the first people in the country driven out of their homes in the Israeli War of Independence who could not go home after it since their homes were now Arab-occupied. Jews who fled south Tel Aviv in December 1947 could go home afterward since Jewish forces had defeated the Arab forces in Jaffa and the Arabs' British and mercenary allies [German POWs, Bosnian Muslim SS veterans, etc].

Hence, demonstrating against Jews moving into Jewish-owned homes in Shimon haTsadiq is not only demanding apartheid against Jews. It is also giving post-facto approval to the original Arab aggression of December 1947 and the Arabs' aim of driving Jews from their homes and the country as a whole. [such a demo took place on 3-8-2010].

The European Union and US policy is racist regarding Jewish settlements. The EU and the US State Dept are endeavoring to impose anti-Jewish apartheid in the Land of Israel. Obama's anti-Jewish policy has to be stopped.

In this regard, the remarks of E. W. Jackson, a black clergyman, are interesting. He recognizes that Obama's policy is anti-Israel and derives from antisemitism:

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
. . .
The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan - Wright's friend - to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". . . .
The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World, "he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently.
He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation".
Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest - albeit undeclared red - sensibilities. Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long epriod of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.

E. W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney

Bishop Jackson clearly understands the anti-Jewish component of Obama's policy. Do enough people understand it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bishop Jackson's beautifully written essay has also been posted on Daniel Pipes' blog and has attracted various comments [here]

The Palestinian Authortiy --Obama's pets-- Refutes Big Lie of Apartheid in Judea-Samaria & Demands Apartheid There

While fanatic Israelophobes in the West rant and rave about alleged Israeli "apartheid," the Palestinian Authority --Israel's nemesis to be sure-- tells us --only by implication, of course-- that the "apartheid" charge against Israel is a lie, even in the Judea-Samaria. This is important because Jimmy Carter, one of Israel's professional defamers, fell back when he was challenged on calling Israel an apartheid state, in the title of his book [ghost-written no doubt], Palestine, Peace not Apartheid. Carter fell back, admitting that Israel within the old armistice lines [the Green Line] was not an apartheid society but claiming that he only meant "the West Bank" [Judea-Samaria], allegedly occupied by Israel.

We are not now going to go into the true international law applied to Judea-Samaria. Our subject is how the PA refuted the apartheid lie that is meant to support its demands.

How did the Palestinian Authority refute Carter's lie? The PA recently warned Arabs in the PA zones not to shop in Israeli-owned supermarkets in Judea-Samaria. They should boycott those supermarkets, the PA economy minister demanded. He added that the PA knew just who was shopping in those supermarkets, which entails a warning of PA retribution for those who continue to shop in them. That means that Arabs living in the zones were shopping in Israeli-owned supermarkets in Judea-Samaria. The owner of the supermarkets in question, Rami Levy, was not excluding Arab customers, nor did he refuse to hire Arab employees. Many of the employees were and are Arabs. Arab customers were mingling with Jewish customers in these stores. Where is the apartheid?

PA warns Palestinian shoppers
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
07/05/2010
Rami Levy shoppers, we know who you are, says economy minister.

Palestinian Authority Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh warned Palestinians on Thursday against shopping at Rami Levy supermarkets in the West Bank.

Thousands of Palestinians converge every day on the Rami Levy supermarkets at Sha’ar Binyamin and Mishor Adumim, the only two branches in the West Bank. The two stores also employ dozens of Palestinians.

This was the first threat of its kind issued by the PA against Palestinians who visited the Israeli supermarkets. . . .

Abu Libdeh said in an interview with the local Al-Watan TV station that the PA knew the names of individuals and families who shop in the Rami Levy stores.

He condemned the phenomenon of Palestinians buying goods at the Israeli supermarkets in the West Bank as a “big disgrace.”

Abu Libdeh said the PA was serious in implementing the decision to boycott settlement-made goods. Nevertheless, he denied that the boycott was politically motivated or had anything to do with the resumption of indirect negotiations between the PA and Israel.

The boycott was intended to “cleanse” the Palestinian market of settlement products and boost Palestinians’ confidence in their national products, he said.
- - - - - - - -end of JPost article May 7, 2010 - - - - - - - - - - -

The background of the stores' owner, Rami Levy, is also noteworthy.

This was the first threat of its kind issued by the PA against Palestinians who visited the Israeli supermarkets, which are named after their founder.

Levy, who was born in a tin shack in Jerusalem’s Nahlaot neighborhood in 1955, founded the company in 1976. He has never lived in a settlement.

The supermarket chain has 16 branches all over the country.

This shows that hardwork and ingenuity can lead to success in Israel, although I have yet to find my pot of gold. Anyhow, Rami Levy's story is one of rags to riches.

Another lesson of this episode is that Arabs have the wherewithal to shop in a supermarket. They are not living on the verge of starvation eating a daily crust of bread provided by the UNRWA or some other Western-run charity. Of course, both Jews and Arabs are looking for the best price that they can get for a good product. That's how Levy built his stores' reputation. Low prices, wide variety [his stores are very large supermarkets], and satisfactory quality.

Jerusalem Post story on PA refutation of the apartheid big lie [here]
Here is a post on the Muqata blog with more photos [here]

Europe Promotes Apartheid in Jerusalem

"The negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"
[Dred Scott v. Sandford, US Supreme
Court decision, 1857]

We are living in the era of total war, mass murder and the Big Lie. The last named facilitates the first two. The currently fashionable Big Lie is that Israel is an "apartheid state." It seems that apartheid has become a smear word for one's enemies that no longer has a specific, objective meaning. What it meant in South Africa is far from Israel's reality. But the Israelophobes don't care. At the same time, ironically, countries where this Big Lie is commonly propagated actually advocate, even demand, apartheid in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, a city which has had a Jewish majority since the mid-19th century, although Arab irregular forces starting in December 1947, later joined by Transjordan's Arab Legion, ethnically cleansed Jewish neighborhoods in what became "East Jerusalem" under Arab rule. Jews were forbidden by Jordanian law [Transjordan changed its name to Jordan circa 1950] to live anywhere under Jordanian rule, including formerly Jewish neighborhoods of Hebron and "East Jerusalem" plus a number of farming settlements such as in the Gush Etsion area, `Atarot and Neveh Ya`aqov in northeastern Jerusalem, etc.

European Union member states with representations in Jerusalem actually work to promote apartheid between Jewish and Arab Jerusalemites. According to EU rules, the national day celebrations and festivities held by the consulates of these states in Jerusalem must comprise separate receptions for Jews and Arabs. Teddy Kollek protested against this policy repeatedly when he was mayor, to no avail. The Euros insisted on apartheid.

Moreover, in order to promote Arab nationalism and Islamic interests, the EU wants to divide Jerusalem, where, as said above, Jews have been the majority since the mid-19th century, since 1853 at least. The EU went so far as to sponsor a "concert" for youth with the Irish singer, Sinead O'Connor, circa 1997, that was to call for division of the city. Fortunately, this racist "concert" did not take place because not enough tickets were sold.

Kollek protested this European practice of apartheid in the way that he thought most practicable. He boycotted national day celebrations by the Euro govts that practiced this racist policy.
This use of the "apartheid" label by those, both Arabs and Westerners, that in fact want to impose apartheid on Israeli Jews, is another sign of the Orwellian character of our times. Here is one report on Kollek's policy:

Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek's office announced today that Kollek is planning to boycott next week's Bastille Day celebration sponsored by the French Consulate here to protest the longstanding diplomatic practice of holding separate social receptions for Arabs and Jews.

The policy of separate receptions is one of several western diplomatic practices Israelis contend deny the reality that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and, since 1967, has been united under its rule. But many Palestinians argue that to hold only one reception in the Jewish part of the city, where most of the consulates have their main offices, would amount to tacit recognition of Israel's 1967 annexation of their sector. [Washington Post, July 7, 1987][see here]

Now the EU govts as well as the US State Department, demand that Jews not be allowed to live in what was "East Jerusalem" for 19 years, not even on Jewish-owned real estate. Those were 19 years of exclusion of Jews, of refusal to allow Jews access to Jewish holy places, of taking Jewish tombstones from the Mount of Olives and using them to pave a path to a Jordanian army latrine, etc. The govts now members of the EU never complained about Jordanian abuse of Jewish tombstones in that demeaning way. But now they echo all sorts of bizarre Arab complaints. This is most repugnant when coming from the British who facilitated the Arab expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem neighborhoods in the period of civil war in the country initiated by the Arabs shortly after the UN General Asssembly recommended partitioning the Land of Israel ["palestine"] into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally governed enclave in and around Jerusalem [also meant to include Bethlehem, Beyt Sahur, and Beyt Jala]. Now Britain and the other Euro friends of Arab fascism deny the Jews the right to return to places whence Jews were expelled in the period from 30 November 1947 up to the first truce in June 1948. That is, according to the EU and the US State Dept, Jews don't have the right to come back to Jewish-owned real estate. Jews today are in the position of the American Blacks according to the notorious Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court:

"The negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"

Just change "negro" to Jew and change "white man" to Arab or Westerner --or both together-- and you have the situation today.

Fiamma Nirenstein, a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, formerly an Italian journalist stationed in Jerusalem, wrote on the "apartheid" Big Lie. I intend to translate the article in full or nearly so. Here are excerpts from it:

Apartheid Week against Israel . . . is one of the most intellectually repugnant events ever conceived. . .
In Israel everything is in contrast [with South African apartheid]: Each and every institution is multiethnic and multireligious. Racist theories and racial discrimination are forbidden by law; in the hospitals Arab and Jewish women give birth in beds side by side, cared for by Arab and Jewish staff, children and patients in general come from throughout the Arab world to be treated. They are welcomed with love. At the university, the Arab and Jewish students study together and also Arab professors, sometimes very aggressive towards Zionism, teach with Jews and to Jews, while Arab books of every kind are translated. Arab citizens sit in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, and in the government [the cabinet]. They raise their dissent (always!) without fear that someone is lying in wait for them to punish them, the only Arabs in the Middle East [to have that freedom of expression]. [Il Giornale, 7 March 2010]

I should add that there is an Arab judge on the Supreme Court, and Arabs have highly responsible positions in other public and state institutions. Further, about our hospitals, my wife went to the eye clinic at the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus yesterday. She told me that half or more of the patients waiting there were Arabs. While waiting her turn, she had a pleasant conversation there with two other patients. One was an Arabic-speaking Christian young woman, from Nazareth, who was studying in a course in Jerusalem to become a radiology technician. The other was an Armenian young man living in the Old City.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also see:
Two earlier posts on Emet m'Tsiyon for photos of reality in Israel [here & here].

Seth Frantzman on EU funding of Arab and Palestinian Authority bodies that work to undermine Israeli society and besmirch Israel's image around the world.

Soft Euro colonialism, high handed Euro arrogance in Israel [here]. This EU statement against Jewish housing in formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem is a racist, pro-apartheid declaration. It speaks in the name of law, international law, using false representations, misrepresentations, of international law, in order to impose on Jews in the Land of Israel the same territorial segregation of Jews and disregard for Jewish property rights that prevailed for centuries both in Europe and the Arab lands [conquered by Arab invaders in the 7th and 8th centuries], both in Christendom and the Islamic domain. The Euro fakers use "human rights" rhetoric and slogans to promote apartheid against Jews, as NGOs funded by the EU slander Israel as an "apartheid state."
Catherine Ashton, an uppity British upper cruster, elected foreign affairs commissioner of the EU, had this to say about Jewish residential rights in Jerusalem, a city made important to the world by and through Jewish history where Jews have been the majority since the mid-19th century:

Ashton condemned Israel's plan to expand a Jewish neighborhood in disputed east Jerusalem, saying it should reverse the decision and "refrain from unilateral decisions and actions that may jeopardize the final status negotiations."

"The EU reiterates that settlements are illegal under international law," Ashton said in a statement. "They undermine current efforts for restarting peace negotiations ... and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible."
[Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2010]

Ashton and other EU Judeophobes & imperialists misrepresent international law with the claim that building homes for Jews in Jerusalem is "illegal under international law."
For Ashton's ilk, "law" and "international law" are only useful for bashing states that they don't like. When Iran violates the UN Charter [Article 2, clause 4] by threatening war against Israel and threatening to destroy Israel, that does not especially bother her if at all. The constant hate-Israel, hate-Jews agitprop coming out of Arab states, as well as from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-ruled Gaza does not bother her. She may well agree with much of it. Indeed, one of Ashton's British upper crusty sisters, Baroness Jenny Tonge who sits in the House of Lords, claimed that Israel's medical mission to Haiti to aid earthquake victims was stealing organs from patients for resale [medically impossible, since organs for transplant cannot be shipped around like a commodity].
3-17-2010 Emmanuele Ottolenghi analyzes Catherine Ashton's Cairo speech. Ottolenghi informs his readers that Ashton is a "lady," specifically Lady Ashton [here]. I call her a Euro bitch. When it comes to Europe's new Nazis in "liberal" anti-imperialist garb, I am not a gentleman.

More on Arabs Refuting the Big Lie of "Israeli apartheid"

We have already shown [here] photos of Arabs rubbing shoulders with Jews in a Jerusalem shopping mall, enjoying the amenities of the mall and the joy of shopping, a favorite activity of mankind in the 21st century. Shopping is a joy for Arabs as much as for any other people, if not more so. The shopping mall in Dubai is reputed to be the biggest, the grandest, the most splendid in the world. Here are a few more photo shots of Arabs enjoying shopping in Jerusalem. While doing so, unconsciously or not, they are disproving the Big Lie of "Israeli apartheid," a favorite of the fanatic Judeophobes in the West and of those whose minds have been "bent," so to speak. These Arabs are refuting the Big Lie, arguing with their feet, as it were. The lie itself is most likely an invention of Western psychological warfare agencies and experts, probably British.

Here are two Arab-Muslim women in the full headgear and robes sitting in a restaurant in the mall and eating. One is caring for a baby. A Jewish waitress is seen at left.

Arab women are seen happily shopping, going through piles of clothes in a shop. Look at the back of the store and to the left. Arab-Muslim women are most easily identified by their distinctive garments.

Two happy shoppers leaving a store. Actually, the younger woman on the left seems quite happy and satisfied, the older woman not so much. Note the Hebrew writing on an advertising poster to the left of the younger woman.

Here is empirical evidence that these Arab women are not suffering "apartheid" in Israel. Nevertheless, the fanatic true believers in the West in inherent Israeli evil, the heirs of 17 centuries of Judeophobic indoctrination, of the demonization and dehumanization of Jews, will probably not be swayed by mere empirical facts. We bear in mind that most of those groups and individuals called "Left" or "leftist" in the world today share that destructive Western mental heritage. Most of the "Left" today in countries like Britain, the USA, Sweden and Norway, as well as some other Western countries and some Eastern and African countries under Western cultural-intellectual influence (especially British), is a manipulated body of public opinion. Despite Marx and Engels' claim that they were devising a "scientific socialism," they could not or would not shake the rigid influence of Kant and Hegel, particularly the Judeophobia of these two philosophers. Many of Marx and Engels' self-described followers today are incapable of logical reasoning, of empirical induction, or of rational thought. They believe more in comfortable slogans that they have indoctrinated [or inoculated?] with than in the evidence of their own eyes.
Psychological warfare techniques and mass psychological manipulation are dominant tools in shaping contemporary public opinion.

- - - - - - - -
For more on this topic, see here.

Arabs Refute the Big Lie of "Israeli Apartheid"

One of the big accusations against Israel in the last 15 or 20 years is that Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. It is commonly made with much fanfare by such international Judeophobic hate-inciters as jimmy carter, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, awarded the American presidential freedom medal by President Obama, etc. In the long run, such hate incitement as carter et al. indulge in is likely to lead to war.

Now, Apartheid was a system that existed in South Africa from the late 1940s up to the about 1990. It meant very strict segregation of the races, going farther than jimcrow in the southern United States. It comprised rigidly segregated housing with fences and gates, separate public transport vehicles enforced by law, a ban on interracial sex, separate schools enforced by law, Black exclusion from "white only" places of entertainment, shopping, restaurants, etc etc. None of this exists in Israel. In Jerusalem, several Arab families live on my street, one close by across the street, others around the bend. Arabs go to medical clinics [kupot holim clinics] with Jews, ride the buses and sit with the Jews, go to Jewish restaurants as Jews may go to Arab restaurants. About 15% of the student body at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem are Arabs and some were in classes with my sons. And of course, Arabs often enjoy patronizing the Jerusalem shopping malls with Jews.

Furthermore, skin color --the basis of apartheid-- is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, Arabs are now stereotyped as "non-white" or "people of color," although they always considered themselves "white," especially compared with black Africans [read the stories involving Blacks in the One Thousand and One Nights (alf layl wa-layla), the famous collection of Arab tales from the Middle Ages]. Jews today are somehow stereotyped as "ultra-white" or "the whitest of white", whereas when their skin color was most discussed, in the 19th century and up to the Second World War, they were viewed as swarthy, Oriental, dark, un-European, etc. Now, presto changeo, abracadabra, Jews are depicted as ultra-European. Some Eurocentric Europeans psychologically displace onto the Jews all the negative traits and behavior attributed to Europeans. To sum up this paragraph, there is a broad spectrum of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs. Many Jews are in fact darker than many Arabs. Skin color is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Here are some photos taken in a Jerusalem shopping mall in September 2009 that show Jews and Arabs mixing in daily life. It is obvious that apartheid is not a feature of life in Israel. Those who want to measure differences in skin color may take a photometer and bring it up close to the photos. Those who are not convinced can come and ride the buses with us, visit our shopping malls and restaurants, visit the university, tour residential neighborhoods where Jews and Arabs live together, etc.

There are those who openly practice and promote and even demand apartheid in Jerusalem. These are the EU and the consulates of all EU states represented here. They hold separate celebrations of their national holidays [Bastille Day, Queen's Birthday, etc] for Jews and Arabs. Hence, they try to prevent mingling of the two peoples. Mary Robinson ought to look at herself in the mirror for subscribing to this collective EU apartheid policy, although Ireland does not have a consulate here as far as I know. Former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek used to complain to the EU about this segregation policy. Of course they did not pay him any heed.

I do not know whether the United States holds separate, segregated national holiday celebrations here for Jews and Arabs. Readers might inquire with the State Dept. However, the State Dept of the USA, the EU Commission, and the present government of South Africa all deny the right of Jews to live in parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 and ethnically cleansed of Jews in a process starting in December 1947 when Jews were driven by Arab militias out of a neighborhood in what later became "east Jerusalem." And this in a city, Jerusalem, where Jews have been the absolute majority of the population since 1853, if not earlier. So those who make accusations of apartheid are themselves practitioners of apartheid.

Here are views of life in a Jerusalem shopping mall.

An Arab Muslim woman walks through a Jerusalem mall. Jewish women are in the background.


A Muslim Arab woman walks toward the elevators carrying her purchases. The elevators go down to the parking garage. She didn't come to the mall riding a camel or donkey or walking barefoot on a pebble strewn dirt path. She came to the mall by car.



An Arab father with two sons shops for dairy products in a Jerusalem supermarket. Note the Hebrew word for milk, חלב , halav, on a green sign above his head [click on photo to enlarge]. He was identified as an Arab by speaking to his children in Arabic.

An Arab-Muslim woman with baby stands in front of a store selling socks, stockings, and underwear, mainly for women. Note two Jewish boys sitting on the bench at left.

An Arab-Muslim woman with baby sits on a bench in a Jerusalem shopping mall. The other woman on the bench identified herself as an Ashkenazi Jewess. Note that the Jewish woman is noticeably darker skinned than the Arab child, although the two women have about the same skin color. If you click on the photo to enlarge it, you can see a Jewish symbol on the black briefcase.


Proud Arab parents with child in an upscale housewares shop in a Jerusalem shopping mall. Note that father is holding the baby stroller while the mother smiles on the left.


An Arab-Muslim woman, apparently the same one as in the first photo at top, strolls through a Jerusalem shopping mall. Note the Israeli soldier bent over at lower left, apparently looking at a display case of watches or rings.

Arabs refute the apartheid slander by coming to the shopping malls, riding the buses, eating in restaurants, living in neighborhoods, etc. Meanwhile, Western powers within and without the EU promote apartheid, as does the PLO/Palestinian Authority of course.
- - - - - - - - - -
Definition:
"Apartheid implies the total separation of races socially, economically and in the last resort territorially. . ." [Alan Bullock & Oliver Stallybrass, eds., Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (London: Fontana Books 1977].

Source on Arab racial attitudes:
Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East [New York-Oxford: Oxford Univ Press 1990]
Bernard Lewis, Race and Color in Islam [New York 1971].