Posts Tagged ‘Anti Israel bigotry’

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

September 15, 2011

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


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

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

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





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


[snip]


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


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


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


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


[snip]


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


[snip]


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


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


[snip]


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


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


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


_____________



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Advertisements

Twisted Zakaria compares Genocidal “Palestinians” [Hamas] to IRA

May 27, 2011

Twisted Zakaria compares Genocidal “Palestinians” [Hamas] to IRA

He just spinned on CNN, about his anti Israel column in the lefty ‘Washington Post’ (damning B. Netanyahu, who was rightfully cheered at in Congress) answering to Elliot Spitzer (The Arena [http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/]) about Israel’s reservation not to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs that have just joined “unity” Fatah-Hamas, as Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to violence, Fareed’s answer was, so was the IRA…

Not mentioning the vast difference between a small group of terror [bad as it is] VS the Arab-Palestinians who are committed to annihilation of Jews under Islamic banner and under Arabism, from the Mufti in the 1920s (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html ) and in the 1940s (http://books.google.com/books?id=GD3M7pzEm7QC&pg=PA290), through Arafat/Fatah and Hamas.


Some examples:

A Hamas sermon on sloughtering the Jews

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e_sermon.htm

In February 2010 report: ‘Fatah/PA TV Nazi-Like Sermon: “Fight The Jews & Kill Them — They Are Enemies Of Humanity & Allah”’

http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1809

The intended creation of a blurry picture between violence (as horrific as it is) to someone committed to total annihilation is a usual anti-Israel bigoted trick.

Note: The IRA never has a [declared] campaign of annihilating the British people as a whole.

Hamas Video: We Will Drink the Blood of the Jews
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/hamas_we_will_d.php

Racist hypocritic Arabism – “moderate” UAE

August 6, 2010

Racist hypocritic Arabism – "moderate" UAE model

Typical hypocritic of racist Arabism, when Israel does it to defend its babies from racist Arab attacks who aim at any Jews – for being Jews… its called "apartheid" and [falsely] "racist", but when bigoted Arabs do it its "pure national security."

Dubai to use profiling to detect Israeli arrivals http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article24752.ece

Racist Arabia, 2009 Poll: 90% of middle east views Jews unfavorably http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176.

Re: racist Arab Helen Thomas, Arab-Palestinians get back to ARABIA where they came from?

June 6, 2010

Re: Arab Helen Thomas, Arab-Palestinians get back to ARABIA where they came from?

“She should lose her job over this,” Fleischer said in an email. “As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling.”

“She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.”

Thomas knows that she could never say the blacks should go back to Africa or the Hispanics should go back to Mexico, she would ruin her over-celebrated reputation as the “dean” of the White House press corps.
newsb...


What if someone would copy this Arab woman Helen Thomas, and has said that the Arab ‘Palestinians’ should get the heck out of Judea & go back to Arabia?

[Fake nation] The Arab immigrants that started to call themselves (in the 1960’s as) “Palestinians”

The Arab immigrants — who they, their children/grandchildren today are called “palestinians” since the 1960’s

The Arabs in the Holy Land – Natives or Aliens? Unknown to most of the world population, the origin of the “Palestinian” Arabs’ claim to the Holy Land spans …
http://www.ldolphin.org/palestinians.html
 
The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians.
The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in “Palestine”, until the Jews came and “displaced” them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into the Land of Israel displaced the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in the Holy Land for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a “Palestinian refugee”.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

From Time Immemorial – Evidence of Unrecorded Arab Immigration 9 Fred M. Gottheil, “Arab Immigration into Pre-State Israel: 1922-1931″
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2139

 
But as she continued, the anomaly of the Palestinians “began to nag and … Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and …
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1110By 1864, a clear-cut Jewish majority emerged in Jerusalem – more than half a century before the arrival of the British Empire and the League of Nations Mandate. During the years that the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel was restored, a huge Arab population influx transpired as Arab immigrants sought to take advantage of higher wages and economic opportunities that resulted from Jewish settlement in the land. President Roosevelt concluded in 1939 that “Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period.”
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm

Britain’s naval and political reaction to the illegal immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945-1948, Fritz Liebreich, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0714656372, 9780714656373, [p. 30]

The Determinants of British Policy… Matters improved with the departure of Lieutenant General Sir Louis Bols on 30 May 1920, the ending of the military adminidstration and the appointment of Sir Samuel as the first British High Commisioner for Palestine. However, under constant pressure from British pro-Arab spokesmen and officials, relations between Britian and the Jewish Zionists deteriorated steadily.
A Very good exaple of virtuallly general anti-Zionist bias of successsive British mandatory adiminstrations would be the virtual continuation of the Ottoman policy of supporting or at least condoning non-Jewish illegal [p. 31] immigration to Palestine. In contrast to the near universal and general condemntation and confrontation with Jewish illegal immigration.
As a buffer against the Bedouin the Ottomans had already brought the first Circassians from the Caucasus to Palestine in 1878. These truculant habitual warriors had been settled by the Turks as irregular garrisons on the desert fringes, allowing them to occupy and cultivate land, and thus hold back the nomad Arabs, who neither paid tax nor tilled the land at any time. Egyptian immigrants were settled by Ibrahim Pasha in Jaffa, Acre, Nablus and Beisan, Moors and Kurds settled in Safed, while the Arab tribes of the Wulda, Bu Sheille, Lheib and Adwquat, having been defeated in tribal wars and raids, entered Palestine at about the same time as the first Jewish settlers arrived. These Arabs cannot be considered indigenous to the land and neither can the Turks, Kurds, Moors, Algerians, Egyptians and Circassians imported by the Turks as aprotective force. The virtually generally accepted British claim of an overwhelming Arab indigenous population, settled for a thousand years in a crowded Palestine, whe were in danger of being swamped and displaced by the Jews was, therefore, considered by the more extreme Zionists to be a rewriting of history.
Illegal Jewish immigration was always fastidiously reported by successive British administrations, while the very considerable Arab illegal immigration was only addressed when their detection has became flagrant. The British Mandatory authorities whose tasks included recording the comings and goings in Palestine, was occasionally forced to mention the illegal Arab immigration, but only when the battle became too prevalent. The movement was always underestimated, minimised and considered casual:

In addition to increase in recorded immigration, a number of persons are known to enter Palestine illegally from both adjacent and European countries and remain there permanently.
Considerable Arab immigration was indeed proceeding without restriction or record from such areas as Syria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan and Lebanon. There has been some immigration from the surrounding territories, which, since it avoids the frontier controls, is not recorded.

Jewish illegal immigration was minutely detailed and meticulously recorded but all references to Arab illegal immigration were, perhaps deliberately, obscured. The preponderant concentration on the Jewish illegal immigration overwhelemd and negated all record of the parallel Arab traffic.
Tewfik Bey al-Haurani, Governer of the Hauran, was quoted as saying, ‘In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese Syrians have entered Palestine and settled there.’
http://books.google.com/books?id=LsgnW34jp90C&pg=PA31&dq=arab+immigration+palestineWho are the Palestinians and who is occupying what?
[…]
The word plesheth meant migratory referring to the migration of the Philistines into the sea coast of Israel. So the Palestinians of 3000 years ago were, in fact, the Philistines. The Philistines were not native to Israel, in fact, as their name implies, they came from somewhere else. Most scholars agree that they came from the Greek Islands, most likely Crete. Obviously, they did not speak Arabic and they were not Semitic like the Jews and Arabs. The Arabs came from guess where?–Arabia.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/who-are-the-palestinians-and-who-is-occupying-what/

The Canaanites disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago…
Even the Palestinians themselves have acknowledged their association with the region came long after the Jews… Over the last 2,000 years, there have been massive invasions that killed off most of the local people (e.g., the Crusades), migrations, the plague, and other manmade or natural disasters. The entire local population was replaced many times over. During the British mandate alone, more than 100,000 Arabs emigrated from neighboring countries and are today considered Palestinians.

By contrast, no serious historian questions the more than 3,000-year-old Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, or the modern Jewish people’s relation to the ancient Hebrews.

“…[the Palestinian Arabs’] basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or – for some – Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after thirty years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine..”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

“PALESTINE” – Never an Arab Country
[…]
there was no geopolitical entity called “Palestine,” no Arab nation ever set historical roots on this soil and no national claim was ever made to the territory by any national group other than the Jews.
[…]
Under the Mandate, the Jewish population continued to grow but while their immigration was progressively restricted, that of Moslems from the surrounding countries (Syria and Jordan) was completely free. As a result, attracted by the Jewish development of the country, the Moslem population increased rapidly and had attained majority by 1947. Palestinian Arabs Never a Nation “Palestinian” Arab nationalism today is a product of recent political and religious currents. Until the 1920’s no such national community had even existed in “Palestine”. This is why both the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate charged the Jews of the National Home with guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants. No mention was made of other national rights of other inhabitants, as it was recognized that the only national claim to the area was that made by the Jews.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/never_arab.html

Palestinian people do not exist! They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, … The Palestinian people does not exist.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222

The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians

In this essay I would like to present the true origin and identity of the Arab people commonly known as “Palestinians”, and the widespread myths surrounding them. This research is intended to be completely neutral and objective, based on historic and archaeological evidences as well as other documents, including Arab sources, and quoting statements by authoritative Islamic personalities.
There are some modern myths -or more exactly, lies- that we can hear everyday through the mass-media as if they were true, of course, hiding the actual truth. For example, whenever the Temple Mount or Jerusalem are mentioned, it is usually remarked that is “the third holy place for muslims”, but why it is never said that is the FIRST Holy Place for Jews? It sounds like an utterly biased information!

In order to make this essay better comprehensible, it will be presented in two units:
·1) Myths and facts concerning the origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians;
·2) Myths and facts regarding Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

I – Origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians
Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?” “We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”. “When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
This declaration by a true “Palestinian” should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day “Palestinians” are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as “Jordanians”), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians – something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others’ history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines. Let us consider both of them before going on with the Palestinian issue.
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

The Myth Of The Palestinian People – The answer is that the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. While the Arabs already possess 21 sovereign countries of their own (more than any other single people on earth) and control a land mass 800 times the size of the Land of Israel, this is apparently not enough for them. They therefore feel the need to rob the Jews of their one and only country, one of the smallest on the planet. Unfortunately, many people ignorant of the history of the region, including much of the world media, are only too willing to help.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=747

All Things Beautiful: The Myth Of Palestine, Whenever there were Arab riots, Jewish immigration was restricted…
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/01/the_myth_of_pal.html

The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931 – Middle East Quarterly.
http://www.meforum.org/article/522

In the early 19th century, Palestine was a backward, neglected province of the Ottoman Empire. Travelers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal: The land was empty, neglected, abandoned, desolate, fallen into ruins.
In Jerusalem, all reports and journals of travelers, pilgrims and government representatives during these years, repeatedly record the poverty, filth and neglect and the desolate nature of the countryside. Early photographs show lepers in rags and dilapidated buildings. Jerusalem was surrounded by marauding bands of Bedouin Arabs and had to close her gates at nightfall and reopen them at first light, a practice that was similar in Biblical times.
 
Some quotes from the writings of these visitors before modern times:
 
Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds. [English pilgrim in 1590]
 
The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population. [British consul in 1857]
 
There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] — not for 30 miles in either direction… One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. … For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee … Nazareth is forlorn … Jericho lies a moldering ruin … Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation… untenanted by any living creature… A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds … a silent, mournful expanse … a desolation … We never saw a human being on the whole route … Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country … Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes … desolate and unlovely … [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867]
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_impact.php
 
WHY DID THE ARABS FLEE IN 1948? “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist … they were not indigenous. That Palestine was not their ancient homeland.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem100.html
The myth of the Palestinian People, To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an … State of Israel an independent Arab Palestinian state existed in its place. …
http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0240.htm
 
Film to ‘dispel Arab propaganda’ … disguising the Arab immigrants as “indigenous native Palestinian …
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27661
 
Mahmoud Abbas Admits Palestinian Arabs Are Not Indigenous. From a speech given to the PLO Central … The Difference Between Palestinian Arab Moderates . …
http://primerct.blogspot.com/2007/06/mahmoud-abbas-admits-palestinian-arabs.html
 
On a visit to the Ottoman-controlled Holy Land in 1860, Mark Twain described it as “the prince of desolation.” “The hills are barren… the valleys unsightly deserts… peopled by swarms of beggars struck with ghastly sores and malformations… Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes… only the music of angels could charm its shrubs and flowers again into life.”
 
Other writers and artists visiting the Holy Land (chiefly from Britain and Germany) — as well as geographers, archeologists, and cartographers — were equally stunned by its utter desolation.
 
It was only toward the end of the 18th century, when a growing stream of Jewish immigrants rehabilitated the land — draining swamps, reclaiming deserts, and controlling the diseases (chiefly malaria) — that a decimated Arab population began increasing. The resuscitation of the land by the Jews and the economic opportunity they created brought an influx of Arab immigrants from dirt-poor neighboring Arab states to swell the number of Arabs in Palestine, so that by the turn of the century there were about 250,000 Arab Muslims and 150,00 Jews living there. 100,000 Christians and others
 
It was in fact British colonial machinations that turned initial Arab acceptance of a Jewish homeland in British-protected Palestine into unmitigated and disastrous hostility. British behavior in the Middle East in general, and in Palestine in particular, was common colonial practice: divide and rule. In India, it enabled the British to subdue the subcontinent with few troops by pitting hostile segments of the indigenous population against each other. They employed this strategy in Palestine too.
 
From the very first days of the mandate, a group of very influential British officials in the Colonial and the War Offices, who wanted to maintain control over the land and to prevent the establishment of an independent Jewish national home, started undermining their government’s efforts to fulfill its obligation toward the Jews. These British officials, many of them avowed anti-Semites, fanned Arab resentment over broken British promises to make the Arabian chieftain, Faisal, king of Damascus and Syria, and redirected it against Jewish aspirations in Palestine.
 
Indeed, their naming the mandate over the Holy Land “Palestine,” rather than the land of Israel, was a deliberate effort to obliterate the Jewish connection to the land by calling it by its Roman name. They also, in 1923, unilaterally removed from the original mandatory area all the land east of the Jordan River-75 percent of the territory promised to the Jews — and gave it to the Emir Abdullah of Arabia, Faisal’s brother, in compensation to the Hashemite family for other broken promises. They did so despite objections from the League of Nations. The small area that had been designated as a home for the Jews was thus reduced to a mere sliver.
 
A distinct Palestinian Arab nationalism evolved only after the dream of an Arab Syrian kingdom — the brainchild of T. E. Lawrence — was shattered when the French evicted his protégé, the Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920. Only then did the South Syrian Arabs living under Britain’s Palestine mandate separate themselves from Syria and start defining themselves as Palestinians. The process was accelerated by their growing negative reaction to the League of Nations’ designation of Palestine as a Jewish national home.
 
The British helped make hostility to Zionism the defining issue of local Arab politics, and assisted in its exploitation as a lethal weapon in bloody Arab inter-clan struggles for dominance. Muslim clerics and Arab effendis exploited hostility against the Jews, always convenient scapegoats, to deflect the rage of their destitute, exploited people.
 
The British appointed an extremely radical upstart politician, Hajj Amin al-Hussieni, with a record of violence and incitement, as chief mufti of Jerusalem. They gave him the authority of a spiritual leader to the Arabs, and control of the considerable funds and properties managed by Muslim religious trusts. The mufti promptly proceeded to exploit these resources for his nefarious campaign against the Jews and against his Arab opponents — much as Arafat…
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-doron081402.asp

PALESTINIAN FALLACY

by Judah Tzoref

The verbal Jihad legitimizes all means of demagogical rhetoric, spiced with shameless deception, just as the military Jihad legitimizes all forms of atrocious terrorism to undermine the existence of Israel. In both pursuits, the intent is to advance the “holy” cause of denying the Jewish heritage. Pursuing the “glorious” tradition of verbal Jihad, some fervent advocates of the Palestinian cause contract 4,000 years of the unique Jewish bond with the Land of Israel to merely 500 hundred years of past Jewish kingdoms.

The continuity of Jewish predominance within the Land of Israel was interrupted only by the Islamic conquest [1]. The Islamic occupation successfully accomplished ethnic cleansing of the Jewish community through displacement, expropriation and forced inundation of the Land of Israel by Arab immigrants (a proven historical fact). All historical, scientific and non-Jihadic findings attest to the predominant Jewish existence in the Land of Israel over 2,500 years (since Abraham up to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Islamic occupation). […]

The absolute majority of the so-called Palestinians are descendants of the Twentieth Century Arab immigrants who searched for a rewarding chunk of the economical boom engendered by the returning Jews
http://www.think-israel.org/tzoref.pafallacy.html

THE MYTH OF JEWISH COLONIALISM – IT’S TIME THE WORLD STOPPED SEEING MIDEAST CONFLICT THROUGH DISTORTED EUROCENTRIC LENS 14 December 2009 …The notion of ‘occupation’ and the use of the word ‘settlers’ reinforce the concept of Israeli ‘colonisation’ of ‘Arab’ land. Aside from assuming that the Palestinians must be the true natives because they look authentically ‘brown’,
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=52528

The arabs in Israel…. Israel was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually …
http://www.amichai.com/war/process/illegalarabs.htm

Jews are indigenous to the Palestine region and have lived there continuously for over 3,000 years

[…]

Zionists hoped to live in friendship and cooperation with the Arab population and believed that restoring the land would benefit everyone. Many Arabs welcomed this development, which also attracted Arab immigrants from … An estimated 25 percent to 37 percent of immigrants to pre-state Israel were Arabs, not Jews
http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/sfi_about_history_rebirth

There has never been a 2000 year absence. Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for 4000 years and those Jewish families who have constantly lived in the country since Biblical times, the mustarabim, are the indigenous Palestinians.

The first Arabs came to the country in the 7th century in the wake of their conquering armies after the death of Mohammed. They’ve been immigrating, and emigrating, ever since, bringing with them their civil wars (in which Jews were severely persecuted by both sides) and their screwed-up environmental concepts that turned forest into desert. Other groups of peoples also immigrated to Israel/Palestine during this time, especially the Druze. (Today, if you call a Druze an Arab, you’ve just insulted him. This was told to me by a Druze.) Perhaps the earliest Zionist pioneers did have to fight Arab marauders and make the desert bloom, but they did not come to an empty land. Maybe it was sparsely populated, but it was not empty of Jews.

Subsequent decades of Zionist history have been characterized by trying to make peace with the Arabs, and totally ignoring the indigenous Jewish community, as if they didn’t exist. White America may have killed off the native peoples of America, but at least they acknowledged that they were there. The treatment of the Palestinian Jews by the Zionist immigrants reflected their treatment by the Zionist movement during the troubled years of the British mandate between 1917 and 1948. There were 4 periods between WWI and 1949 that Palestinian conflicts resulted in a refugee situation:

1920/1. The first Palestinian refugees were Jews. In the aftermath of WWI, British rule in Palestine supplanted 400 years of Turkish rule and a British administration was installed, headed by Ronald Storrs, governor of Jerusalem, and the Chief-of-Staff Richard Waters-Taylor. A week before Easter, Waters-Taylor, with the blessing of Storrs, had made a secret agreement with local Arab nationalist leaders to conduct bloody riots against the Jews of Palestine to show the world just how unpopular Zionism was. (See Benjamin Netanyahu’s A Durable Peace under the chapter “Betrayal.”) During the Arab pilgrimage to the site of Nebi Musa, believed by Muslims to be the burial place of Moses, the Arab masses were whipped into a frenzy and began to riot. This spread throughout the whole of the country beginning in Jerusalem. Their excuse to the world at large was that they were acting out their ‘legitimate’ grievances against the massive Jewish immigration into the country, fostered by the ‘lax’ British policy.

What they conveniently ignored was the massive Arab immigration into the country brought on by the economic opportunities introduced by the Jews. In fact, in the 30’s, President Roosevelt was reported to have commented that Arab immigration to Palestine far exceeded that of Jewish immigration (See A Durable Peace.) In any case, these riots were tame when compared to later riots. Seven Jews were killed, 200 wounded and women were raped. There were partial expulsions from various areas, such as from east Jerusalem, Jaffa, Gaza, and the tiny Jewish community of Khan Yunis, which consisted of just a few families. A total expulsion occurred from Lod. Many just left fearing more of the same, which indeed happened. In east Jerusalem, the remaining Jews were faced with massacre, but a defense force, organized immediately after WWI by Vladimir Jabotinsky, a WWI hero of Jewish Palestine, prevented this from happening. This organization was later to become the Haganah. As a result, Jabotinsky was arrested by the British and given a 15 year prison sentence. He was pardoned the next year due to international pressure.

The parliament in London was outraged at events in Palestine and quickly set about to dismiss both Storrs and Waters-Taylor. They created the office of High Commissioner, the first of which being Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew. But the anti-Semitic administration still remained in the country. Samuel was a rather weak politician and the administration was successful in prevailing upon him to appoint Haj Amin al Husseini, the notorious Arab nationalist, as Grand Mufti of Arab Palestine, to appease the ‘legitimate’ Arab grievances. He later became a strong nazi ally.

The next year, Husseini orchestrated, with the full backing of the British authorities, a renewal of the most recent riots which resulted in the deaths of, perhaps, as many as 47 Jews. Of these, at least 13 were massacred at an immigrant hostel in Jaffa. The mob was actively aided by the Arab members of the local police. Consequently, more Jews were expelled from Jaffa and Samuel acquiesced to Arab demands and suspended Jewish immigration to the country while allowing Arab immigration to continue unabated. Partial expulsions occurred in Ramle, Beersheba, and Shiloah, the site of the original City of David and burial place of Rabbi Ovadiah Bertinoro, the late 15th century Chief Rabbi of Palestine. The tiny settlements of Kfar Saba and Kfar Malal (birthplace of Ariel Sharon), were totally destroyed and their residents driven out. Both were rebuilt the following year, but other communities were not so lucky. These refugees were either immigrants, or were families that have lived in their homes for generations. To anyone who could see, it was clear – it didn’t matter whether Jews were immigrants or not. The Arabs and British wished to clear Palestine of Jews, period. It is a policy that continues to this day.

In 1922, in a continuing policy of appeasing the Arabs, 75% of Palestine was taken away from the Jews and the Emirate of Transjordan was created, later to become Jordan. First the British, then the Arabs banned the entry of Jews from the area – a policy that continued until very recently. This put those communities of Arabs in Transjordan and even the Judean desert who were of Jewish ancestry in an awkward position. In 1948, these Arabs had always had good relations with their Jewish neighbors, but after 1948, most found themselves living on what became known as the ‘West Bank’ (and Jordan). They were often threatened with death by the other Arabs so that today, they would emphatically deny any Jewish connection.
http://www.think-israel.org/silon.refugees.html

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine? Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, … the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the …
http://97.74.65.51/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14858

How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?

Lawrence Auster
October 01, 2004

There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution, let’s get a few things straight: As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.

[…] The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites. As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs.

The territories comprising all other “Arab” states outside the Arabian peninsula including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3000 year history.
http://mideastoutpost.com/archives/000096.html

 

 

 : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Not even a Zionist Jew would say that in America announcing that in public, you know why? because the most “moderate” Arab is more racist, far more bigoted and extreme than the most radical Zionist can ever be.


 

Apartheid today practiced by Muslims

May 11, 2010

Apartheid today practiced by Muslims
May 2, 9:00 AMNY
Israel Conflict Examiner
Richard Shulman

StandWithUs has a computerized booklet that first defines South African apartheid and then discusses equivalent apartheid by the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Muslims elsewhere.

Blacks are caught and enslaved by Arabs in Sudan. [Those that are not dispossessed or murdered, that is.]

Under the heading of “gender apartheid” are honor killings of females and Iran’s execution of thousands of homosexuals. But the government’s borrow from the South African practice of enforcing the various types of Muslim Arab apartheid by brutal force.

Saudi Arabia flogged Christians for practicing their religion publicly. Christianity is discouraged but allowed if kept apart from the rest of society.

North African Arab states practice discrimination against native Berbers, though they are Muslim. [Saddam attempted genocide against the native Kurds of Iraq, though they are Muslims, too].

Then there is the Muslim Arab notion of Jews being inferior beings [like Nazi racism], leading to persecution of them [and expulsion of about 850,000].

Arab states exclude Palestinian Arab refuges from citizenship. Lebanon bars them from many occupations. They have been segregated.

Muslims in Egypt sometimes kidnap Christian children [and women] and forcibly convert them.

As for the Arabs in the Territories, they rule themselves. Israel does not rule them (StandWithUs )

The booklet mentioned Arab states expelling Palestinian Arabs, but that wasn’t segregation, that was self-defense. The Palestinian Arabs tried to overthrow or help Saddam overthrow their host country.

Isn’t it interesting that one does not hear protest over that real expulsion of Palestinian Arabs done by Arabs. One only hears protest over the non-expulsion of Palestinian Arab refugees from Israel. Such a selective ethical code does not seem ethical at all. It is a pretext.

Among the photographs were those of women murdered by Muslim relatives, even in the U.S., for being too Western or dating non-Muslims. It was pathetic, even heart-breaking, not just illegal.

Some readers accuse me of not caring about injustices to Arabs. If they read my articles, they will find that I report injustices to Arabs, but I find this is by Arabs to Arabs. These same readers never once showed any concern about that.

Some readers accuse Israel of racism. But the Arabs are the aggressors and Israelis the victims and defenders. Israelis see the conflict as a matter of defense or of territorial adjustment. By contrast, the Arab cause is religious, and the religious view is that Jews are inferior beings genetically disposed to bad character. That is racist. No one such reader ever denounced the real Muslim Arab racism. Their name-calling is not just poor upbringing, it is unjustified.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m5d2-Apartheid-today-practiced-by-Muslims

More on the undemocratic “critics” of Israel

March 10, 2010

Hey NIF: Criticism is a Democratic Right

By Anne Herzberg Legal adviser of NGO Monitor Sat Feb 12 2010

(http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=167765)

It’s strange that groups claiming to be well-versed in human rights seem so unfamiliar with the concept of free speech.

Those who make a full-time pursuit of criticizing others probably should grow thicker skin. Yet the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its NGO grantees have launched a thin-skinned offensive against an Israeli student group that criticized them. And they have dragged NGO Monitor into the fray.

As soon as Im Tirtzu released its report detailing how Israeli human rights organizations contributed to the Goldstone Report, NIF backers unleashed ad hominem attacks against the student group and against NGO Monitor (though we were not involved in the report). NIF has threatened to sue Im Tirtzu and any newspaper that repeats its findings. It also sent a letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu calling NGO Monitor “the rotten fruit of Israeli democracy.”

The record needs to be set straight regarding many troubling aspects of NIF’s combative reaction. To avert criticism of their activities, many of the non-governmental organizations highlighted in Im Tirtzu’s report – such as B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel – are promoting the canard that if only Israel had cooperated with Richard Goldstone and his UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war, his report would not have been as outrageously one-sided as it turned out to be.

In truth, there is no evidence that Israeli participation in the Goldstone mission would have changed the outcome of the widely panned report.

Goldstone’s mission was the product of a political war conducted against Israel in the UN Human Rights Council. Led by some of the world’s most abusive regimes – including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia – this corrupt body has ignored mass atrocities such as the genocide in Darfur, the slaughter of more than 25,000 Sri Lankans and the forced starvation and enslavement of North Koreans. Indeed, the Goldstone mission was created by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to deflect attention from the horrific abuses of its member states and their supporters. In fact, according to the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Goldstone’s mission was financed by the Arab League.

FOR HIS part, Goldstone went along with the farce. Where facts exonerating the IDF existed – whether from the UN, the Israeli Foreign Ministry or independent sources – Goldstone apparently ignored or twisted such evidence, choosing instead to credit Hamas sources.

Israeli NGOs played a central role in laying the foundation for Goldstone’s untenable report. During the fighting in Gaza, these groups issued nonstop allegations of “war crimes,” “collective punishment” and intentional murder of civilians. They delivered countless publications containing speculative and unconfirmed claims used to bolster the HRC’s predetermined conclusions. Much of the Goldstone Report was based directly on these inflammatory charges.

Rather than admit their role, these organizations now seek to absolve themselves of responsibility. While NGO assertions of Goldstone’s fairness are perhaps rooted in naiveté, the attempts by the NIF and its grantees to muzzle critics are far more pernicious. Since NGO Monitor first raised the issue of European government funding for supposedly “nongovernmental” organizations (many of which also receive financial and other support from the NIF), these groups have resorted to childish attacks. They have bizarrely characterized NGO Monitor as “extremist” and “right-wing” (whatever those terms mean), and complained that simply reporting on their funding and activities amounts to “repression of dissent.”

But the right of expression always comes with the potential for disapproval. It is strange that groups claiming to be so well-versed in human rights seem so unfamiliar with the concept of free speech.

These attacks must not divert attention from the massive power that NIF and its beneficiaries wield. NIF has an annual budget of $32 million. Its Israeli grantees also receive tens of millions annually from the EU, European governments, the US-based Ford Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

NIF-funded NGOs regularly engage in public relations blitzes, often facilitated by professional media consultants. They hold press conferences, issue glossy publications in multiple languages, and contribute regular op-eds and articles to high-profile media outlets such as Ma’ariv, Haaretz, The New York Times, and Huffington Post. They regularly submit reports at the UN and send representatives to conferences in Europe and America. B’Tselem has a growing lobbying office in Washington and a representative in the UK.

NGO Monitor researchers have analyzed NIF funding practices for years. While the organization does some positive work in Israel that should be applauded, it refuses to engage in debate regarding several of its grantees that demonize Israel at the UN, support boycott and divestment campaigns, promote “lawfare” cases against Israeli officials, and even advocate erasing the Jewish character of the state. Significantly, many NIF donors are unaware of these activities. NIF has rebuffed all of NGO Monitor’s attempts to discuss appropriate “red lines” for the groups they fund.

Perhaps if NIF would stop name-calling and threatening lawsuits, the path would be open for a constructive debate about the role several NIF-supported NGOs have played in the demonization of Israel, and their exploitation by reactionary and totalitarian forces at the UN. Instead of blocking healthy discussion, NIF and its grantees should welcome this conversation – a conversation that would benefit NIF donors, the Israeli public and, ultimately, Israeli democracy.

The writer is the legal adviser of NGO Monitor

http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3895&q=1

‘Goldstone Report was our smoking gun’
BY ABE SELIG
18/02/2010 23:33

How did Im Tirtzu go from organizing campus demonstrations to compiling a major report that has reverberated into a major scandal?

How did Im Tirtzu-The Second Zionist Revolution, which was created less than four years ago as a small student organization to voice support for IDF reservists, go from organizing campus demonstrations during the Second Lebanon War to compiling a major report that has reverberated into a major scandal?

One of the reasons, The Jerusalem Post learned this week, was that the document the group released last month, now known as the “Im Tirtzu Report,” which listed the New Israel Fund as a main financier of more than a dozen Israeli NGOs – including: The Association for Civil Rights in Israel; Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; Bimkom-Planners for Planning Rights; Gisha-Legal Center for Freedom of Movement; HaMoked-Center for the Defense of the Individual; Physicians for Human Rights-Israel; the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel; and Yesh Din-Volunteers for Human Rights – that provided testimony used in the UN’s Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, was the result of efforts modeled after military intelligence operations that trace and pinpoint money trails leading to terrorist organizations.

Im Tirtzu head Ronen Shoval, told the Post this week that the detailed report, which has continued to make waves both in civil society and government circles, was “modeled after the way intelligence agencies look into the financing of terror groups.”

“We invested great efforts to understand the funding strategy and ideology behind the NIF, and what we found out is just the tip of the iceberg,” Shoval said, although he declined to elaborate.

While some questions regarding Im Tirtzu’s inspiration and practical use of intelligence tactics remain unanswered, Shoval did say that he and his group had “always known that the [NGOs that reported to the Goldstone Commission] were getting support from the same place, but after the Goldstone Report was released, we saw that they had crossed a red line.

“The Goldstone Report was our smoking gun,” he said. “It showed that these groups were not engaging in constructive criticism, but destructive criticism, and working to harm the state.

“We also knew that the testimonies they gave were highly flawed and often without attributions,” he said. “So it was important for us to research these groups and expose who they’re connected to.

“All we had to do was follow the money,” he continued. “If we were to have gone after these individual groups one at a time, it wouldn’t have been nearly as efficient. Instead, we decided to go after the source – the NIF – because that’s where the money trail kept leading to.”

While the report resulted in increased support for Im Tirtzu – in addition to the massive publicity it produced, Shoval said hundreds of people had joined Im Tirtzu in the weeks since the report’s release – it also became a strong rallying point for the group’s opponents, including the very NGOs the report targeted.

Dozens of newspaper articles and blog postings accusing Im Tirtzu of “McCarthyism” and even “fascism” surfaced in the wake of the report.

Additionally, an advertisement that was published throughout the Hebrew and Israeli English-language dailies, featuring a caricature of NIF chairwoman and former Meretz MK Naomi Chazan with a horn strapped onto her forehead, drew condemnations comparing it to Der Stürmer – drawing a parallel between Im Tirtzu’s efforts and the Nazi weekly used to dehumanize Jews between 1923 and 1945.

Shoval was unapologetic regarding the ad, dismissing the criticisms as “nonsense.”

“Was the ad successful?” Shoval asked. “I know it was, and therefore it didn’t go too far. Sometimes you have to put the truth right in people’s faces.

“It’s interesting that in the name of free speech, [critics of the ad and report] tried to shut us up,” Shoval continued. “But as far as the ad campaign was concerned, we had to figure out how to come out against a group that no one even knew existed. No one knew who the NIF was, but everyone knows Chazan.

“I don’t have anything personal against her,” Shoval said. “But I’d be happy if her group stopped financing these organizations.”

Shoval also rejected the notion that Im Tirtzu had received government support for the report’s creation.

“A lot of groups, including government bodies, support it,” he said of Im Tirtzu’s report. “But it’s not as if we were receiving instructions from above to carry this thing out. Government officials have responded with interest to our findings, simply because they agree that these groups and their actions present a strategic threat.

“For us, we look at this information as an ethical issue, not a legal one,” he added, stressing that he had received thousands of e-mails thanking him for the report.

“People have written me saying things like, ‘Finally, you said what we’ve all wanted to say for so long,’ and, ‘It’s about time someone did this’. I think people have just had enough of what these groups are doing.”

And what it is that these NGOs are doing, Shoval clarified, is undermining the state, and disseminating anti-Zionist tropes into Israeli society.

“Basically, anti-Israel groups, including many in Europe, have found Israelis who are willing to do their dirty work,” he said. “In that vein, this is not a right-wing or left-wing issue. It’s about being a Zionist and supporting Israel as a Jewish state – that’s it.”

And such is the essence of Im Tirtzu, Shoval said. What began as an effort to support IDF soldiers – especially during anti-war protests – on university campuses during the Second Lebanon War, has seen Im Tirtzu come into its own as a forceful movement with thousands of members, and the attention – if not backing – of the government.

“We’re trying to bring back faith in the way of the early Zionists,” Shoval said. “And we’ve been successful because we’re portraying our cause as cool and trendy. We want people to understand what it means to be a Zionist today – why they should stay in Israel, why they should go to the reserves.

“And so,” he continued, “Im Tirtzu began as a way to get back to the basics and present alternatives to all of the anti-Zionist sentiments that are out there.”

Shoval said his group was nowhere near slowing down. As for its success in growing from a small, student-based campus organization into a movement with front-page headlines and Knesset members citing its work, Shoval said luck or being in the right place at the right time had little to do with it.

“From the start, we’ve had very intelligent people on-board, planning out how to make this thing work,” he said.

“We always saw the university campuses as a means to an end, and part of a 10 year plan that would bring us from a student group to an influential force in Israeli society.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169091

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

Here we go again, Fake “war crimes” by Israel bashers exposed – damning effect still on

March 31, 2009

Here we go again, Fake “war crimes” by Israel bashers exposed – damning effect still on

Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors – Defense/Middle …Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations…  B’Tselem, accused the IDF… …

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130684

Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous  un-reliable radical political group: B’tzelem) reminds us all the UN’s such loud & harsh “accusation” of Israel of “killing Kids in Gaza“, then later on “woke up” told the truth, AKA retracted it ,
)

 yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.

(

UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] … The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN …
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204/gaza.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/05/2482698.htm
http://news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/world/5301175/un-retracts-claim-strike-hit-gaza-school/
http://www.worthychristianforums.com/Retracts-Claim-Gaza-Sc-t100098.html

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

March 24, 2009

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

 

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

Anti-Zionism is hate, racism, bigotry

March 22, 2009

Anti-Zionism is hate

By Judea Pearl
March 22, 2009

In January, four longtime Israel bashers were invited to the University of California, Los Angeles, to analyze the human rights conditions in Gaza, and used the stage to attack the legitimacy of Zionism and its vision of a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

They criminalized Israel’s existence, distorted its motives and maligned its character, its birth, even its conception. At one point, the excited audience reportedly chanted “Zionism is Nazism” and worse.

Jewish leaders condemned this hate-fest as a dangerous invitation to anti-Semitic hysteria. The organizers, some of them Jewish, took refuge in “academic freedom” and the argument that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

I fully support this mantra, not because it exonerates anti-Zionists from charges of anti-Semitism but because the distinction helps us focus attention on the discriminatory, immoral and more dangerous character of anti-Zionism.

Anti-Zionism rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation – a collective bonded by a common history – and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace. It seeks the dismantling of the Jewish nation-state: Israel.

Anti-Zionism earns its discriminatory character by denying the Jewish people what it grants to other historically bonded collectives (e.g., French, Spanish, Palestinians): namely, the right to nationhood, self-determination and legitimate coexistence with other indigenous claimants.

Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations.

Are Jews a nation? Some philosophers would argue Jews are a nation first and religion second. Indeed, the narrative of Exodus and the vision of the impending journey to the land of Canaan were etched in the minds of the Jewish people before they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. But philosophy aside, the unshaken conviction in their eventual repatriation to the birthplace of their history has been the engine behind Jewish endurance and hopes throughout their turbulent journey that started with the Roman expulsion in A.D. 70.

More important, shared history, not religion, is today the primary uniting force behind the secular, multiethnic society of Israel. The majority of its members do not practice religious laws and do not believe in divine supervision or the afterlife. The same applies to American Jewry, which is likewise largely secular. Identification with a common historical ethos, culminating in the re-establishment of the state of Israel, is the central bond of Jewish collectivity in America.

There are, of course, Jews who are non-Zionists and even anti-Zionists. There are also Jews who find it difficult to defend their identity against the growing viciousness of anti-Israel propaganda.

But these are marginal minorities at best; the vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives – the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.

Given this understanding of Jewish nationhood, anti-Zionism is in many ways more dangerous than anti-Semitism.

First, anti-Zionism targets the most vulnerable part of the Jewish people, namely, the Jewish population of Israel, whose physical safety and personal dignity depend crucially on maintaining Israel’s sovereignty. Put bluntly, the anti-Zionist plan to do away with Israel condemns 5.5 million human beings, mostly refugees or children of refugees, to eternal defenselessness in a region where genocidal designs are not uncommon.

Second, modern society has developed antibodies against anti-Semitism but not against anti-Zionism. Today, anti-Semitic stereotypes evoke revulsion in most people of conscience, while anti-Zionist rhetoric has become a mark of academic sophistication and social acceptance in certain extreme yet vocal circles of U.S. academia and media elite. Anti-Zionism disguises itself in the cloak of political debate, exempt from sensitivities and rules of civility that govern inter-religious discourse, to attack the most cherished symbol of Jewish identity.

Finally, anti-Zionist rhetoric is a stab in the back to the Israeli peace camp, which overwhelmingly stands for a two-state solution. It also gives credence to enemies of coexistence who claim that the eventual elimination of Israel is the hidden agenda of every Palestinian.

It is anti-Zionism, then, not anti-Semitism, that poses a more dangerous threat to lives, historical justice and the prospects of peace in the Middle East.

Judea Pearl is a professor at UCLA and the president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.israel22mar22,0,72685.story

German Court: Anti-Zionism May Be Anti-Semitism – Jewish World …”To give someone carte blanche for anti-Semitism because of Jewish origin or meritorious ancestors is racism,” continued the statement. …

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127485

David Matas, famed human rights lawyer from Canada, in his excellent book Aftershock, written in 2002, reviewed the attacks on Jews and Israel throughout the world, and asked: How could this happen sixty years after the Holocaust? He answers:

“The root cause of the revival of antisemitism is anti-Zionism. Zionism is the expression of the right to self determination of the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism, by definition, denies and rejects this right by denying the right to a state by the Jewish people. Anti-Zionism is a form of racism. It is the specific denial to the Jewish people of the basic right to which all people of the world are entitled.

“Israel exists because of the Holocaust, because of anti-Semitism and as a place of refuge for Jews fleeing persecution, for the cultural survival of the Jewish people and their right to self-determination, because of the ties of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, and because of international acceptance and recognition. The logic of anti-Zionism requires attacking each and every one of these reasons for the existence of Israel.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8037

Is Zionism Racism? Is Israel an Apartheid State?


 


Judge for yourself:
Mehereta Baruch
, LaVon
Mercer
, Ismail Khaldi,
and
Azzam Azzam 
are Israeli personalities.


Mehereta Baruch









Mehereta Baruch is a Zionist and a Jew. Meherata came to Israel with her family from
Ethiopia, traveling on foot to Sudan to get to Israel and suffering many hardships on the way.


She has found a new home in Israel.


She says, "Israel was always the place of our dreams. When we
finally arrived it really felt like the paradise I was promised.
"


Think about it – Is Zionism racism? Do you think Meherata is a racist?


Mehereta Baruch Tells Her Story

Zionist Personality - Mehereta Baruch


LaVon Mercer









The man at right is LaVon Mercer, formerly a star player on Israel’s
championship Maccabi Tel-Aviv basketball team, Israeli citizen, and former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces. LaVon
is an orphan who came up the hard way.


LaVon, now a basketball coach at Atlanta’s Spellman College, never
misses an opportunity to speak out for his second country. His height is variously given as 6’8" or 6’11". He is
"Israeli’s biggest ambassador."


LaVon Mercer is a Zionist. Think about it. Is Zionism racism?


Do you
think LaVon is a racist? 


Read the LaVon Mercer Story


Basketball Star LaVon Mercer -Zionist; Israel's Biggest Ambassador








Ismail Khaldi is Israel’s Consul in San Francisco. Ismail is a Bedouin Arab. He says:

Two years ago, a few proud Bedouin Israeli citizens like asked: what is our position and status in the State of Israel
in the midst of its 
current situation? After all, Bedouin are part of Israel’s success story. During current times, when Israel is being
attacked and accused of
being a racist state, an ‘aggressor and an oppressor’, we decided that the smallest and probably most effective thing we
could do is to
spread our story as part of Israeli society.


Read about
Ismail Khaldi









Azzam Azzam – Israeli Druze – I am fortunate and proud to have been born in Israel."


Read about Azzam Azzam



Is Israel an Apartheid State?


More
Israeli and Zionist Biographies
 

The
Truth about the Zionist Threat


More about Zionism and Israel



History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel  

Zionism and Its Impact



Zionism and Israel- FAQ – Issues and Answers



General Anti-Zionism = racism, Orthodox Anti-Zionism =
piety!

 

 

Those that try to confuse
conventional hateful dirty racist anti-Zionism
with
the pure Ultra Orthodox Jewish pious Talmudic
anti-Zionism

 

 

Let’s put it this way, there is as much “common ground” between these two
separate anti-Zionism, as any “bond” a Nazi can have with a Jew.

 

When the famous Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. clarified that anti-Zionism is
racism, he was as right on target as the rest of his famous lines on racism as a
whole.

 

The cynical use by racist anti-Zionists of ultra-religious-Jewish
anti-Zionism is one of the most misleading treacherous campaign they conduct,
let’s just say that ones that call for a new Holocaust, such as Iranian leader :
M. Ahmadinejad (2006), would be willing to let a few orthodox Jews to survive in
“exchange” for not being seeing as the Hitler he is, in his open plan to wipe
off all of Israel.

 

Anti-Jewism’s modern name is Anti-Zionism

While Zionism is nothing more than the right of a nation to come back to
it’s historic homeland (and providing refuge also for Jews facing persecution,
to go to their only exclusive country), it has been demonized by both, Islamic
militants & Nazis, to justify their war on the Jews only to wage their
hateful facsist campaign under a more convenient – thus deceiving – banner of
‘Anti-Zionism’, since being openly anti-Jews is not popular any more, the
wrapping of this evil under a “political’ issue might help them disguise their
hidden devious war on all Jews.

All criticism on how it handles terrorists that are bend on genocide on
Israelis, have been used to bash ‘Zionism’, still, it can never change the
original simple basic human idea.

 

The unique anti-Zionism by the pious

However, anti-Zionism that of Ultra Orthodox Jews, is more of a pure
ideological side, these highly religious highly pacific Talmudic Jews have a
problem with ‘taking manners in their own hands’, oppose any aggression and
provocation, while the vocal orthodox against Zionism are active publicly and
considered fevered anti-Zionists, most orthodox Jews in Israel are more of a
form of passive non-Zionists, as they don’t even serve in Israel’s IDF army, one
of the major reasons is, not to engage in ANY violence, they say it DOES effect
you even if you are only trying to defend yourself.

For the record, the Zionists that were involved in re-establishing the
‘Jewish-State’ in 1948 as well as prior actions towards it, were almost all
secular-Zionists, the ultra religious anti-Zionist Jews tried to appease the
Arabs.

 

It would be more fare to say that Zionism (& it’s argument) is based
more on history and the Bible, whereas Jewish anti-Zionism is based on the
Talmud interpretation of it.

 

Whichever way you see it, this dispute in ideology has nothing to
do – of course – with haters’ campaign masked under an ‘anti-Zionism’
rope.




The bigotry of anti
Israel

 

Facts & Causes

 

 

The obvious, or the ‘should be obvious’

 

This is not really all about the Arab Muslim world, who’s anti
Israel feeling and action is motivated
(not by any feeling to help
fellow Arab Muslims, fact is, the Arab “Palestinians” are persecuted all
throughout the Arab world) by Arab racism (just as the Kurds,
Maronites, Sudanese and other non Arabs suffer from the global
Arabization) & Islamofascism or Islamic-Fascism, the evil ideology
as Tony Blair calls it
(just as non Muslims in general, dhimmi or
kuffars, non-believers suffer, global wide, take it straight from the horse’s
mouth, the Iranian fanatical Islamic leader Ahmadinejad’s call for genocide &
ethnic cleansing on Israel that though has no regional or territorial disputes
with Iran of course, “doesn’t belong on ‘Muslim land’, in the all Muslim middle
east”, this anti-Israel facsism still infects most moderate Muslim countries
that blindly refuse entry to anyone with an Israeli passport).

Nor is it about the few neo/old Nazis that hate all Jews
(even those that tell you they hate “only
Zionists”).

But this is about the bigotry of
anti-Israel infected in the mainstream
.

 

 

Jumping to conclusion before knowing the facts

 

This happens on a regular basis, but a few examples might serve as
highlights if you wish:

 

The rush into harsh words by UN’s Secretary general Kofi Annan
(before he semi-apologized for it) when some UN officials got hurt in the
cross fire between Huzbullah terrorists and Israeli defense forces (Hezbullah
initiated war and invasion 2006), even after realizing that the UN post was used
by the Huzbullah as a tool.

 

The overwhelming bashing Israel in Arabs’ deaths, like the very icon the
“Palestinian” propaganda machine used, as in the Arab kid Muhammad al-Dura
(2002), which we all know by now, was nothing more than staged by Arabs
themselves, and it was Arab shooters that killed that boy.

 

The rushing media in “blaming Israel” for the death of an Arab family on
Gaza beach (2006), again Israel promised/asked to wait until a full
investigation is complete, that concluded it was the “Palestinian” Hamas’ led
mines that brought about that incident.

 

No matter how many times the media sees the transparency in the fake images
produced and invented by the ‘Palestinians’, “PALLYWOOD” (http://seconddraft.org), it seems to
“forget”, each time a new case appears.

 

 

Demanding from Israel the victim of terror more than from the
perpetrator

 

The words an anti-Israel ‘activist’ told me, resonates throughout this
conflict: “I can’t expect from the Arabs any better, but Israel/ should know
better!”.

In other words, it is part of demanding from the west ever more then from
the Islamic world, when it comes to morality.

The only problem is that it is not presented in this open way, it is
presented as Israel is the “bad” guy, period.

As opposed to endless condemnations by the UN on Israel’s self defense,
When was the last time the UN has condemned the very Arab “Palestinian” crimes
on their own people that they try to pin on Israel, like:

Using it’s kids as human shields (which Huzbullah, in 2006, picked up very
quickly, copied them in their war on Israeli civilians, using Arab civilians)
and as human bombs?

Legitimizing and even glorifying mass murder and genocide as a ‘good holy
act’ in their mainstream and official media?

 

 

The Lie of “natives” is bought

 

How many have fallen prey to the powerful sell of “indigenous” Arabs in the
land of the Judea?

The picture of an all out ‘Arabs in the middle east’, is one of the
misconception misleading clarity of history, never forget that most today’s
‘Palestinians’ have no more than 3 generations “history” in this ancient land of
the Jews.

Absolutely no one has disputed the fact of Arab immigration that saw an
upsurge with Zionists’ immigration (the latter only, limited by the British) in
the late 1800.

The fact that the most “Palestinian” – icon of all time: Yasser Arafat
was an Egyptian born fighting for “his homeland” in Israel… is so
classical.

By the same token, it is not well known the fact that over 50% Israeli
Jews are of children of indigenous Jews in the middle east (http://jimena.org) .

 

 

The Global Goliath Islamo Arab power

 

The very fact that there was so much talk and selecting/picking on one lobby
out of so many different types and different interests – lobbies that operate in
Washington but the utter silence on the enormous Islamo Arab lobby that
basically occupies, threatens, incorporating so many in their anti-Israel racist
boycott, uses oil as a weapon and dictates the international arena, including
the UN, shows you just how great of bully they are.

So is the fear of European nations for unrest by the Arab Muslim
(immigrant) population, (terrorism works!) that effects or rather impairs their
stand on the middle east conflict.

 

 

The wrong picture of seeing Israel as the “aggressor” and the
‘Palestinian Arabs’ as the “underdog”

 

Question # 1:

Who has more power, the cynical Arab adult shooting behind a kid’s back,
behind a woman’s squirt, or the Israeli humane soldier facing a terrible
dilemma?

 

Question # 2

When you see the biased media showing a tank vs. kid, A) do you ever
stop and think what the message is behind it? B) Does this suggest
that the Israeli soldier is really after an unarmed person? C) Did you ever
stop to think that the very fact that you can see the Israeli soldier but you
can NOT see the Arab terrorist makes the invisible much more of a menace?

 

Nothing more like the situation in Iraq (2003-2007)
demonstrates that you might have the most powerful army in the world, you are
weaker (in many ways) than the invisible coward terrorists hiding among
civilians that has no rules of basic regards for ANY human lives.

 

 

Outrageous use of baseless drama language and hollow bombastic
terms on Israel’s multi-racial beautiful democracy

 

Take for example the admission of anti Israel Arabist: Jimmy Carter that
(on December , 2006 – CNN) has admitted that Israel is a great democracy with
freedom and equal rights for all, and that (in an interview to Larry King he
said that) he used provocative words like “apartheid” (only) in order to provoke
discussion.

All those bombastic empty words like “racism’ or “apartheid” the
anti-Israel Arab racist propaganda machine is selling, has of course no support
in facts on the ground, there is nothing “racist” about fighting terrorists for
being terrorists, there is nothing “apartheid”, especially that they are the
same Arab race and group, Israeli Arabs and “Palestinian” Arabs, with different
identification cards that has nothing but security implications.


Since when is concern for security considered “racism”?

 

The same “Judenrein – Palestine” that is trying to ethnic cleanse all Jews,
that does not even permit any Jew to live in their ‘territories’, is lecturing
multi-racial, multi-religion, multi-color Israel, that has all colors and
races from the darkest black to the whitest blond, that has a whopping
20-25% Arabs in it’s population, with equal rights and representations in high
offices (and even more rights than Jews, giving the fact that Israeli Jews
are obligated to serve in the army whereas Israeli Arabs are not).

 

 

The racism behind “questioning” Israel’s right to
exist

 

Can you name one other country that is subject to even a question of
being ‘recognized’?

Why do you think it is?

If you want to talk about history as a supposed reason, 1) Even if you are
a naiive student of ‘Palestinian’ propaganda in revising history, You don’t see
anyone denying the unmistakenly settlers like most European, or American or
Australians right to exist. 2) speaking even about history, for the record:
No matter on which political side you are on, you have no right to deny rights
of a nation to exist, no one can ever erase Jews’ history to the land of Israel,
at the same breath no one can claim that there was ever a sovereign
Arab-Muslim “Palestine”, in fact, the same nazis or Jew-haters that used to tell
the Jews in Europe: ‘Go back where you came from, go to Israel-Palestine’,
the ones continue the evil torch of Nazism today ironically deny the Jews
coming back to their original roots-origin.

 

 

The dehumanization of Israeli victims

 

Seeing Israel as nothing but a “tank”, is another racist element coming
through, in brushing off Israeli victims as a “side details” at best.

When was the last time the BBC (for example) has shown any drama pictures
of injured Israeli kids at a fraction of the time, passion dedicated to any Arab
kid that was killed (usually) because of an Arab adult’s fault?

Can you remember reporters of the mainstream media visiting Israeli
hospitals as much as you can remember them strolling down Arab ones? And Why
not?

Numbers are not the reason, percentage wise you will see time and time
again, Israel loses by far in media’s favoritism.

 


WorldNetDaily: Europe blinded by anti-Semitic bigotryEurope blinded by anti-Semitic bigotry … The academics will debate today whether to boycott three of Israel’s eight universities ? Haifa, …
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43891

Ford Foundation Will Pay for Parley Of Anti-Israel Scholars at Lake Como – February 7, … terrorism or bigotry, or calls for the destruction of any state. …
http://www.nysun.com/article/27123

Anti-semitism on campus by Anna Bolman at Over A Teacup, Campus newspapers have become a hotbed of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel … they cannot stop certain expressions of hate and bigotry, they condemn them. …
http://www.overateacup.com/abolman1.html

Anti-Semitism and Anti-ZionismAnti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel. …
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Anti-Semitism_&_Anti-Zionism.html

Nice talk can’t hide U.N.’s anti-Jewish bigotry, Nice talk can’t hide U.N.’s anti-Jewish bigotry. By Joel Mowbray … Bayefsky further attacked Annan for hypocrisy in condemning Israel for killing Hamas …
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0704/mowbray_2004_07_01.php3

… all forms of bigotry & anti-Semitism; and support civil & human rights. … a report documenting the anti-Israel bias evident in the Hartford Courant. …
http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ffITK0OyFoG/b.843903/k.3B68/Connecticut.htm

The new anti-Semitism which demonizes Jews and Israel alike, has fused itself with the “old” European anti Jewish bigotry which is enhanced by the growing …
http://www.israelnetdaily.com/index.php?menu_option=editorials&editorial_id=33

The Bigotry of Jihad, They stand ? admirably ? ever-prepared to expose that bigotry to the light … the prejudice that animates anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3538

Israel must do a better job in making its case and supporters of Israel must become more vocal. I believe that the fight against anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic bigotry is one of the most important human rights issues of the 21st century.
http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.dershowitz.html

Clarifying Anti-Semitism And Anti-Zionism, Israel?s enemies are in fact motivated, as this evidence shows, not merely by anti-Zionism, but by anti-Jewish bigotry.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N21/rkraus21.21c.html

Campus Anti-Semitism: Know Your RightsAccording to the Commission, ?Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.? …
http://www.thecollegezionist.org/20067issue/campsem.html

UN World Conference Against RacismBut the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist campaign is not uninformed bigotry, it is conscious politics. …Further, this fact of world politics creates altogether …
http://www.adl.org/durban/adl_quotes.asp

Schooled in Hate: Anti-Semitism on CampusIn another example of the former acceptability of anti-Zionism, … The article is a shameful example of bigotry and hatred which has no place in civilized …
http://www.adl.org/Sih/SIH-antizionism.asp

Dr. King: Anti-Zionism Is Anti-SemitismDr. King’s unequivocal renunciation of anti-Zionism reflected his consistent, courageous opposition to all manifestations of bigotry.
http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1823

Postwar self test: Are you an anti-Semite?, One of the more fruitless debates between critics and supporters of Israel, is where to draw the line between candid criticism of Israeli policy, and anti-Semitism.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=%20750345&contrassID=2


__________

http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=144642

Myth and Fact: Criticism of Israel & Anti-Semitism?

By Mitchell G. Bard
http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org

Myth

“Advocates for Israel try to silence critics by labeling them anti-Semitic.”


Fact

Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate critics accept Israel’s right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis the right to pursue their legitimate claims while encouraging the Palestinians to do so. Anti-Semites deny Israel the right to defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims, while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers. Anti-Semites rarely, if ever, make positive statements about Israel. Anti-Semites describe Israelis using pejorative terms and hate-speech, suggesting, for example, that they are “racists” or “Nazis.”

Natan Sharansky has suggested a “3-D” test for differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The first “D” is the test of whether Israel or its leaders are being demonized or their actions blown out of proportion. Equating Israel with Nazi Germany is one example of demonization. The second “D” is the test of double standards. An example is when Israel is singled out for condemnation at the United Nations for perceived human rights abuses while nations that violate human rights on a massive scale, such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, are not even mentioned. The third “D” is the test of delegitimization. Questioning Israel’s legitimacy, that is, its right to exist is always anti-Semitic (Natan Sharansky, “Antisemitism in 3-D”, Forward, January 21, 2005).

No campaign exists to prevent people from expressing negative opinions about Israeli policy. In fact, the most vociferous critics of Israel are Israelis themselves who use their freedom of speech to express their concerns every day. A glance at any Israeli newspaper will reveal a surfeit of articles questioning particular government policies. Anti-Semites, however, do not share Israelis’ interest in improving the society; their goal is to delegitimize the state in the short-run, and destroy it in the long-run. There is nothing Israel could do to satisfy these critics.



ISRAEL’S NEXT TOP MODEL (you can’t get more multi racial, more multi color than that)

2006 marked the second season of the reality tv competition searching for Israel’s Next Top Model (the show is a knock off of Tyra Bank’s program “America’s Next Top Model”). The three finalists are depicted in this picture. All are Israeli young women. Two are Jewish, one is Muslim. Kristine, the blond model was born in Russia. Mimi, the black model was born in Ethiopia.
Her family belongs to the group of courageous Ethiopian Jews who braved starvation, exposure to the elements, wild animals, brutal marauders and exhaustion to escape Ethiopia by WALKING to the Holy Land. Niral, the brown haired beauty on the left, was born in Israel to a Muslim-Israeli family.
Niral won the competition and is now , Israel’s Next Top Model.


_______



First Muslim Cabinet minister for Israel, (Raleb Majadele – Arab Muslim minster in Israeli democratic government)
Israel was on the verge of installing the first Muslim Cabinet minister in … But the country has had only one Arab Cabinet minister before: Salah Tarif.
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_world/~3/83409946/index.html

Salah Tarif

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Tarif.html


____


 




IsraTV exclusive: Major Lee Cho O in the IDF Born in Vietnam, she came to Israel with her family as a refugee. As many boatpeople, she came to Israel in 1977 by a decision by former Prime Minister Menahem Begin.


Darfur Refugee Debunks Israeli Apartheid

Darfur_refugeesDespite the legal limbo, a Darfur refugee debunks apartheid comparisons. Sanka, a Sudanese Muslim told reporter Annette Young of The Scotsman:

“The Jewish people I’ve met here understand my plight. For the first time in my life I feel free. I know that sounds funny but I do. I feel freer here than I ever did in Sudan.”

(Hat tip: Curiouser and Curiouser)

http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2007/07/darfur-refugee-.html

Arabs’ man, ‘corrupted Arab-oil man’ in Obama’s admin. ‘Pro – Dictatorship, ‘ARABIST – BIGOT’ C. Freeman attempted appointment for the CIA

March 11, 2009

 

Arabs’ man, ‘corrupted Arab-oil man’  in Obama’s admin. ‘Pro – Dictatorship, ‘ARABIST – BIGOT’ C. Freeman attempted appointment for the CIA

Alarming appointment at the CIA by Steve Rosen Thu, 19 Feb 2009 at 3:55 PM

Readers of this blog know that I have been generally quite positive about the appointments the new Adminsitration is making for Middle East policy positions. Today’s news is quite different. According to Laura Rozen at the Foreign Policy blog, Chas W. Freeman, Jr., the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will become chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and may at times participate in daily intelligence briefings to President Obama. This is a profoundly disturbing appointment, if the report is correct. Freeman is a strident critic of Israel, and a textbook case of the old-line Arabism that afflicted American diplomacy at the time the state of Israel was born. His views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship, not the top CIA position for analytic products going to the President of the United States.

Here is a sample of his views on Israel, from his Remarks to the National Council on US-Arab Relations on September 12, 2005: “As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent. …And as long as such Israeli violence against Palestinians continues, it is utterly unrealistic to expect that Palestinians will stand down from violent resistance and retaliation against Israelis. Mr. Sharon is far from a stupid man; he understands this. So, when he sets the complete absence of Palestinian violence as a precondition for implementing the road map or any other negotiating process, he is deliberately setting a precondition he knows can never be met.” Here is another example from 2008: “We have reflexively supported the efforts of a series of right-wing Israeli governments to undo the Oslo accords and to pacify the Palestinians rather than make peace with them. … The so-called “two-state solution” – is widely seen in the region as too late and too little. Too late, because so much land has been colonized by Israel that there is not enough left for a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel; too little, because what is on offer looks to Palestinians more like an Indian reservation than a country.”

According to Foreign policy blog, Freeman has told associates that in the job, he will occasionally accompany Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair to give the president his daily intelligence briefing. His predecessor, Thomas Fingar, wore a second hat as deputy director of national intelligence for analysis.
http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/02/alarming-appointment-at-the-cia.html

I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman’s realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that someone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/freeman_is_about_views_not

Freeman under fire for ties to [Brutal regime of the] Chinese, Saudis
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91357

GAFFNEY: Garbage in, garbage out Washington Times – ‎Mar 2, 2009‎ For example, Mr. Freeman has viewed the Middle East through the prism of one of Foggy Bottom’s most successful Arabists. He justifies Arab enmity towards us …
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/garbage-in-garbage-out/

Freeman: Jewish Dems and Republicans weigh in Jewish Telegraphic Agency – ‎Feb 26, 2009‎ … NJDC executive director Ira Forman said Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia who has been critical of Israel, appears to be a “strong Arabist” …
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/02/26/1003311/freeman-jewish-dems-and-republicans-weigh-in

Doc’s Talk: CHAS FREEMAN: ‘HELP THE SHIITES (IRAN) WIN FAST …CNOOC is a State owned enterprise , controlled by the Chinese government. … Chas Freeman proved all too willing to serve another brutal dictatorship. …
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/chas-freeman-help-shiites-iran-win-fast.html

Obama Administration’s Pick for Top Intelligence
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/556484.aspx

Tibet and Chas Freeman
Washington Times – ‎Mar 9, 2009
We have always deplored China’s ongoing, brutal occupation of Tibet. The Tibetan people have suffered three-score years of Chinese communist rule, …
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/10/tibet-and-chas-freeman/
Top US intelligence pick under fire for Saudi, China ties – Mar 5, 2009
They noted that Freeman served on the board of the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), which has done business with Iran. “Ambassador Freeman’s …
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h9DAC14gGSXodN8JURBDDhM7e9oQ

ANOTHER MAN DOWN… Furthermore, researcher Ashley Rindsberg recently revealed Freeman’s pre- and post-9/11 “business connections” with the bin Laden family, which have donated “tens of thousands of dollars a year” to the MEPC. Rindsberg also discovered donations to Obama’s presidential campaign by Freeman’s Projects International, “a company that develops international business deals.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=BE07A5C1-7D97-486A-89DD-52ACDC145319

US intelligence candidate pulls out after objections Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5296QZ20090311

Side note, as we see the “supporting posts” by infamous ‘Anti Israel nazi’ mondoweiss, it is already alarming enough, ’nuff said.