No Jews allowed in Judea says NY Jews, Muslims and Christians only

July 28, 2013

Excerpt from… Arutz 7 Op-Ed: NY Federation has Its Own Boycott of Judea and Samaria Ron Jager, July 23, 2013 …The New York Federation does not cross the ‘green line’ (known as the pre-1967 borders) unless of course it’s to assist Palestinian Arabs, meaning that Jews who could benefit from the many programs that are funded and provided by the New York Federation for the citizens of Israel are effectively barred if they reside in Judea and Samaria. Jews living beyond the green line have been voluntarily boycotted by the New York Federation despite the fact that there is no legal prohibition to support organizations or communities located in these areas, not only according to Israeli law, but also in accordance with American tax law. Any American dollar donated is fully tax deductible to the extent provided by law. This has not stopped the New York Federation from voluntarily boycotting 700,000 Jews along with the Europeans and the many enemies of Israel who have been behind the boycott movements throughout the world. (MORE)


#Apartheid Roads

April 14, 2013

I’ve asked that question, too:- 

The entire world denounces the “apartheid roads” in Judea and Samaria, although in broad daylight Jews and Arabs share every road open to Jews. On the other hand, large signs in bright red ban Jews from traveling on roads in areas specified by the Oslo Agreements for Palestinians. Route 443 has been opened to Arabs as well following a High Court order, but a nearby road – which would have cut the time it takes to travel from Gush Dolev-Talmonin to Jerusalem by at least 30 minutes – remains closed to Jews to this very day. Both apartheid and racism: Israel’s Arab citizens are free to enter Jenin, while a Jew will be prosecuted.
When was the last time a state official took journalists on a tour on the ground, to get them to realize that the apartheid on the roads of Judea and Samaria is exclusively against Jews. And which of our media outlets ever exposed the shamefulness of their apartheid: That God forbid should a Jewish-Israeli set foot in Nablus or in 90% of Hebron or in any Arab village? Because that’s the rule: The state of the Jews should be brought to trial. Why? Because it put itself there in the first place.


Elyakim HaEtzni
^


Report: #Hagel Said #Israel Headed Toward #Apartheid, #Netanyahu a ‘Radical’

February 19, 2013
(Report: Hagel Said Israel Headed Toward Apartheid, Netanyahu a ‘Radical’ | Washington Free Beacon)

BY:
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Time for some more research into what really happened here


Apartheid Jordan Accepts Syrian Refugees, Turns Back Syrian Palestinians at Border

January 8, 2013

(
(Can you say Apartheid State?) As the civil war intensifies in Syria, more refugees are trying to escape the conflict. Some have crossed into Turkey. Others have gone to Lebanon. But the biggest refugee camp for Syrian refugees is in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan. But not all refugees are allowed in.
FRIED KOOLAID:
80% of PalArab “refugees” have citizenship!

Speaking in an immaculately clean tent over coffee and endless cigarettes, a 23-year-old construction worker who would only give his name as Mohamed said he left the Yarmouk refugee camp in Damascus, where many Palestinians live, about two months ago. The place was getting violent and food was hard to find, he said.The young man said his mother is Syrian, but his father is Palestinian. Mohamed said the Jordanians are turning people back at the border if they have ID cards that say they’re Palestinian. Lucky for him, he has a Syrian ID.
Mohamed’s uncle, he said, is a Palestinian from Damascus who has been turned away at the Jordan border five times.
With his four-year-old son in his lap, Daloul said he’s happy to be in Jordan, away from the fighting in Syria. But he says it’s also frustrating. Daloul is registered as a Palestinian refugee, even though he was born in Syria. So are his kids. But his wife is registered as Syrian. Now, she’s staying with relatives elsewhere in Jordan, while Daloul and the children live in this single room. They are not allowed to leave the camp for any length of time, he said. And his wife cannot move in with them permanently. “It’s a difficult situation,” he said.
Daloul is 55 years old. He was born in Syria. His kids were born in Syria. If he goes back, his grandchildren will be born in Syria. But he’s not considered Syrian by the Syrian government, even though his wife is, and since his children have their father’s status, they’re also considered Palestinian.

The Arabs don’t like Palestinians


Ha’aretz Creates Non-Existent Apartheid State

October 24, 2012

October 23, 2012 17:02 by

Gideon Levy

Ha’aretz is a major source of critical and anti-Israel stories for the international media. In the latest example, Ha’aretz’s radical left-wing commentator Gideon Levy has deliberately fed the international media a skewed and biased reading of a poll that claims “Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel“.
Gideon Levy regularly demonizes the Jewish state to foreign audiences and in his own newspaper columns. He regularly goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel, crossing red lines and allying himself with those who refer to Israel as a racist “apartheid state”, promote boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and wish to see the very destruction of Israel.
On the basis that Levy promotes the canard of Israeli “apartheid”, he is the last journalist who could give an objective analysis of this polls results.
His article opens with the following premise:

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

But let’s take a look at the findings:

Gideon Levy’s entire premise is based on a hypothetical situation where Israel annexes the West Bank. However, perhaps the real story here is that a plurality of the Israeli public does not favor annexing West Bank settlements let alone the West Bank in its entirety.
This makes the question of voting rights for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank entirely moot. That such a large majority of the Israeli public would deny such a right to Palestinians is unsurprising given that this would effectively lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state if it allowed Palestinians to vote as equal citizens or the end of Israel as a democratic state if it denied Palestinians those rights.
Which is exactly why the Israeli public does not support such a policy, precisely because the majority of Israelis do not want to be associated with apartheid.
Other statistics are casually tossed in by Levy to support his view of Israel as an apartheid state:

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

What Levy fails to clarify is that this form of separation is not done on a racial basis but solely on citizenship. Israeli Arabs have as much right as Israeli Jews to travel on any roads they so wish. Any separation on the West Bank road system (and there are plenty of shared roads) is solely due to security and has nothing whatsoever to do with claims of apartheid.
Levy chooses to highlight significant minority opinions where it suits him. For example:
This article is continued on Page 2


Goldstone – yes, Goldstone – defends Israel from "apartheid" slander [UPDATED]

November 1, 2011

(Israel Matzav: The education of R*I*C*H*A*R*D* G*O*L*D*S*T*O*N*E)

This passage made me wonder whether he gets it yet.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

So let me get this straight: Israel’s rule in the West Bank Judea and Samaria is not “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group” only because we have “agreed in concept to the existence of a ‘Palestinian state’ in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank?” And every country that does not agree to cut off part of its land is promoting apartheid? And every ethnic group that decides it’s entitled to a ‘state’ is a victim of
apartheid if it doesn’t get that state? And were we one day to decide that we have had enough of the ‘Palestinians’ being unwilling to negotiate with us (and we all know why they are unwilling to negotiate with us), and we withdraw whatever offers of ‘statehood’ have been made, would we then be practicing apartheid?
Goldstone still has a lot to learn.

From the New York Times, an op-ed by Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous Goldstone Report that slandered Israel:

THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.
One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.
While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.
In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.
In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.
The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.
But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.
Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.
Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.
Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

As night follows day, we can expect the rabid anti-Israel Left who embraced Goldstone as their messiah two years ago will issue vicious condemnations of this piece, and charge Goldstone with being a tool of the Zionist lobby, tomorrow.
But as bad as the Goldstone Report was – and its flaws were so numerous as to border on the malicious – it was not in the same league as the anti-Zionist Left who routinely accuse Israel of “apartheid.” These people are not interested in facts or in arguments. They are inherently dishonest and their interest in the truth is nil. They have one purpose and one purpose only – to destroy Israel. It is mindless hate.
And it is a shame that their lies have gained such currency that someone like Goldstone even feels compelled to answer them.
If I had to do some armchair psychology, my guess is that he saw people used his report in ways he never intended, mostly people who didn’t even bother to read it themselves. Very possibly, he did not want to be associated with such haters who pretended he was one of them, sort of like Benny Morris after his early works on Israel’s history.


#Norway is among the organizers of this festival of hatred at #Durban

July 24, 2011
The Netherlands Join Canada, Israel, U.S. the Czech Republic and now Italy in Boycotting UN’s Durban III (#Norway is among the organizers of this festival of hatred). When they come to New York the people will not tolerate Durban III. Expect to see something like Oslo. People are scared! People are angry. You can not control everyone’s feelings. If I were Bloomberg I would stop this. There are a lot of angry Americans with guns… and they will use them and I don’t blame them. This is ripe for tragedy. You saw it predicted here. Don’t shoot the messenger!

Statsministeren kommer neppe til å mangle t-skjorter i sommer. Han fikk denne fra Fatah Youths Hassan Faraj og dessuten en fra Oslo AUF med påskriften "Free Palestine". Foto: ASKILL HALSE

#Utoya camp supported Fatah Terrorists. #Norway #Oslo #Fatah

….the list of those who boycott this travesty grows.

(Eye on the UN) Italy and The Netherlands announced over the weekend that they will not take part in the notorious United Nations Durban III meeting scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York City.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini pointed out that “The [Durban] Process has been transformed … into a tribunal for accusations against Israel.”

As the main reason for boycotting Durban III the Italian foreign minister pointed to the anti-Israel elements of the Durban Declaration and its progeny. In the past few days, UN negotiators – who are currently drafting a final political declaration for Durban III – signalled rejection of Czech, Italian and Dutch proposals to denounce the anti-Israel portions of the original Durban Declaration. The Italians had asked that Durban III “explicitly recognize that past references, in the context of the Durban Process, to the specific situation of the Middle East are not part of the international commitment against racial discrimination.”

According to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic all wanted to include in Durban III a statement that “all participating states emphatically distance themselves from the linking of subjects that have nothing to do with the fight against racism.” Their request was ignored by conference organizers, who are largely being driven by Arab and Islamist states, as well as South Africa and UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay, herself a native of Durban. via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

Geneva-based UN Watch says it fears “banner of human rights and anti-racism will be hijacked to incite anti-Semitic hatred.”


(The Weekly Standard) On Friday, the Czech Republic became the latest country to pull out of the upcoming U.N. “anti-racism” extravaganza known as Durban III. Canada, Israel, and the United States have already given thumbs down to the event, which the U.N. is bringing to U.S. shores on September 22, 2011. While Americans will be mourning the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the United Nations in New York will be “commemorating” the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference – an outpouring of intolerance and xenophobia.
The Czech Republic’s move comes three days after U.N. negotiators quietly circulated a draft of the final declaration that will be adopted at the conclusion of Durban III. Although the writing had been on the wall for a very long time, the alarm bells could no longer be ignored. The “political declaration” focuses particularly on what it calls “victims of racism.” And the Durban Declaration emanating from South Africa names only one state victimizer – Israel. The Palestinian people are listed as victims of racism.
The Zionism-is-racism mantra, the Durban formula being its most recent incarnation, has been circulating around the U.N. for decades. It is the cornerstone of the effort to delegitimize the Jewish state and invoke lethal politics when other weaponry falls short. These days, the campaign is headquartered in a working group of the U.N. General Assembly that is tasked with squaring the circle: reaffirming the contemptible message of the Durban Declaration under a veil of human rights gibberish.
The Czech Republic’s diplomats, however, can read. The current draft of the final declaration for Durban III says that the U.N. must “incorporate the implementation of the Durban Declaration into the human rights mainstreaming in the UN system” and demands an intensification of “efforts at the local, national, regional and international levels aimed at the full and effective implementation” of instruments like the Durban Declaration and beyond.
And there’s more. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation managed to insert a demand for “cultural diversity, solidarity and harmony.” That’s the typical U.N. prescription for stifling free speech—avoiding any action to stop Syrian butchers, for example—and generally keeping criticism of Islamic anti-human rights predilections off the table.
The countries from the so-called non-aligned movement, which comprises 115 developing countries, have also incorporated into the political declaration a claim that “poverty,” “underdevelopment,” and “economic disparities” are “closely associated with racism and racial discrimination.” That’s a familiar form of extortion that starts by labeling donor countries racists.
The Czech Republic rightly decided they’d had enough. The next round of “negotiations,” at which Western states are dressed-down and manipulated by the racism charge coming from the Islamic world and others, will be held at U.N. headquarters on July 28.
Earlier this month, Dutch diplomats told the same Durban III negotiators that the Netherlands would only agree to a Durban III political declaration that categorically rejected the part of the original Durban Declaration that singled out Israel. In the words of the Dutch diplomats, this part of the Durban Declaration was not relevant in the fight against racism. Italian diplomats concurred and said they needed to be urgently reassured that this demand would be met. On the contrary, they have been assured of the opposite. One would expect, therefore, that the Dutch and the Italians would have the courage of their convictions to pull out of this charade, but they haven’t made a move yet.
More…
via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com