#GoldStoneReport flashback! Bayefsky – Meet the UN’s anti-Israel ‘anti-discrimination’ czar, Navi Pillay

August 11, 2011
The UN’s top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to block further defections from the UN’s racist “anti-racism” bash scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already announced a boycott of “Durban III,” a UN event designed to “commemorate” the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was “disappointed” with these pullouts, labeling them a “political distraction.”
The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city’s mayor asked her to “rescue the name of Durban,” given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.
Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states – Israel. It calls Palestinians “victims” of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an “outcome document” that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed “mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word ‘reaffirm’ carries those paragraphs into this document.”
While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the “anti-racism” crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II – which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.
Pillay’s enthusiasm for the Durban “anti-racism” agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having “made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law.” After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, “I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone’s report and its recommendations.” Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.
In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on “situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of great concern” around the world – and made only two pleas to the council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: “I urge the council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade” – which would stymie Israel’s ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And she made this plea: “I urge the Security Council to support the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” – that is, the Goldstone report.
After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: “The clearest manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel.” She could have easily determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel’s parliament, in the diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.
The antagonism between Pillay’s political priorities and the interests of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden. On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to know “the precise facts surrounding his killing” for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, “counterterrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law” means “you’re not allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings.” And this requirement would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their “stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they could.”
Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case, and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an “important event . . . to combat discrimination.” Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.
Anne Bayefsky
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

info@eyeontheun.org
August 10, 2011 For Immediate Release:
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on NY Daily News

via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com


Syria Prepared Chemical Weapons for Attack Against Israel

April 15, 2011
Chemical
Missiles found by IDF

Syria placed long-range missiles equipped with chemical warheads on high alert after an attack on a Syrian nuclear plant in 2007, WikiLeaks documents obtained by Yedioth Ahronoth indicate.
In March 2008, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmet met with then Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives John Boehner and several US congressmen. Olmert addressed Operation Cast Lead which was in the final planning states and said that Israel had plans to cause considerable damage to Hamas in Gaza. He then added that the government was considering when and how to act.
…When confronted with a question on the attack on the Syrian nuclear plant in Deir ez Zor, the former prime minister said he never publically addressed the matter but noted the fact that gas tanks belonging to Israeli planes were found near the Syrian-Turkish border.
“Bashar is no dummy,” he added, since he decided not to respond to the September 2007 event. Olmert said that Syria’s mobile missile system were on full alert, but that Assad decided not to order them to fire. “That took discipline,” he noted.


#Goldstone regrets his own report. #gaza #hamas #humanrights #Israel #Palestine

April 2, 2011
Richard Goldstone…Oooopsies….If only Israel had cooperated with the Report?
Bend over Richard….Make sure you cooperate with the camera I’m going to shove up your ass.

Richard Goldstone writes that Israeli investigations refute allegations against it; slams Hamas war crimes, calls UNHRC “skewed against Israel”; “Israel has right, obligation to defend itself, its citizens.

Judge Richard Goldstone said that if Israel had cooperated with his UN-sanctioned fact-finding mission into Operation Cast Lead and if he had known then what he knows today, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document,” especially its allegations of “possible war crimes” directed at Israel.
In a Washington Post op-ed on Friday, Goldstone wrote that while Hamas clearly indiscriminately targeted civilians, subsequent Israeli investigations indicated that civilians “were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” by Israel. He lamented that Israel did not cooperate with his mission, as it would likely have influenced the Goldstone Report’s findings.
The former judge wrote that due to a lack of Israeli cooperation, his investigation was unable to corroborate how many of those killed during Cast Lead were civilians and how many were in fact combatants, numbers which he says are now clearer. Goldstone also slammed the United Nations Human Rights Council, which commissioned the report, saying that the original mandate given to him was “skewed against Israel.” “I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within,” he wrote. Saying that he changed the original mandate handed to him in order to investigate Hamas as well as Israel, he noted, “something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations.” He added that he had hoped his inquiry would usher in an era of even-handedness in the UNHRC, whose bias against Israel “cannot be doubted.” In a new condemnation of Hamas and its continued “heinous acts,” Goldstone regrets that Hamas did not investigate or curtail attacks by its members, who his inquiry found “were committing serious war crimes.” Noting that Hamas continues to target southern Israel’s civilian population, he wrote, “that comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality.” He added, “the UN Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.” He also called on the UN body to condemn the “cold-blooded” Itamar attack, in which five members of one family, including three children, were slaughtered “in their beds.” While praising the IDF for following up on his report with “‘lessons learned’ and policy changes,” he laments that “there has been no effort by Hamas in Gaza to investigate the allegations of its war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.” Clearly stating that the laws of armed conflict apply to non-state actors such as Hamas just as they do to state armies, he says that only if all parties are held to these standards, “will we be able to protect civilians.”

In an exceptional act of contrition couched in words of considered reflection, Richard Goldstone, author of the much-cited report bearing his name on the 2008-09 Gaza war between Hamas and Israel, “reconsiders” his own findings:

We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report.  If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.  The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”  Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas.  That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.  The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.  While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy […]

Some have suggested that it was absurd to expect Hamas, an organization that has a policy to destroy the state of Israel, to investigate what we said were serious war crimes. It was my hope, even if unrealistic, that Hamas would do so, especially if Israel conducted its own investigations. At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality. The U.N. Human Rights Council should condemn these heinous acts in the strongest terms.

Reuters has yet to report on Goldstone’s remarkable reversal.  We eagerly await the agency’s spin.

Goldstone writes:

That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

What an odd thing to say–because in fact the Goldstone Report did in fact let the actions of Hamas go without saying.

At the time, Elder of Ziyon analyzed the conclusions of the Goldstone Report and found that Hamas was barely mentioned at all–and made a wordle to illustrate his point:

As you can see, words like Israel and Israeli are easy to spot, but can you spot the word Hamas?
If you look at the right, I’ve placed an arrow where the word Hamas is.
You’ll have to click on the image in order to actually see the word Hamas–and even then, in comparison with the words Israel and Israeli, it is clear that Hamas was barely mentioned.

Indeed, Goldstone was not exaggerating when he wrote that the rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli civilians went without saying. …As Elder of Ziyon points out


What The Media Has Been Up To In The Middle East…

March 27, 2011

From an email from DG:

1) War with Hamas
Barry Rubin writes about why there will be a war between Israel and Hamas.

And so, Hamas knows that it now has an ally, rather than an enemy, at its back. Moreover, there is no incentive in Egypt–or among its nationalist and Islamist-sympathetic officers–to block arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. As a result, Hamas is stronger and more confident, and hence arrogant and reckless. It is better able to launch rockets, mortars, and cross-border attacks, and far more eager to do so. Hamas is also able to get longer-range missiles and other new types of weapons.

As for U.S. policy, while supporting some sanctions on Hamas and refusing to deal directly with the group, the U.S. government has not supported overthrowing the Gaza regime, though any serious assessment of U.S. interests show this should be a priority. A policy to destroy Hamas should be part of the war against Iranian hegemony in the region, revolutionary Islamism, terrorism, and instability. Even more, doing so would aid the moribund Israel-Palestinian peace process and keep the Palestinian Authority in power.
But there is no appreciation for these points in Washington. When it comes to fighting revolutionary Islamism, U.S. policy sees the Middle East as a no-try zone.

I would add that the Bush administration deserves some blame for this state of affairs.
Back in 2005 Dore Gold wrote about America’s Hamas Dilemma: Spreading Democracy or Combating Terrorism?

Originally, the realpolitik thinking underpinning the Bush administration’s support for democratization of the Middle East was based on the assumption that democracies are inherently peaceful and will not encourage extremist political systems that might host terrorist groups. Non-democratic regimes need to produce an external enemy as a control mechanism over their populations. What happens if democracy empowers a political movement like Hamas, whose core ideology is based on belligerency, regardless of whether it needs a control mechanism or not?
Westerners engaging in a dialogue with Hamas have also been speaking with the Muslim Brotherhood, the original Egyptian fundamentalist organization, founded in 1928, from which Hamas grew as its Palestinian branch. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has the status of being “illegal but officially tolerated.” Some have observed that voter participation increased in the 2005 Egyptian presidential elections because the Muslim Brotherhood called on voters to go to the polls. Organizations like the International Crisis Group have already recommended that the Muslim Brotherhood be decriminalized and permitted to take a more active role in Egyptian politics. In the Middle East, however, both intellectuals and officials, like Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, have warned against legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood. A former Kuwaiti education minister reminded his readers in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat in July 2005 that all of al-Qaeda’s terrorism started from the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This was at a time when the administration was openly arguing against the Sharon government to allow Hamas to participate in the upcoming Palestinian elections. Just prior to the election, a Washington Post editorial lauded the openness that Hamas’s electoral participation heralded.

Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah’s mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.
The Bush administration prepared a “quartet” statement with the European Union, United Nations and Russia last week that strongly supported the elections and urged Israel to allow voting in Jerusalem. At the same time, the statement reiterated a previous statement calling on Hamas to disarm and recognize Israel’s existence, and it added that the future Palestinian cabinet “should include no member who has not committed”to accept those principles. That was the right place to draw the line. Hamas should be given the chance to become a democratic movement, but Palestinians should understand that any retreat from recognition of Israel will mean the loss of vital international support.

At the time, Soccer Dad took issue with the Washington Post editorial: Post pre-election stress syndrome
It didn’t take long for the Bush administration to acknowledge that it misjudged the Hamas situation, as the New York Times reported:

“I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming,” Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. “It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.”
Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction. But Ms. Rice’s comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.
Indeed, Hamas’s victory has set off a debate whether the administration was so wedded to its belief in democracy that it could not see the dangers of holding elections in regions where Islamist groups were strong and democratic institutions weak.

Interesting that a Times reporter would write that last paragraph, given how the Times has largely ignored that very same danger in Egypt.
Subsequently we’ve seen Hamas strengthened and emboldened. It is odd to read articles about a potential rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah portrayed as a necessary step for peace. If winning the election didn’t result in Hamas’s moderating, why would it moderate when it gains even more power as a partner of Fatah? In fact such a rapprochement would indicate that Fatah is moving closer to Hamas rather than the opposite.
2) UNHRC Oh, I see
The UN’s Human Rights Council will be voting on 6 anti-Israel resolutions.
The UNHRC has agreed to send a special rapporteur to Iran. Iran has declined to allow him to inspect the country.
No word if the UNHRC will be taking any action against current council member Bahrain for having its troops fire on demonstrators.
Elder of Ziyon points out that Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) made some changes in how the UNHRC operates.
Solomonia writes that it is no surprise, of course, that the OIC was behind getting Goldstone to investigate Cast Lead.
Given how many OIC members treat their own people, this is just one more example of what a bad joke the UNHRC is.
3) Now you see them …
A New York Times editorial praises the changes going on in Egypt.
The editorial also offers words of caution.

We share the unease of young protesters who made the revolution happen and worry their demand for democracy could be hijacked by the highly organized groups who campaigned hardest for the amendments: allies of the old regime and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is the only mention of the Muslim Brotherhood in the editorial. Mostly it is the “old regime” mentioned as a possible spoiler.
However a news story finally acknowledges Islamist Group Is Rising Force in a New Egypt

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.
As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.
“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “It makes sense if you are the military — you want stability and people off the street. The Brotherhood is one address where you can go to get 100,000 people off the street.”

4) Really?
Guy Bechor welcomes us to the New Middle East

A terrible thing happened to the Middle East: The only glue that brought together all the sects, religions, tribes, nationalities and minorities – who all hate each other – was Israel, yet this glue no longer works.
Ever since Israel was established, we got accustomed to hearing global experts and the Arabs themselves claiming that Israel is at fault for the Mideast’s sorry state, that the Arabs are preoccupied with the struggle against Israel to the point of having no time for themselves, and that should Israel’s conflict vis-à-vis the Arab world be resolved, cosmic tranquility will sweep through the region, ushering in progress, prosperity and happiness.
This doctrine allowed Arab world leaders to make a living and also allowed Western states to blame us for all the region’s ills. This is the outdated doctrine that still guides Obama’s close associates. For example: The need to press for the establishment of a Palestinian state, as though that would bring stability to the Middle East.

There are those who still will insist that this is the most opportune time for Israel to make peace. Or most critical time.
5) Little terror attacks
An editorial in YnetNews Killing Jews in small doses and ‘limited terror’ is unacceptable
The recent string of terror attacks against Israel may indicate that the Palestinians learned the lesson, and may be engaging in a more sophisticated – yet no less dangerous – terror campaign against the Jewish state.
The murder in Itamar, as shocking as it was, as well as Wednesday’s bombing in Jerusalem were not perceived by the world (and for the time being by Israel too) as “equivalent” to the suicide bombings of the 1990s and 2000s that left dozens of fatalities. As such, the response to them, both in the global media and by the IDF, was limited as well.
This quickly became apparent following the Itamar massacre, with global media largely downplaying the attack. Despite some coverage and international condemnations, the tone and ferocity were far weaker than the response to previous “major” attacks. A similar pattern followed the Jerusalem bombing, with many media outlets burying the story while focusing on other issues, such the Libya campaign or Elizabeth Taylor’s death.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | Barghouti, Cast Lead, E.U., Egypt, Fatah, Fogel, Gaza, International Crisis Group, Katyusha rockets, Marwan Barghouthi, media bias, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, OIC, Russia, UNHRC | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Hamas Lied About Casualties. GoldStone Report Debunked!

November 24, 2010

Body of Said Siyam is carried through Gaza on 16/1/09I knew this was coming…. Hamas at first claimed the most casualties it could when the media was broadcasting.

Based on a report by a report by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, CAMERA notes that first Hamas milked the claim of Israel’s ‘disproportionate force’ for all it was worth:

However, once Hamas got all the mileage it could out of that tactic, it had to deal with the flip side of the issue, that Hamas’s own constituency, the Gazan population, felt they had been abandoned by the Hamas government which had made no effort to shelter them. Since 2007, Hamas has been the government in Gaza, and it is, at least in principle, obligated to look after the well-being of the population it rules over. The flip side of the claimed low Hamas casualties and high civilian casualties is the lingering image of Hamas fighters retreating to prepared hideouts after firing off rockets, leaving the civilian population to absorb the punishing Israeli military response.

Gaza is a small territory, its residents would certainly have been aware that the Israeli attack was precipitated by the escalating volume of rocket fire directed at Israel from Hamas controlled territory. In order to defuse resentment at having abandoned its own constituency during the Israeli military response, Hamas has to show that its fighters did not simply run and hide, but had stood their ground and taken many of the casualties.

Read CAMERA’s complete report.

 the BBC last year via news.bbc.co.uk

Leave a Comment » | Cast Lead, Gaza, Hamas | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Some Enemy

October 12, 2010

I guess the only way an Arab can be honest about Israel is if they no longer live in the Middle East. This was written by Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian of ‘Palestinian’ heritage, who is now an academic living in the UK (Hat Tip: Elder of Ziyon).

In December of 2008, Israel launched operation “cast lead” against Hamas which was launching rockets on Southern Israel on a daily basis. This operation has resulted in the death of more than 1,400 Palestinians, many said to be civilians; an absolute tragedy, nonetheless, those criticizing Israel fail to recognize that the number of causalities is small comparing to Gaza’s population of 1.5 million, considering the high density of Gaza’s population per square kilometre, the number suggests the Israeli forces were very cautious in carrying out their attacks, despite the fact that they were chasing a moving target, Hamas militants. If Israeli forces were targeting Palestinian civilians, the number of the dead would have reached tens of thousands.
On comparison; in 1976, Lebanese militiamen butchered 2,000 Palestinians; almost wiping out the entire population of Tell al-Zaatar refugee camp within days. This was revisited again in 1982 in Sabra and Shatelah massacre; where, in less than four days, Lebanese militiamen killed thousands of women and children who posed no threat as most Palestinian fighters had left then to Tunisia. Two years ago, al-Jazeera satellite network aired rare footage of Palestinians running to Israeli soldiers for refuge from the massacre.
Furthermore, most Arab atrocities against Palestinians have included documented rape cases, even of children, while not a single rape case has been reported against Israeli forces in more than sixty years of operations.
Arab governments’ oppression of the Palestinians does not stop at bloodshed and wholesale slaughters, in fact the more troubling aspects of the way they treat Palestinians is in the systematic long-range exclusion and discrimination. In Arab countries where Palestinians make up a good percentage of the population; they are depraved of all basic necessities, starting with education, down to basic healthcare. Even at countries that have granted the Palestinians citizenships; the Palestinians stand helpless and banned from every potential to improve their livelihoods.
Israel, on the other hand, has always allowed Palestinians to work there and to get paid in Western standards, and even had allowed them generous access to healthcare. In fact, Israel has also welcomed Palestinians as visitors, patients and even as investors, this generosity was only limited when Hamas started bombing Israeli civilians with no signs of an end in sight.
The complexity Israel has with Palestinians revolves around security rather than ideological issues; Israel does not have an aim to enslave the Palestinians for life or purposely degrade their humanity. While many Arab countries have designed their systems to discriminate and humiliate the Palestinians, squeezing them into illiteracy and poverty while milking them for tax money.
This has become most visible recently with calls in some Arab countries to revoke citizenships of all Palestinians there and actually to force them to seek local guarantors to obtain residency, thus enslaving them for life.
This comes as a deeper shock for Palestinians when they see Israeli Arabs, with many of them describing themselves as “Palestinians in Israel”; those are full citizens of Israel with access to all privileges. Israeli Arabs are fully represented inside the Knesset while Palestinians, in their Arab homeland, are allowed only symbolic presence in parliaments, even at countries where they are the majority. And while some Arab countries selectively withdraw citizenships from Palestinians, many Arab Knesset members do not hesitate to speak against Israel with no fear of losing their citizenships or entitlements.

Read the whole thing.
I wonder how many other Arabs (especially ‘Palestinians’) understand this to be the truth, even if they are not free to say it.

noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | al-Jazeera, al-Zaatar refugee, Arab Knesset members, Arabs, Cast Lead, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Sderot, Tunisia | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon