Rachel has the same subtle derision toward "Arabs" that Southern historians from the deep South used to and some still do have about the "Negroes" (my junior high Southern Colonel history teacher used to call them "Negras"), or to be more blunt, the same kind of derision Alfred Rosenberg used to have about the "Jews" in Nazi Germany, all of them creating their own alternative histories, mythologies and stereotypes to futher their ideological and political agendas.

But a picture is worth a thousand words, so check out these two YouuTube videos:

"Al Nakba"--The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EAmtgfPz-k&feature=PlayList&p=54407F53F9F0E90F&index=3

and Deir Yassin Massacre Documentary - English Subtitles at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prLPvqttW9c&feature=PlayList&p=54407F53F9F0E90F&index=2

Of course Rachel will damn this as "Arab" Propaganda, but you be the judge.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 8:28:51 AM

  (0+)

First of all ,the very first item on the middle east agenda is

1) Israel get behind the U.N.  Madated 1967 lines and stay there.Obey International law

2) No Arabs can return to Israel  .they return to Palestine, Israel is not a country but a  contested plot of rocks and sand.Jews  have a right to go/return to Israel, the contested piece of rocks and sand in  no mans land

3)A 2 state solution is the only answer ,along with U.N. troops backed by heavy ,and i do  mean  heavy  gun ships.

4) The Jewish occupants of Israel cannot  co exist with Arabs .The jews believe they are superior and thus will always lean towards an apartheid system of state.

5) wars take 2 sides those that claim it is all the arabs fault or vice versa are not fooling anyone .

6) the day of the internet has arrived ,you can no longer hide behind lies. both sides are guilty.

7) the jewish people of Israel have  looked for peace for 60 years and never wanted it. all the time they have advanced on land that is not  theirs .Will  the jews of Israel obey International law.

8) We must all live together in this world, we are all gods children those that have problems with this outlook will find it very difficult to cope in the coming  years. 

 8 points to peace

no more apartheid  states allowed in a world of free flowing information .

The people of the world are awakening 

by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 9:52:48 AM

  (0+)

The fundamental spiritual truth of the Universe is that we are all brothers and sisters made in the image of God (or Goddess). Any philosophy or ideology that propounds that one group or race or class of people is superior to another and, ipso facto, can lord it over that "other", be it the "Elect" of Calvanism, the "Aryan Man" of Nazism, the "Chosen People" of Zionism, the "Pure Mudjadhadeen" of Wahabi Extremism, and on and on, is anti-evolutionary and will fall by the wayside, often rather violently.

Humanity is meant to evolve into oneness and unity in the grand scheme of things. Connectedness with each other is the emerging paradigm, and the Internet is a manifestation of that.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM

  (0+)

Thank you, Rachel, for an excellent article. I am sure that you are prepared for the backlash from the many people on this site who are anti-Israeli. I just want to encourage you to keep up the good work. I enjoy your well-researched articles.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM

  (0+)

Before everyone starts getting into anti-Israel, pro-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Semitic, let me make one thing clear, that criticizing individuals who espouse reactionary ideologies that have been embraced in Israel, or criticizing the Israeli government, is not the same as criticizing the entire state of Israel, and does not make one "anti-Israeli", just as criticizing the Neocons and George Bush does not make one "anti-American". Those who sling these epithets are usually trying to evade facing painful truths, crush dissent or both. So let's try to avoid this here. Let me also point out that in Israel there is much more debate and criticism than there is here, which is really, really ironic.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM

  (0+)

Hi Mac,

Do you have a suggestion on what I should call it when someone labels Israel as an apartheid state? This is what I was referring to when I used the term "anti-Israeli." I am open to suggestions.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM

  (0+)

I think the question that has to be answered first is, Is there Apartheid or Are there Apartheid tendencies in Israel?

Jimmy Carter was pilloried for daring to suggest that in his book, and accused of anti-Semitism. But how to you reply to this article by Uri Avnery, a leading Israeli critic of the Israeli State. What would you call him?

Thursday 25 January 2007 (07 Muharram 1428)

Israel, Carter and Apartheid

Uri Avnery  

Yesterday, a decree of the officer commanding the Central Sector, Gen. Yair Naveh, was about to come into force. It forbade Israeli drivers from giving a ride to Palestinian passengers in the occupied territories. The knitted-Kippah-wearing general, a friend of the settlers, justified this as a vital security necessity. In the past, inhabitants of the West Bank have sometimes reached Israeli territory in Israeli cars.

 

Israeli peace activists decided that this nauseating order must be protested. They organized a “Freedom Ride” of Israeli car-owners who were to enter the West Bank (a criminal offense in itself) and give a ride to local Palestinians, who had volunteered for the action.

 

An impressive event in the making. Israeli drivers and Palestinian passengers breaking the law openly, facing arrest and trial in a military court.

 

At the last moment, the general “froze” the order. The demonstration was called off.

  

The order that was suspended (but not officially rescinded) emitted a strong odor of apartheid. It joins a large number of acts of the occupation authorities that are reminiscent of the racist regime of South Africa, such as the systematic building of roads in the West Bank for Israelis only and on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel. Or the “temporary” law that forbids Palestinians in the occupied territories, who have married Israeli citizens, to live with their spouses in Israel. And, most importantly, the wall, which is officially called “the separation obstacle”. In Afrikaans, “apartheid” means separation.

 

It is easy to detect a similarity between the planned enclaves and the “Bantustans” that were set up by the white regime in South Africa — the so-called “homelands” where the blacks were supposed to enjoy “self-rule” but which really amounted to racist concentration camps.

  

Because of this, we are right when we use the term “apartheid” in our daily struggle against the occupation.

 

Therefore, the title of former President Jimmy Carter’s new book is fully justified — “Palestine — Peace not Apartheid”. The title aroused the ire of the “friends of Israel” even more than the content of the book itself. How dare he? To compare Israel to the obnoxious racist regime? To allege that the government of Israel is motivated by racism?

 

It seems that Carter himself was not completely happy with the use of this term. He has hinted that it was added at the request of the publishers, who thought a provocative title would stimulate publicity. If so, the ploy was successful. The famous Jewish lobby was fully mobilized. Carter was pilloried as an anti-Semite and a liar.

 

The storm around the title displaced any debate about the facts cited in the book, which have not been seriously questioned. The book has not yet appeared in Hebrew.

 

But when we use the term “Apartheid” to describe the situation, we have to be aware of the fact that the similarity between the Israeli occupation and the white regime in South Africa concerns only the methods, not the substance. There are several basic differences between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the historical conflict between the whites and the blacks in South Africa.

 (a) In South Africa there was a conflict between blacks and whites, but both agreed that the state of South Africa must remain intact — the question was only who would rule it.  Our conflict is between two different nations with different national identities, each of which places the highest value on a national state of its own. (b) In South Africa, the idea of “separateness” was an instrument of the white minority for the oppression of the black majority, and the black population rejected it unanimously. Here, the huge majority of the Palestinians want to be separated from Israel in order to establish a state of their own. The huge majority of Israelis, too, want to be separated from the Palestinians. On the Israeli side, only the settlers and their allies demand to keep the whole historical area of the country united and object to separation, in order to rob the Palestinians of their land and enlarge the settlements. On the Palestinian side, the Islamic fundamentalists also believe that the whole country is a “waqf” (religious trust) and therefore must not be partitioned. (c) In South Africa, a white minority (about 10 percent) ruled over a huge majority of blacks (78 percent), people of mixed race (7 percent) and Asians (3 percent). Here, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are now 5.5 million Jewish-Israelis and an equal number of Palestinian-Arabs (including the 1.4 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel). 

(d) The South African economy was based on black labor and could not possibly have existed without it. Here, the Israeli government has succeeded in excluding the non-Israeli Palestinians almost completely from the Israeli labor market and replacing them with foreign workers.

 

It is important to point out these fundamental differences in order to prevent grave mistakes in the strategy of the struggle for ending the occupation.

 

In Israel and abroad there are people who cite this analogy without paying due attention to the essential differences between the two conflicts.

 

No doubt it is essential to arouse international public opinion against the criminal treatment by the occupation authorities of the Palestinian people. We do this every day, just as Jimmy Carter is doing now. However, it must be clear that this is immeasurably more difficult because Israel is accepted by the world as the “State of the Holocaust Survivors”, and therefore arouses overwhelming sympathy.

 

It is a serious error to think that international public opinion will put an end to the occupation. This will come about when the Israeli public itself is convinced of the need to do so.

 

There is another important difference. In South Africa, no white would have dreamt of ethnic cleansing. But in Israel, this goal is under serious consideration, both openly and in secret. One of its main advocates, Avigdor Lieberman, is a member of the government and last week Condoleezza Rice met with him officially. Apartheid is not the worst danger hovering over the heads of the Palestinians. They are menaced by something infinitely worse: “Transfer”, which means total expulsion.

 

Some people in Israel and around the world follow the apartheid analogy to its logical conclusion: The solution here will be the same as the one in South Africa. There, the whites surrendered and the black majority assumed power. In Israel, that is a beautiful dream for the end of days.

 

I have no doubt that in the end, a federation between the two states, perhaps including Jordan too, will come about. Yasser Arafat spoke with me about this several times.

 

But neither the Palestinians not the Israelis can afford 50 more years of bloodshed, occupation and creeping ethnic cleansing.

 The end of the occupation will come in the framework of peace between the two peoples, who will live in two free neighboring states — Israel and Palestine — with the border between them based on the Green Line. I hope that this will be an open border. Then Palestinians will freely ride in Israeli cars, and Israelis will ride freely in Palestinian cars.

 

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 1:20:52 PM

  (0+)

Hi Mac,

Thanks for your clarification. I will keep this in mind. I would like to address something in your response. You quoted:

The end of the occupation will come in the framework of peace between the two peoples, who will live in two free neighboring states — Israel and Palestine — with the border between them based on the Green Line. I hope that this will be an open border. Then Palestinians will freely ride in Israeli cars, and Israelis will ride freely in Palestinian cars.

Lofty words, but this will never happen. The reality is, if Sharia law takes over, which is highly likely, and Hamas becomes the ruling party of the day, the blood will flow like a river. Not just Israeli blood, but the blood of women who will not comply with the law, and the blood of anyone considered an infidel. This is not hysteria, but fact.

This plays into the framework of the new world order quite nicely if we understand that what is being created is a system where the elite rule, have their private armies and workers, and the rest of us just die.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 4:00:40 PM

  (0+)

Instead of saying lofty words, but these can never happen, try saying lofty words and these will happen. Already the imagery in your mind will begin to shift with one changed phrase. We create negative or positive realities more than we realize through our thoughts and images.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 9:01:11 PM

  (0+)

cites the "painstakingly researched study From Time Immemorial," by Joan Peters. Try googling on the words "fraud" and "Joan Peters," and read some of the links. What's funny is not the predictable criticism from figures like Chomsky and Finkelstein. Rather, it's the comments made even by rightwing nutcases who desperately want to support the book.

For instance, the well-known nut Daniel Pipes (who encourages students to spy on their professors & post their names on the Internet, if they're too "liberal") is quoted in the Wikipedia page on the book as saying,

"From Time Immemorial quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, From Time Immemorial stands out as an appallingly crafted book."  

There are other similarly scathing remarks on that page. For instance, the editor of the rightwing Capitalism Magazine says,

“I did not originate most of the criticisms of the book. Likewise, I have not sought to check every one of Peters' footnotes, which are voluminous; I have focused on the critics' claims. From Time Immemorial is work of propaganda, with all the bad connotations that term carries. Peters’[s] case rests upon distortion and fabrication. Time and again, she misconstrues sources in a tendentious manner. She cribs uncritically from partisan works. She conceals crucial calculations, and draws hard conclusions from tenuous evidence. She speculates wildly and without ground. She exaggerates figures ... etc etc

Ms Neuwirth's style is straight-forward: simply make a list of everything negative about Palestinians, & omit anything negative about the land-grabbing Israelis. Would it be hard to write an essay about the conflict between the American Indians and the settlers of the Old West -- and have the settlers come out looking good? It's easy, if you use Neuwirth's method. For instance, let's take a phrase like this:

"In Jaffa, to take a fairly typical example, the minaret of the Hassan Bek mosque was used by the Palestinian Arab guerillas as a sniper post to direct random fire at Jewish civilians in nearby Tel Aviv, taking a heavy toll in lives over several months. The attacks on Jewish-operated vehicles along the roads were especially vicious, resulting in many casualties..."

Just switch the nouns appropriately, & presto! We have

In Laramie, to take a fairly typical example, a church was used by the Indian savages as a sniper post to direct random fire at innocent settlers, taking a heavy toll in lives over several months. The attacks on wagon-trains along the roads were especially vicious, resulting in many casualties. There were many brutal scalpings ...

Doesn't that "prove" how vicious the Indian "aggressors" were?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 1:47:29 PM

  (0+)

'Thus many of the "Palestinians" not only have never lived in Palestine themselves, but are fairly distant descendants of people who lived their only briefly before 1948, having been born elsewhere in the Arab world -- for the most part, in the Hauran region of Syria. Even more registration of phony refugees occurred because of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency (UNWRA) practice of relying solely on the claims of self-professed refugees to determine refugee status, without attempting to verify their claims.  '

*****************************************************

Oh, Rachel-once- again. According to the above logic of hers  surely the modern Jews who  were born and lived before  for generations in different countries and neither ethnically nor culturally resemble the ancient Hebrews have even lesser rights to the land of Judea and Samaria. Mrs. Newirth had just undermined the Zionist doctrine fair and square. That's what happens when your own hate  is applied to you. You get intertwined.

And BTW  the debate above:  Criticism of any country   has  nothing to do with its population usually. As a Jew  I do not care if Israel is criticised. I surely  do care if another Jew is unfairly treated. But I also care if any another individual is treated unfairly too. That's inluding the unfair treatment by the Jews.

It would be very much advisable if all the pundits just..leave the Jews and Arabs alone for  some time.    That includes Mrs. Newirth who already has  quite a reputation..

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM

  (0+)

and some semblance of sanity in the Middle East are going to be labeled 'anti Semitic' by the well oiled Israel lobby and its incessant propaganda machine.  To achieve peace we'll have to ignore their outrageous claims, continue to speak out, and expect to be villified.  It's their way of quashing discussion and it seems to be working more poorly every day.  I'm very encouraged by the comments here.  Although I have to add that Israel's actions, documented daily in newspapers, are probably the true reason for the  turnaround in public opinion.  Israel is its own worst enemy.  Couldn't happen to nicer people.

by Cameron Salisbury (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 3:10:02 PM

  (0+)

What we need is common sense and a recognition that both sides have been wrong.

And what is especially needed is even greater recognition by the world community that Palestinians have been the most-wronged party.

That does not mean that Palestinian extremists and "Jihadists" are not wrong. They most certainly are wrong. But the Israelis are more wrong, and the British, Americans and Israelis have been perpetrating wrong-doing on the Palestinian people since 1917.

Here's a rational and fair discussion about it:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/IsraeliPalestinian.html

by Isaiah Truman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 5:42:06 PM

  (0+)

Wake up, Rachel.  The Palestinians were told some of their lands, when part of the British Mandate, would be granted to Israel.  OK so far?  We can all agree that setting up a homeland for Jews of the Diaspora was a good thing to do.

When Palestinians objected, the UN (which created Israel) told Israel--as a condition for chartering Israel--that Israel must pay reparations for property taken to create the new state.  David Ben-Gurion agreed to this.

To date, NO reparations have ever been paid by Israel for Arab property included in the 1948 designation of Israel.  So--Palestinians and Arabs have every right to demand the right of return, and the return of properties, because of Israel's bad faith in failing to pay the reparations it agreed to pay.

I have spoken with a family in Seattle which still holds the title (deed) for a large orange grove, taken to create Israel.  They have never been answered or compensated, despite repeated inquiries to Israeli authorities. 

Is this Israeli government one which deserves our respect?  Of course not.  Does this mean one is "anti-semitic?" Of course not.

by R. Queisser (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 11:35:20 AM

  (0+)

I like this article because it presents the other side of the story. You wrote:

"Is this Israeli government one which deserves our respect?  Of course not.  Does this mean one is "anti-semitic?" Of course not."

Of course the Israeli government does not deserve respect, but not for the reasons most think. Most hold up the Israeli government as horrible oppressors of the Palestinian people. What does not get much attention is the fact that the Israeli government is one of the major oppressors of the Israeli people. These are the people who were promised one thing, and are receiving another - a kick in the pants for believing a corrupt government.

The Israeli government does not deserve respect because its leaders are going along with the global elitist plans to eliminate the country as it is. It doesn't matter to these people who is oppressed or who dies in the process. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is manufactured for the purpose of the destruction of Israel. Does anyone realistically think that any of the governments of the day are looking out for the people? The Arab states just love the Palestinian problem. So do the global elites. They should, they manufactured it. Anyone who wants to blame Israel solely for the problem is not seeing the big picture.

The question is, why destroy Israel? Barry Chamish has a very good theory at

http://www.thebarrychamishwebsite.com/newsletters/vaticanwins80306.htm 

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 3:36:57 PM

  (0+)

You say that "global eletists are responsible for the Palestinian problem."

I suppose you're right if you consider that it was the British Balfour Declaration in 1917 that began the modern immigration of Jews to Palestine, and it was the British and Americans who in 1948 were largely responsible for the establishment of the new State of Israel and the sharp increase of Jewish immigration to their new state, which of course displaced huge numbers of Palestinians and made them refugees.

However, I think that it is the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims who would like to see the destruction of Israel, not the British or Americans. And if you consider the history since 1917, and even more so since 1948, then since the 1967 war and all the violence, death and destruction since then, people of compassion and conscience really can't blame the Palestinians for hating Israel. We can, of course, blame those who resort to violence themselves to try to retaliate against Israeli occupation and offenses, but even their actions are at least understandable.

As I stated in my earlier post, this conflict will only be resolved when both sides admit their errors and offenses, reconcile their differences, and make amends. Only when the Palestinians receive justice and fair compensation for what has been taken away from them will peace come to the region.

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/IsraeliPalestinian.html

by Isaiah Truman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 6:05:17 PM

  (0+)

You wrote:

Only when the Palestinians receive justice and fair compensation for what has been taken away from them will peace come to the region.

You are correct. If Israel was eliminated, there would be peace in the region. Partitioning the country will not work because the problem in the Arab world is Israel's existence. So we can agree to disagree. I believe that the Jewish people have a right to live there, and Israel has a right to exist.

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM

  (0+)

You wrote: "You are correct. If Israel was eliminated, there would be peace in the region. Partitioning the country will not work because the problem in the Arab world is Israel's existence. So we can agree to disagree. I believe that the Jewish people have a right to live there, and Israel has a right to exist."

I'm afraid you've misrepresented what I said. I never said Israel should be iliminated. I too believe Israel has a right to exist.

What I did say was that I understand why so many Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims would like to see Israel iliminated. After all, they have many legitimate grievances.

I also said that peace will come to the region only when those grievances are addressed and Israel makes amends for its iniquity and offenses.

But you are right that we should just agree to disagree.

Still, I believe the truth of the matter lies here:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/IsraeliPalestinian.html

by Isaiah Truman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 1:16:49 PM

  (0+)