The views of Irwin Cotler, anti Zionism is not anti Semetic

Canadian MP Cotler: Calling Israel an apartheid state can be legitimate free speech

Canadian parliamentarian and staunch supporter of Israel Irwin Cotler told Haaretz last week that criticism of Israel as an apartheid state, while distastful, could be within the bounds of legitimate discourse.

Cotler, who was in Israel for the Presidential Conference, spoke to Haaretz about where to draw the line between acceptable critiques of Israel's policy and anti-Semitism, which he has spent much of his career fighting.

"You can criticize an Israeli policy or action as having been not only a violation of human rights and humanitarian law but also, you could even say it was a war crime," the former Canadian justice minister said. "It may be, as I say, distasteful to see that, or witness that, but I don't regard that as being anti-Semitic content. I think that that's part of what is called rigorous criticism and discourse."

Cotler, who is currently an MP from Montreal, said that idea extends to classification of Israel as an apartheid state, a sentiment he does not agree with, but sees as a part of the debate.

"Where you say that Israel is an apartheid state, even then - that to me is, it's distasteful, but it's still within the boundaries of argument," Cotler said. "It's where you say, because it's an apartheid state, it has to be dismantled - then you crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument. You're not just criticizing, you're not only criticizing Israeli policy or practice; you're not only saying it has apartheid policies; you're saying it's a criminal apartheid state that must be dismantled. Then in my view, you've crossed the line."

Cotler's statements to Anglo File represent a slight departure for the politician, who has argued vociferously against calling Israel an aparthied state and called for campaign to deligitimize the delegitimization.

In 2009, Cotler, who is Jewish, co-founded the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, a group of Jewish and non-Jewish lawmakers from dozens of countries devoted to fighting anti-Jewish racism. The organization held its inaugural meeting in England in 2009, with Canadian MPs making up the largest delegation, and the group held its second conference in Ottawa this past November, with 140 parliamentarians in attendance. The Canadian parliament followed the conference with its own inquiry into Canadian anti-Semitism.

Since the start of the 21st century, the world has been "witnessing a new and escalating, globalizing, virulent, and even lethal anti-Semitism," Cotler said, one which substitutes hate for the Jewish person with hate for the Jewish state. "We had moved from the discrimination against Jews as individuals, to the discrimination against Jews as a people, to Israel as the targeted collective 'Jew among the nations."

But he said not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

"I think we've got to set up certain boundaries of where it does cross the line, because I'm one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like," he said. "If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions."

Cotler also says anti-Zionism is not always racist. "I think it's too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic," he said. "It may cross the line into being anti-Semitic where it ends up by saying, 'Israel has no right to exist', or 'the Jewish people have no right to self determination', or, that the Jewish people are not even a people."

Cotler said efforts by activists in other countries to lay criminal charges against Israeli politicians and high-ranking military officials can be a legal tool, so long as it is not pursued against Israelis alone. "That's fine, that was the principal that Israel invoked for why it prosecuted Adolf Eichmann," he said.

"But where people single out only Israeli nationals and apply only to them the principal of universal jurisdiction ... and you're not initiating any such processes against anybody else in a world in which many war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide are being committed - then you have to question whether this is not the singling out of Israeli nationals for selective and discriminatory treatment."

Cotler said that if activists also target others than just Israelis on the same charges, it can lend their moves credibility.

"Some of the same people may also want to try [former U.S. Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger and [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair [for war crimes], okay? And then you can say, 'Okay, I don't like what they're doing, but they want to try them all,'" he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/canadian-mp-cotler-calling-israel-an-apartheid-state-can-be-legitimate-free-speech-1.370545

Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

Brasidas wrote:Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

It's true about Saudi, Didge yet Thatcher flogged them Tornado jet fighters and Nu Labour under Blair sold them Typhoon's.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8417-sweden-cancels-defense-cooperation-with-saudi-arabia-perhaps-the-u-s-u-k-can-learn-a-lesson-or-two

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7124-seriously-fuck-saudi-arabia

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4590-atheism-as-bad-as-terrorism-saudi-arabia-decides-but-atheists-carry-on

So is Cotler wrong then?

do they blow up babies?
do they bulldoze homes?
do they persecute natives?
do they do these things because the people don't belong to the same religion as them?

there is every reason to call them an apartheid nation, we should not deal with them or Saudi Arabia.
the Problem is people that try and deflect constantly they promote anti-Semitism because of the ridiculousness they keep putting out, the lame excuses and constantly referring back to and exaggerating history to suit their agenda (and the denying of other peoples suffering). All they do is strengthen the resolve of true secularists to remove both from any sort of legitimate power. No religion should have an legal legitimacy. there should be no 'state of any religion'

Very true Veya, and as we can see people defending what is going on and calling people antisemite for speaking out are nothing more than apologists for what they do. I’m for peace and support the Jewish activists who are making a stand against what their government is doing.

It takes guts to do what they are doing, and they have my support every step of the way.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

It's true about Saudi, Didge yet Thatcher flogged them Tornado jet fighters and Nu Labour under Blair sold them Typhoon's.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t8417-sweden-cancels-defense-cooperation-with-saudi-arabia-perhaps-the-u-s-u-k-can-learn-a-lesson-or-two

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t7124-seriously-fuck-saudi-arabia

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t4590-atheism-as-bad-as-terrorism-saudi-arabia-decides-but-atheists-carry-on

So is Cotler wrong then?

Did you actually answer my points or defkect this about Maggie?
You saying Blair never sold weapons to them either?
Both would be wrong as well as it shows the UN is baised and that left wing groups are also in that they do not actually speak out against a nation that actually has laws similar to Apartheid South Africa
The fact is when Stassi and others make unfounded accusations which seek to dehumanise and deligitimize Israel it is 100% antisemitism.
Thew worst part about that is she knows it is.
Never claimed he was wrong b eing as this article was written 4 years ago showing the desperation Stassi gos to.
He said rightly there is no comparrison tro Apartheid with Israel and it is appalling what he eluded to was free speech.
I have nothing against free speech what I am debating is rightly being critical of those on the left who are anti semitic

veya_victaous wrote:do they blow up babies?
do they bulldoze homes?
do they persecute natives?
do they do these things because the people don't belong to the same religion as them?

there is every reason to call them an apartheid nation, we should not deal with them or Saudi Arabia.
the Problem is people that try and deflect constantly they promote anti-Semitism because of the ridiculousness they keep putting out, the lame excuses and constantly referring back to and exaggerating history to suit their agenda (and the denying of other peoples suffering). All they do is strengthen the resolve of true secularists to remove both from any sort of legitimate power. No religion should have an legal legitimacy. there should be no 'state of any religion'

Absurd on every level and why you are quite typical of the extreme left, you try to compare something which has no comparrison.
If you claim that Israel is aparetheid, you should be able to show their laws match by even 50% to Apartheid South Africa?
In your own trime and if you cannot even match 10% laws, you need to first of all admit you are  wrong and second apologise for making a complete false accusation.
Claims to babies being blown up is not a law or an aprtheid law but an action of war, showing you are really quite clueless on what you are talking about.
Yet again another left win mg extremist trying to jusitfy antimsemitism.
Making unfounded accusations to dehumanise and deligitimize Israel is 100% antisemitism.

risingsun wrote:Very true Veya, and as we can see people defending what is going on and calling people antisemite for speaking out are nothing more than apologists for what they do. I’m for peace and support the Jewish activists who are making a stand against what their government is doing.

It takes guts to do what they are doing, and they have my support every step of the way.

Please spare me your lies Sassy as I have easily proven you go beyond critcism and use antisemitic language in making unfound accusations which seek to dehumanise Israel and thus Jews.
You do not support Israel having a state, that discrminates against Jews also.
On every level you are antisemtic.

South Africa was not the only nation with apartheid
Sorry
Justify Israel's actions
In your own time

Don't need to compare Israel to anything to see they are one of the most evil nations on earth currently. And no anti-Semitism is against Jews, Not being against a Nation commiting crimes against humanity. You see this is why people ignore Zionists like your self. YOU are the one that demands other are killed for religious beliefs that are not as offensive as the Torah and Fundamental Judaism Openly practised and supported as 'orthodox' when really it is the equivalent of Wahhabism.

I am Anti Zionist I am Anti ANY GROUP that want to put their fairytale into law. because I am secular. And from previous discussions I am clearly more open to allowing others to have their beliefs AS long as they keep them separate from the rule of the state. Hillel and other Zionist groups do not do that, I see them the same as ISIS they kill innocents and want theocracy.

You will be called to choose Zionist or Secularist which do you choose? You cant be both.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jew

veya_victaous wrote:South Africa was not the only nation with apartheid
Sorry
Justify Israel's actions
In your own time

Don't need to compare Israel to anything to see they are one of the most evil nations on earth currently. And no anti-Semitism is against Jews, Not being against a Nation commiting crimes against humanity. You see this is why people ignore Zionists like your self. YOU are the one that demands other are killed for religious beliefs that are not as offensive as the Torah and Fundamental Judaism Openly practised and supported as 'orthodox' when really it is the equivalent of Wahhabism.

I am Anti Zionist I am Anti ANY GROUP that want to put their fairytale into law. because I am secular. And from previous discussions I am clearly more open to allowing others to have their beliefs AS long as they keep them separate from the rule of the state. Hillel and other Zionist groups do not do that, I see them the same as ISIS they kill innocents and want theocracy.

You will be called to choose Zionist or Secularist which do you choose? You cant be both.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/10/shlomo-sand-i-wish-to-cease-considering-myself-a-jew

That is not comparing the laws.
You need to compare at least 25% to garner a comparrison of apartheid laws of which is standardise.
You have not shown one.
Whether some left wing extremist decides to become antisemitic also by disassociating himself being Jewish is irrelvant.
You need to understand what is genuine criticism and complete lies that seek to discrminate Jews.

Now again, I am not going to mhave you extreme lefties off the hook.
Post up the evidence of laws or showing some decency and admit you are wrong?


In your own time.

Is antisemitism towards Jews in the Australian diaspora ‘understandable’ because of our link to Israel? As long as those on the left entertain this notion, they dishonour their values.
There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”

Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.

In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.

It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.

Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.

Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.

Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.

Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.

The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.

But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.

That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.

Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.

It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence?
In a political climate where fear is a weapon as much as a state of mind, where innocence isn’t automatically assumed, and where wars and foreign affairs can fuel prejudice at home, it is natural that many take great steps to defend embattled Muslim communities from the risk of dangerous incitement. In doing so, they recognise that Muslims deserve to have their rights – freedom of association, of safety, of speech – protected, if necessary by the state.
They also recognise that self-determination of cultural and national identity is not something we can impose on other people. Those rights and understandings must be equally extended to Jews without the expectation that we must first denounce Israel, fight it, answer for it, or be ashamed by it.

Even before the Kemp lecture, the student protesters Lynch became involved with declared that they were there to defend Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist group which has been exposed as having spread antisemitic propaganda and incitement against Jews on the streets of Sydney. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whatever their legal status, cannot be defended by any genuine anti-racist. If the radical left with which Lynch and his fellow protesters are affiliated are prepared to defend their civil rights, they must not excuse their anti-Jewish racism – a duty of which they have thus far failed.

When progressives downplay or diminish the threat of antisemitism in the diaspora because of Israel – or, worse, fuel it – they do not extend to us those equal rights they purport to stand for. Progressives do more than dishonouring their values in this case, they diminish the unique history of Jews in Australian (and western) society, failing to acknowledge and defend us as equal, regardless of our relationship with or opinions about Israel.

The left must act to repair its straining relationship with Jews and once again take up opposition to antisemitism as its cause. Antisemitism is, like all forms of racism, to be abhorred and condemned unequivocally, not reduced and marginalised by games of comparison and mitigation. It is not a partisan issue and it cannot be up to the right to own the unqualified outrage it deservedly generates. The left, and the values it holds, are far too proud and dear to our hearts for that.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/why-does-the-left-ignore-antisemitism-all-forms-of-racism-should-be-abhorred


Brilliant article backing up exactly what I have been saying in regards to the hate directed at Israel. Again much of the rhetoric now is beyond criticism and is now just pure hate. People need to reaslise what they are doing when not only do some peddle countless lies againstg Israel, thus furthering antisemitism towards Jews. The anger and criticism is directed at Israel and not its head officials. Britain was not at fault for Iraq, the then Labour Government was, because no member of the public got to vote on this. Yet the view has been made by Islamic extremists that it is the British people and the view is it is the British people that invaded Iraq. Some of these far left extremists though throw up some of the worst racism I have seen in a long time. I do not make all Muslims culpable for the extremists, I sperate them on their ideologies and political beliefs, I wil be critical of bad ideas in their religion, but have defended many innocent Muslims and still do from against thuse who attempt to make them culpable. The far right use this tactic and yet how odd is it that that the far left do the same absurd reasoning on to Jews. The far left do not even recognise or wish to recognise Israel as a state, they want to see it also cease to exist, because they buy into poor lies formulated on history. Genuine criticism is fine, or showing your disfavour, anger etc with the Israeli Governemnt and its policies, direct that venom against them, not the people of Israel. The way forward is a two way state solution and why we need to be more vocal against these far left who are anti-semitic.



New antisemitism

A new phenomenon

Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
  
• Holocaust denial
  
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations – the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people's right even to live – with Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews


In June 2011, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks, said that basis for the new Antisemitism was the 2001 Durban Conference. Rabbi Sacks also said that the new Antisemitism "unites radical Islamists with human-rights NGOs—the right wing and the left wing—against a common enemy, the State of Israel."
In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the result of an investigation into whether the belief that the "prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond" that antisemitism had "receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society." was correct. It concluded that "the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000". In defining antisemitism, the Group wrote that it took into account the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report, which was published after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, that, for the purpose of classifying crime by the police, an act is racist if it is defined as such by its victim. It formed the view that, broadly, "any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic" and concluded that, given that, "it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism."
The report stated that while some witnesses pointed out that the level of antisemitism experienced by Jews in Britain is lower than that faced by Jewish communities in some other parts of Europe and that the Jewish community is not the only minority community in Britain to experience prejudice and discrimination, that these arguments, provided no comfort to victims of hate and violence, nor should they be used as an excuse to ignore the problem.
The report states that some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream. It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements

A number of commentators argue that the United Nations has condoned antisemitism. Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard University, wrote that the UN's World Conference on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada, has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism, citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 that the commission took "several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.
Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues that the UN hijacks the language of human rights to discriminate and demonize Jews. She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations have been directed at Israel. "But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe." a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United States Department of State to the US Congress,


The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the Fundamental Rights Agency) noted an upswing in antisemitic incidents in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands between July 2003 and December 2004. In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism, and in 2005, the EUMC offered a working definition of antisemitism in an attempt to enable a standard definition to be used for data collection: It defined antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." The paper included “Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include"

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
  
  
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  
  
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  
  
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
  
  

The EUMC added that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country."





The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:

• "Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice... This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
  
  
• "Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
  
  
• "Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
  
  
• "Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."
  
  

In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." At the time, the Commission also announced that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on many campuses throughout the United States.
In September 2006, Yale University announced that it had established the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first university-based institute in North America dedicated to the study of antisemitism. Charles Small, head of the institute, said in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged internationally in a manner that many leading scholars and policy makers take seriously ... Increasingly, Jewish communities around the world feel under threat. It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease."^[ YIISA has presented several seminars and working papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the 'New Antisemitism'

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.

ANYONE THAT SUPPORT RELIGION OVER SECULARISM CAN GET FUCKED
Dont give a shit about your Zionist media
you can say shit about Iran that has not committed even a 10th of the crimes Israel has. Israel exists on land it has stolen with theocratic laws and ideals and commits crimes against humanity daily.

Zionist Hypocrisy has become so blatant it is laughable. Sorry But I disagree with ALL RELIGIOUS NATIONS I will speak against ALL RELIGIOUS NATIONS. I have no problem with individual Jews but again ANY ONE THAT USES RELIGION IN POLITICS is my enemy as they should be the enemy of all secularists.

So you support Iran too? you support sharia in Iran?

veya_victaous wrote:ANYONE THAT SUPPORT RELIGION OVER SECULARISM CAN GET FUCKED
Dont give a shit about your Zionist media
you can say shit about Iran that has not committed even a 10th of the crimes Israel has. Israel exists on land it has stolen with theocratic laws and ideals and commits crimes against humanity daily.

Zionist Hypocrisy has become so blatant it is laughable. Sorry But I disagree with ALL RELIGIOUS NATIONS I will speak against ALL RELIGIOUS NATIONS. I have no problem with individual Jews but again ANY ONE THAT USES RELIGION IN POLITICS is my enemy as they should be the enemy of all secularists.

So you support Iran too? you support sharia in Iran?

That still did not answer or prove any of your claims to Israel being apatheid to now you moving away from this point to claim now religion, where Israel is a secularist country the only real democratic nation in the region.
So again now you claim I am Zionist which is a joke, more childish deflections when I support a two state solution.
So you failed to show any comparrisons proving you are antisemitic, because such claims which are unfounded and untrue seek to dehumanze and deligitimize Israel and are not honest or genuine critcisms of Israel. They are invented for one sole purpose to incite hate for Jews.
I do not support any religious laws, showing how badly you attempt to deflect away from the argument you know you have lost.
So do you not support the right of Israel to exist?
You do not have to believe in ziomisn to want to nations to exist, that again is you making daft accusations?


Once again for you to read and understand



Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":^[13]

• Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
  
  
  
• Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
  
  
  
• Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
  
  
  
• Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
  
  
  
• Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.^[vague]
  
  
  
• Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
  
  
  
• Holocaust denial
  
  
  
• Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
  
  
  
• International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena"): Differential and discriminatory treatment towards Israel in the international arena.
  
  
  

Cotler argues that classical antisemitism is discrimination against Jews as individuals whereas the new antisemitism, in contrast, "is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people – and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance, the essence of anti-Semitism is the same – an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time." This discrimination is hard to measure, because the indices governments tend to use to detect discrimination – such as standard of living, housing, health and employment – are useful only in measuring discrimination against individuals. Hence, Cotler writes, it is difficult to show that the concept is a valid one. Cotler defines "classical or traditional anti-Semitism" as "the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit" and "new anti-Semitism" as "discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations – the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people's right even to live – with Israel as the "collective Jew among the nations"."
Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."
Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.^[17] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."^[18]
The French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff argues that antisemitism based on racism and nationalism has been replaced by a new form based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. He identifies some of its main features as the identification of Zionism with racism; the use of material related to Holocaust denial (such as doubts about the number of victims and allegations that there is a "Holocaust industry"); a discourse borrowed from third worldism, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-Americanism and anti-globalization; and the dissemination of what he calls the "myth" of the "intrinsically good Palestinian – the innocent victim par excellence."^[19]
In early 2009, 125 parliamentarians from various countries gathered in London for the founding conference of a group called the "Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism" (ICCA). They suggest that while classical antisemitism "overlaps" modern antisemitism, it is a different phenomenon and a more dangerous one for Jews


In June 2011, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks, said that basis for the new Antisemitism was the 2001 Durban Conference. Rabbi Sacks also said that the new Antisemitism "unites radical Islamists with human-rights NGOs—the right wing and the left wing—against a common enemy, the State of Israel."
In September 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism of the British Parliament published the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, the result of an investigation into whether the belief that the "prevailing opinion both within the Jewish community and beyond" that antisemitism had "receded to the point that it existed only on the margins of society." was correct. It concluded that "the evidence we received indicates that there has been a reversal of this progress since the year 2000". In defining antisemitism, the Group wrote that it took into account the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report, which was published after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, that, for the purpose of classifying crime by the police, an act is racist if it is defined as such by its victim. It formed the view that, broadly, "any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic" and concluded that, given that, "it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism."
The report stated that while some witnesses pointed out that the level of antisemitism experienced by Jews in Britain is lower than that faced by Jewish communities in some other parts of Europe and that the Jewish community is not the only minority community in Britain to experience prejudice and discrimination, that these arguments, provided no comfort to victims of hate and violence, nor should they be used as an excuse to ignore the problem.
The report states that some left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for antisemitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that antisemitism appears to be entering the mainstream. It argues that anti-Zionism may become antisemitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, the report states, traditional antisemitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are often transferred from Jews onto Zionism. The report notes that this is "at the core of the 'New Antisemitism', on which so much has been written," adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements

A number of commentators argue that the United Nations has condoned antisemitism. Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard University, wrote that the UN's World Conference on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada, has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism, citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 that the commission took "several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.
Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues that the UN hijacks the language of human rights to discriminate and demonize Jews. She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations have been directed at Israel. "But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe." a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United States Department of State to the US Congress,


The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) (superseded in 2007 by the Fundamental Rights Agency) noted an upswing in antisemitic incidents in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands between July 2003 and December 2004. In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism, and in 2005, the EUMC offered a working definition of antisemitism in an attempt to enable a standard definition to be used for data collection: It defined antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." The paper included “Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include"

• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
  
  
  
• Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  
  
  
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  
  
  
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  
  
  
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
  
  
  

The EUMC added that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is "similar to that leveled against any other country."





The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:

• "Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice... This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
  
  
  
• "Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
  
  
  
• "Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
  
  
  
• "Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."
  
  
  

In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." At the time, the Commission also announced that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on many campuses throughout the United States.
In September 2006, Yale University announced that it had established the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first university-based institute in North America dedicated to the study of antisemitism. Charles Small, head of the institute, said in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged internationally in a manner that many leading scholars and policy makers take seriously ... Increasingly, Jewish communities around the world feel under threat. It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease."^[ YIISA has presented several seminars and working papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the 'New Antisemitism'

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.

In 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are subject to different criminal laws, leading to longer detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offenses.[96] Amnesty International has reported that in the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers who engage in abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, enjoy "impunity" from punishment and are rarely prosecuted. However Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces may be imprisoned for prolonged periods of time, and reports of their torture and other ill-treatment are not credibly investigated.[97][98][99]

John Dugard has compared Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians to policies of Apartheid-era South Africa, saying "Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails."[100]

Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or chaired the Or Commission, which noted that discrimination against the country's Arab citizens had been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, had been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and had also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert criticised in 2008 what he called "deliberate and insufferable" discrimination against Arabs at the hands of the Israeli establishment.[90]

According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel maintained the full range of normal equal rights found in Western liberal democracies, and in specific issues "generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas," and the government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens".[91] Reports of subsequent years also identified discrimination against Arab citizens as a problem area for Israel

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter was the first prominent figure in this country to apply the term apartheid to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories—East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel’s apartheid system, however, also affects Palestinian Arabs who make up 20 percent of the population within Israel itself. Apartheid is a central feature of the Zionist state that proclaims it is exclusively for Jews.

Israeli apartheid is both like and unlike the system of segregation that existed in South Africa. It is also similar and dissimilar to the system of legal segregation that existed in the American South for many decades. The word apartheid could easily be used to describe the system of legal segregation that existed in nine U.S. Southern states from the end of the Reconstruction Period to the mid-1960s when the civil rights movement achieved some of its greatest victories. It could also describe the de facto segregation that existed outside the U.S. South and resulted in the creation of black ghettoes in nearly all U.S. cities.

Three key features characterize Israeli apartheid:

Four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives through a military occupation. In addition to controlling the borders, air space, water, tax revenues, and other vital matters pertaining to the Occupied Territories, Israel alone issues the identity cards that determine the ability of Palestinians to work and their freedom of movement.

About 1.2 million Palestinian Israelis, who make up 20 percent, or one-fifth, of Israel’s population, have second-class citizenship within Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish state rather than a state for all its citizens. More than 20 provisions of Israel’s principal laws discriminate, either directly or indirectly, against non-Jews, according to Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Rights in Israel.

Millions of Palestinians remain refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, unable to return to their former homes and land in present-day Israel, even though the right of return for refugees is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


In 2008, the South African government commissioned a study by leading legal scholars and human rights experts to determine if Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the parameters of international law. After a 15-month investigation, the study concluded that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

So we have
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Retire Israeli Judge
Jimmy Carter
South African Gov't
ALL saying ISRAEL IS COMMITTING APARTHEID!!!!

veya_victaous wrote:

In 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are subject to different criminal laws, leading to longer detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians than for Israelis for the same offenses.[96] Amnesty International has reported that in the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers who engage in abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, enjoy "impunity" from punishment and are rarely prosecuted. However Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces may be imprisoned for prolonged periods of time, and reports of their torture and other ill-treatment are not credibly investigated.[97][98][99]

John Dugard has compared Israeli imprisonment of Palestinians to policies of Apartheid-era South Africa, saying "Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails."[100]

Israeli High Court Justice (Ret.) Theodor Or chaired the Or Commission, which noted that discrimination against the country's Arab citizens had been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, had been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions, and had also found expression in reports by the state comptroller and in other official documents. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert criticised in 2008 what he called "deliberate and insufferable" discrimination against Arabs at the hands of the Israeli establishment.[90]

According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, Israel maintained the full range of normal equal rights found in Western liberal democracies, and in specific issues "generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas," and the government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens".[91] Reports of subsequent years also identified discrimination against Arab citizens as a problem area for Israel

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter was the first prominent figure in this country to apply the term apartheid to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories—East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. Israel’s apartheid system, however, also affects Palestinian Arabs who make up 20 percent of the population within Israel itself. Apartheid is a central feature of the Zionist state that proclaims it is exclusively for Jews.

   

Israeli apartheid is both like and unlike the system of segregation that existed in South Africa. It is also similar and dissimilar to the system of legal segregation that existed in the American South for many decades. The word apartheid could easily be used to describe the system of legal segregation that existed in nine U.S. Southern states from the end of the Reconstruction Period to the mid-1960s when the civil rights movement achieved some of its greatest victories. It could also describe the de facto segregation that existed outside the U.S. South and resulted in the creation of black ghettoes in nearly all U.S. cities.

Three key features characterize Israeli apartheid:

   Four million Palestinians in the Occupied Territories lack the right to vote for the government that controls their lives through a military occupation. In addition to controlling the borders, air space, water, tax revenues, and other vital matters pertaining to the Occupied Territories, Israel alone issues the identity cards that determine the ability of Palestinians to work and their freedom of movement.

   About 1.2 million Palestinian Israelis, who make up 20 percent, or one-fifth, of Israel’s population, have second-class citizenship within Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish state rather than a state for all its citizens. More than 20 provisions of Israel’s principal laws discriminate, either directly or indirectly, against non-Jews, according to Adalah: The Legal Center for Minority Rights in Israel.

   Millions of Palestinians remain refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere, unable to return to their former homes and land in present-day Israel, even though the right of return for refugees is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


       In 2008, the South African government commissioned a study by leading legal scholars and human rights experts to determine if Israel was practicing apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories according to the parameters of international law. After a 15-month investigation, the study concluded that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

So we have
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Retire Israeli Judge
Jimmy Carter
South African Gov't
ALL saying ISRAEL IS COMMITTING APARTHEID!!!!

Which shows you fail to read the following:

A number of commentators argue that the United Nations has condoned antisemitism. Lawrence Summers, then-president of Harvard University, wrote that the UN's World Conference on Racism failed to condemn human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anywhere in the Arab world, while raising Israel's alleged ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. David Matas, senior counsel to B'nai B'rith Canada, has written that the UN is a forum for antisemitism, citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission who claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 that the commission took "several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.
Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian legal scholar who addressed the UN about its treatment of Israel, argues that the UN hijacks the language of human rights to discriminate and demonize Jews. She writes that over one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations have been directed at Israel. "But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe." a 2008 report on antisemitism from the United States Department of State to the US Congress,



So again you can offer no comparrisons on laws to apartheid and as seen the Un has been proven to be biased against Israel.
I have show you countless evidence of the antisemitism being used and you stil deny it.

Now again for the fourth time, show the laws to compare to Apartheid?

The fact is I know you have not any.

Oh dear, is the extreme leftie being exposed like Sassy as antisemitic.

Criticism of the apartheid analogy

Those who criticize the analogy argue that Israeli policies have little or no resemblance to apartheid South Africa, and that the motivation and historical context of Israel's policies are different. It is argued that Israel itself is a democratic and pluralist state, while the West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel and cannot be compared to the internal policies of apartheid South Africa. Other critics of the analogy argue that there are significant differences between the policy of the Israeli government and the apartheid model, and that the analogy is theoretically false and politically harmful.^[254]

Differences between Israeli and South African policies

[size=43]“[/size]	the equivalence simply isn't true. Israel is not an apartheid state. Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories, its settlement policy, and its firm responses to terror may sometimes warrant criticism. And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself recently warned that Israel could face an apartheid-style struggle if it did not reach a deal with the Palestinians and end the occupation in the West Bank. But racism and discrimination do not form the rationale for Israel's policies and actions. Arab citizens of Israel can vote and serve in the Knesset; black South Africans could not vote until 1994. There are no laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab citizens or separate them from Jews. Unlike the United Kingdom, Greece, and Norway, Israel has no state religion, and it recognizes Arabic as one of its official languages."	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—Kadalie, Rhoda and Julia Bertelsmann, black South Africans whose families fought against apartheid[278][279][/size]

Academic Susie Jacobs states that the apartheid analogy is "inadequate", and that it is a rhetoric that skims over substantive differences. She points out that Apartheid was a great deal more than segregation, instead it was a society almost wholly based on racial criteria.^[280] Close to that statement, the criticism of the analogy made by Prof. Giraut, head of the geography department, University of Geneva and specialist of the apartheid policies, is based on the ontological difference of nature between the two historical experiences. According to Giraut, the logic of the Israeli land grabbing in the occupied West bank is colonial and nationalist, while the Grand apartheid logic with the bantustans policy was post colonial and racialist.^[281]
StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, argues that apartheid in the Republic of South Africa was an official policy of discrimination against blacks enforced through police violence, based on minority control over a majority population who could not vote. They point out that in contrast, Israel is a majority-rule democracy with equal rights for all citizens including Arab citizens of Israel who vote freely. Israel contends with prejudice in its population as all societies do, but such prejudices are opposed by law. They also point out that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not governed by Israel but by the Palestinian Authority.^[18]
HonestReporting, another pro-Israel advocacy organization, argues that today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. They say that Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, they say, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population; laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, they say, in South Africa, the government killed blacks who protested against its policies. By contrast, they say Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government's harshest critics, they say, are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.^[282] In addition, most of the West Bank and all of Gaza are not expected to be controlled by Israel after a final settlement.^{[clarification needed][19][283]}
Benjamin Pogrund, author and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, has argued that the petty apartheid that characterized apartheid-era South Africa does not exist within Israel:

The difference between the current Israeli situation and apartheid South Africa is emphasized at a very human level: Jewish and Arab babies are born in the same delivery room, with the same facilities, attended by the same doctors and nurses, with the mothers recovering in adjoining beds in a ward. Two years ago I had major surgery in a Jerusalem hospital: the surgeon was Jewish, the anaesthetist was Arab, the doctors and nurses who looked after me were Jews and Arabs. Jews and Arabs share meals in restaurants and travel on the same trains, buses and taxis, and visit each other's homes. Could any of this possibly have happened under apartheid? Of course not.^[284]

In response to increasing inequality between the Jewish and Arab populations, the Israeli government established a committee^[when?] to consider, among other issues, policies of affirmative action for housing Arab citizens.^[285] According to Israel advocacy group, Stand With Us, the city of Jerusalem gives Arab residents free professional advice to assist with the housing permit process and structural regulations, advice not available to Jewish residents on the same terms.^{[286][287][288]}

Differences between Israeli and South African motivations

Criticism of the "Israeli apartheid" usage for its inherent implication of racism has been widespread. In 2003, South Africa's minister for home affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi said, "The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy."^[289] According to Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch, "[t]he assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous.... The fact is that it is the Arabs who are discriminating against non-Muslims, especially Jews."^[290] Similarly, in 2004, Jean-Christophe Rufin, former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières and president of Action Against Hunger, recommended in a report about anti-Semitism commissioned by French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin^[291] that charges of apartheid and racism against Israel be criminalized in France, to the extent they're unjustified.^{[292][293][294]} He wrote that the "perverse" and "defamatory" use of the charge of racism against the very people who were victims of racism "to an unparalleled degree" should be penalized. In his view, the accusations of racism, of apartheid, of Nazism carry grave moral implications and can put in danger the lives of French Jewish citizens. He advocated punishment of those who make accusations of racism against groups, utilizing unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism. He maintained that political opinions that are critical of any government are perfectly legitimate.^[292]

[size=43]“[/size]	In any event, what is racism? Under apartheid it was skin colour. Applied to Israel that's a joke: for proof of that, just look at a crowd of Israeli Jews and their gradations in skin-colour from the "blackest" to the "whitest".... Occupation is brutalising and corrupting both Palestinians and Israelis ... ut it is not apartheid. Palestinians are not oppressed on racial grounds as Arabs, but, rather, as competitors — until now, at the losing end — in a national/religious conflict for land.	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—Benjamin Pogrund[284][/size]

[size=43]“[/size]	Israel ... lacks the features of an apartheid state. The Palestinian, Druze and other minorities in Israel are guaranteed equal rights under the Basic Laws. All citizens of Israel vote in elections on an equal basis. There are no legal restrictions on movement, employment or sexual or marital relations. The universities are integrated. Opponents of Zionism have free speech and assembly and may form political organizations.	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—John Strawson, professor of international law at the University of East London[295][/size]

Michael Kinsley's article "It's Not Apartheid", published in Slate and The Washington Post, states that Carter "makes no attempt to explain [the use of the word 'apartheid']" and refers to Carter's usage of the term as "a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won—and deserved—the Nobel Peace Prize...".^[21]

[size=43]“[/size]	Israel has always had Arab citizens.... No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children.	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—Michael Kinsley,"It's Not Apartheid"[296][297][/size]

[size=43]“[/size]	Calling Israel an 'apartheid state' is absolute nonsense. You might have structures that look like apartheid, but they're not. The barrier fence has nothing to do with apartheid and everything to do with Israel's self-defense. There was no such barrier until the second intifada, when people were being murdered on the highways. And the country does not dehumanize its minority in the sense of apartheid. The issues are totally different.	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—Malcolm Hedding, a South African minister and fighter against South African apartheid[155][/size]

[size=43]“[/size]	Do Israel's Arab citizens suffer from disadvantage? You better believe it. Do African Americans 10 minutes from the Berkeley campus suffer from disadvantage—you better believe it, too. So should we launch a Berkeley Apartheid Week, or should we seek real ways to better our societies and make opportunity more available.... Vilification and false labeling is a blind alley that is unjust and takes us nowhere.... You deny Israel the fundamental right of every society to defend itself.... Your criticism is willfully hypocritical.... You are betraying the moderate Muslims and Jews who are working to achieve peace.... To the organizers of Israel Apartheid Week I would like to say: If Israel were an apartheid state, I would not have been appointed here, nor would I have chosen to take upon myself this duty.	[size=43]”[/size]
[size=undefined]—Ishmael Khaldi, US Pacific Northwest deputy consul of Israel, and Bedouin Muslim, in response to Israel Apartheid Week[298][/size]

The idea that "Israeli apartheid" implies a policy of racial or other discrimination against Arabs or Muslims has been rejected by other figures. In 2004's The Trouble with Islam Today, Irshad Manji argues that the allegation of apartheid in Israel is deeply misleading, noting that there are in Israel several Arab political parties; that Arab-Muslim legislators have veto powers; and that Arab parties have overturned disqualifications. She also points to Arabs like Emile Habibi, who have been awarded prestigious prizes. She also observes that Israel has a free Arab press; that road signs bear Arabic translations; and that Arabs live and study alongside Jews. She also claims that Palestinians commuting from the West Bank are entitled to state benefits and legal protections.^[299]
Former US Ambassador to the United Nations (June 1975 – February 1976), Daniel Patrick Moynihan^[300] voiced the strong disagreement of the United States with the General Assembly's resolution declaring that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" in 1975 stated that unlike apartheid, Zionism is clearly is not a racist ideology. He said that racist ideologies such as apartheid favor discrimination on the grounds of alleged biological differences, yet few people are as biologically heterogeneous as the Jews.^[301]
In an op-ed for The Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg, Professor of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, argued, "Ethno-national disputes, occupation, and charges of discrimination against minorities are also part of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, etc., but the demonization campaign is unique to Israel.... Indeed, the racism and denial of legitimacy characteristic of apartheid are actually applicable to Arab and Islamic rejection of Jewish rights." Among those rights is the right to self-defense, including passive methods such as the security fence. "The 'Zionism is apartheid' propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense against being ripped apart in bus and cafe bombings.... By screaming 'apartheid' at every opportunity, the leaders of this campaign have succeeded in burying data showing that [the security] barrier has saved the lives of many Israelis. In today's immoral political doublespeak, protecting Israelis from terror has become 'apartheid."^[302]
Gideon Shimoni, professor emeritus of Hebrew University, has said that while apartheid was characterized by racially based legal inequality and exploitation of Black Africans by the dominant Whites within a common society, the Israel–Palestinian conflict reflects "separate nationalisms," in which Israel refuses exploitation of Palestinians and on the contrary seeks separation and "divorce" from Palestinians for legitimate self-defense reasons.^[303] Alon Liel, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa and former Director General of the Israel Foreign Ministry, argues that Israel is presently both Jewish and democratic but that ongoing demographic trends, if occurring within a single state embracing both peoples, would create a future situation in which a Jewish minority would rule over a Palestinian majority, as in political apartheid, so this explains and justifies the security fence separating the two peoples physically, and the desire by Israel for two separate states with firm borders.^[304]

Delegitimization of Israel as a motivation for the apartheid analogy

Some critics of the apartheid analogy state that it is intended to delegitimize Israel and Zionism, applying a higher standard of behaviour to Israel than to other nations or to the Palestinian Authority in order to justify the boycotting, ostracism, or elimination of the State of Israel.^{[15][16][17][282][305][306]} Critics say that much more obviously "apartheid"-like treatment of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian Authority territory, Jordan and Lebanon, are ignored and are not the subject of delegitimization campaigns, exemplifying double standards.^{[307][308][309][310]}
Irwin Cotler, a Jewish Canadian MP and anti-apartheid activist who was once a lawyer for Nelson Mandela said "The second manifestation [of anti-semitism] is the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state [which involves] more than the simple indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. It involves a call for dismantling Israel" He links this to other forms of delegitimization of the Jewish state by Palestinians, such as their attempt to deny any Jewish historical or religious links to the Holy Land as such, and especially to Jerusalem itself.^[311]
Benny Morris, an Israeli historian of the Arab–Israeli conflict, has said that those that equate Israeli efforts to separate the two populations to apartheid are effectively trying to undermine the legitimacy of any peace agreement based on a two-state solution.^[312]
Canadian political scientist Anne Bayefsky has written that the apartheid label was used by Arab states at the Durban World Conference on Racism in 2001 as part of a campaign to delegitimize Israel and to legitimize violence against Israeli citizens.^[313]

Alleged double standard

Some critics^[who?] consider the analogy defamatory and say it reflects a double standard when applied to Israel and not to neighboring Arab countries, whose policies towards their own Palestinian minorities have been described as discriminatory.^{[320][not in citation given]}

Criticism by South Africans

South African Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that while there exists a degree of separation between Israeli Jews and Arabs, "in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute". Concerning the West Bank, Goldstone wrote that the situation "is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain 'an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group'."^[72][321] Goldstone also wrote in The New York Times, "the charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony."^[322]
South African academics Julia I. Bertelsmann and Rhoda Kadalie disagree with the analogy, and believe it is motivated by politics. They say that Israel has been ranked "free" consistently in Freedom House's Freedom in the World rankings, unlike South Africa was during apartheid.^[279][323]
Former President of apartheid-era South Africa F.W. de Klerk, who with Nelson Mandela, helped end apartheid, when asked in an interview with France24 about apartheid South Africa being compared to Israel and the Palestinian territories, answered "I think comparisons are odious. I think it's dangerous. It's not a direct parallel, but there are some parallels to be drawn. Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say 'this is the country of Palestine'".^[324]
David Saks, the director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, claims the Apartheid analogy is "a cynical ploy" designed for propaganda purposes. In 2010. he wrote that in stark contrast with the racist, color-based apartheid regime, Israel is one of the most multi-racial societies in the world, which goes to great lengths to ensure tolerance and equality before the law. He points to the fact that Israel's Declaration of Independence specifically mandates complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or gender, and that Jews and non-Jews in Israel vote and stand for election together, live side by side in the same residential areas, and make use in equal measure of public amenities such as beaches and parks. While acknowledging that inequality still exists in certain areas, he says this is in no way comparable to the legalized race-based repression and discrimination that was experienced by non-whites in South Africa, and those cases of discrimination are continuously confronted and eroded through the Israeli courts and legislation.^[115]
Josh Benjamin, chairman of the South African Union of Jewish Students, stated that comparing the current status quo in Israel to apartheid is a "viciously false analogy". Benjamin wrote that the Palestinian people must have their dream of self-determination actualized, however, he believes this cannot be achieved through "virulently false" analogies that promote polarization and prohibit dialogue.^[325]
The pitfalls of a focus exclusively on what happens "in Israel" and avoiding analysis of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories, were highlighted in the Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) report discussed above.^[326] pointing out that one of the most 'notorious' aspects of the Apartheid policy was the 'racial enclave policy' manifested in the Black Homelands (Bantustans). The corollaries of population transfer, military occupation, nominal self-governance, travel restrictions, residency revoking, and prevention of family unification are all cited as being mirrors of what Israel imposes on the Occupied Territories. "As did the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of ‘security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas".^[327]
Kenneth Meshoe, President of the African Christian Democratic Party, has argued against claims that Israel is an apartheid state, calling such accusations slanderous and deceptive. According to Meshoe, these claims trivialize the word apartheid, and belittles the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color during apartheid era

Criticism by African American students

The African-American student organization Vanguard Leadership Group, a group that has developed ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,^{[335][336][337]} published an ad in April 2011 requesting that the Students for Justice in Palestine group "immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society and to acknowledge that the Arab minority in Israel enjoys full citizenship with voting rights and representation in the government", and that "It is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israelis' record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa's." Vanguard Leadership maintains that Students for Justice in Palestine "has chosen to manipulate rather than inform with this illegitimate analogy", and that "Decency, justice, and the hope of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East compel us to demand an immediate cessation to the deliberate mischaracterizations of Israel."^[338]
In October 2011, Jarrod Jordan, executive director of the Vanguard Leadership Group, said that SJP's holding a conference about Israel and apartheid is like "the Ku Klux Klan holding a conference at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a total affront to Jewish culture and identity". In addition, Jordan said that the use of the word 'apartheid' in referring to Israel is "patently false and deeply offensive to all who feel a connection to the State of Israel". The Columbia Spectator refused to publish a full-page ad paid for by VLG because it was "judged it to be political".^[339]

By notable academic, political and media figures

Ian Buruma has argued that even though there is social discrimination against Arabs in Israel and that "the ideal of a Jewish state smacks of racism", the analogy is "intellectually lazy, morally questionable and possibly even mendacious", as "[n]on-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, make up 20% of the Israeli population, and they enjoy full citizen's rights" and "nside the state of Israel, there is no apartheid".^[340]
Fifty-three faculty members from Stanford University signed a letter expressing the view that "Israel is not an Apartheid State" and that "the State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid"; that within its national territory Israel is a liberal democracy in which Arab citizens of Israel enjoy civil, religious, social, and political equality. They alleged that likening Israel to apartheid South Africa was a "smear", part of a campaign of "malicious propaganda".^[341]
In March 2011, professor Denis MacEoin, a senior editor of the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly, wrote an open letter to the Edinburgh University Students' Association. It was prompted by 270 students at Edinburgh University voting in favour of a motion that described Israel as an apartheid state and called for a boycott of goods. In part he expressed the opinion that a "University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak."^{[342][unreliable source?]} Subsequently the Edinburgh University Students' Association has confirmed a proposed boycott of Israeli products will not be enforced.^[343]

By Canadian officials

In March 2011, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said that he will not allow city funding for the 2011 Toronto Pride Parade if organizers allow the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) march again this year. "Taxpayers dollars should not go toward funding hate speech," Ford said.^[344] However, in April 2011, the city manager reported to the city's executive committee that the use of the phrase 'Israeli apartheid' does not violate the City's Anti-discrimination policy, nor does it constitute discrimination under the Canadian Criminal Code or the Ontario Human Rights Code^[345]
In June 2012, the Toronto city council voted to condemn the phrase "Israeli apartheid", as part of a resolution recognizing the gay Pride Toronto parade as a "significant cultural event that strongly promotes the ideals of tolerance and diversity". The resolution said it slams the term Israel Apartheid for undermining the values of Pride and diminishing "the suffering experienced by individuals during the apartheid regime in South Africa".^[346]

By British officials

In September 2012, British Member of Parliament Denis MacShane said that the motivation for the allegations that Israel is an apartheid state is in order to destroy Israel as a country, and that these allegations constitute an anti-Semitic canard. MacShane said that while criticizing Israel is legitimate, "We have to be clear that the new antisemitic trope is beyond the pale of legitimate criticism. The notion of Israel as an apartheid state is deliberately promoted because an apartheid state cannot exist.... Arabs and Jews in Israel are enjoying the same sea. An Arab Supreme Court judge presided in the case against the Israeli president."^[347]

By others

American rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein has written of a "multifaceted campaign demonizing Israel by rebranding her as an evil apartheid regime". He describes this as "the big lie", stating that Israeli Arabs enjoy political freedoms that are unknown in the Arab world.^[348]
Benjamin Pogrund, was born in South Africa and spent 26 years as a journalist specialising in reporting apartheid. He is also familiar with Israel. He has lived in Jerusalem since 1997. In an article published in The Guardian he wrote: "Whatever attitudes might be claimed for Israel's Jewish public the situation on the ground does not support accusations of apartheid. The Arab population, some 20%, certainly suffers discrimination but to liken their lot to apartheid South Africa is baseless, indeed ridiculous. Arabs have the vote, which in itself makes them fundamentally different from South Africa's black population under apartheid. And even the current rightwing government says that it wants to overcome Arab disadvantage and promises action to upgrade education and housing and increase job opportunities. Of course time will show how genuine it is.
The West Bank is a linked but separate issue: it's a military occupation which, in its nature, is violent and discriminatory. Trying to put an erroneous apartheid label on it confuses and distorts and is propagandistic

is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States

Describing itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby",[3] AIPAC has more than 100,000 members,[4] seventeen regional offices, and "a vast pool of donors."[5] It has been called "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel,"[6] and one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States.[5] The group does not raise funds for political candidates itself, but helps organize to channel money to candidates.[5]

Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence.[7] The group has been accused of being strongly allied with the Likud party of Israel, and the Republican Party in the US, but an AIPAC spokesman has called this a "malicious mischaracterization."

and Rob Ford

Shit man those 'opinions' you posted are so wise and impartial

So still unable to show any comparrisons on laws on aprthaeid.

That is game set and match to me.

Also to add to this, I have well and truly proven you are anti semitic and it is the extreme left that keep proving that they are:




The U.S. State Department's 2004 Report on Global Anti-Semitism identified four sources of rising antisemitism, particularly in Europe:

"Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice... This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."

"Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."

"Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."

"Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."

In July 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Antisemitism report that declared that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." At the time, the Commission also announced that antisemitism is a "serious problem" on many campuses throughout the United States.
In September 2006, Yale University announced that it had established the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, the first university-based institute in North America dedicated to the study of antisemitism. Charles Small, head of the institute, said in a press release that antisemitism has "reemerged internationally in a manner that many leading scholars and policy makers take seriously ... Increasingly, Jewish communities around the world feel under threat. It's almost like going back into the lab. I think we need to understand the current manifestation of this disease."[ YIISA has presented several seminars and working papers on the topic, for instance "The Academic and Public Debate Over the Meaning of the 'New Antisemitism'

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices. (...) However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism.


I have nothing against genuine and honest criticism of Israel but as seen you invent claims which have no evidence and even worse at every attempt you failed to answer or show any comparrison to apartheid, which shows and proves you seek to dehumanise Jews.
That makes you antisemitic and shows you fail to understand discrmination.

Umm south Africa showed that Israel was using a system of apartheid I posted 4 strong quotes from independent sources, You used A Israeli lobby group and Rob Ford!!
buddy you lost  you never had anything because you info is From a group that quote

is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States

Sources..... learn how to use them and analyse them, Cause yours are a useless as you can get.

veya_victaous wrote:Umm south Africa showed that Israel was using a system of apartheid I posted 4 strong quotes from independent sources, You used A Israeli lobby group and Rob Ford!!
buddy you lost  you never had anything because you info is From a group that quote

is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States

Sources..... learn how to use them and analyse them, Cause yours are a useless as you can get.

Still no evidence and no they did not show it was using a system of apartheid.
Seriously how many more times are you going to worm out of answering a claim you made that you cannot back up?
Seriously the left are so desperate with their hate, they have to further lie.



Criticism by South AfricansSouth African Judge Richard Goldstone, writing in The New York Times in October 2011, said that while there exists a degree of separation between Israeli Jews and Arabs, "in Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute". Concerning the West Bank, Goldstone wrote that the situation "is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain 'an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group'."[72][321] Goldstone also wrote in The New York Times, "the charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony."[322]

South African academics Julia I. Bertelsmann and Rhoda Kadalie disagree with the analogy, and believe it is motivated by politics. They say that Israel has been ranked "free" consistently in Freedom House's Freedom in the World rankings, unlike South Africa was during apartheid.[279][323]

Former President of apartheid-era South Africa F.W. de Klerk, who with Nelson Mandela, helped end apartheid, when asked in an interview with France24 about apartheid South Africa being compared to Israel and the Palestinian territories, answered "I think comparisons are odious. I think it's dangerous. It's not a direct parallel, but there are some parallels to be drawn. Why did the old vision of so many separate states in South Africa fail? Because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. Why will it fail, if it fails in Israel and Palestine? Because Palestine is maybe not offered an attractive enough geographical area to say 'this is the country of Palestine'".[324]

David Saks, the director of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, claims the Apartheid analogy is "a cynical ploy" designed for propaganda purposes. In 2010. he wrote that in stark contrast with the racist, color-based apartheid regime, Israel is one of the most multi-racial societies in the world, which goes to great lengths to ensure tolerance and equality before the law. He points to the fact that Israel's Declaration of Independence specifically mandates complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or gender, and that Jews and non-Jews in Israel vote and stand for election together, live side by side in the same residential areas, and make use in equal measure of public amenities such as beaches and parks. While acknowledging that inequality still exists in certain areas, he says this is in no way comparable to the legalized race-based repression and discrimination that was experienced by non-whites in South Africa, and those cases of discrimination are continuously confronted and eroded through the Israeli courts and legislation.[115]

Josh Benjamin, chairman of the South African Union of Jewish Students, stated that comparing the current status quo in Israel to apartheid is a "viciously false analogy". Benjamin wrote that the Palestinian people must have their dream of self-determination actualized, however, he believes this cannot be achieved through "virulently false" analogies that promote polarization and prohibit dialogue.[325]

The pitfalls of a focus exclusively on what happens "in Israel" and avoiding analysis of Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories, were highlighted in the Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) report discussed above.[326] pointing out that one of the most 'notorious' aspects of the Apartheid policy was the 'racial enclave policy' manifested in the Black Homelands (Bantustans). The corollaries of population transfer, military occupation, nominal self-governance, travel restrictions, residency revoking, and prevention of family unification are all cited as being mirrors of what Israel imposes on the Occupied Territories. "As did the apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel justifies these measures under the pretext of ‘security'. Contrary to such claims, they are in fact part of an overall regime aimed at preserving demographic superiority of one racial group over the other in certain areas".[327]

Kenneth Meshoe, President of the African Christian Democratic Party, has argued against claims that Israel is an apartheid state, calling such accusations slanderous and deceptive. According to Meshoe, these claims trivialize the word apartheid, and belittles the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color during apartheid era

Benjamin Pogrund, was born in South Africa and spent 26 years as a journalist specialising in reporting apartheid. He is also familiar with Israel. He has lived in Jerusalem since 1997. In an article published in The Guardian he wrote: "Whatever attitudes might be claimed for Israel's Jewish public the situation on the ground does not support accusations of apartheid. The Arab population, some 20%, certainly suffers discrimination but to liken their lot to apartheid South Africa is baseless, indeed ridiculous. Arabs have the vote, which in itself makes them fundamentally different from South Africa's black population under apartheid. And even the current rightwing government says that it wants to overcome Arab disadvantage and promises action to upgrade education and housing and increase job opportunities. Of course time will show how genuine it is.

The West Bank is a linked but separate issue: it's a military occupation which, in its nature, is violent and discriminatory. Trying to put an erroneous apartheid label on it confuses and distorts and is propagandistic

Also if we use your argument Veya, the land belongs to the Aboriginies and you are occupying their land and do not provide them equal rights and thuse Australia based on your methodology is an apartheid state and has more comparrisons to aprtheid by a long margin than Israel.

Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the South African Parliament, explains the truth about the actual system of apartheid that existed in South Africa, and compares it to what he saw when he visited Israel:

As a black South African under apartheid, I, among other things, could not vote, nor could I freely travel the landscape of South Africa. No person of color could hold high government office. The races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, public restrooms, schools and on public transportation. People of color had inferior hospitals, medical care and education. If a white doctor was willing to take a black patient, he had to examine him or her in a back room or some other hidden place.
In my numerous visits to Israel, I did not see any of the above. My understanding of the Israeli legal system is that equal rights are enshrined in law. Black, brown and white Jews and the Arab minority mingle freely in all public places, universities, restaurants, voting stations and public transportation. All people have the right to vote. The Arab minority has political parties, serves in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) and holds positions in government ministries, the police force and the security services. In hospitals, Palestinian patients lie in beds next to Israeli Jews, and doctors and nurses are as likely to be Israeli Arabs as Jews. I also understand that an Israeli Arab judge presided over the trial of former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was convicted of misconduct. An Ethiopian Jew recently won the title of Miss Israel. None of the above was legally permissible in apartheid South Africa!
I believe that it is slanderous and deceptive for Israel’s self-defense measures against the terrorists’ campaign of suicide bombing, rocket attacks and other acts of terrorism that have occurred, and continue to occur, to be labeled as apartheid. I am shocked by the claim that the free, diverse, democratic state of Israel practices apartheid. This ridiculous accusation trivializes the word apartheid, minimizing and belittling the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color.

Dr. Meshoe has explained this further in a great video as well.

Brasidas wrote:Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

Saudi sucks donkey ass, but so does Israel. If you don't call what they're doing in Israel apartheid, I think you either don't know or don't care. Unless you think having separate roads for different ethnicities isn't apartheid.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

Saudi sucks donkey ass, but so does Israel. If you don't call what they're doing in Israel apartheid, I think you either don't know or don't care. Unless you think having separate roads for different ethnicities isn't apartheid.

You see unbelievable, if this was Muslims or blacks being discrminated against here, you would be all over those being discrminating and spitting blood. Stop being utterly pathetic Ben. Israel is not without its faults or wrongs, nobody denies this but to make claims which are dehumanizing and deligitizming Israel is discrminating against Jews, because they claims are not only lies but seek to attack the Jewish people at heart.
Wow I defend against all being discrminated agaianst including many innocent Muslims, but it seems you have a stopping point when it comes to Jews and proving my point that when it comes to discrmination of the Jews, the left are the ones creating this being the worst hypocritical racists going.

The Northeast is covered in snow, New Year’s Eve bashes are a distant memory, and the college kids are back at school, with slew of “activists” bringing divestment resolutions to campuses. To quote a UC Davis divestment proponent, “Hamas & Sharia law have taken over” at that school, and other campuses are in the crosshairs

Groups like Camera On Campus and Stand With Us have been doing a great job countering these hatefests. Not all campuses, however, have chapters of these groups. When I was a student at an ultra-left midwest campus, hostile to Israel as far back as anyone can remember, these groups didn’t even exist, and our little band of campus Israel supporters was on our own. A lot has changed since then, but one thing hasn’t: the movement to delegitimize Israel is based on half-truths, distortions, and outright lies disseminated in part by anti-Semites and in part by the small group of well-meaning but severely misguided liberals with whom they ally. The themes that these Israel-bashers rely on are occupation, checkpoints, settlements, and apartheid. This year it also seems likely that we will hear more about Gaza than we have in the past.

1. Occupation

The mantra that there is an ongoing “occupation” in the West Bank and Gaza has become so entrenched that even mainstream media, as well as many Jews, believe it. This terminology, however, disregards the fact that the reason Israel remains in the West Bank today is that the Palestinian leadership has rejected multiple attempts by Israel to leave it. It is undisputed that Israel has offered to leave the West Bank twice in this century, first in 2000, at Camp David, and then again in 2008. In 2008, then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a compromise under which representatives from five nations — Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, the US, and Israel — would administer the Old City of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock and The Western Wall. Olmert’s plan included a tunnel that would have connected Gaza with the West Bank, and withdrawal from 93.7% of the West Bank, with land swaps providing territory equal to another 5.8%, for a total of 99.5% of the territory. Olmert even presented a map to Palestinian President Abbas. But Abbas himself walked away from this offer, with no serious explanation. So it is hard to understand how, after this, Abbas can claim that Israel is “occupying” the West Bank in violation of the will of the Palestinian people. Israel is in the West Bank because the Palestinian President will not allow Israel to leave.
Leaving unilaterally, without agreement, is what Israel did in Gaza. In 2005, Israel withdrew fully to the 1967 ceasefire lines, dismantling all of the existing settlements and removing all Israeli Jews that were within that territory by force. After the withdrawal, the residents of Gaza elected Hamas, which has started three wars with Israel since that time, making further unilateral withdrawals impossible.
The ubiquitous claim that Israel is “occupying” any part of “Palestine,” therefore, is a distortion of fact that is severely misleading.

2. Security Barrier and Checkpoints

BDS advocates love to tell stories about seeing a terrified mother separated from her toddler at a checkpoint, or how a sister was unable to visit her brother because of the security barrier. They point to the human cost of these measures — and of course, there is a cost to them. The vague references to “security” that many of us make in response to such stories, however, gloss over the human cost of the Second Intifada.
Today’s undergrads most likely do not remember the Second Intifada all that well. They do not remember the terror of reading about yet another bombing on what seemed like a weekly basis. Similarly, very few people are aware that the Second Intifada was started intentionally by Arafat after he rejected Israeli Prime Minister Barak’s offer of statehood at Camp David in 2000.
The refrain that the security wall and checkpoints are for “security” belittles and minimizes the problem that the wall and checkpoints were designed to solve. The fact about the checkpoints and the security barrier is that THEY SAVE LIVES. Probably hundreds of lives every year. Just this past December, for example, Israeli security uncovered a plot for a female terrorist to disguise herself as being pregnant in order to cross a checkpoint to commit a suicide bombing.
Of course, we can’t point to a specific little boy or teenage girl whose life was saved; it’s impossible to know exactly who would have been the victim of a terrorist attack if the wall and checkpoints did not exist. But we can point out that between the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000 and the building of the wall in 2004, [url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/saving lives- israel-s anti-terrorist fence - answ.aspx]more than 900 people were murdered[/url] by terrorism, with thousands more injured.

Malki Roth, 1985-2001
We can also honor the memories of those that were killed prior to the existence of these devices, such as Malki Roth, a beautiful 15-year old girl whose life was cut short when a bomb exploded in a pizza place in Jerusalem. Malki’s death was 14 years ago, but every year since that wall was built, other would-be Malkis are spared her fate and given the chance to grow up.
Malki’s parents have been doing their best to keep her memory alive, and all of us can help. The next time a BDS activist starts talking about a family being kept apart by the security wall or a checkpoint, tell them about Malki Roth, a girl whose life could have been saved, had that wall only been built sooner.

3. Settlement

For people who don’t accept religious justifications for Jews living in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s continued building is hard to understand. This is largely because the reason for the continued building has simply not been given much attention in the English language media — even the Jewish media. The centrist Israeli Knesset Member Yair Lapid has concisely explained why building in existing neighborhoods continues in an interview with the New York Times’s Jodi Rudoren. No surprise, though, that this information was omitted from Rudoren’s printed interview with him, and she put it only on her facebook page, where it got a handful of readers.
Lapid told her:

As long as we don’t have a real, some sort of, process, I see no way of telling people that they cannot do what is called natural expansion. If somebody is a third generation in [the West Bank town of] Eli, and they have a child being born, there will be a new kindergarten in Eli. What can you do, tell people not to give birth?

For those who are still not mollified, it is also useful to point out that if Abbas had accepted Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer — the offer of a Palestinian state in 99.5% of the West Bank, including land swaps, with a connection between the West Bank and Gaza, and shared control over Jerusalem’s holy sites — there would be no building today in the State of Palestine that wasn’t authorized by the Palestinian government. Israel and Palestine would have mutually recognized borders and Israel would have no ability to build beyond its borders. Abbas, however, rejected that offer in 2008. It has since come to light, as well, that it was Abbas who rejected a US-proposed framework for two states in the 2014 negotiations sponsored by Secretary John Kerry. And so, building continues, simply because, these are religious communities with high birthrates and rapidly growing populations, and people need places to live.

Land originally allocated to the British Mandate for Palestine, as the future home of a Jewish state
Contrary to claims made by anti-Israel advocates, and even by certain misguided US government officials, this building is, in fact, fully in compliance with international law. This is because, as was made clear by the late Eugene Rostow, who held the position of US Undersecretary of State in 1967 and who was one of the drafters of UN Resolution 242, UN Resolution 242 was never intended to supplant the initial League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate for Jews to settle in all of the land that was once governed by the British Mandate for Palestine is still in effect today in the West Bank, because no sovereign entity was ever established there. Another of UN Resolution 242’s drafters, British UN Ambassador Lord Caradon, said clearly that “it would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.” A clear but more detailed explanation of the relevant law can be found here or here.
The 4th Geneva Convention, another favorite of those whose real goal is to delegitimize the Jewish state, doesn’t apply in the West Bank, either, for three reasons. First, it was meant to apply only to territories taken in aggressive wars, and not to territories taken defensively. Second, the 4th Geneva convention, historically, was always believed to apply only to the territory of a sovereign state — something that has never existed in the West Bank. Third, by its own terms, it applies only to forced population transfers, and was never intended to limit individual rights to live in particular places. It’s no wonder that an American expert on international law has highlighted the disparate and inconsistent application of the Geneva Convention. As one prominent Israeli columnist recently told a European Ambassador, when it comes to applying international law to Israel, the law is, in large part, being made up.
The claim that these settlements are on land that was confiscated from Palestinians is also false, as most Israeli building has been on land that was state land — that is, land with no private ownership — both before and after the 1967 Six-Day War, or on property that has been privately purchased. In the rare instances in which this is not the case, Israel’s judiciary has intervened. The common internet meme purporting to show Palestinian loss of land has about as much truth to it as stories about Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, as explained here.
While informed and reasonable people may agree or disagree about the wisdom or the desirability of the continued building in the West Bank, the dispute over the legality of doing so is a dispute that has been manufactured solely for the purpose of delegitimizing Israel.

Apartheid in South Africa

4. Apartheid

The apartheid analogy is nothing more than a complete fabrication — an appropriation of another people’s suffering for political gain. It’s safe to say, however, that students on college campuses today don’t actually remember the apartheid system in South Africa that ended in 1994, and how insidious it was. Dr. Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the South African Parliament, explains the truth about the actual system of apartheid that existed in South Africa, and compares it to what he saw when he visited Israel:

As a black South African under apartheid, I, among other things, could not vote, nor could I freely travel the landscape of South Africa. No person of color could hold high government office. The races were strictly segregated at sports arenas, public restrooms, schools and on public transportation. People of color had inferior hospitals, medical care and education. If a white doctor was willing to take a black patient, he had to examine him or her in a back room or some other hidden place.

Apartheid #Fail in Israel
In my numerous visits to Israel, I did not see any of the above. My understanding of the Israeli legal system is that equal rights are enshrined in law. Black, brown and white Jews and the Arab minority mingle freely in all public places, universities, restaurants, voting stations and public transportation. All people have the right to vote. The Arab minority has political parties, serves in the Israeli parliament (Knesset) and holds positions in government ministries, the police force and the security services. In hospitals, Palestinian patients lie in beds next to Israeli Jews, and doctors and nurses are as likely to be Israeli Arabs as Jews. I also understand that an Israeli Arab judge presided over the trial of former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was convicted of misconduct. An Ethiopian Jew recently won the title of Miss Israel. None of the above was legally permissible in apartheid South Africa!
I believe that it is slanderous and deceptive for Israel’s self-defense measures against the terrorists’ campaign of suicide bombing, rocket attacks and other acts of terrorism that have occurred, and continue to occur, to be labeled as apartheid. I am shocked by the claim that the free, diverse, democratic state of Israel practices apartheid. This ridiculous accusation trivializes the word apartheid, minimizing and belittling the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color.

Dr. Meshoe has explained this further in a great video as well.
This is not to say that Israel is immune from the same racial or ethnic divisions that occur in any other society made up of diverse populations. The United States, of course, has its own racial problems. Like the US Constitution, however, Israel’s Basic Law guarantees equal rights to all citizens of Israel, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and like US citizens, Israelis of all religions and ethnicities may resort to the judiciary when this promise is violated.

5. Gaza

There has been a lot written on this blog about the threat to which Israel was forced to respond during Operation Protective Edge this past summer, as well as about the way that Hamas has manufactured false civilian casualty counts. Even the notoriously anti-Israel BBC printed an article containing an analysis similar to the one printed here, and questioning the Hamas figures. Still, the death and destruction in Gaza is unquestionably heartbreaking and tragic. Equally unquestionable, however, is that it is Hamas, and not Israel, that is the cause of it. It was Hamas threats that led to the legal blockade of Gaza, it was Hamas that initiated all three conflicts that have taken place since Israel’s withdrawal, and it was Hamas that refused or broke countless ceasefires last summer. The people of Gaza put Hamas into power, and only the people of Gaza can remove Hamas. Nothing in Gaza will get better until the people who live there decide that they will no longer countenance a government that leads them to constant war. Boycotting Israel will do nothing to improve the lives of the people in Gaza.

Pittsburgh Daily-Messenger, March 16, 1900
If Palestinians want to end what they call “occupation,” if they want an end to settlements and an end to checkpoints, all they need to do is accept an offer and allow Israel to go peacefully. Israel has tried three times in this century to part ways amicably, and once to leave on its own. But like an abusive husband, the Palestinian leadership simply will not allow Israel to leave the relationship. Just as an abuser tracks down his victim and beats her more for trying to leave, Palestinian leaders reacted to Israel’s 2000 Camp David offer with the sustained terror campaign known as the Second Intifada, and Palestinian people reacted to Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza by electing a terror group sworn to Israel’s destruction, that has rained down rockets on Israel ever since. Just like any other abuser, they then blame the victim of their violence for the perceived provocation, and for defensive action taken for protection. And the UN today legitimizes the abuse, just as antiquated legal systems once protected a man’s right to be a batterer.
As Clinton-era Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross has argued, it is time to stop giving the Palestinians a pass for their intransigent behavior. Jews and non-Jews alike who are committed to truth and fairness must speak out against the lies that rationalize this ongoing violence.

http://www.israellycool.com/2015/02/15/fighting-the-israel-apartheid-lie-and-other-bds-slanders/

Ever since his death, Nelson Mandela’s political and moral legacy has been subjected to intense analysis. But one misconception that has not been adequately debunked is that he equated the Jewish state to apartheid-era South Africa.
This view is largely based on a notorious memo from 2007, which was addressed to the New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman and signed “Nelson Mandela”.
It read: “Palestinians are not struggling for a ‘state’ but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. The so-called ‘Palestinian autonomous areas’ are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.
“Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality.”
The “memo” went viral on the internet. It was cited by Jimmy Carter, the former American president, during a speech at Brandeis University, Massachusetts, later that year, and has since been a principal factor in fashioning the public perception of Mr Mandela as an anti-Israel figure.
Indeed, the notorious Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement — which William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, recently referred to as “unjust” — enthusiastically cites Mandela’s support.
The only problem is that the memo was a fake.
In 2007, Joel Pollack, the American political writer, revealed that it was actually written by Arjan El Fassed, a co-founder of the Electronic Intifada, a popular anti-Israel website.
Whether or not El Fassed intended the memo to be a hoax is debatable. In his defence, he claimed that it was submitted in the style of a series in which Friedman wrote mock memos by high-level figures.
“In a clearly labelled spoof, under my byline, I published a mock memo from Mandela to Friedman on March 28, 2001,” El Fassed wrote on his blog. “Unfortunately, someone forwarded it on the internet without my byline.”
Whatever his motivations, such are the strange ways of the internet that the memo was widely taken as truth (not least by Jimmy Carter).
The perception of Mr Mandela as hostile to Zionism was amplified by the views of his associates. Desmond Tutu — who refuses to share a platform with Tony Blair but is all too happy to join forces with members of Hamas — has frequently used the word “apartheid” to refer to Israel. As has Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.
But the truth is that Mr Mandela had a friendly, but by no means uncritical, relationship with the Jewish state.
In his memoir, Long Walk To Freedom, he affectionately recounted the way he learned the fundamentals of combat from Arthur Goldreich, a South African Jew who cut his teeth during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. He recalled Menachem Begin with respect, and showed gratitude to the Israeli airline, El Al, for flying Walter Sisulu, the prominent ANC activist, to Europe even though he did not have a passport.
Of course, it was not all rosy. Mandela was close to the PLO and, in the first decades of its existence, Israel did have an alliance with apartheid-era South Africa, acting as its most important arms supplier.
At the same time, however, Israel was often publicly critical of apartheid. In the late 1980s it sharply curtailed its support for the South African regime, cutting many military, economic and cultural ties. It also ruled that only non-white South Africans would be allowed to study on certain courses in Israel, voted to condemn apartheid at the UN and took part in sanctions.
In the final analysis, Mr Mandela’s position on Israel was clear. He was a firm believer in the two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders; but he never questioned Israel’s right to exist. And he certainly never drew any comparison between Israeli society and apartheid.

…BUT OFTEN, HE WAS A FIERCE CRITIC OF THE JEWISH STATE

In October 1999, four months after he retired from the presidency of South Africa, Nelson Mandela arrived for his only visit to Israel.

He adopted a conciliatory tone, acknowledging that “Israel co-operated with the apartheid regime, but it did not participate in any atrocities”. He added that “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing (from the territories) if Arab states do not recognise Israel within secure borders.” But he was adamant that Israel must be prepared to withdraw, saying that “talk of peace remains hollow if Israel continues to occupy Arab lands”.

On other occasions, however, he was much harsher towards Israel.

Whether it was due to Israel’s co-operation with the apartheid government, the fact that the ANC had been embraced early on by Arab and Communist leaders (as a result he remained a life-long friend of Muammar Gaddafi and Fidel Castro) or simply his world-view that was hostile to Western policy, Mr Mandela was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of Israel.

He met PLO chief Yasser Arafat shortly after his release from prison in 1990 and called Israel that year a “terrorist state”. In a famous speech in 1997 he said that “our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians” and that “injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine”.

Two years later, when he did visit Israel, it was hard to ignore the fact that he had just come from visits to the Jewish state’s two mortal enemies — Syria and Iran.Three years later, during the build-up to the Iraq war, he accused George Bush and Tony Blair of adopting a “double-standard” since they were not demanding that Israel give up its weapons of mass destruction.

Jake Wallis Simons is a features and comment writer for the Sunday Telegraph

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/113912/the-big-lie-mandela-viewed-israel-apartheid-state

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Dear me, there is no justication for claiming Israel as an apartheid nation and he even states it is very distasteful because it has no validity. It is very much antisemtic to claim, this is not about free speech in anyway either but condemning the left of those who use such rhetoric who are trying to justify hate of the Jews, by claiming unsubstanciated claims. They do this by claiming aparthied to dehumanize and deligitimize Israel. That is antisemitism on every level.
There is nothing wrong with genuine and honest criticism of Israel but the moment the left try to make disgusting comparrisons to ISIS, the Nazi's and Apartheid is the most disgusting attempt to justify hatred of the Jews.

The biggest joke about an apartheid claim is that we do not see these same left wing extremists stand up and protest to where there is actually a nation which does have laws similar to Aparthied South Africa.
For a start Black Saudi's are denied equal rights, prevented from serving as judges, security officials, diplomats, mayors and many other official positions. Afro-Saudi women are not allowed to appear on camera.

“There is not one single black school principal in Saudi Arabia,” the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Saudi human rights group, reported.

It also has some of the worst inequality laws in regards to women, where many cannot work or even drive cars. This is why some of the left are nothing short of hypocritical and prove wjy they are antisemitic, as do they use the same rhectoric and protests that they do against Israel?

The answer is no, showing the disparity in their discourse proving it has everything to do with antisemitism.

Saudi sucks donkey ass, but so does Israel. If you don't call what they're doing in Israel apartheid, I think you either don't know or don't care. Unless you think having separate roads for different ethnicities isn't apartheid.

You see unbelievable, if this was Muslims or blacks being discrminated against here, you would be all over those being discrminating and spitting blood. Stop being utterly pathetic Ben. Israel is not without its faults or wrongs, nobody denies this but to make claims which are dehumanizing and deligitizming Israel is discrminating against Jews, because they claims are not only lies but seek to attack the Jewish people at heart.
Wow I defend against all being discrminated agaianst including many innocent Muslims, but it seems you have a stopping point when it comes to Jews and proving my point that when it comes to discrmination of the Jews, the left are the ones creating this being the worst hypocritical racists going.

Hey buddy, all I want is Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and for Saudi to let women drive. And ... for their rich people to stop funding terrorists. That'd be great.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You see unbelievable, if this was Muslims or blacks being discrminated against here, you would be all over those being discrminating and spitting blood. Stop being utterly pathetic Ben. Israel is not without its faults or wrongs, nobody denies this but to make claims which are dehumanizing and deligitizming Israel is discrminating against Jews, because they claims are not only lies but seek to attack the Jewish people at heart.
Wow I defend against all being discrminated agaianst including many innocent Muslims, but it seems you have a stopping point when it comes to Jews and proving my point that when it comes to discrmination of the Jews, the left are the ones creating this being the worst hypocritical racists going.

Hey buddy, all I want is Israel to go back to the 1967 borders and for Saudi to let women drive. And ... for their rich people to stop funding terrorists. That'd be great.

Really after just claiming Israel was an apartheid state, yet offering no evidence to back this up but hey if you are a leftie and say it loud and long enough the hope is other gullible idiots will believe that. This is the case here with you and others, where you shout the lie continiously and as stated in fact are being antisemitic.
Well being as I am for a two state solution, where as many lefties do not recognise Israel and want a one state solution being antisemitic again by denying the Jewish people a right to a home which many legally bought land on.
Now maybe you need to tell the Palestinains that in regards to the 1967 borders, because at every opportunity they have rejected these proposals and you need to ask yourself why? Because their goal is not one of reconcilliation or peace, otherwise they would have accepted that, but to this day continue to reject these terms.

Maybe I'm not totally on either side's side. Sheez-Louise ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe I'm not totally on either side's side. Sheez-Louise ...

No you have just proven you are another Jew hater and the worst hypocritical racist going, you deny antisemitism from the left because you fail to be critical of when some on the left do wrong.
Once again you need to take your head which is frimly wedged in the sand out and see the truth, which you keep denying yourself.

Aboriginals don't have equal rights? umm yes they do they actually have more rights under law than non aboriginals (they don't need hunting licenses and can use resources in the national parks which is illegal for non aboriginals, etc)

the level of services is arguable they do get the same service as the rest of the community they live in, the issue is remote communities that exist primarily of aboriginals don't get the same services level as larger coastal communities... but wolf will tell you they have the same issue where he lives with Sydney it is a product of geographical distance, population density and finite funding.

Australia exists on land that had already been taken by England... and IF Israel was the same they would give every Palestinian $250 a week

veya_victaous wrote:Aboriginals don't have equal rights?    umm yes they do they actually have more rights under law than non aboriginals (they don't need hunting licenses and can use resources in the national parks which is illegal for non aboriginals, etc)

the level of services is arguable they do get the same service as the rest of the community they live in, the issue is remote communities that exist primarily of aboriginals don't get the same services level as larger coastal communities... but wolf will tell you they have the same issue where he lives with Sydney it is a product of geographical distance, population density and finite funding.

Australia exists on land that had already been taken by England... and IF Israel was the same they would give every Palestinian $250 a week

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/australia-apartheid-alive-aboriginal-history

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe I'm not totally on either side's side. Sheez-Louise ...

how to make friends and influence people
By Brasadis

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Maybe I'm not totally on either side's side. Sheez-Louise ...

how to make friends and influence people
By Brasadis

This is not facebook and am not here to make friends, I have those in the real world, I am here to debate and have nothing personal against anyone Veya, but if like you and Ben make idiots of yourself failing to see you incite anitisemitism with your false incorrect claims, then I will expose you for both being idiots on the subject.
Quite simple really, the fact that Jews do suffer off your ignorant claims seems to go way over your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_politicians

we have had 32
And we have a Aboriginal Premier in Northern Territory now so things are improving, your article is from 2013.

BUT still there is nothing legally stopping more running. but they do need more encouragement which would be a lot easier if the RW didn't get elected

from your article

In 2009 Professor James Anaya, the respected UN rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous people, described as racist a "state of emergency" that stripped Indigenous communities of their tenuous rights and services on the pretext that paedophile gangs were present in "unthinkable" numbers – a claim dismissed as false by police and the Australian Crime Commission. The then opposition spokesman on Indigenous affairs, Tony Abbott, told Anaya to "get a life" and not "just listen to the old victim brigade". Abbott is now the prime minister of Australia.

this is why not all Jews are bad, even some living in Israel openly denounce the evil their gov't commits just like I do With the Australia Gov't

LOLZ the Irony of you post
no but You do little to actually make people think positively about the cause you support

Flip the coin Muslims suffer from what you post

At least I am willing to let them all exist and would get rid of rape.. I just do not want them interfering in politics

veya_victaous wrote:LOLZ the Irony of you post
no but You do little to actually make people think positively about the cause you support

lol I am not naive to think I will change their views, lefties are brain dead at the best of times and rarely change their minds, so not even here to do that.
I am here to show they are quite stupid on many topics, just as I am here to show up those who discrminate agaisnt many groups because I am against discrmination.
So on many counts you are wrong, I have debated for years and being nice in debate does not change the views of people.
So agin your perceptions as to why I am here are all wrong and you do the same very much in how you post to people yet clearly then your reasoning is all wrong debating then Veya.
If Ben and yourself do not like to be insulted, then do not set yourself up to making idiotic view points. Its quite simple, you both constantly insult the right daily anmd have no problem in doing so, yet when you have it replicated you seem to be taken such a back over this.
That is the real irony here.

veya_victaous wrote:Flip the coin Muslims suffer from what you post

At least I am willing to let them all exist and would get rid of rape.. I just do not want them interfering in politics

Muslims do not suffer from what I post.
I am against all bad ideas found in religion, where it is Muslims suffering from other Muslims based on bad ideas. Pointing this out is there to help them end that madness.

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Flip the coin Muslims suffer from what you post

At least I am willing to let them all exist and would get rid of rape.. I just do not want them interfering in politics

Muslims do not suffer from what I post.
I am against all bad ideas found in religion, where it is Muslims suffering from other Muslims based on bad ideas. Pointing this out is there to help them end that madness.

I'm lost for words

Israel has some bad ideas too you know

veya_victaous wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Muslims do not suffer from what I post.
I am against all bad ideas found in religion, where it is Muslims suffering from other Muslims based on bad ideas. Pointing this out is there to help them end that madness.

I'm lost for words  

Israel has some bad ideas too you know

Again never claimed Israel does not, where again if you read I support genuine and honest criticism of Israel like for example how the settlements are wrong.
Or did this escape your attention.
Where I draw the line is disgusting comparrisons made which have no bearing which seeks to dehumanize the Jews.
Try to understand the difference, it is not that difficult to understand