Apartheid in South Africa -- Anything like Israel?

UPDATING 5-19-2013 Link added at bottom

Those who want to destroy the Jews, who want to repeat the Holocaust, know that they have to first destroy the Jewish national state, Israel, the ancient Jewish homeland which has been in part recovered. And in order to destroy the Jewish national state, they have to destroy its good name, its reputation, paint it in the ugliest colors, --in short, delegitimize Israel-- in order to justify drastic political and military moves against it.

As in the past, as in the Middle Ages, when various sorts of horrid crimes were attributed to the Jews living in Christendom and Islamdom, as oppressed, exploited and persecuted minorities, so today Israel is accused of an horrid and ugly political crime: apartheid. Likewise, in past centuries, Jews were accused of murdering Christian children to use their blood in baking matsot for Passover or of poisoning the wells which every one had to drink from or of being bloodsuckers, so on and so forth.

But people today might find it hard to believe that Jews bake Christian or Muslim blood in Matsot that they then eat. So more up to date, more politically correct charges have to be put forth. Today's enemies of Jews have seized on apartheid as a useful accusation to make against Israel although it is groundless. It goes without saying that the religious apartheid practiced in Muslim countries, whether Saudi Arabia or non-Arab Pakistan, goes entirely unnoticed by Israel's accusers.

Here is a recent account of South African apartheid by a South African expatriate who has been living for years in  Italy. Helene Blignaut is described as "a South African writer resident in Italy for many years. She is the author of historical novels and essays on fashion, and is a creator of events on the international level." [Helene Blignaut, "Apartheid: Il Principio e la Fine della grande vergogna," BBC History Italia (no. 8, November-December 2011), p66]

Apartheid: The Beginning and the End of the Great Shame -- Helene Blignaut

p62
. . . [films and still photos] show the deportations into the shack cities of hundreds of thousands of blacks in order to free up areas occupied by suburban [black] ghettos and make room for new white residential settlements. Forced deportations [were] now allowed by making the apartheid system (apartheid, the separation of various ethnic groups) official [policy]  [racial segregation had been previously unofficial] , being ratified in 1948. It struck 20 million persons, imposing settlements [in segregated localities], school systems, assigning vocations, and civil rights different for each ethnic group. The notorious District Six of Capetown was "liberated" in 1966 in a few days, without prior notification, and immediately declared "an area for whites only." The earthmovers were ready for destroying the houses where 60,000 blacks to be deported were living. The equipment and material yards for new construction were ready too.

In townships like Soweto [South West Township], that in the 1960s and 1970s comprised more than one million persons (today three million live there, distributed over a variety of quarters, some poor and some for an emancipated, emerging middle class), there were common latrines, only one shack out of five had electric lighting, there was no heating, there was no asphalt on the streets. Moreover, pursuant to the "Native Consolidation Act" promulgated in 1957, the inhabitants of the townships were forbidden  many commercial activities; in short, a resident of Soweto could open a business only in certain permitted commercial categories: food, clothing, lumber. . . Child mortality in Soweto was for decades three times higher than in the neighboring city of Johannesburg. . . .

In the cities, a black could not go up on the sidewalk but had to walk only in the gutters. Public transportation vehicles were different for the "non-whites" who did not even have the right to enter public buildings or places of entertainment. On some tracts of beach, one could see persons of Indian origin or of mixed race, but these were tracts of coasts assigned specifically to persons of color. Nearby were bathing zones with signs at the entrance "For whites only." Mixed marriages were forbidden as well as sexual relations between whites and blacks. . . .

[Helene Blignaut, "Apartheid: Il Principio e la Fine della grande vergogna," BBC History Italia (no. 8, November-December 2011), pp 62-63]

We can see that some of the ways in which Blacks were treated in South Africa under apartheid are like the treatment imposed on Jews in Christian lands over the centuries, and like some of the rules imposed on all non-Muslims, dhimmis, including Jews,  in Muslim-ruled lands. Of course, dhimmis were oppressed mainly on account of not being Muslims, not because of their skin color. No doubt some partisans of Arabs and Muslims would like to seize on that distinction in order to exculpate Islam of racism. OK, so the dhimma, the inferior status and oppressive, discriminatory laws and regulations governing the dhimmis was not exactly racism based on skin color. Rather it was religious oppression. Does that make it  OK? Why don't those who smear Israel as an "apartheid" state take some interest in the dhimma which is still in effect, officially or unofficially, in many Muslim states [think of Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, etc]???

When the Land of Israel was under Muslim rule, during the pre-Crusades Arab period [638-1099 CE], during the Mamluk empire and the later Ottoman empire [1517-1917 (up to 1918 in northern Israel)], Jews in the Land lived in humiliating, oppressive, discriminatory conditions. Of course, Arabs are not treated by apartheid rules in Israel today. All adults in Israel are required to carry an ID card, although ordinarily people are not asked to show this ID card [te`udat zehut]. When withdrawing money from a bank or receiving a registered letter at the post office, you are usually asked to show your ID card.

The Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria were built as a rule in uninhabited areas, in many cases on real estate already owned by Jews. In other cases, where Arabs were living on real estate owned by Jews, Arab residents were paid generously to leave.

Historically, the Palestinian Arab leadership collaborated in the Holocaust, particularly in the person of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the chief Palestinian Arab leader in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. By the way, Husseini was appointed to the prestigious Muslim religious post of mufti of Jerusalem by the British rulers of the country [1921]. For that reason, he is often referred to as "the mufti," "the mufti of Jerusalem," or "the grand mufti."

After UN General Assembly recommendation to partition the country between Jews and Arabs was made on 29 November 1947, Arab irregulars forces sponsored by Husseini began to attack Jewish residential areas and isolated Jewish homes throughout the country [December 1947], often succeeding in driving Jews out of their homes. In those days, the Arabs were frank about wanting to drive the Jews out of the country. And this followed their age-old oppression of the Jews in the Jewish homeland. Hence, the South African situation cannot be compared with that in the Land of Israel after the restoration of a Jewish state. The yearning for apartheid is clearly expressed, however, by the Palestinian Authority which aspires to political control over all of what is now Israel. Consider this. The Palestinian Authority wants to exclude Jews from a future Arab state that may arise in the Land of Israel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-19-2013 Black South African, Rev Dr Kenneth Meshoe,  a member of the South African parliament, refutes the Big Lie of "apartheid" in Israel. "This ridiculous accusation trivializes the word apartheid, minimizing and belittling the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color. . . . The misapplication of the term apartheid makes a mockery of a grievous injustice and threatens to undermine the true meaning of the term." [emphasis added]

More on alleged "apartheid in Israel" on Emet m'Tsiyon:
here, here, here, here, & here.
On the other hand, the European Union promotes apartheid in the Land of Israel against Jews: here.
Former US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice smears Israel with apartheid label: here.
The British Govt in the Holocaust era and "Liberal" US President Franklin Roosevelt treated Jews in racist, discriminatory and apartheid ways: here.

Another Broken Promise Made to Jews -- Part IV

UPDATING at bottom 3-21-2013

עשרה קבין של יופי ירדו לעולם תשעה נטלה ירושלים ואחד כל העולם כולו
 Ten measures of beauty came down [from Heaven] into the world. 
Jerusalem took nine and all the rest of the world took one.
Talmud Qiddushin 49:2

If nine measures of hypocrisy came down into the world, Europe
took nine and all the rest of the world took one.
Ariel Kahana, Maqor Rishon, 7 December 2012

 אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין, אלא מן הצבועין 
[An ancient Jewish king on his deathbed said to his wife:]
Don't fear the Pharisees nor fear those who are not Pharisees. 
The ones to fear are the hypocrites.
Talmud Sotah 22:2 

When fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-fascism
attributed to Huey Long 

 The vote in the UN General Assembly  to make the Palestinian Authority into a state, without negotiating with Israel, is the latest in a series of betrayals of promises and international legal commitments made to the Jewish people over the last century.

The Europeans, the EU, "were accomplices in a flagrant violation of the Oslo Process by supporting recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN" -- Daniel Haik, Hamodia [French ed., 12-12-2012]

But there is a whole record of broken promises to the Jews. Breaking promises to Jews, to Israel, is Standard Operating Procedure for Britain, for France, for the EU, for the USA, for the USSR and now for Russia. Just as the newly elected President Obama disavowed the 2004 Bush letter to PM Sharon, so too in June 1967, President Johnson feigned ignorance of or disavowed a commitment  made by President Eisenhower to Israel in 1956-1957, in order to persuade Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula which Israel had taken in the short Operation Kadesh [October 1956] meant on Israel's part to be a preemptive war against Nasser's Egypt as Nasser and his propaganda outlets made constant blood-curdling threats to destroy Israel and such like. To be sure, Israel had attacked in coordination with France and Britain [especially France], but each of the three powers had its own reasons for attacking Egypt.

Israel had taken all or nearly all of Sinai and was in a strong position to demand a peace treaty from Egypt in return for withdrawal. Israel also wanted passage through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran into the Gulf of Eilat [also Gulf of Aqaba] to Israel's southernmost port and city, Eilat. The UN secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, in full peace-loathing mode, thought it unfair to allow Israel to have peace with Egypt as a result of the war, while the US Eisenhower administration, its foreign policy led by John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, agreed that Israel should have access to its port of Eilat but no more, as a result of the war and of Israeli withdrawal. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles issued an aide-memoire to the effect that the US viewed the Straits of Tiran as an international waterway that should be kept open [not promising to do so itself], while Eisenhower went farther and stated

We should not assume that, if Israel withdraws, Egypt will prevent Israel shipping from using the Suez Canal or the Gulf of Aqaba. If, unhappily, Egypt does hereafter violate the Armistice Agreement or other international obligations, then this should be dealt with firmly by the society of nations                                                     [February 20, 1957; Theodore Draper, Israel & World Politics: Roots of the Third Arab-Israeli War (New York: Viking 1968), p 20, pp 137-139; also see Lester Velie, Countdown in the Holy Land (New York: Funk & Wagnalls 1969), p 5].

Here President Eisenhower was hinting at the use of international military force against a future Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping in those two international bodies of water. Egypt never did open up the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping, as required by international law, before the Six Day War of 1967. But Israel was able to sail ships through the Straits of Tiran to the port of Eilat between 1957 and 1967.

Then on 22 May 1967, Nasser declared a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, virtually cutting Israel off from seaborne trade with Asia. This was a clear casus belli, a reason to go to war. But when President Johnson and the State Department were reminded of the 1957 aide-memoire and of Eisenhower's statement, they suddenly developed a short memory. And refused to organize any international effort to break the illegal Egyptian blockade. The documents from 1957 were hard to find among State Dept records and archives.

In like manner, when Obama came into the White House, he conveniently forgot about his predecessor George Bush's letter to Sharon of 14 April 2004. The Bush said that the major settlement blocs in Judea-Samaria should be taken into consideration under any peace agreement in the future. On these grounds, Sharon withdrew all Israeli residents and troops from the Gaza Strip. So Obama broke the promise on the grounds of which Sharon had withdrawn from that zone. That withdrawal was a moral error on Sharon's part and a strategic error as well, but the letter was supposed to bind not only Bush but his successors as president. As long as Obama does not accept the Bush letter, he is treating Israel dishonestly and unfairly --and is a hostile factor.

But before we consider Obama and his policies in detail, we need to cover another betrayal of promises to Israel made by the Nixon administration. After Nasser's Egypt had rearmed after the Six Day War, Nasser began what was called a "war of attrition". With new Soviet-supplied artillery, Nasser pounded Israeli positions east of the Suez Canal in hopes to force an Israeli withdrawal without a peace treaty between the two countries. Israel retaliated with deep penetration raids into Egypt and with daring commando raids. Israel was actually getting the best of this War of Attrition which was shaping up as "an unmitigated military defeat" for Egypt. However, as the USSR supplied Egypt with more and more Soviet-operated anti-aircraft missile batteries, Israeli airpower became less effective and Israel was losing planes. Yet, Nixon and his administration refused to resupply Israel with fighter aircraft and France, Israel's main supplier of the jet fighters  used in the Six Day War, refused to sell Israel any major weapons, even refusing to honor contracts that Israel had already paid for.

As Joseph Churba, a top US Air Force intelligence expert, wrote

The United State political initiative, dating from June 1970, now seemed the only option available to Israel. It asked Israel

to test Moscow and Cairo's intentions through indirect "peace" talks as called for in Security Council Res. 242 --the Jarring Mission--

and to risk a limited cease fire despite the prospect of its being exploited 

by Egypt and the USSR in order enhance Egyptian offensive and defensive capability along the Suez Canal. The political concession required from Israel was that this so-called "Rogers cease fire" [after US secretary of State, William Rogers] was a retreat from SC res 242

of 1967 [which] had called for an unlimited and unconditional cease fire. Nor could Israel overlook the indirect talks which had failed before, refusal of the Arabs to meet face to face with Israel as part of their non-recognition policy [See "The three noes of Khartoum." Most Arab states & the PLO/PA still refuse to recognize Israel] and the Soviet-Egyptian reference to a "political solution," not a genuine peace settlement.
Nevertheless, because of the intense pressures [of the US on Israel], the most telling of which was the tacit American threat to cut off the supply of Phantom jets, Israel agreed in August 1970 to accept the American initiative [the "Rogers cease fire"]. Against its inclination, the Israeli government agreed to a series of unilateral concessions in an effort to get the talks started. Israel accepted the principle of indirect negotiation, agreed to a limited cease fire. . . . and agreed not to make an issue out of the Arab refusal to delegate their foreign ministers to the talks as United Nations mediator Gunnar Jarring had requested.
Israel entered the cease fire, only to find the Soviets and Egyptians immediately taking advantage of it in order to improve their missile defenses. A cardinal provision of the agreement read: 'Both sides will refrain from changing the military status quo within zones extending 50 kilometers (30 miles) to the east and the west of the cease fire line. Neither side will introduce or construct any new military installations  in these zones.Activities within the zone will be limited to the maintenance of existing installations at their present sites and positions. . .  ' Moscow had given Washington a 'categorical commitment' to abide by the restrictions.

Yet

On the night that the cease fire went into effect, the agreement was violated by the Egyptians and the Soviets, who advanced their missile bases toward the Suez Canal. The United States had initiated the cease fire, and Israel had agreed to it only after Washington had informed her that the Russians would abide by it.
These and further violations were announced by Israel, but not confirmed by the United States. . . . Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird stated that it was 'very difficult to prove or disprove' the [Israeli] charges and that the United States government had no proof that promises had been broken. . . . the Soviets dismissed the Israeli allegations as 'fabrications' and in the process quoted Secretary Laird.

Isn't that cute? The US Defense Dept, which had at its disposal all sorts of spying and surveillance devices --such as the U2 & SR71 spy planes with their super cameras that could see just about everything on the ground (a U2 was brought down by the Soviets ten years earlier while on a spying  flight over the USSR)-- could not tell whether or not the Soviets and their Egyptian Arab allies had violated the terms of the cease fire. Finally,

On 19 August Washington finally acknowledged a 'forward deployment' [of Soviet-Egyptian missile batteries] but repeated that evidence of a continuing buildup was 'not conclusive.' It was not until 1 September that the United States government confirmed the violations.

By then it was too late for Israel to act to remove these anti-aircraft missile batteries --Soviet-operated at that time-- without suffering major losses of its own aircraft. The batteries were already set up and operational. Churba adds:

The dense missile system which Egypt, with Soviet connivance, had deployed in the standstill zone under the cease fire screen altered the military balance and produced a threat [to Israel] that did not exist prior to 7 August. [Churba quotes are from Joseph Churba, The Politics of Defeat, America's Decline in the Middle East (New York: Cyrco Press 1977), pp 60-63]

The US govt urged Israel to do nothing to reverse this change in the balance. Anyway, any Israeli military effort to restore the previous balance would have been very costly. Churba speaks of "Soviet connivance." There was American connivance too. In fact, objectively speaking --if not subjectively and deliberately as well-- the White House, State Dept, Defense Dept and CIA were in connivance with the supposedly hated --at that time-- Soviet Union. Both superpowers were conniving with the Egyptians to give Egypt a military advantage with a view towards another war. This act of tripartite --Arab, Soviet and US-- treachery eased Egypt's path towards another war against Israel. This was because the anti-aircraft missiles newly placed in the forbidden zone neutralized potential Israel air force resistance to an Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. Thereby, the USSR & USA made possible the Yom Kippur War of October 6, 1973. These superpowers made another Arab attack possible [or thinkable on the Arabs' part]. This is how "peace moves" and peacemongers may promote war --maybe even by design.

How do we explain all this? Is this pattern of breaking promises and allegedly solemn commitments and undertakings not only dangerous to Jews and Israel but an expression of Judeophobia?
- - - - - - - - -
See the other posts in the Broken Promises series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 .
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 3-21-2013 In light of President Obama's call on  Israeli young people to protest against the country's democratically elected leaders for the sake of "peace" with Arabs who indoctrinate their own population toward genocide, the post of above is even more relevant than when first posted. 
Here is another book describing the treachery of the Rogers cease fire of 1970. I L Kenen, long-time observer of Israel-US relations and a leader of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, described the events in a chapter entitled "The Violent and Violated Truce" of his book
I L Kenen, Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus 1981), pp 245-247.

My Modest Contribution to "Israel Apartheid Week 2013"

I wanted to make a contribution to "Israel Apartheid Week," be it ever so modest. So here it is, maybe a week or so late but all done in the best of faith. We see below a photo taken at the main Jerusalem shopping mall --called Manahat or Malha--- in the food court. An Arab Muslim woman wearing a gray, black-spotted headscarf, and two daughters are enjoying what seems to be an Italian style meal under conditions of excruciating apartheid. Note the sign in Hebrew מבצע under the sign in Italian Il Fresco. The Arab woman is sitting on the right side of the photo closer to the sign of Sam's Bagels. If you enlarge the photo by clicking on it, you can see a small yellow sign on the Il Fresco stand which is a certificate from the Jerusalem rabbinate attesting that the establishment is approved to dispense kosher dairy dishes. The photo was taken on March 11, 2013.

Should we perhaps see this scene as an underhanded Israeli Zionist plot to undermine the credibility of "Israel Apartheid Week" which has been endorsed by sundry political frauds, no doubt Archbishop Tutu is one of them, by hordes of looney professors and by hosts of enraged fanatics in Europe, America and elsewhere? How dare they allow Arabs to enjoy meals in the shopping malls of Jerusalem with the sole intent of discrediting the feverish endeavors of BDS!!

Earlier treatments of "apartheid" in Israel on this blog are here & here & here  & here.

On the other hand, the European Union promotes apartheid in the Land of Israel against Jews: here.

Professor Shmuel Trigano analyzes the constitution drawn up by the Palestinian Authority for the proposed "State of Palestine". Trigano finds this constitution to be an apartheid document: here.

The British Govt in the Holocaust era and "Liberal" US President Franklin Roosevelt treated Jews in racist, discriminatory and apartheid ways: here.
Former US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice smears Israel with apartheid label: here.

More on the EU's Hypocrisy, Its Violation of its Own Supposed Values

Links added 2-3-2013

Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor continues to reveal the EU's moral corruption, its interference in Israel's internal politics against the rights of Jews and the  security of Jews. The EU funded the so-called Four Mothers movement which demanded Israeli retreat from Lebanon. After PM Ehud Barak succumbed to pressure from 4 Mothers & other groups, some of them also funded by the EU, and retreated from Israel's security zone in Lebanon in 2000, the Hizbullah was empowered as a result to reinforce its control of Lebanon -- and to do one of the things it likes best, attacking  Israel and killing Jewish civilians.  Israel  was  subject after the retreat and up to the end of the 2006 war to frequent terrorist attacks, kidnappings and rocket attacks, no less than before, on the northern front. The 2nd Lebanon War of 2006 saw  nearly 4000 rockets shot at Israel, killing about 135 soldiers and civilians. The previously peaceful city of Haifa was struck by many rockets. Likewise struck were Qiryat Shmonah, 'Akko [Acre], and Nahariyah. This war was due to the retreat from the Security Zone and the consequent strengthening of Hizbullah. By the way, whereas Hizbullah had an estimated 4000 rockets during the 2006 war, it now has an estimated 60,000 rockets or more. Of course there was a UN Security Council resolution supposedly stopping the war in 2006 and telling the Hizb not to bring in more rockets and not to station its murderous militia or its weapons south of the Litani River. But the Hizb violated UN SC res 1701 with impunity.

 Many thanks due to the European Union's "peace" policy for Jewish and Lebanese suffering. Those who strive to bring "peace," often have a forked tongue.

Here are excerpts from Steinberg's op ed in HaAretz:

On 29 September 1999, a small committee of the European Commission met to allocate €5 million for "Middle East Peace Projects" to what are ostensibly non-governmental organizations (NGOs). No protocol or record was published for the public, in contrast to most meetings involving EU allocations. This committee awarded grants to a number of groups, including "The Four Mothers Movement to Leave Lebanon in Peace"(€250,000); and to Peace Now (€400,000) for, as recorded in the protocol, promoting their political agenda among "a social group that traditionally has anti-peace views and votes Likud" and among "immigrants from the former Soviet Union."

The only reason that we have this information is due to a leaked protocol from this single meeting. In the thirteen years that have followed, all documents related to EU funding for dozens of Israeli and Palestinian political NGOs have been labeled top secret - reminiscent of the most highly classified military plans and nuclear weapons designs. As a result, even members of the European Parliament are also denied substantive information.

. . . . .

What can explain this total absence of accountability, and the Court's rubber stamp approval? Perhaps EU officials fear being held responsible for wasting taxpayer funds, particularly during a deep economic crisis. While the EU funds a few political advocacy NGOs in other democracies (three in the U.S., a handful in Canada, for example – and not in secret), there is nothing comparable to the scale of its involvement in Israeli civil society. The total annual amount being channeled from the EU (including the European Instrument for Human Rights and Democracy and other frameworks), and individual governments (EU member states, [plus] Norway and Switzerland) to Israeli political advocacy groups is one of the official secrets.

. . . . .

Indeed, instead of peace, European funding has added to the violence and conflict. In 1999, the Mothers Movement used their EU grant to finance a political campaign that played a central role in the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 (in this very limited sense, the EU policy succeeded). But then Hezbollah's attacks increased, eventually leading to the 2006 war. It would not look good for EU officials to be seen as having been even partly responsible (by acting irresponsibly) for these events.

. . . . .

European officials understandably fear public criticism of their role in alienating millions of Israelis who reject the neo-colonialist effort to use groups like Peace Now to manipulate Israeli democracy. €600 million from European taxpayers allows their well-compensated lawyers and public relations firms to flood the courts with frivolous political lawsuits, and to travel around the world campaigning against Israel. This European infringement on Israeli sovereignty has become a hot issue. . . . .

- - - - - - - - - -

See Steinberg's full article here.

Steinberg  responds to a critic of the above article. 

LINKS ADDED 2-3-2013 
Op ed in Jerusalem Post [here]

Report on EU funding by NGO Monitor [here]

A page of links to NGO Monitor issues regarding the EU [here]

The West Hates Jews More than It Loves Arabs -- Iranian Dissident

Afshin Ellian is an Iranian  dissident intellectual who fled his country in 1982, finally finding his way to Holland. He is now a professor of law in a Dutch university as well as a philosopher and poet. On a recent visit to Israel, he was interviewed by Dror Eydar for Israel HaYom.

He explains that the Western press habitually gives a false picture of Israel. He also points out that the West or the World is only interested in suffering Arabs when the suffering can be blamed on Jews. Otherwise, Arabs killing Arabs is considered natural.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

"It was an amazing experience to see Jerusalem. I now see how much Israel's image is warped by Western media. This is a multicultural society, with normal people, working people. Western journalists say that Israel is an occupier, that Israel is evil, and that it deploys heavy weapons against the Palestinians. But that is not the whole reality of Israel. Look at Tel Aviv. It is a very normal city just like The Hague, just like Amsterdam. Israel is the one spot of abnormality in the Middle East. At the same time it is like Europe at the heart of the region. I can understand why Israel arouses such fury among radical Muslims.

"I visited many Arab villages as well as the city of Haifa. . . ."

. . . .

Q: Indeed, why is it that when Arabs slaughter Arabs the world is silent but when Jews arise to defend themselves, the whole world jumps up in condemnation?

"Neither the Western media nor the Arab countries are interested in the Palestinians. At this very moment, many Muslims are being killed in Syria, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, but they do not receive the focus of attention. The focus is the enemy, the State of Israel, the Jewish people. Unfortunately, many European politicians have adopted the Western journalists' outlook on the conflict. The military operation [Pillar of Defense] that took place recently here was neither a major conflict nor a major tragedy. The real problem was, and is, in Syria, in Damascus, where [Syrian President Bashar] Assad has bombed hospitals and is killing his people. There a humanitarian disaster is unfolding.

"The West considers it 'natural' for Arabs to kill Arabs. In regard to the Jews, it seems that the Western world is fixated with the eternal image of the crucified Jew, and is unable to replace it with someone who bears arms to defend himself, resolute not to be crucified again. Incidentally, since the Shia came to power in 1503, all minorities in Iran, especially the Jews, were severely persecuted.

"Perhaps every nation, each culture, needs some eternal fictitious enemy. Not a political enemy, because at the end of the day you can speak with them, negotiate with them. But a fictitious enemy is an eternal one. Without the state of Israel, the Iranians would have to turn to Allah in prayer for guidance. The Iranians need Israel. Without you the Iranian regime is nothing, an empty shell. This is now Iran's nucleus of identity."
- - - - - - - - - -
Whole interview is here.

Hizbullah Seizes & Robs Four Italian Journalists -- Tsipi Livni to Blame

Another success for our semi-retarded former foreign minister, Tsipi Livni. She was the one who negotiated Security Council res. 1701 which supposedly ended the 2006 war in Lebanon. But, thanks to Livni as well as Western & Arab diplomats, that resolution was as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. The Hizbullah, not the UN force in Lebanon --UNIFIL-- nor the Lebanese army control the border zone. The Hizb rules there. Today they seized and robbed four Italian journalists who were being escorted by Italian troops attached to UNIFIL. That is, the Hizb does what it wants in the area of Lebanon along Israel's border, going so far as to sequester and rob journalists supposedly under UNIFIL protection.

Various articles report that four Italian journalists, two from Il Resto del Carlino and two others were stopped by Hizbullah forces at the village of Aita al-Sha`ab in south Lebanon a few kilometers from the Israeli border, whereas the border zone was to be free of Hizbullah forces according to the SC res. 1701. Only UNIFIL and Lebanese forces army forces were allowed to be there. But that was all on paper. In fact, Hizbullah rules the border zone and has for most of the time since the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

The journalists were held and robbed of their mobile phones and their cameras. They were released but only after more than an hour --and without their phones and cameras and other equipment. The UN troops escorting them were released too. That's the success of SC res 1701. That is the worth of a UN Security Council resolution.

The article below is from Il Resto del Carlino of today. A link to a report in Il Giornale follows. Tsipi Livni who was foreign minister at the time in Olmert's govt, negotiated this disastrous resolution. She is now running as head of  a new party that she calls HaTenu`ah, The Movement. I won't speculate on what sort of movement she has in mind, backwards or forwards or downwards or whatever. But the main theme of her party's campaign is hatred of PM Netanyahu. Just what she and her party would do if they took power [unlikely] is unclear. They don't have a serious program for social or economic betterment, but their anti-Netanyahu stance is meant to fit in with US and European and Arab positions in favor of Israeli surrender and allowing the PLO/PA to violate its signed commitments.

Libano, sequestrati e rapinati giornalisti e fotoreporter bolognesi

Bloccati a bordo di un camion in un’area a maggioranza Hezbollah

Lo speciale: Brigata Friuli, diario dal Libano

I nostri collaboratori Mario Rebeschini e Rossella Santosuosso sono stati nelle mani dei banditi insieme con i colleghi Elisa Murgesee Gianfranco Salvatori. Liberati dopo oltre un'ora

Rossella Santosuosso ed Elisa Murgese (Foto di Mario Rebeschini)

Bologna, 7 gennaio 2013 - PAURA per un gruppo di giornalisti e fotoreporter in Libano. Nel giorno dell’Epifania, intorno alle 13, i quattro sono stati sequestrati e rapinati. Tra loro ci sono due bolognesi: i nostri collaboratori Mario Rebeschini e Rossella Santosuosso. «Al rientro dai riti greco cattolico romano e cristiano maroniti per ricordare l’Epifania — racconta il fotografo Mario Rebeschini — i due mezzi di scorta Unifil (United Nation Interim Force in Lebanon; ndr) di base a Shama, che ci accompagnavano, è stato bloccato da un gruppo di libanesi in un’area in maggioranza Hezbollah. Senza tanti complimenti noi, i militari e l’ufficiale di scorta siamo stati costretti a scendere dai camion e rapinati di cellulati, registratori e macchine fotografiche». Gli altri giornalisti sono Elisa Murgese e Gianfranco Salvatori. Dopo oltre un’ora di sequestro e l’arrivo di una pattuglia della Laf, le forze armate libanesi, e ripuliti di quanto avevano i quattro giornalisti sono stati tutti rilasciati e hanno fatto rientro nella base di Shama sani e salvi
- - - - - - - - -

Here's the report in Il Giornale.

European Union Violates Its Ostensible Principles

Link added at bottom 1-8-2013
  
Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.
Eliyahu m'Tsiyon

Europe, and the European Union within it, have played a central role in the acts of treachery against Israel and the Jews, some of them described in the three previous posts and to be described in Part IV of the Broken Promises series. Of course, the EU regularly violates the lofty principles on which it supposedly stands. For almost three years it has been quite flagrantly violating the principle of solidarity among the peoples of the Union in the case of Greece where EU stinginess  toward suffering Euro brethren is frankly shocking. While stingy with their Greek brethren, whose living standards have been forced down severely by the demands of the EU and its ECB [European Central Bank] and of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] --even to the point of cutting health benefits & funds for medicines-- the EU keeps on funding the "Palestinian Authority" with about 1/2 billion euros per year, plus grants from EU member states  and special grants for various projects. Much of the money goes into the pockets of PA leaders and officials and into the pockets of their families. The PA schools and communications media constantly make genocidal hate indoctrination, propaganda and incitement against Israel and all Jews. This use of EU funds does not lead to a reduction in funding, whereas funds given to Greece on account of its economic crisis are closely supervised and sometime funds  are withheld. This does not happen to the PA.


Another principle violated is transparency in the work of the EU itself. The lack of transparency is strikingly evident in the EU's attitude toward Israel, the collective Jew, whereas in fact Jews have been the target of Euro hatred since the Roman Empire.Transparency is necessary for real democratic government. The EU lacks transparency, inter alia, in the way it allocates its funding for anti-Israel so-called "non-governmental organizations" [NGOs]. The recent case of NGO Monitor's efforts to get real information out of the EU about which "NGOs" the EU is to fund and on what grounds is instructive. Obviously, the EU does not want peace between Israel and the Arabs but I will go into that another time.

Here is NGO Monitor's account of how the EU shamelessly violates its own principle of transparency, with the approval of the so-called European Court of Justice.

EU Court Decision on NGO Monitor Case Highlights EU’s Secrecy

NGO Monitor December 27, 2012
On November 27, 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled on an NGO Monitor petition concerning the EU’s lack of transparency in its NGO funding practices. The court found that the EU did not provide documents requested by NGO Monitor in a timely fashion, and that this “must be regarded as an implicit decision to refuse access.” However, it also upheld the denial of access, essentially permitting the EU to hide its NGO decision making from the public.

Background

The European Union funnels tens of millions of taxpayer euros to political advocacy NGOs every year. Many of these groups engage in campaigns and activities that are entirely inconsistent with declared European foreign policy; the activities include BDS (boycotts, divestment, sanctions), “one state” proposals, anti-normalization with Israel campaigns, and abusing the courts through frivolous “war crimes” cases. Not only do these activities contradict European policies, but they promote conflict and violence.

Moreover, the available evidence suggests that the EU has been unethically seeking to manipulate Israeli democracy by funding political advocacy NGOs such as Adalah, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Mossawa, Machsom Watch, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), and Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI). Due to EU secrecy, the only available non-censored document is a leaked protocol from a meeting on NGO funding from 1999. This shows an explicit and concerted plan to support NGOs in an effort to manipulate Israeli voting patterns.
 
For the past decade, NGO Monitor has attempted to systematically track this funding, to allow European taxpayers, officials, Israelis, and Palestinians to independently evaluate and respond. As part of that process, in 2008, NGO Monitor submitted a detailed request to the EU, asking for documents related to this funding (under the EU’s Freedom of Information Law – FOI). After delaying compliance with the law for more than six months, the EU provided NGO Monitor with documents that were heavily redacted and whited out, essentially covering up all relevant information under the purported rationale of national security and proprietary interests.

Under the procedure mandated by the FOI law, NGO Monitor, represented by Asserson Law Offices, next turned to the European Court of Justice seeking compliance. The NGO Monitor petition noted that the EU was blocking independent evaluation of its NGO funding decisions, and preventing the public from knowing whether its practices are consistent with due process of law. In its response to the court, the European Commission admitted that officials had censored the meaningful details, including “the conclusions of the monitoring” and “the conclusions of the audit[s],” as well as “additional remarks” made by evaluators. The court also found that the EU did not provide the documents in a timely fashion, and that this ‘must be regarded as an implicit decision to refuse access.”

In direct contradiction, however, the court upheld the denial of access, and issued a decision without taking evidence or conducting hearings on NGO Monitor’s petition, nor providing NGO Monitor an opportunity to appear before the Court. This procedure is highly irregular, and highlights the degree to which the EU fears public release of the protocols for NGO funding decisions.
- - - -  - - - - - - - - -
The boldface emphasis is my own. The full account is here. Also see this report on the EU-NGO relationship.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor draws conclusions about the EU's surreptitious conduct regarding its subsidies to so-called "NGOs" in an op ed in HaArets. [so-called "NGOs" because they are not "non-governmental organizations" but rather are funded by governments and associations of governments such as the EU].  

Part IV of the series "Another Broken Promise Made to Jews" will come soon.