Tag Archives: Palestinian people

A Review of Israel Apartheid Week (IAW)

Posted on by
Reply

IAW

 

by Alexander H. Joffe
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
March 24, 2013

The return of Israel Apartheid Week (IAW) makes it necessary to review some of the better and less well-known features of this annual, global event. By doing so, it will become possible better to understand the nature and scope of the problem and to improve our focus on potential responses.

The first and most important fact regarding IAW is its clearly stated goal of destroying Israel. This is sometimes glossed over by individual events and specific speakers. It may also be lost in the emotionalism that surrounds the agit-prop rhetoric and guerilla theatrics. But the “Basis of Unity for IAW International Coordination” makes the goals and methods of IAW and its local affiliates clear:

We are against the racist ideology of Zionism, which is the impetus for Israeli colonialism, because it inherently discriminates against those who are not Jewish. We are against all forms of discrimination, and believe that there can never be justice without the restoration of full rights for everyone, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Our demands are based upon the Palestinian Civil Society Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, issued on 9 July 2005 by over 170 Palestinian organizations, which states that:

Boycott, divestment and sanctions should be imposed and maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, dismantling the Wall and freeing all Palestinian and Arab political prisoners;

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality;

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN General Assembly resolution 194.

To be part of the Israeli Apartheid Week International Network, organizations should commit to:

a) the basis of unity above

b) coordination with the international network

c) building, as part of Israeli Apartheid Week activities, local BDS awareness and campaigns.

As will be noted below, the nature of these goals raise questions regarding responses from pro-Israel and pro-peace supporters.

Another obvious but unappreciated feature is that IAW is a highly professional, coordinated international effort with unknown sources of funding. It is not a series of loosely affiliated grassroots initiatives that happens to be taking place simultaneously in over 100 cities around the world. It is explicitly based on the “Palestinian Civil Society Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel” of 2005, which in turn was based on the “Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel” of 2004. But the roots of these efforts have been traced by IAW organizers back to at least 2000, who also make reference to two additional sources of legitimacy, international efforts that opposed apartheid in South Africa and, more ominously, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975 that declared “Zionism is Racism.”

Thus, in ideological and practical terms the IAW movement justifies itself in two ways. Firstly, that it promotes the will of Palestinian organizations that supported the first call. These are primarily professional, trade and labor organizations controlled by the Fatah movement and other members in the Palestine Liberation Organization, as well as non-governmental organizations in Israel and the Palestinian territories that receive American and European funding. Secondly, IAW sees itself as part of the anti-apartheid tradition endorsed by the international community. This is of course part of the movement’s name and a key element in its marketing. But the lineage back to Resolution 3379 is another indication of the IAW’s true origins and goals.

IAW is also an explicit structural as well as ideological component of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. The ideological and practical links between IAW and the BDS movement are seen in the regular use of the same speakers at events. Professional activists such as Omar Barghouti, and academics such as Ali Abunimah, Judith Butler, and Saree Makdisi are among the notable individuals who have appeared at IAW and BDS events recently. The rhetoric of IAW differs slightly from that of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which calls for the “right of return” and BDS activities but which also emphasizes Palestinian and broader Arabic culture as well as political lobbying in the United Kingdom.

Espousing the dissolution of Israel and the “right of return” in favor of single state explicitly denies Jews the right to political sovereignty. Since only Jews are denied this right, IAW and BDS are explicitly antisemitic. The lack of any clear political proposals on the part of IAW, in the form of the desired unitary state, such as “secular” and “democratic,” or any articulation of its political and legal systems, not least of all protections of minorities, is another indication of the IAW’s nature and goals. IAW is fundamentally antinomian, that is, it is more opposed to the existence of Israel than it is in favor of concrete and workable, much less fair, solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This, along with the explicit situation of BDS as part of anti-colonial, indigenous rights, and anti-globalization movements, speaks to BDS and IAW as heirs to the Soviet tradition of antisemitism in the guise of anti-Zionism, which reached a peak with Resolution 3379, and its current position firmly within the global left.

Read more at Middle East Forum

Alex Joffe is an archaeologist and historian. He is currently a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow of the Middle East Forum

Must see —-> The Myth of Israeli Apartheid

Don’t be surprised by Lord Ahmed’s anti-Semitic rant

Posted on by
1
Lord Ahmed: One of a kind, or part of a larger problem?

Lord Ahmed: One of a kind, or part of a larger problem?

By Jeremy Havardi:

Last week The Times reported on an anti-Semitic rant from the Labour peer Lord Ahmed. In an interview on Pakistani television in 2012, Lord Ahmed remarked that the prison sentence he had received in 2009 for dangerous driving was due to pressure that had been placed on the courts by “Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels”. He added: “My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians”, something that these Jews “opposed”.

These remarks are truly extraordinary. Lord Ahmed seems to believe that his actions were completely insignificant, until, that is, he came up against a vindictive Jewish establishment that was determined to punish him for his political views. Quite how this consortium of Jewish media magnates was able to manipulate the legal establishment is not clear. Still, there is no doubting that he was invoking the spectre of ‘Jewish power’ to explain his misfortune.

What is so disturbing here is not just the arrogance of his comments or the rehashing of anti-Semitic tropes; it is the fact that Lord Ahmed is a distinguished peer of the realm, a figure regarded in polite society as a genuine Muslim moderate.

Why did a figure in such an elevated position issue such a racist diatribe? The simple answer is that ‘blaming the Jews’ has become a ubiquitous feature of Muslim discourse, even in liberal western societies. The notion of personal and communal responsibility has been undermined by a cult of victimhood and a belief in paranoid conspiracy theories.

Read more at The Commentator

Jeremy Havardi is a journalist and the author of two books, Falling to Pieces, and The Greatest Briton

Obama to Palestinians: Accept the Jewish State

Posted on by
Reply

by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
March 26, 2013

 

Title page of Theodor Herzl's 1896 book, "Der Judenstaat" ("The Jewish State").

Title page of Theodor Herzl’s 1896 book, “Der Judenstaat” (“The Jewish State”).

One key shift in U.S. policy was overlooked in the barrage of news about Barack Obama’s eventful fifty-hour visit to Israel last week. That would be the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, called by Hamas leader Salah Bardawil ”the most dangerous statement by an American president regarding the Palestinian issue.”

 First, some background: Israel’s founding documents aimed to make the country a Jewish state.Modern Zionism effectively began with the publication in 1896 of Theodor Herzl’s book, Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”). The Balfour Declaration of 1917 favors “a national home for the Jewish people.” U.N. General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947, partitioning Palestine into two, mentions the term Jewish state 30 times. Israel’s Declaration of Establishment of 1948 mentions Jewish state 5 times, as in “we … hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”

Because of this tight connection, when Arab-Israeli diplomacy began in earnest in the 1970s, the Jewish state formulation largely disappeared from view; everyone simply assumed that diplomatic recognition of Israel meant accepting it as the Jewish state. Only in recent years did Israelis realize otherwise, as Israeli Arabs came to accept Israel but reject its Jewish nature. For example, an important 2006 publication from the Mossawa Center in Haifa, The Future Vision of Palestinian Arabs in Israel, proposes that the country become a religiously neutral state and joint homeland. In brief, Israeli Arabs have come to see Israel as a variant of Palestine.

Awakened to this linguistic shift, winning Arab acceptance of Israel no longer sufficed; Israelis and their friends realized that they had to insist on explicit Arab acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state. In 2007, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert announced that unless Palestinians did so, diplomacy would be aborted: “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state,” he emphasized. ThePalestinian Authority immediately and unanimously rejected this demand. Its head, Mahmoud Abbas, responded: “In Israel, there are Jews and others living there,. This we are willing to recognize, nothing else.”

Netanyahu and Olmert agree on the need for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state

Netanyahu and Olmert agree on the need for Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state

When Binyamin Netanyahu succeeded Olmert as prime minister in 2009, he reiterated this demand as a precondition to serious negotiations: “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples.” The Palestinians not only refused to budge but ridiculed the very idea. Again, Abbas: “What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it the ‘State of Israel.’ You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. … It’s not my job to … provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like, I don’t care.”

Only six weeks ago, Abbas again blasted the Jewish state concept. The Palestinian rejection of Jewish statehood could not be more emphatic. (For a compilation of their assertions, see “Recognizing Israel as the Jewish State: Statements” at DanielPipes.org.)When Binyamin Netanyahu succeeded Olmert as prime minister in 2009, he reiterated this demand as a precondition to serious negotiations: “Israel expects the Palestinians to first recognize Israel as a Jewish state before talking about two states for two peoples.” The Palestinians not only refused to budge but ridiculed the very idea. Again, Abbas: “What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it the ‘State of Israel.’ You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. … It’s not my job to … provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like, I don’t care.”

American politicians, including both George W. Bush and Obama, have since 2008 occasionally referred to Israel as the Jewish state, even as they studiously avoided demanding Palestinians to do likewise. In a typical declaration, Obama in 2011 sketched the ultimate diplomatic goal as “two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Barack Obama changed U.S. policy in a speech at a convention center in Jerusalem.

Barack Obama changed U.S. policy in a speech at a convention center in Jerusalem.

Then, in his Jerusalem speech last week, Obama suddenly and unexpectedly adopted in full the Israeli demand: “Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state.”

That sentence breaks important new ground and cannot readily be undone. It also makes for excellent policy, for without such recognition, Palestinian acceptance of Israel is hollow, indicating only a willingness to call the future state they dominate “Israel” rather than “Palestine.”Then, in his Jerusalem speech last week, Obama suddenly and unexpectedly adopted in full the Israeli demand: “Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state.”

While not the only shift in policy announced during Obama’s trip (another: telling the Palestinians not to set preconditions for negotiations), this one looms largest because it starkly contravenes the Palestinian consensus. Bardawil may hyperbolically assert that it “shows that Obama has turned his back to all Arabs” but those ten words in fact establish a readiness to deal with the conflict’s central issue. They likely will be his most important, most lasting, and most constructive contribution to Arab-Israeli diplomacy.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum.

Mar. 26, 2013 update: Other Arab reactions to Obama’s “Jewish state” statement:

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi, March 23:

Never in my life have I seen a US President beg for the approval of the Israelis while demeaning himself in the process quite like Barack Obama has done during his current trip. … He has broken our trust and dashed our hopes, reminding us instead of Uncle Tom (from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin) – the black servant whose subservience to his white master overcame his humanity.

Barack Hussein Obama surprised us with his speech in Jerusalem when he demanded the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state and urged the Arab states to recognize Israel. … Obama wants us to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, what about the 25 percent of its population who are not Jewish, in particular the 1.5 million Arabs living inside Israel? America’s long line of caucasian presidents never stooped this low; most of them pressured Israel to some degree to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people.

Obama did not come to the region as a man of peace but as a war monger. … Obama’s revised approach suggests that the Arabs and Muslims are in for four years of misery during Obama’s second term as president. … This is the age of American hypocrisy and Arab humiliation.

PA Continues to Advocate for Israel’s Destruction

Posted on by
1

Palestinians-rip-an-American-flag-during-a-protest-against-the-visit-of-the-U.S.-President-Barack-Obama-AP

Palestinians rip an American flag during a protest against the visit of President Barack Obama / AP

by IPT News  •  Mar 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Calls for liberating “Palestine” have been reverberating among the various Palestinian political factions for decades.

Hamas actively pursues Israel’s destruction, but how does the Palestinian Authority (PA) differ from the terrorist organization?

A recent Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) report highlights the PA’s continued efforts to propagate the Palestinian refugees’ “right of return” within Israel. This narrative is perpetuated at the core of PA schools and is clearly disseminated throughout history, civics, and Arabic language textbooks. For example, MEMRI points to a fourth grade textbook, which says, “Four and a half million Palestinians live in the diaspora outside Palestine… Most are refugees waiting to return to the motherland, from which they were expelled.”

Other examples start as early as second grade and run throughout primary school textbooks. By subjecting children to continuous propaganda regarding an eventual “return” to Israeli cities like Haifa and Jaffa, the PA is clearly indoctrinating future generations on the virtues of a one-state solution. In that scenario, Palestinians would outnumber Israelis stripping Jews of a homeland.

This tactic is part of the broader strategy of subjugating younger generations of Palestinians to propaganda that glorifies terrorists and advocates for violent jihad for the purposes of destroying the Jewish state.

The Palestinian culture of death has been exposed in various forms throughout the years. Among the more notorious examples was a children’s television program that featured a Mickey Mouse knockoff calling for martyrdom and violence against Jews. Moreover, MEMRI reports that the PA continues to praise terrorists such as Dalal Al-Mughrabi, commemorating the anniversary of a terrorist attack which killed 35 Israelis and injured dozens of civilians. Former and current PA officials continue to glorify such atrocities, describing Mughrabi as an inspirational figure and role model.

Furthermore, PA President Mahmoud Abbas recently claimed that there is “no difference between [the PA's] policies and those of Hamas.” Based on the PA’s educational curriculum, media dissemination, and terrorist glorification, the international community must look behind the PA’s doublespeak before pressuring Israel to make further concessions.

Related articles

New York Times Encourages Attacks Against Jews

Posted on by
4

RETRO-ISRAEL-INTIFADA-PALESTINIANSBy :

The New York Times has crossed the line this weekend by encouraging Palestinian Arabs to embark upon a “third intifada” against Israel with an article by Ben Ehrenreich titled “If There is a Third Intifada, We Want to be the Ones who Started It.” This article is tantamount to calling upon the Arabs to kill Jews.  Against the backdrop of Thursday’s rock attack where a two-year-old Israeli was severely injured with brain injuries when the car she was in veered off the road as a direct results of Arab youth throwing rocks, one wonders where is the decency of the NYT? Rock attacks have caused deaths and serious injuries on Israel’s roads for decades.

The New York Times Magazine celebrated the people who consider their rock attacks “non-violent,” defining them as “peaceful protestors.” Rock-throwers aren’t “peaceful” – anywhere in the world. To even allow Ehrenreich to write an article, rather than an op-ed shows the inherent bias of this outlet.

Read more at Front Page

 

Gay anti-Jewish bigots enable Muslim anti-gay bigots

Posted on by
Reply

pinkwashingBy Adam Savit at Center for Security Policy:

For grievance-based identity groups on the left, embracing Islamic radicals has often been politically expedient but morally deficient.  From women’s organizations who ignore endemic domestic violence in Islamic societies, to black groups who ignore that the Islamic regime in Sudan still enslaves black children, the silence of these purported ‘civil rights’ organizations has been stunningly hypocritical.

Yet all of these groups are expert at mobilizing against what they consider the neo-colonial, racist apartheid regime of Israel.  Israel is also, ironically, the only Middle Eastern country that would tolerate them on its soil.

Considering that gays are routinely beaten, murdered by vigilantes, and executed by sovereign governments in the Islamic world, the tendency of left-wing gay organizations to champion Israel’s jihadist enemies is particularly disturbing.

Writing for the Gatestone Institute, Alan Dershowitz identifies a new strain of anti-Israel hysteria in the gay community which characterizes Israel’s tolerant attitude as ‘Pinkwashing’:

This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel’s positive approach to gay rights is “a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

The author of the piece, a ‘professor of the humanities,’ apparently lacks the creativity to imagine that Israel might be exhibiting tolerance for gays, not because it hates Arabs, but because it is a Western democracy that believes in the right of the individual to make his or her own choices.

 

Terrorism Without End

Posted on by
3

27172_255-450x306 (1)By :

The reason why the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is doomed can be summed up in a paragraph. The Arab populations left in political limbo when Israel recaptured in 1967 the territory that it had lost to Egypt and Jordan in 1948 exist only as a strategic weapon of disruption. They have been shaped into a population that is defined only by terrorism because that is the purpose that their sponsors put them to. There can be no constructive outcome of the conflict because you cannot negotiate with a weapon.

The trouble is not that Israel is unable to reach a settlement with the Palestinians; but that the Muslim countries funding and operating the terrorist groups that constitute the Palestinian political factions are unwilling to give up their weapon. Negotiating with the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is like trying to negotiate with a gun or bargain with an attack dog. There is nothing to be gained from such a futile task. The conflict will end only when those countries that are behind it will decide that it should end. And they have no reason to want it to end.

Palestinian terrorism is a strategic weapon of disruption that confines and unbalances Israel. At a cost of millions, the sponsors of that terror have inflicted billions in economic damage. And there is no reason for them to stop. Watching Israel and America try to reason with their attack dogs amuses them and allows them to expand their own influence by offering to act as mediators.

For that same reason, Islamic terrorism in general is also not going anywhere. What the Palestinians are to Israel, Muslim terrorists are to the West and the rest of the world. They are strategic weapons which are allowed to exist because they serve the purposes of their sponsors. Like most living weapons, they occasionally turn in the hands of their sponsors, but that only makes the task of directing them at the proper targets more urgent.

Terrorism can never be defeated by fighting terrorists. Combine massive wealth in some parts of the Middle East with staggering poverty in other parts and the supply of mercenaries is nearly endless. Syrian Jihadists are being paid $150 a month by Qatar; a good salary for an unskilled laborer in a region where life is cheap and every family has plenty of surplus sons and mouths to feed. A barrel of oil can buy the services of a killer for a month and Qatar pumps out millions of barrels a day.

Terrorism is cheap for the sponsors, profitable for the participants and hideously expensive for the targets. A soldier in a First World nation can cost six figures. For that same amount, a backward oil tyranny can field a hundred men. When those hundred men kill a soldier, then his nation will be heartbroken and question the costs of war. When those hundred men die, their mothers will ceremonially wail and cry out for more martyrs to avenge them. And the terror will go on.

Islam makes the process easier. Like Palestinian nationalism, it is a war machine whose ideas lubricate the recruitment, rampages and replenishment of fresh cannon fodder for the wars of the old rich men of the region.

Read more at Front Page

 

Why Israel Is the Victim

Posted on by
Reply

hereBy :

Order your physical copy by clicking here.

Introduction

Israel, the only democracy and tolerant society in the Middle East, is surrounded by Muslim states that have sworn to destroy it and have conducted a genocidal propaganda campaign against the Jews, promising to “finish the job that Hitler started.” A global wave of Jew-hatred, fomented by Muslim propaganda and left-wing anti-Semitism, has spread through Europe and the United Nations and made Israel a pariah nation. David Horowitz’s classic Why Israel Is the Victim, now updated in the pamphlet below, sets the record straight about the Middle East conflict. In addition to restoring the historical record —  a chronicle  of obsessive aggressions first by Arab nationalists and then by Muslim jihadists, this pamphlet brings the story up to date by showing the systematic way in which the fanatical Islamic parties, Hamas and Hezbollah, sponsored by Iran, have subverted peace in the Middle East.

As Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield notes in his insightful Foreword, this pamphlet “tells us why we should reject the ‘Blame Israel First’ narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media… It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood… and it delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this.”  America needs to be Israel’s protector, for as George Gilder has observed, “If the United States cannot defend Israel, it cannot defend itself.”  Instead, under the leadership of Barack Obama, it has become Israel’s prosecutor with ominous portents for the future.

Foreword

In “Why Israel is the Victim” David Horowitz tells the ugly tale of the war against Israel, laying bare the sordid hypocrisies and deceits behind its campaign of violence. No volume can contain the full story of Islamic terrorism or the courageous ways in which the ordinary Israeli confronts it in the streets of his cities. What this essay does tell is the story of the lies behind that terror.

Propaganda precedes war; it digs the graves and waits for them to be filled. The war against the Jews has never been limited to bullets and swords; it has always, first and foremost, been a war of words. When bombs explode on buses and rockets rain down on Israel homes, when mobs chant “Death to the Jews” and Iran races toward the construction of its genocidal bomb; the propaganda lies to cover up these crimes must be bold enough to contain not only the murders of individuals, but the prospective massacre of millions.

The lie big enough to fill a million graves is that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish State is an illegitimate entity,  an occupier, a warmonger and a conqueror. The big lie is that Israel has sought out the wars that have given it no peace and that the outcomes of those wars make the atrocities of its enemies understandable and even justifiable. That is the big lie that David Horowitz confronts in “Why Israel is the Victim”.

From the latest outburst of violence to its earliest antecedents under the Palestine Mandate, “Why Israel is the Victim” exposes the true nature of the war and wipes away the lies used by the killers and their collaborators to lend moral authority to their crimes. It shows not only why Israel must exist, but also why its existence has been besieged by war and terror.

“Why Israel is the Victim” tells us why we should reject the “Blame Israel First” narrative that has so thoroughly saturated the mainstream media. It challenges the false hope of the Two State Solution in sections such as “Self-Determination Is Not the Agenda” and “Refugees: Jewish and Arab”. It confronts the myth of Palestinian victimhood in “The Policy of Resentment and Hate” and delivers a rousing restatement of the true history of the hate that led us to all this in “The Jewish Problem and Its ‘Solution’”.

Recent history shows us that it was not an Israeli refusal to grant the Palestinian Arabs the right of self-determination that led to their campaigns of terror, but that Palestinian self-determination empowered a people steeped in the hatred of Jews to engage in terrorism.

Continue reading at Front Page where the entire pamphlet has been published

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine,Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.”

Also see: Reading Horowitz

 

 

Op-Ed: “Exposé: How Much Does the War On Israel Cost Europe?

Posted on by
Reply

By Giulio Meotti:

The EU has become the largest single donor to the Palestinians, contributing about €500 million ($720 million).Europe also channels an ocean of money to the anti-Israel NGOs. And don’t forget the textbooks.

Over the past year, the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism monitored incidents worldwide. In 2012, 6 oof the 10 worst anti-Semithic attacks took place in Europe (the rest are shared among Iran, Yemen and United States).

Even more frightening are the new statystics about the popular feelings about the Jewish people in Europe.

Amid the rise in hate crimes in France, the World Zionist Organization calculated the level of anti-Semitism among French citizens. The survey revealed that more than 40% of the French population holds anti-Semitic beliefs. The survey also found that 47% of the population believes that “French Jews are more loyal to Israel than the country where they live.”

The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project found that 46% of Spanish residents held an unfavorable view of Jews. Meanwhile, 47% of Germans are of the opinion that “Israel is exterminating the Palestinians,” according to a poll undertaken by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, affiliated with the German Social Democratic Party.

44 % of Italians are prejudiced or hostile toward Jews, according to a study recently issued by the Italian Chamber of Deputies’s Committee.

You can find the same trend all over Europe. Half of the population holds deep anti-Jewish feelings.

Britain has just included Israel on a list of 28 countries whose human rights record is of “concern” to the government. It’s the same Britain that in 1989 refused to sell gas masks to Israel because they could be used for “offensive purposes”. In 1991 a subsidiary of Thames Water Plc., the British company that supplies water and sewage services to most of London, refused to do business with Israel because it has “many and valued Arab clients”.

How much is Europe investing in Israel’s destruction? By financing the Palestinian war and sponsoring the Arab rejectionist anti-Semitism, Europe is reawakening the centuries-old beast of Judeophobic bigotry. European taxes are used to fund anti-Semitism of an intensity unseen since Nazi Germany.

The European Union just announced a contribution of EUR 14 million for a programme in Gaza. Most of this aid goes through UNRWA.

Many terrorists work for the UN agency,  such as Issa al Batran, who was in charge of Hamas rockets production and was also employed as a teacher in the UN schools. Or the UN Gaza’s schoolmaster, Awad al Qiq, who was the Islamic Jihad “rocket-maker”.

Food storage facilities in UNRWA’s areas, funded by the European Union, have become munitions depots. UNRWA’s employees transported weapons and terrorists by the agency ambulances.

Hamas interior minister, Said Sayyam, was also a math teacher for UNRWA. The schools administered by the UN have become madrassa for the war against the Jews.

In Jenin, UNRWA schools displayed images of “martyrs” responsubile for dozens of Israelis killed in Hadera and Afula.

Despite all this evidence, for the period 2007-2013 a total of €29 million has been allocated by the European Union to UNRWA’s programme.

Among the recipients in Nablus of the European aid just approved there is also Al-Najah University, which serves Palestinian terror organizations as a stage for promoting their commitment to armed struggle. Many of Hamas’ leaders in Nablus, including leaders of the Az Adin al-Qassam terrorist wing, began their involvement in the movement while students or professors at the university. The faculty also served as a recruitment center for suicide bombers. Brussels just approved for Nablus a 4-year programme with 4 million €.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority and the European Union recently met in Ramallah to discuss foreign aid in the next five years. The European Union just allocated €60 million to “support the Palestinian National Development Plan by helping the PA to finance its budget deficit and implement its reform agenda”. This fund perpetuates the chronic Arab corruption.

In 1998 $20 million in European Union aid that was intended to provide ”cheap housing for Palestinians” was used to finance luxury apartments for rich supporters of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

The European Union also just made a contribution of €7.2 million to the payment of the December salaries and pensions of “83,800 Palestinian civil servants and pensioners in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip”.

The Palestinian Authority routinely authorizes payments to the families of “martyrs” by using Europe’s aid. The Palestinian Authority has introduced a new law which pays the families of suicide bombers out of its civil service budget.

In 2011, the European Union allocated €145 million for the Palestinian Authority’s expenditures, €35 million for “institution building projects” and €22 million for support to public infrastructure. A further 11 million were allocated for the “private sector” and €8 million for “East Jerusalem initiatives”, which means charging Israel of “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and creating a “model of terrorising a civilian population”.

Europe’s goal is to make Israel surrender Area C in Judea and Samaria, because as John Gatt-Rutter, the European Union Representative in Jerusalem said, there is “no viable Palestinian state without area C”. Translated: Judea and Samaria must be “Judenrein”, cleansed of any Jew.

Read more at Arutz Sheva

Giulio Meotti

The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book “A New Shoah”, that researched the personal stories of Israel’s terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. He is at work on a book about the Vatican and Israel.

 

 

Exposing the Palestinians’ Anna Baltzer

Posted on by
2

Anna Baltzer — apparently neither a Fulbright Scholar, nor a descendant of Holocaust survivors, nor an alumna of the Birthright Program — appears to be just a fraud and a fabulist. So why is Oxford having her speak January 31st?

Anna Baltzer

Anna Baltzer

by Lee Kaplan:

Anna Baltzer, a pretty lady who heads the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (USCEIO) in Washington, DC., has developed a platform for herself going about the world lecturing as a Jew who once supported the State of Israel, but who had an epiphany and discovered that Israel and “Zionists” were exploiting and abusing the Palestinian people. The USCEIO is, in fact, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) renamed for the purpose of lobbying Congress in Washington. It was created by Huwaida Arraf, one of the co-founders of the ISM who also serves on the group’s steering committee.

Placing Anna Baltzer as the titular head of the Campaign was intended to convince both Jews and non-Jews that opposition to Israel’s existence is fine because even Jews such as her believe in the necessity of destroying the Jewish state, especially through boycotts and divestment. Anna Baltzer is a modern day Tokyo Rose for the ISM against Israel: she speaks at anti-Israel events and promotes boycott and divestment campaigns against Israel, in support of terrorist groups such as Hamas in its plans to destroy Israel any way it can. She has participated or helped at demonstations staged by Code Pink, Global Exchange, the Gaza Flotilla, Viva Palestina and other anti-Israel groups that make up the ISM.

USCEIO has been frantically sending out fundraising email blasts and announcing on its website that Ms. Baltzer will appear in a debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be presented by the distinguished Oxford Union in England on January 31st. According to the Oxford Union’s website, “The Union is the world’s most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.”

The Oxford Union has delivered these debates by distinguished academic, religious and national leaders from ex-President Ronald Reagan to the Dali Lama. The purpose of the debates is the furtherance of education and knowledge. The subject of this debate will be: “This House Believes That Israel is a Force for Good in the Middle East.”

The announcement of the three debaters for the anti-Israel point of view, however, disturbingly advertises propagandists and fabulists such as Ilan Pappe, Ghada Karmi and most importantly, Anna Baltzer, who is billed on the Oxford Union’s website as head of the USCEIO and who will apparently speak in opposition to Israel’s right to exist.

Ilan Pappe has already been proven to be bankrupt as a scholar after it was proven in court he was involved in fabricating a phony massacre by Israeli forces of the Arab village of Tantura in 1948. In a defamation and libel lawsuit brought by veterans of the Alexandroni Brigade in Israel, Pappe’s PhD student under his advice admitted on the witness stand that he fabricated the entire massacre with his supervisor’s knowledge and that he was paid $6,000 by the PLO to do so.

The other speaker alongside Anna Baltzer will be Ghada Kharmi, a Palestinian academic at the University of Exeter, Britain, and the author of Married to Another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine. Her writings are merely polemics devoid of any history or facts with which to back them up. She claims, incredibly, for example, that Israel has never made a peace offer to the Palestinians, along with standard slanderous Palestinian propaganda and claims that masquerade as facts — such as that Israel violates “international law” by the building of settlements, which are completely legal per UN Resolution 242, and the stopping of the Gaza Flotillas that was completely legal by international maritime law. Karmi encourages war by proxy, such as writing in support of the British boycott of Israeli academics and Israeli universities.

What is Karmi’s intellectual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which she also claims is the reason for al Qaeda? She says Israel must become one state called Palestine; must withdraw to the 1949 borders; must give the Palestinians half of Jerusalem, and then allow seven million Palestinians to move inside Israel, creating a flood of Muslims that would demographically overwhelm the current Jewish population there. As for terrorism, she glosses over it as the desperate actions of some extremists who are fighting “colonialism.” Her writings hardly reflect anything in the way of solid research or intellectual balance.

Stephen Stotsky of CAMERA.org has written an excellent exposé of Baltzer’s lies about Israel. However, new information has arisen about Baltzer’s background and history as a Jew.

Read more at Northeast Intelligence Network

January 31 Update: Anna Baltzer’s real name is Anna Piller, so apparently she even lies about her own name. More on this later…

Lee Kaplan is a dynamic, hard-hitting and well-known investigative journalist. He is adept at conducting covert surveillance, frequently infiltrating venues often restricted to the general public. Mr. Kaplan’s investigative reports have been published and widely disseminated within law enforcement. He is the founder of “DAFKA”, which stands for Defending America For Knowledgeable Action and Stop the ISM (International Solidarity Movement). He is also the current Communications Director for the Northeast Intelligence Network, and maintains his own blog at this link.