Israeli Apartheid Week hits YouTube

That little segment is replete with assumptions and half-truths. Some kind of Palestinian response would be helpful. The only voices we ever hear are from the Jewish side. 90% of "Middle East Experts" on the major US network news are Jewish. That fact helps to make said networks a very poor source of balanced news vis-a-vis the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Long story short: The Palestinian have no voice or lobbying power in the US, without which the conversation will never be true and balanced.

Whenever I listen to hasbara explanations, I feel all of the air being sucked out of the room and I can't breathe.

Wow, Hasbara spared no expense in making this video.

I bet every radical, militant and terrorist is wishing for chris's logic to be universally applied.

I suggest we refer to these clowns as raving antisemites from now on.

I suggest they just be ignored. Scroll through the posts first, look at the names, and don't even read their posts. This way, the lies and hatred they spew won't arouse your emotions and tempt you to respond.

Also, any deviation from the rules should be immediately emailed to Phil and Adam.

"The Hasbara guy is using half truths and lies to justify the illegal actions of his country."

That's all they've got. For the last century, that's all they've EVER had.

Dan Kelly, I could not agree with you more. Any response to them will only result in a s*** slinging contest, which is a complete waste of time. In fact, that might even be their goal.

Shirin, I think it is the goal. Their constant disruptions are intended to get us off-track of our goal of peace in the Middle East. Their outright lies are intended to make us (and the world) think that working towards peace in the Middle East is a futile endeavor.

Shirin and Dan,

I agree. They're obstructionists. They aren't here to express themselves, they're here to try to make it uncomfortable for us to express ourselves. Any place on the internet which is critical of Israel will have it's own pet Zionists.

I really feel sorry for the international pro-Israel movement, if after everything that has happened in the Middle East for the last 60 years, the best thing they can come up with is Elliot Mathias and his "rebuttals."

Finally had a chance to watch the video. How pathetic.

And by the way, virtually ALL Palestinian Israeli citizens do not accept being identified as Israeli Arabs, and reject completely the distinction he makes between Palestinians and "Israeli Arabs". If you ask them about their identity they will say "I am Palestinian".

As for his claim that "Israeli Arabs" are fully integrated in Israel – yeah, right! They have access to education that is sub par and poorly funded compared to what Jews have access to, they have access to a jury system that is heavily biased against them.

Oh – and the head of the border police is a Druze as are most of the border police. The Druze have special status compared to other "Israeli Arabs".

1967 was, of course, not a defensive war by any stretch of reality.

Israel never annexed those lands – yet – because there were so many non-Jewish people living that given them citizenship would upset the "demographic balance" (such a nice, innocent-sounding term, isn't it?), and threaten the "Jewish character" of the state (which is, of course, NOT a racist concept). Unlike what they did in 1948, they could not get away with conducting a massive, violent ethnic cleansing operation, and have had to settle for slower, more gradual methods of ethnic cleansing. Interestingly, they WERE able in 1967 to successfully ethnically cleanse the Golan Heights of 96% of its Syrian population, and therefore have been able to (illegally) annex that territory.

And if Israel is so prepared to "give" the Palestinians their own state, then why is it that they keep confiscating and colonizing more and more and more of the only land on which that state could be established?

Oh wow! And he even brings up that old canard about the eleven universities "all built by Israeli money". Don't these guys ever update their material?

And Israel has tried sooooo hard to help the Palestinian level of living. My those Israelis are such kind, humanitarians!

And then, of course, there is everything he does NOT say!

I don't know why I sacrificed my brain cells to that hasbara video. I definitely feel myself significantly less intelligent now.

Scarier that anyone actually believes your bull***.

He's not exactly a youtube sensation. His vid and Web site probably got more coverage here than he would ever have had. He's an alexa.com zero.

I really feel sorry for the international pro-Israel movement, if after everything that has happened in the Middle East for the last 60 years, the best thing they can come up with is Elliot Mathias and his "rebuttals."

Absolutely, I even consider it the sad part of the story, Kashmiri Nomad. It's amazing and explains why a real discourse is not possible, why the Israel hardliners have to resort to condescension, patronizing and insulting whoever wants to discuss the topics. The basic problem from a PR perspective is that it is a pure propaganda approach, while people in the trade have long moved on two two-way or dialog models. … With a whole series of more or less dirty tricks no doubt, but tricks that are much harder to fathom.

I looked at one video in the Jewish Pathways series: Secrets of a successful marriage. Do you think the message is in any aspect parochial, meaning no other groups could understand, or do you think others might possibly give pretty much the same advise, both secular and religious bodies? It's obvious to me, that the second is much closer to the truth.

Also, any deviation from the rules should be immediately emailed to Phil and Adam.

I always appreciated that Phil does not use restrictive rules. I consider it a real advantage. You get a chance to see all the arguments out there. I am aware, Dan, that you are one of the main targets of the invectives, but do you honestly bother considering were they come from?

Consider if you demand of Phil & Adam that they devote their time to purgation instead to their topics, you may send them on a Don Quijote type journey, fighting windmills. If they want to keep this list open, and not use a subscription basis, everyone that is banned can slip in under every name again. The fight to keep them out, or the available IT tools, may well cause problems to people you would really want to hear. …

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

Here is the whole "Myth" argument in context:

1. Misconception: The Myth of Occupation

3800 year old ties to the land – merging of real connection with religious connection.

2. Misconception: The Myth of Excessive Force

3. Misconception: The Myth of Apartheid

And last but not least: Media Bias Which in context suggests everyone that strays from the above wisdom is suspect of bias and of course ultimately antisemitism.

(I thought I posted this already, but must have done something wrong. Since it doesn't appear.)

Eva, I tried to find Avner's statements concerning the "labeling" of Jews from Arab countries. I seem to remember, he put quite a bit stress on it. The fight between the Jews and the Arabs necessitated that the "Arab Jews" name had to loose all traces connecting them to the Arab countries.

My impression: a closer study would unearth constantly shifting perspectives or arguments concerning the Palestinians, if you simply define them as the people that lived there.

On one hand there is the Jewish Israeli standard to simply attribute to the larger Arab nations, an argument that is easy to support since initially they didn't demand a state of their own. This argument leads to a definition of right versus no rights based on "nationality" at the time the fight for the land started. If you have defined yourself as a nation you have rights to the land, if you haven't you simply belong to your neighbor group and better go there. As it leads to a steady stream of Arab bashing, ultimately they are guilty of not having taken in their brethren.

On the other hand Israel relied on the force of the very same Arab authorities (while at the same time blaming them) to keep the people out, to stop the Palestinian people from crossing the borders to get back in to e.g. get their goats and sheep back and maybe some of the things you had to leave back in your home.

Now of course these endeavors enable the use of the laws that suggest if you haven't done anything to get your possession back for so many years you ultimately have lost any rights to it.

But I haven't looked into this issue careful and focused enough. But ultimately it points a way towards rights of people versus rights of states or nations. A framework of an international right of people versus rights of the state.

"the "labeling" of Jews from Arab countries"

Not sure specifically what you are referring to here, but Zionism was a very specifically European movement, and Israel was intended to be a specifically western country. There was enormous contempt for Arab and other eastern Jews. When Arab Jews immigrated (or as in so many cases were brought) to Israel they were forced on intake to give up their Arabic names and had Hebrew ones chosen for them. The basis for this goes back much farther than Zionism's conflict with Arabs. It has its basis in the European-supremacist attitudes of the Zionists.

Arab Jews, many of whom had occupied elite and mainstream middle class positions in their home countries, were subjected to demeaning and humiliating treatment in Israel, including being sprayed with DDT on arrival as if they were contaminated. They were isolated from European Jews, and viewed and treated as lesser human beings with lesser capabilities, despite the fact that many of them were far better educated than their European coreligionists. This was not so much about the conflict with the Arabs, but about European contempt for "orientals".

"the "labeling" of Jews from Arab countries"

The term I was looking for is Oriental Jews.

In Israel, the term Oriental Jews is a code word for Arab Jew.

I thought I forgot. But it suddenly popped up from lower layers inside my head.

A very good documentary on the history and experience of the Iraqi Jews in the Israel society is Goodbye Bagdad

The research on the treatment of this inner-Jewish "Arab Other" in the Jewish society, as mirrored in Israeli films, also mentioned in the documentary above, by Ella Shohat is available in a newly revised edition:Israeli Cinema: East/ West and the Politics of Representation

European-supremacist attitudes of the Zionists.

There surely was a European-supremacist attitude towards the non-European Other. What you are targeting is Imperialism and Colonialism. But isn't this all about the "right of the stronger" to take whatever he likes? There were times when the Arabs or Ottoman's did better in this game.

Concerning contempt for eastern Jews, the European experience can also be separated into an Eastern and Western Jewish experience. I often heard or read the argument that the more well-off Western Jews were condescending towards the Eastern Jews. It may well have existed, the more the Western part of Europe became the transit road for Eastern Jews fleeing pogroms. But the closer you look the more complicated the pattern gets. They tried to help the Eastern Jews on their way to the States, but also realized they had to find a solution for the people that couldn't get in there or stay over here. … And they partially tried to or had to keep it secret from State authorities.

Arab Jews, many of whom had occupied elite and mainstream middle class positions in their home countries, were subjected to demeaning and humiliating treatment in Israel, including being sprayed with DDT on arrival as if they were contaminated. They were isolated from European Jews, and viewed and treated as lesser human beings with lesser capabilities, despite the fact that many of them were far better educated than their European coreligionists. This was not so much about the conflict with the Arabs, but about European contempt for "orientals".

One point:

May I be honest? I don't like the first sentence. Why? It indirectly suggests had Arab Jews been not middle class or elite in their societies bias would be justified. ella Shohat's parent's indeed very simple working class.

This class-superiority may well be the reason that writers of all times had to create a fiction that showed that the lowly and despised character or slave really was the son of a king, to force the audience to recognize him as equal. This motive goes back to really old fiction, you will have trouble to find traces of it in the departments of literature, a centuries old forgotten Alexandrian tradition that had exactly the same motives as e.g. Afra Behn's Oroonoko. Novels written many, many centuries before novels supposedly were invented.

The film is called Forget Baghdad. I saw it a number of years ago at our local Arab Film Festival, and now own a copy of it. It is also available from Netflix for the last year or two.

Also, Oriental Jews is generally used to refer not just to Arab Jews, but also to Indian and other eastern Jews.

I understand your sensitivity in regard to my first sentence. However, you inferred something other than I intended. Of course discrimination and bias are never justified. However, if someone who was a street sweeper or garbage collector in Iraq is assigned the job of street sweeper or garbage collector in Israel it is not clear that they are being discriminated against. When a person who in their home country was a respected doctor or lawyer or university professor is relegated to sweeping streets or collecting garbage it is extremely obvious that there is something not right behind this action.

It is also worth making clear that Arab Jews who were respected professionals, intellectuals, and business people in their home countries lost both their professions and their respected positions in society when they immigrated to Israel. It makes it clear then where they experienced the worst discrimination.

There is a term that was used to refer to the Arab Jews who were shipped into the country. It was something like "human material". The implication was that they were only of value as bodies to fill space and to perform jobs that were necessary for the country, but beneath European Jews. It did not matter whether they were respected professionals and intellectuals in their home countries or "simple working class people", they were viewed and treated as much less than they were.

Glad to see everyone really liked my videos! :) I really only saw 1 comment that actually addressed the content which is interesting. To respond to Shirin's comments:

1) You're probably correct about how Palestinians self-identify themselves. Over time this has changed – Arabs with Israeli citizenship used different terms in 1949 then they did in 1990's. they have tended to use the term "Palestinian" in the last 5 years or so as there has been more identification with the Palestinian issues. But i think we're getting too caught up here with names and titles. The point is that Arabs that have Israeli citizenship do have rights, protections, opportunities, etc. There definitely are issues of Arabs in Israel having lesser levels of income, government funding, etc. These are issues that Israel has to deal with and have been discussed by parties who just ran in the Israeli election. Netanyahu himself has talked about trying to improve the economic levels of Arabs in Israel. But still – it's not even a question that Arabs in Israel have more freedoms and economic opportunities than Arabs living in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or Gaza.

2) As far as 1967 – are you saying that Israel attacked Jordan first? Of course not. The late King Hussein wrote that Israel asked Jordan to stay out of the war, but Jordan decided to attack. As far as Egypt is concerned, Israel attacked after Egypt blockcaded the Straights of Tiran, as well as mobilizing mass forces on Israel's border and calling for its destruction.

3) why do you use such misleading terms as "violent ethnic cleansing operation" describing what happened in 1947? That is no way to have an intelligent conversation. I'm sure you know that the vast majority of Arab refugees from 1948 fled from the war that was taking place. A war that the Arab countries were very anxious to start and carry out.

4) As far Israel wanting to create a Palestinian state but still "colonizing the land" – I'm not sure which land you are referring to. Are you referring to Gaza which Israel left in 2005 to allow the Palestinians to have autonomy? Are you referring to the other settlements in the West Bank that Israel dismantled?