Seems like there might be a few things to talk about. This video isn't new, but I just saw it on Pulse and found it absolutely shocking:
And from just the past two days:
Jerusalem Post: PM reiterates need for Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish state
World Bank: Israelis get four times more water than Palestinians (more background on this story here)
Promised Land blog: Racism on the Train (part III):
Israel’s Labor Court had another hearing on the issue of the Arab lookouts I’ve been following. As I wrote here before, Israel Railways, the national train company, tried to fire almost all of its Arab lookouts, on the pretext that it prefers to hire Army veterans for the job, i.e. Jews. The court ordered the train company not to fire the lookouts until its next hearing.
This is becoming a case study for the way discrimination works in Israel.
Should Israel be the only country discussed in an international anti-racism conference? No. (And this was never the case anyway.) Should Israel definitely be discussed in an international anti-racism conference? Yes!
You don't comment on the hypocrisy of Iran being the only head of state speaker invited to speak?
Or the hypocrisy of Libya chairing an international meeting on human rights? I assume you did see the testimony of the Palestinian doctor who was imprisoned in Libya on false charges, and that he did mention Israel.
Your negligence on this is astounding.
This is an opportunity for you to speak to principles rather than only propaganda.
Commenters on this site did a good job keeping us informed of reports like the Danish TV report. A good collection of photos was posted here.
The Danish report makes you wonder what our American journalists were doing during all that time in January. You'd think they could have gotten about a little more and looked at Israeli society. Surely writing down Mark Regev's daily spin wasn't a full-time job?
There is a problem in your demands, apparent to others if not to you, Richard: it is difficult to discern any matter in which your 'principles' do not repeat the pro-military Israeli propaganda with which we are continually bombarded.
Reading "Raising Yousuf and Noor" always disturbs me so. Richard Witty, how do your principles account for Israeli State policies that patently deny individuals basic freedoms.
Margaret,
That is in contrast with the leadership and the following here.
If you read my comments at length and on other blogs, you might not conclude that I am "hasbara".
I assume you concur with the hypocrisy of Iran lecturing anyone on human rights? Or Libya?
Witty: Was Ahmadinejad the only head of state invited to speak or the only one that accepted?
good to know she's just alittle facist becuase who knows what she would advocate if she was a fullblown nut job facist .
nither iran, israel or U.S. in my opoinion can lecture people on human rights becuse all three countries have dread full record on it.
Should Israel be the only country discussed in an international anti-racism conference? No. (And this was never the case anyway.) Should Israel definitely be discussed in an international anti-racism conference? Yes!
This sums it up well. Pushing the oppressed victim meme has ignored that Israel should be a topic of discussion here. When you have lost an argument – when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: "But what about x?"
More:
@ witty:: israeli behavior is the big story today because 1200 mostly innocent people were killed in lebanon a year and some ago, another 1400 people were just killed months ago in gaza and more is being promised by the same government driven by the same ideology. when iran actually begins to conduct itself in such a rogue manner, it will rise higher on my condemnation agenda.
Apparently, Ahmenidijad was the only one that accepted.
You do get the basis for my accusation of bias and propaganda in your editorial selection?
And, I hope that you concur that Iran and Libya as leadership of human rights activism is a bit of an absurdity?
And, I hope that you concur that Iran and Libya as leadership of human rights activism is a bit of an absurdity?
—
[10:59 AM] When you have lost an argument – when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: "But what about x?"
yikes!
i agree with BLG… diversionary tactics is all that is left for israels apologists… witty examples this very clearly..
I'll bite. Yes, it is inappropriate for Libya or Iran to criticize Israel. It is also inappropriate for Israel or the US to criticize Iran or Libya.
But the fact remains that Israel is a racist country and along with many others, it should be discussed at a conference on racism.
Witty's anonymous critic
Frankly, if the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong, it is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.
How about everyone dispense with the red herrings and go for the facts for all. Israel should be talked about here. So should other countries.
Richard Witty, how do your principles account for Israeli State policies that patently deny individuals basic freedoms.
You do dodge, always.
So far, the majority of comments at the conference have been about Israel.
The Palestinian that spoke about Libya also spoke about Israel. Ahmenijidad spoke about Israel.
Lets talk about Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine (as a human rights abuser), Israel, Lebanon, Gaza (as a human rights abuser – summary executions, arrest without trial, harrassment of political parties), Libya, Saudi Arabia.
Your selective application of principles is a joke.
In the middle east, Israeli law is the most progressive and most consistently applied of any.
The status of West Bank Palestinians deserves a great deal of scrutiny and reform, realization of a peer state.
That is a FAR cry from accusations that Israel is a racist state, especially when stated by Iran.
Richard(to Phil)
I thought you claimed you didn't judge. Or does that only apply to Chris, Suzanne, et al?
Why are you denying racism in Israel when it is freely admitted in Israel that it exists?
Civil rights group: Israel has reached new heights of racism
(From June 2007 Its even gotten more openly racist since then.)
Kaveh – I am not the US, I am an individual. Understanding US history gives me a foundation from which to consider human rights, and the violation thereof, and my education in the US has given me the critical skills to do so, while creating within me an expectation that I will.
When using words such as fascist it's a good idea to check the encyclopedia or dictionary. Wikipedia: Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.
My goodness, sounds like Israel. And reminds one of Witty's decrying as 'revision' any discussion of the Halocaust except in terms of received wisdom. But I don't recall Phil supporting such ideas – so I guess Witty's frequent condemnation of Phil's writing as "flirting with fascist themes" could be an instance of psychological projection (add to the analysis of Tu Quoque). Another: "…selective use of principles…"
Israeli law is not progressive; it codifies adverse discrimination, making it so pervasive that Israelis are not even aware of their bigotry. After all, it's the law. The effect is so powerful that even you, Richard, are not able to think rationally about Israel.
Yes, none of the nations are without transgression. Yes, human rights violations by Israel and the US should be discussed.
[url=
Margaret,
While I agree that Israel is getting more blatanly racist by the day, I would like to point out that it forcibly supresses minority and NOT opposition.
Jewish opposition is allowed to express itself quite freely: see Haaretz, for one.
One example of racism in Israel from ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel)"
This is happening WITHIN Israel, not just in the West Bank. These Bedouins are Israeli citizens. And yet they are denied basic services that even the smallest illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank are provided with. They also face the constant threat of house demolitions, they are not allowed normal expansion of there urban areas, their crops have been spray with toxic chemicals and for all of this neglect and abuse they are still required to pay taxes to Israel.
This is racism in Israel against its own citizens. There is no way to excuse this with references to "terrorism" or "Hamas". This is the face of Israel- its racist face.
They are not psuedo-fascists they are literal fascists. After Berlusconi gave a speech praising Mussolini, israel rolled out the red carpet for him and the ADL gave Berlusconi their "Distinguished Statesman Award." Israel also rolled out the red carped for another Italian fascist, Gianfranco Fini.
The Israelis are the enemies of the Jews.
Denying? Hardly. Racism exists in almost every country on earth. Tree makes a very false accusation when he states that richard has made any denial.
But that is what antisemites like Tree do best. Lie.
"That is a FAR cry from accusations that Israel is a racist state, especially when stated by Iran."
Perhaps Chris's follow-up helps explain the odd construction of this statement by Richard, where it's not quite clear what he is saying. Apparently, per Chris, Richard is not denying that Israel is a racist state.
Eva, I'm not sure I understand your meaning. That opposition by Jewish citizens is allowed doesn't negate the extreme suppression of non-violent opposition of State policy by non-Jewish citizens. Or perhaps that is your point.
BLG–
I don't agree that it's wrong to point out that the Iranian President is in no position to criticize Israel. It's a fact–Iran is guilty of numerous human rights violations, so it's a little ridiculous when their President goes on and on about Israel. I'd say the same about the leaders of many if not most countries–the US, for instance, is in no position to lecture others about torture or waging unprovoked wars of aggression.
On the other hand, individuals who are not members of an oppressive government have every right to criticize Israel, or any other oppressive racist government. Witty, as he generally does, trivializes Israel's crimes, which is why his own criticism of Phil and others here rings so hollow.
@witty
Instead of boycotting, the U.S., Israel and those European nations could have attended and talked all they wanted about Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria.
But didnt because they don;t want anyone turning around and questioning them.
Iran and Libya are able to take the lead at a conference such as this only because the U.S. boycotted.
very good point ahmed, but i think those countries boycotting would prefer to dish it out from the sidelines in a dishonest manner, rather then communicate directly.. i think bullies operate in a similar manner..
Israel though Richard is the international community's biggest problem state at the moment – not just for I/P, either.
Israel has attacked and committed war crimes and blatant violations of UN regulations in Lebanon; The Gaza Strip and the West Bank; Syria and Sudan.
Has just elected a right-wing, blatantly racist government that has suggested ethnic cleansing, subjecting non-jewish populace to discriminatory laws and attacking without cause or logic another sovereign nation (Iran). Possibly with nuclear weapons.
Israeli agents have been caught or are under indictment in both the United States and other western nations for violation of those nations laws – committed in some cases while under Israeli command(stolen Canadian passports being used by agents in New Zealand; likely Mossad connection in the APAIC spy scandal).
Israel agents/supporters have actively disseminated lies and disinformation in the western media to build support for wars designed specifically to oppress and destroy other nations that challenge Israeli hegemony. Only by using insidious and unfounded accusations of antisemitism have some of the most ridiculously false charges against other nations been allowed to infiltrate our so-called free press i.e false claims that Iran threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"; or the charge, started in Canada, that Iranian jews were forced to wear yellow stars of David by the Iranian religious authorities.
I'm sure others could add to that list.
But I think the point is made that Israel is a threat to the international community as a whole – and that decades of ignoring the issues have warranted a major international discussion – with or without Israel/jewish integration….
Richard,
I do not know the entire story but it seems that Ahmedinejad was the only one who took the opportunity to use Durban as a platform, and rest assured, this should not be a condemnation of the UN as the UN is obligated to give a platform to any head of state who requests it, be it Ahmedinejad, Obama, Netanyahu or al-Bashir. If the UN decides to pick and choose who speaks, then it leads to a very big slippery slope that it can never turn back.
Look, I doubt anyone is pleased with Ahmedinejad except his supporters. (How absurd is it to have this guy represent a conference on racism and have him rave on about Zionism?) It does a major discredit to serious criticisms of Zionism and this will only pin in into a corner that makes it seem that the whole world is against Israel, when many powerful states decided that this conference wasn't important at all. It could have been much more useful if there were more important officials taking the chance to speak about the terrible crimes happening in places like the Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Basque, Kosovo, Georgia, Moldova, AND ISRAEL. (Personally, I would have liked to have seen a comprehensive talk about Australia's abusive policies towards its natives and immigrants.) But without the other powerful states, then this only led to a one-sided purview for Ahmedinejad to use it to, I don't know what, push more buttons. If I was Iranian I would be incredibly angry at this fool.
Chris, sweetie, if you are going to resort to your usual tired old baseless ad hominems, you could at least get my gender right. I've told you several times before, I'm a "she" not a "he". I realize that factual accuracy is not your strong point, but everyone has to start somewhere.
Since Witty extolled the supposed "progressive"-ness of Israeli law and what he called its consistency of application, and mentioned only the need for "scrutiny and reform" in re the occupied territories, I think that my appraisal of his comments as a denial of serious racism in Israel to be accurate. If Witty disagrees with my assessment of his opinion he is certainly able to say so. I would Look forward to an admission from Witty that Israel has a serious racism problem that manifests itself both within the green line and without.
Why do we go around and around with this, as the saying says, "a fart in a barrell"? It's all here. Read this, and you will be able to write Witty's posts before he does, if you want to:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html
Remember, folks:
1. Israel Rocks!
2. Arabs Suck!
3. You Suck!
4. The Whole Suckin' World Sucks!
And there, my son, you have the whole of Hasbara
Margaret,
This is my point: the harshness of the response of Israel to the opposition is dependant on ethnicity of the opponents, and not on their views.
This is what I mean – Israel is Jewish for minorities and democratic (only) for Jews. This is where comparison with Fascism breaks down.
Other fascist regimes were not tolerant of political opposition, and newspapers like Haaretz did not survive at all.
"You don't comment on the hypocrisy of Iran being the only head of state speaker invited to speak?"
All heads of state were invited; only Ahmadinejad took the opportunity.
"The Danish report makes you wonder what our American journalists were doing during all that time in January."
Actually, they did report on the Gaza war tourism. The Wall Street Journal, of all papers, produced this video on it.
The problem is not what the media reports, but, rather, what the media stresses. Instead of pointing to the war tourists as proof of how toothless the Qassams are, the media stresses that on one occasion a Qassam went through the roof of a Sderot home.
Thanks, Eva. It is a significant difference.
I just came across the phrase "the voice of the people," reading an article about the decline of newspapers. Media does provide a voice for the people. 'Course, it doesn't have to be print. I think that the growth of the internet is connected with the changing public perception of circumstances in the Israel/Palestine Territories.
Equally, I think more support for Palestine was not forth coming previously because the news about happenings in that area has been one-sided. What THB points out shows how easy it is to mold views, whether intentionally or just because of convention, going along with the narrative without any questioning.
There is racism in Israel, and MANY public groups actively opposing it. Those that do without violence are not arrested, not prohibited from assembling, not prohibited from writing.
That is a source of pride to me.
The cases when those rights are violated are repugnant to me, and thankfully historically it hasn't happened very much.
In Palestine (West Bank), it currently is illegal to sell land or a house to a Jew, on penalty of death (trial and public execution). In Gaza, they periodically execute Fatah members, opportunistically claiming that they are "spies".
In Lebanon, two generations of Palestinians that have been born there are not allowed citizenship.
In Iran, they cite that western standards of what constitutes human rights (say Geneva conventions), don't apply to them at all. They don't even concern themselves with international public opinion about it, or undertake ANY review of their policy and practises, except for political exceptions (say Ahmenidijad's request to review the evidence against the American who was just falsely convicted of spying, a JOURNALIST).
Israel is the best in its class, nowhere near perfect.
Looking here, do you think the effect of Rykart's comments for example result in increased openness of dialog, or the suppression of dialog.
Haart'z does not challenge or question the premise of a jewish state in Palestine – which is the fascist part. So I disagree with your point of departure, Eva. Leaving Haart'z as a functioning liberal paper allows the essence of democracy where there is very little choice. There are differences to be sure – but I wouldn't say they disqualify Israel as a fascist state by definition. Even Hitler's Germany had elections and probably other functioning institutions that had democratic elements within a narrow range.
That's why Haart'z remains. Israel has, according to Chomsky in "Fateful Triangle", shut down certain publications at various times for different reasons, apparently(I don't have the book around, I'm going on memory, sorry). Even Haart'z is subjected to military censorship I believe – which is just a smarter way of state coercion that leaves the native feeling just free enough to not start REAL trouble. Although in Israel the majority of the population appears to accept this as a necessity in a jewish state, so…
Stevieb, I'd like to add one point to your earlier post about how Israel is a threat to the international community as a whole, and is therefore deserving of particular attention, and that is their possession of nuclear weapons. In addition to possessing over 200 nuclear warheads,they are not signatories to the NPT and a previous Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir did signal that they might use the "Sampson option" if they felt threatened. If a nuclear arsenal in the hands of paranoid racists, especially the current government of Netanyahu/Lieberman is not a frightening prospect, I don't know what is.
"Looking here, do you think the effect of Rykart's comments for example result in increased openness of dialog, or the suppression of dialog."
Which pales in comparison to the decision of major powers to NOT attend this conference. How is that for "openness of dialog". Israel chose not to attend and Iran did. Ahmadinejad could have used a rebuttal by anyone but they decided not to have a dialogue, refused to even recognise the importance of this subject and absolutely relegated it to negligable.
My sentiments exactly, Ana…
Richard Witty | April 21, 2009 at 08:06 PM
Name one public group opposing racism in Israel.
Then name one success they've had.
Funny your quip about Iran and the Geneva Conventions, particularly after Israel ran riot over them(literally)during the atrocities in Gaza.
Doh!
And if you have any real knowledge of Israel's history of torturing Palestinians and it's treatment of detainees in general you could possibly realize how stupid your comments
about Iran's human rights record are. But clearly you don't. And unlike Israel, Iran has been victimized by the West for it's resources most notably when your nation(with help from Britain, Holland) organized a coup of it's democratically elected leader and replaced him with a dictator whose human rights record is amongst the worst, and whose reign was one of longest in the 20th century. And one the Israelis were quite fond of.
But I'm sure you won't let me spoil your delusions…
Doh!
Iran is a real country with a very proud history of resisting invaders, oppressors and thieves – which puts it miles ahead of Israel.
BTW The Palestinian situation isn't comparable with many others on the planet in terms of desperation – why you'd try to make an issue of them executing collaborators when they're in a war for their very existence – in the conditions they have- is truly pathetic.
Hey Ana,
That reasoning may seem logical BUT Israel is not the only nuclear power who is a non-signatory of the NPT. Pakistan and India aren't exactly two of the most enlightened states in this world today and both aren't under very stable governance and both provoke each other with the question of Kashmir and both are guilty of racist elements in their own state.
This should not belittle Israel's own culpability. But those who are in possession of nuclear arms aren't the models of progress these days either.
Richard – I think Israel has almost complete control over the environment in which the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel and Palestine live. Do you agree? If you don't agree, would you share your reasons?
Stevie,
Haven't you heard of Betselem?
Or, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom, B'tselem, Gisha, Hamoked, The Public Committee Against Torture, Yesh Din, Physicians for Human Rights, Rabbis for Human Rights, Adalah, and Itach – Women Lawyers for Social Justice.
Stevie,
If you knew of Iran's history with regard to human rights, you would note how ignorant your comment on Israel is.
Palestinians in the occupied territories have varied control over their own lives. In some towns there is no intrusion whatsoever, no roadblocks, nothing. Near the Israeli frontier, near settlement blocs, near the Jordan Valley, the intrusion is more pronounced.
Many West Bank Palestinians travel overseas on Jordanian passports, even as they are legally not yet citizens of a state.
The presence of roadblocks, settler exclusive roads, odd route of wall/fence, is clearly intrusive.
Richard, my impression is that even in those areas lucky enough not to be mentioned in the Bible, the roads are segregated, property rights are not recognized if Israel is interested in development, there is no freedom of movement from one area to another, there is no egress/entry from/into the Territory; there is no local authority over taxation, and legal water rights appear non-existent. And, of course, suspicion of terrorism can result in a death sentence without trial or right of appeal.
Yes I'm aware of those groups: I just wondered if you did. I noticed you didn't answer my other question. And I'm aware of Iran's human rights record.
And my criticism of that is tempered by the aggression of the U.S and Israel and corruption in the international community handed out to Iran. That is I expect regimes who are immorally isolated to become insular and totalitarian. What's Israel's excuse?