Jews, race, color, and the limits of a justifiable outrage.

 Reflections following the, now forgotten, Briahna Joy Grey’s tweeter storm over the alleged whiteness of Jews.

Briahna Joy Grey, a left-wing activist and a former aide to Bernie Sanders, asked in one of her regular podcasts, if Jews are white. She didn’t just ask it. It was the title of her February 25^th podcast “The Debrief.” This may seem a simple matter to a non-Jew, but it is anything but. While Judaism as a way of life and a system of values has no interest in people’s skin color, Jews have complex relationships with the subject. Therefore, there is a lot of genuine discussion to be held here. However, asking if Jews are white is probably the worst way to open any discussion on the matter.

Briahna Joy Grey

When it comes to the physical, physiological, facts on the ground, melanin; Jews are shades. A range of different shades of skin color from black to white, mostly shades of brown. But at the social level things are complicated. Complicated by the different experiences Jews and other minorities, had in Europe and North America. While in both continents there were lengthy periods of intolerance and violence towards many of these minorities; there were still differences. Differences that are known, but not so easily understood.

Jews are one of many marginalized European and Middle Eastern communities that made it in the USA. An America that for the greater part of its existence, being white was one of the highest social statuses. Succeeding in such America was not a given. It was a tough struggle against intrench prejudices. Prejudices that originated in the world they left behind. A world that punished them, violently and brutally, whenever they tried to improv their situation. And even when they didn’t.

The America they came to was doing the same thing. Not to them. To African Americans, and to Native Americans. (As well as visiting this mistreatment on Hispanics and East Asians populations). On one hand the Jewish experience in North America did not include the systematic abuse perpetuated on African Americans and Native Americans. On the other hand, the ideas that justified this mistreatment were similar to those that justified the systematic abuse Jews have suffered from in Europe. And in this new home Jews were viewed in ways that were not far removed from those European perceptions. Those were, and are, the same European misperceptions. These are ideas that got them [us] killed in countless pogroms and persecutions. American Jews never lost sight of the fact that no matter how successful they are, those ideas are alive and well all around them. And occasionally produce murderous violence against them. This is why those differences are insignificant for Jews. Yes, murderous violence is not as recurring as on the “Pale of the Settlements.” At the same time, it is not that far behind.

However, for African Americans those differences are very significant. They saw the Jews take the white only sits on the bus, drink from the white only fountain, and enter the white only stores. And most importantly, Jews could vote, while African Americans were prevented from that. And of course, as mention previously, Jews in the USA did not have to worry from lynch mob as much as African Americans had to. From an African American pov Jews were on the white side of life, enjoying a degree of safety unavailable to most, if not all, African Americans. Europe, a continent on the other side of the ocean, was irrelevant. This does not dispute the fact the Jews were discriminated against in USA. Not to mention the confidence by which antisemite agitators such as Henry Ford, Charles Coughlin, and others, could spread their hatred. The difference is that the oppression of black people and Native Americans was official policy in both state and federal levels. That allowed private initiatives among white Americans to create lynch mobs, and other forms of murderous violence. This also inspired discrimination against Jews. But it was mostly a private initiative. In stores that decided not to allow Jews to enter, private clubs, etc.

These differences are why African Americans experienced Jews as white. The threat to their lives was, and is imminent. Any pause that could be given would be considered luxury. And in many ways, it is. This is why Briahna Joy Grey, found it so amazing that Americans don’t consider Barbara Streisand white. For her it was amazing. But for mainstream America, an openly Jewish person is not white; even without the traditional dress. Knowing that makes her amazement understandable. And to be clear, I don’t think all African Americans see the Jews that way. I’m sure many understand the complexities of the Jewish situation. At the same time, I’m sure Briahna Joy Grey views are not uncommon either. But they all share the same experiences, current and historic. And because of that the outrage, justifiable without a doubt, has to take a step back. And not just because of that.

What both sides need to know, and internalize is that the similarities between the oppression of Jews in Europe and Afro-Americans in the USA, does not always have a mutual healing effect. On the contrary, in many cases it hurts and enrages. And it even frightens. And that is probably the worst thing of all. Briahna Joy Grey’s podcast, and the tweeter storm that followed, is a good example. Because when Jewish identity is discussed by non-Jews troubles begin. And the rise in hate crimes against Jews demonstrates that; as it always did. Challenging the identity of Jews is done in two known ways. The first is challenging their loyalties to the countries they live in. Are they true Russians, Germans, Pols, Egyptians, Iraqis, Iranians, Americans, etc. or something else? With National Socialism challenging their very place in the human race. Each case was a precursor of atrocities. And in many instances, the engine of those atrocities. Asking if jews are white, intentionally, or unintentionally, challenges the current and historic roll Jews have in the cause of civil rights. Intentionally, or unintentionally, it challenges their loyalty to that caus. A cause their lives were and are dependent on. Therefore, the outrage Briahna Joy Grey received wasn’t just unavoidable. It was also an expression of survival instincts kicking in.

And just as the harsh Jewish experience created survival instinct among Jews. So did the African American experience. An outrage like this, justified or not, can kick start their survival instincts just the same. And what good would that do? Creating a shouting match between two communities that have no interest in oppressing each other? Both are deeply wounded. Those wounds need healing. Rage, no matter how justified, does not heal.  

Briahna Joy Grey may not have intended to challenge Jewish identity, but she internalized and used the language and tools of oppression. And we, as Jews, must never rule out the possibility that we have done the same. I’ll be surprised if we hadn’t.

The second constant feature of hatred of Jews was labeling them with whatever is considered the worse possible evil of the period. This is what Batya Ungur-Sargon tried to explain to her in the preceding discussion in her other podcast “Bad-Faith”. In Medieval Europe Jews were falsely accused of being Christ killers that drunk the blood of Christian children for Passover. In Nazi era Germany, we were labeled a sub-human race bent on conquering the world. (Who in their right minds would want the headache of managing the entire world?). In Soviet Russia, Zionists, a euphemism for Jews, were capitalists, the most corrupt element of any society according to Marxist ideology. In the western world, rightwing antisemites see the Jews as Bolsheviks. Today we are considered nonwhites by white supremacists, and whites by far left (supposedly) anti racists that see whiteness as the evilest thing there is. So, when she later asked if Jews are white, people got mad. But we can do the same kind of mistake. And like it or not, we have internalized some of the ideas of white supremacy. As most of the world did.

This is a living historical legacy that does not get its due attention. Today the ideas of white supremacy are recognized as evil, stupid, and oppressive. They were like that all the time. But so much was invested in spreading them, in arguing for them, and in living by them that they were internalized by people world over. It took centuries for the ideas of tolerance and mutual acceptance, to gain the resources needed for spreading all over the world. This made it possible for them to challenge, and expose, the corrupt, immoral and evil nature of white supremacy. There is still a lot of work to be done on this in order to undo that evil. And it cannot be done adequately while ignoring that antisemitism was spread and internalized in the very same manner. And the same goes for the fight against antisemitism. This is why we, as Jews, must cleans ourselves from this poison. We must do so for our own best interest. And not just as a result of a concern for our own image. The two struggles are still connected like conjoined tweens. Just, not identical conjoined tweens. And that is another reason to take a step back. And we have internalized some of those ideas. Just as many African Americans internalized the ideas of Antisemitism and Jew hatred.

Internalizing ideas of white supremacy does not mean that Jews want to be white. This insensitive equation/ slash accusation, is a part of the package of misperceptions when the issue of Jews, race, and color, is raised. Jews don’t want to be persecuted and discriminated against. That means been accepted by the general society. And for many decades this meant, unofficially, be seen as white. Today it means having non-Jews stop defining Jewish identity. But the result of the previous condition was that Jews have internalized, to a degree, ideas and perceptions that came from white supremacy. As did a lot of other societies that lived under the shadow of the globally dominated white Christian European culture. There were other contributing factors. The desire of individuals to imitate elements from any successful culture. And the lack of any counter ideology, active among those ethnicities and religions that could challenge the evil of white supremacy. Such ideologies rose to prominence, only in the last 100 years. Jews in this regard are no different than many others. For non-Jews to focus only Jews, that is not just hypocrisy; it is antisemitism. It creates the false impression that Jews had a more significant contribution for slavery and racism in North America than others. And that is a demonizing blood libel that exonerates the main perpetrators. That said, again, we did internalize the tools of oppression of African Americans, and black people in general. In cleansing ourselves from this evil, we take a major step in defining our identity, our fate. This is another way of keeping non-Jews from defining our Jewish identity. And that is another reason for the rage to take a step back. Jews, like many others, had lived for centuries under the shadow of the white, European Christian culture. A global culture that believed and practiced the ideas of white supremacy and antisemitism. Today that shadow is substantially diminished. It gives us, Jews, the opportunity to let our own true self to shine. In order to that we need to find it. Rage is not exactly useful for that purpose.  

Another reason to take a step back is humbleness and humility. Yes, the question of whether Jews are white shouldn’t have been asked. But it comes from an insensitivity we are equally able to practice. And most likely do. And despite the wounding effects of the differences between the two repressive experiences; the struggle against the ideologies that motivates them is the same struggle, because these are the same ideologies.  We all need to understand that a part of the internalization of tolerance is giving the benefit of doubt to those that outrage us. Unless negative stereotypes were deliberately, and constantly, defended and advocated, the rage had to subside quickly. As I hope it did; though that may never be known, since the events in the Ukraine have taken center stage, and pushed everything else to the sidelines.

We, as Jews, must understand that when it comes to conversations about race, we can make the same misjudgment. Frankly, I’ll be surprised if we don’t. The benefit of doubt gives everybody the room to discuss both racism and antisemitism. And that discussion is necessary, especially if it wounds. As it clearly does.

Finally, any outrage is self-consuming. And when it is justified, we are less aware of it. And even the most justifiable outrage does not justify a shutting off of opportunities for constructive communication. No matter how narrow they are.

P.S

As I was writing this piece, this forgotten episode made a comeback. Following the twitter storm, Briahna Joy Grey gave an interview on that experience to Coleman Hughes. I didn’t get to see it, because I was working on this. And because I’m a bit of a technophobe. But the add to that interview includes an incomprehensible quote, probably from her.

Related links:

Bad faithon youtube 

The Debriefpodcast.

    

Israel, USA, Russia and the crisis in the Ukraine.

Israel’s position in the crisis Putin had created in the Ukraine maybe complex, but not too complicated to understand. For the democratic countries this conflict has to end with the Ukraine free from Russian occupation, and Putin remaining in power.

Why is it so important to stand for the Ukraine?

Simple, if one democracy falls, sooner or later, all democracies fall. And of course, morally it is the right thing to do.

Why should Putin remain in power?

Simple, nukes.

To come out victorious from this crisis he does not need to conquer all of Ukraine. He wants to. Especially now, because his pride had been injured severely, due to his current setbacks. But in advance he made a contingency; securing the “independence” of the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. With these gains he can pretend to have wone. But if his regime is threatened, a likely outcome of the military stalemate and the growing international isolation, then he might take everyone he can with him. Is he that crazy? He is crazy. Crazy enough to bomb thousands of civilians in Chechnya, Syria, and the Ukraine. Crazy enough to kill political opponents. Even when they flee to western countries. This is why the entire world has no desire to find out how much.

And that is precisely why Israel, and the rest of US allies in the Middle East, have to walk on a thin rope. Because if Putin survives, and he has to survive, whether we like it or not. Any country that opposed him, will receive Russia’s wrath. NATO has the ability to deter him. The economic giants of East Asia are not located in strategically vulnerable positions. And are too economically powerful. Russia will need them for the recovery. Israel has Russia and Iran as its northern neighbors. And the first one has on its agenda the elimination of Israel. If Russia aids the Iranian efforts in any way, things could be very bad for Israel, and its civilians.

Ignoring this is hypocritical. The prime responsibility of any Israeli government is the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. And time and time again Israel encounters criticism that forgets that. Some of it comes from surprising corners. Yes, Israel should have done more for the Ukrainian refugees, much more. But that is a separated matter; related, but separated. The point here is that president Biden gave no assurances against Russian aggression. Not to Israel, and not to the other ME allies. This is bad leadership on his part.

This hypocrisy has another level to it. It asks Israel to trust US leadership in the crisis. This is when Israel has enormous difficulties trying to trust the American leadership over the crisis of Iran’s nuclear program. The emerging deal seems worse than the one before, according to the Israeli PM, Naftali Bennet. It is a strange situation, where the stronger party acts as if it is the weaker one in the US Iran relationships. And the US policy in the Ukrainian crisis looks as a continuation of this appeasement. President Biden declared in advance that there won’t be US or NATO troops in the Ukraine, on the ground. To be clear, there are damn good reasons not to actually do that. More than one dynamic can lead to nuclear exchange. But a case can be made in favor of the will to go to the brink, and against giving it all up in advance. The will to go to the brink is why the US came on top from the Berlin crisis of 1949, and the Cuban missiles crisis of 1962. The refusal to even consider it led to the return of tyranny in Syria. A crisis, the US, and the free world lost. Lost to Russia and Iran.

What can Putin do in response to such an American move, if it had taken place?

Very little. He could have sent some of his troops to Cuba and Venezuela. These forces won’t be a match to the US forces in the region. They will put more strain his budget. And won’t be killing Ukrainians.

Biden’s actual policy towards Putin’s aggression, suggests that should a crisis erupts between Israel and Russia over the former’s support for the US and the Ukraine, Israel will be on its own. And that makes the hypocrisy of the critic even worse.

Zelensky has every right to expect support from everyone that believe in life, freedom, and sovereignty. And in everyday that passes Putin gives more and more reasons for decent people to deliver on that. But right now, the Biden policy had literally, shifted the burden of defending the free world, from the USA, to everyday people in the Ukraine. People that now have to choose between life and liberty. And that is already a defeat for liberty. Putin’s war may turn out to be the worse pyrrhic victory in history, but the free world has already lost. In Syria that policy brought ISIS to center stage. In the vast expanses of Russia and the Ukraine, Islamists of various kinds, ultra-nationalists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Bolsheviks, can find safe heavens. A multiple of Afghanistans. Shifting the blame for this from president Biden will require greater acrobatics of hypocrisy. One that won’t necessarily blame Israel. But by then it wouldn’t matter. Israel is one iota in the big mess Biden allowed Putin to create.      

My list of the top 11 obstacles for peace in the Middle East.

 From top to bottom, in descending order of severity.

1)     Different narratives that are sometimes conflicting.

2)     Lack of hope among the general public on both sides.

3)     Lack of trust on both sides.

4)     Continued Palestinian rejectionism of the negotiation process.

5)     An international, (and Israeli) peace movement that is more of a cult of Israel bashing, rather than any actual peace advocacy, or peace making.

6)     An array of “neutral” ngo’s that are in-fact an extreme expression of the former.

7)     Anti-Israel biases within the global media that makes it clear to everyday Israelis why peace should not be trusted. Also, an expression of 5.

8)     The UN.

9)     A hopelessly divided Palestinian leadership.

10)  Chronically unstable Israeli governments. This is due to Israel’s current system of government.

11)  The settlements.

 

What defines severity here is the ability to change/remove these obstacles.

Settlements had been removed before; and therefore, can be removed again. The question is what Israel gets in return.

Israel’s political system can change. It requires public support. The need to change it, is mainly due to internal reasons; unstable coalitions, and extortion power to smaller political parties. Changing it requires public support. When it comes to the peace process these weaknesses can be bypassed. But not always successfully.  

The Palestinian leadership can unite. If the leadership will it. Since their motivation for maintaining the division is that of personal gains that is less likely. And if they do unite, will that be behind an extremist message, a practical one, or a moderate one?

The UN will change if global politics change. Right now, it is another battlefield.

I don’t know what can change 5,6, and 7. But if they can, they can help alleviate, 3, 2, and 1. In that order. They will help the process; the process will do most of the work. The process will create trust in the process itself. This will serve at first as substitute to the lack of mutual trust. As the trust in the process increases, it will lead to some degree of mutual trust. As this is increased, hope will be rekindled. As hope, and trust increases, they will energize the dialogue. Opening the way for a dialogue of narratives, the hardest part of the process. Where it can all fall apart again.

For the process to restart, the Palestinian leadership must attend the process, change 4. The longer they procrastinating the less we have a motive to resume it from our side.

An honest conversation about dishonesty.

 So, Trevor Noah asks an honest question about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Good for him. Honesty cannot ever be overrated. Now it’s time to have an honest conversation about his honest question. A question that wasn’t honest, and wasn’t a question.

His visual essay was not meant for me, Obviously. My allegiances are with Israel. It was meant for the general neutral public. Those of them that stand on the sideline. Wanting to help; but are unable to do so because it looks so protracted and too complex to resolve. He pointed out just how pointless it is, because we can indeed choose every point in time we like, and each time a different side will look guilty. Every standing on the sidelines neutral will a have lot of empathy for him over that. A “he is exactly where I am” kind of feeling; a strong one. But if this is how he sees it, then why did he choose a date for the beginning of the conflict in the first place? 73 years, he says. That is the how long Israel exists as a state. For those that do not know.

It is a strange pick. First, because he later spoke emphatically against doing that very thing, picking dates. Second, because most people place the beginning of the conflict at the end of WW1. It could be a case of ignorance on his part. After all, one of his technique to generate empathy was to state at the very beginning that he will probably miss a few important details. But he also adds another, supposedly, historic fact. “The British took the land from the Palestinians,” he says. So, he does know it begun in WW1. So why choose a later date, when you know it’s the wrong one? And why phrase it the same way the Palestinian narrative describes the Balfour declaration? 

Avoiding mentioning specific dates that are also controversial, helps focus on the main point someone wants to deliver. And Trevor’s main point? “Let’s look at who is dead and who is alive.” Alright. Let’s look at who is dead, and how they died. At the time of his piece, around 28 Palestinians were killed. Among them, 10 children. And around 150 wounded. With 2 deaths on the Israeli side. His numbers. Horrifying and sad, all the more a reason to look into that. So, let’s go back to these early Palestinian deaths. Were they all killed by Israeli fire? Or was it, in some cases, by Hamas’ missiles that fall short, and into Palestinian civilian areas? And those that were killed by Israeli fire. Were they human shields for Hamas’ weaponry and missiles? Were they warned by Israel to clear away before the attack? Were they all killed or hurt by Israeli fire? Or was it secondary explosions, or simple traffic accidents as many people fled? And what about accessible shelters to the general population? where there any nearby?

Like it or not, that is what looking at who is dead and who is alive means. It may not necessarily remove the main blame from Israel. But without mentioning it Hamas becomes blameless for those. Ignoring that possibility isn’t an accidental omission. It is an obvious expression of one sidedness. But Trevor is indeed not looking at that. He is looking away from that. And into technology. “Set aside motives and intentions and look at technology alone,” he says. He actually said that, set aside motives and intentions. How are people supposed to resolve a conflict if they don’t understand it? And how are they supposed to understand it if they are not looking at motives and intentions? If Trevor does not want to resolve the conflict, why bring it into focus in the first place?

Instead of motives and intentions he focuses on technology and the general strength of Hamas vs the bigger general strength of Israel. It’s the bigger picture, where individual suffering does not exist. To be clear it is an important subject that should be discussed. It is related to the other issues. But, like all of them, it is also separated. So, let’s go alone with it anyways. Trevor’s argument, Israel is so strong it doesn’t need to response. Iron Dom is so perfect it can take down anything in the sky. 2 people were already dead, more will die on the Israeli side later; so, it obviously has limits. And no that isn’t a surprise. Everybody knows that. This is why Hamas and Hizbullah have been stockpiling missiles. So, they can overwhelm this defense system. President Obama pointed to that fact in his Jerusalem speech. You do know who that is Trevor? You did interview him once, didn’t you?

He explains his argument with analogs. First, as a conflict among siblings. Him as Israel, his little brothers as Hamas.  Really? Sibling rivalry has its nastiness. However, when one of them is hurt, let’s say with a sickness, the other will feel the same fear and anxiety as the rest of the family. No matter how hard he/she will try to conceal it. Nasty sibling rivalry among states is a hockey match between Canada and the USA. And Trevor, has any of your siblings ever came at you with a knife? If that happened, and I hope it didn’t, I’m sure your mother would have reacted very differently.

He is defensive about this analog; fully aware it could be interpreted as infantilizing the Palestinians. But that does not infantilize them. It’s just a bad analog. Denying them any agency does that. He moves to another analog; police disarming a man with a knife. And I am so glad he did that because that is not an analog. The situation between Israel and Gaza is an extreme version of this supposed analog. With one major difference. It is not a cop vs a man with a knife walking in the street. It’s a cop vs a man with a knife that is right now stabbing someone else. So, what should the policeman do, Trevor? Go and grab him, risking injury that would prevent the officer from helping? Grab his own knife, and repeat the same risks? Use his gun but only shoot at the assailer’s leg? It would keep him safe but won’t necessarily stop the stabbing. Or shoot to kill? And to be frank, that bullet could also hurt the person he is trying to save. Complicated, isn’t it? A gun though, has one advantage. It is fast. While we are contemplating all these alternatives, the victim is been stabbed over and over again. He/she is bleeding more and more, accumulating injuries that are more difficult to fix. Assuming we can get him/her to a hospital on time. And this is the hypocrisy of Trevor’s fair fight argument. This argument, typical to the anti-Israel narrative, not only wants us to choose between fairness and the safety of our civilian population. It demands us to choose this fairness over the safety of our civilians. How fair is that to them?

But of course, he is not demanding anything. He is just asking an honest question. An extremely bent honest question. But let’s go alone with it anyways. His last question, what is the responsibility of the strongest party? Great question. Let’s explore that. What is that responsibility according to international law? What are the operational-challenges Israel faces in order to fulfill those requirements? How do the actions of the IDF meet or fail to meet those requirements; while taking into account the military situation on the battlefield? Like it or not that is what you analyze when you examine responsibility.

Complicated, isn’t it? But we cannot answer that question. It’s the end of the segment. The thing is, we don’t have to answer that question. Trevor had already suggested the answer to us by emphasizing every negative thing about Israel. It’s not a fair fight, Israel is the stronger party, force isn’t necessary because of Iron Dome is perfect. More casualties on the Palestinian side. Showing Israeli police storming the al Aqsa mosque, but not the violence they were responding to, a dramatic news bulletin that begins with Israel’s reaction. Whatever makes Israel look bad, correctly or incorrectly is front and center. Whatever makes the Palestinian side looks bad is largely dismissed or ignored.

In Trevor Noa’s 8.53 minutes piece about honesty in discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict, dishonesty is the dominating subtext. He delivers an amazing performance convincing he is one of the anguishing neutrals. But everything in it is in support of one side, the Palestinian side. He slides inside the Palestinian narrative about the Belfour declaration, in a way only someone familiar with it can. He emphasizes only things that make Israel look bad; be it actual matters, or angles on complex situations. The entire direction of his video is against Israel. It is not the conclusion of it, because nothing has been analyzed, so no conclusion can be made. And it does end with an open question.

To be clear, he has every right to be on the Palestinian side. To support it, to believe in its narrative, and to publicize it. But to pretend to be neutral while doing so?

And it doesn’t end there. He argues against looking into past, (while inserting his view of the past), because it is too complex. As if the other aspects of the conflict are not complex. however, every direction he takes has its complexities. Looking at who is dead, fairness, the responsibility of the stronger party, land, economy, religion, governments, etc. All have their own complexities. Discussing anyone of them isn’t much different than discussing the past. And any person that can understand them can understand the past. But Trevor isn’t discussing any of them. He is moving from one theme to the next as if they are one and the same. And using them to paint Israel in a darker light.

One of the complexities of the conflict is that they are all connected. Including the past. The past is one of the main reasons why it is ongoing. The past is where we can find what the Palestinian side did when it was the stronger party. It started with classical pogroms, and moved to armed death squads, targeting and massacring civilian populations. And kept on doing it until these very days. Only this time relaying more on artillery.  And yes, I know, I just put forward a key part of the Israeli narrative. It is a war of narratives. That is what every decent person that did try to go beyond the complexities will tell you.

Trevor’s questions were nothing but a literary tool. Which he used brilliantly. It is too bad they were waisted on this unequivocal dishonesty.       

Anti-Zionism, the case of Amjad Iraqi. When the apartheid blood libel is more than just anti-Semitism. Part 3

Previous 

Amjad Iraqi’s bad faith is a disturbing one. It is best demonstrated when he chooses, the 2003 order that halted family unification between Palestinians living in Israel, and Palestinian coming to Israel from the WB, Gaza, and elsewhere. As always, he avoids context. Instead he compares it to Israel law of return. A law he describes as giving citizenship to every Jew coming to Israel. The actual law is more of an asylum law than a naturalization law. And it is extended to non-Jews. I added a video that explains it in a good and brief way.

 

It is a good thing that he brought that law as an argument. To begin with, were does it say that immigration policies are an indicator of apartheid? But even if there is such a clause in international law, Israel doesn’t qualify. As Amjad Iraqi points out, Israel has an immigration law for non-Jews. It is the family unification act. Under this law 130,000 Palestinians immigrated into the state of Israel, from 1994 to 2002. This law still exists today. In 2003 it was blocked to Palestinians. The main reason it was blocked, terrorism.

On the 31^st of March 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber from Jenin blew himself up in the Matza restaurant in Haifa. He murdered 16 Israelis, and injured over 40. He was able to enter Israel because he had an Israeli id card; a blue card he inherited from his mother. She was an Israeli Arab citizen that married a Palestinian from the WB, and moved there to live with him. Their son was a second-generation Israeli citizen of this family unification law. And he was not the only one from these demographics involved in violent activities. He was just the deadliest. There was always some degree of involvement in violent activities against Israel, and Israelis, by Arab citizens of the state. The second-generation Arab Israeli citizens of the family unification law, are over represented in those activities. They are less than 5% of Israeli Arabs, but 15% of the perpetrators, (Hebrew link). These numbers are small, but the lesson of the Matza restaurant attack is that the threat should not be underestimated.

Ignoring this makes the critic dishonest, and hypocritical. As the late Israeli supreme court judge, Michel Chesin, pointed out at the time, Israel is asked to accept emigration from hostile territories that engage in violent activities against its civilians. And that is the whole point. No country in the world was ever held to such a high standard. No country in the world, had ever faced the demand, to accept immigrants from hostile nations. Especially when hostilities were taking place. When Israel was doing so it was going the extra mile on this civil-rights issue, ahead of any democracy on earth. The cost was deadly. In maintaining a secondary civil right for Palestinians, Israeli lives were lost. For Amjad Iraqi, this fact is not worth mentioning. I wonder why?

Israel’s record of not having a clear policy towards Arab civilians is an important argument against the lies and distortions of Amjad Iraqi. But it does not clear Israel from wrong doing towards them. Like most democracies Israel’s record towards its minorities is checkered. On one hand the state gave its Arab population voting rights. One the other hand, many of their communities were under military administration until 1967. Today there is a greater integration of Arab citizens into Israeli society, culturally, and economically. But the economic disparities continue. And, sadly, bigotry is also expressed in various social and official interactions.

The most acute situation exists in East Jerusalem. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967 when it reunified the city, after the victory in the Six Days war. The unification was done for two simple reasons. A divided capital city that is shared with an enemy is under a serious security threat. And East Jerusalem includes the most important places for Judaism, religiously, and nationally. The top of the list includes the Temple Mount, The Western Wall, and the Jewish quarter. However, Israel did not sort out the issue of the Arab residents of the places been annexed. An issue that remains open today. With losers on both sides. The Palestinian Arabs living there found themselves residents of a state they were not its citizens. And Israel found itself with large communities of non-citizens. A fact that undermines its sovereignty there. The most obvious solution, granting citizenship, has its drawbacks for both sides. For Israel there is the risk of incorporating a large hostile population. For the Palestinians the concern is that this will be seen as legitimating Israel’s existence; especially the annexation of East Jerusalem.

This vacuum was filled with substitutes. The Arab residents were allowed to keep their Jordanian citizenship. But this was revoked in 1988, by king Hussain of Jordan. In 1993, following the implementation of the Oslo Accords, they were given the right to vote for the institutions of the PA. But this right became meaningless when these elections ceased to take place.

While other factors contribute to this situation; Israel as the ruler of East Jerusalem, has the responsibility to resolve it. That means finding a solution that won’t be booby-trapped by the political standoff. Think of a left-wing, Israeli politician trying to resolve this. On one hand civil rights values will suggests giving Israeli citizenship to all the Arab residents of East Jerusalem. But that will collide with the ideological position of considering re-dividing the city as a part of a peace deal. Right wing politicians will have to confront something they keep avoiding. What role do they give minorities in a state that define itself as Jewish? In emphasizing their collective identity, they run the risk of othering and alienating local minorities, living alongside them. This is one of the problems with the nation state law. This law, like the city of Jerusalem, creates a focus on this issue, and enhances the problems involved.

Jerusalem brings a great emphasis to a lot of issues on both side. The Palestinians have to come to terms not only with the technical existence of a Jewish state. But also, with the connection Jews and Judaism has with this land; especially Jerusalem. This political deadlock traps everybody. But no one is more affected by it than the Arabs of East Jerusalem. The current position of the Arab residents of East Jerusalem under Israeli law, is that of permanent residents. This is an improvised solution that solved that tried to use a law meant for people from other countries and do not wish to become citizens. Under this law they can vote for the municipality of Jerusalem but not in the general elections. They get welfare services from the Israeli state. And they can travel to any part of the state. But if they stay too long outside of Israel, they can lose this legal status. And since today many of them have no other citizenship, they could become stateless. This legal status also contains a path to Israeli citizenship, with its share of bureaucratic hurdles, enhanced by security concerns and mutual suspicions. Since 1967, around 20,000 residents became Israeli citizens. And around 15,000 lost their residency status, mostly during the 90’s. (This was criticized at the time as been a deliberate policy of expulsion). While the overall population had quadrupled.

This is not the complete picture. The Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are intertwined with this. And the human dimension is missing from this review. But it is a vital perspective. One that has to be be given in order to understand the complexities and dilemmas involved. Especially when facing the fallacies behind Amjad Iraqi’s argument.  [East Jerusalem has been the subjects of research and study for quite some time; as do other aspects of Israeli society. Some of it politicized, some of it less so. Therefore, there is no shortness of information on this issue. The purpose of this article is to critic Amjed Iraqi’s accusations against Israel and Zionism.]

To those tempted to call it apartheid here are some challenging facts. The population of Israeli citizens includes Israeli Arabs that are of the same ethnicity and religions as they are.  Residency laws exists in many countries on earth. Calling it apartheid is therefore another wide common denominator. This law does not create a fixed condition. While apartheid laws were meant to be perpetual. The apartheid regime in SA created a crisis. This complex situation is caused by a crisis.

Calling it apartheid is like trying to fix a medical condition with a magic potion. Rather than heal, it will make things worse. Just look at Amjad Iraqi’s argument. From all the aspects of the ongoing crisis in East Jerusalem, he chose the 1980 law. This law annexed East Jerusalem to the state of Israel. It was largely a symbolic act, motivated by the connections Israeli Jews have to that part of the city. The actual annexation took place 13 years earlier. All the problem described above begun then. This symbolic law had no effect on the Arab residents of East Jerusalem. It did not made things worse. And it did not made things better. If anything it obligated the Israeli government to take care of all the inhabitants of the city, (item 4a).  It expresses the Jewish national identity. Identity that has many of its leading symbols in that part of the city. If this is apartheid, one the most immoral systems of government in modern times, then the very existence of Judaism is equally immoral, and has no right to exist. How does criminalizing an identity, be it Jewish or Palestinian, help resolve the conflict? The conflict can only be resolved through mutual acceptance. Amjad Iraqi does the opposite, he criminalizes one of the identities involved.

In his defense one may argue that it was a random pick. And he could have easily picked other dates in the history of East Jerusalem since 1967. The problem is that it is a part of a pattern. One that is consistent and uniform. Every example he brought is something he and his magazine chose. He is an editor, not just a columnist. What does he find apartheid in the behavior of the settlers? Based on the two examples he brought, it is not how they treat the Arab population around them. He chose two pictures where the settlers are harming no one. And all the service they get from the IDF is the defense of their lives. If there is apartheid, and the settlers are the driving force behind it, then the begging settler would not have begged. He would have ordered the armed soldier next to him to expel the crowd that came to support the elderly Palestinian confronting him. Instead, he is begging. This means that the armed soldier is there not to resolve the dispute, just to keep the settler safe. In choosing these two pictures Amjad Iraqi demonstrates that for him, living, breathing, settlers are apartheid. It is one thing to have a political and ideological opposition to the settlers and the settlements. It is something completely different, wanting them dead.

And it is not just settlers that he wants to see dead. It is every Israeli Jew that he wants to see dead. Each of the examples he brought has its differences. But most of them have one thing in common, they kept Jews alive. The 1950 absentee’s property law did so by solidifying the end of a brutal war. And by helping in absorbing Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Military operations in the WB do it every minute of every day, by preventing terrorist activities. The 2003 act, is the direct result of murderous terrorism. For Amjad Iraqi everything that keeps Jewish Israelis alive, is apartheid. One of the most immoral systems of government in recent history. An evil that must be abolished wherever and whenever it does exist. But that evil is a system of government, not the very existence of human beings. But for Amjad Iraqi that what apartheid is, the very existence of Israeli Jews. For him the very connection Jews have to their holly sites in Jerusalem is also apartheid. This choice not only fit the pattern; it expands its genocidal intention to every Jew on Earth. This is why, we, the Zionist Jews, cannot afford to tire from disproving the apartheid libel. Our lives depend on it. Amjed Iraqi demonstrates that this blood libel isn't just antisemitic, it is genocidal.

From the point of view of the history of blood libels against Jews, this is not unusual. Most of them, if not all, ended in the mass slaughter of Jews. And it happened in the Muslim world just as it happened in the Christian world. What is new is the use of the language of civil right to justify it, and aid it. By twisting facts, and history, he twists the language itself so murder and genocide will become acceptable to those that cherish civil rights and human rights. In doing so he makes the genocide acceptable to those that read uncritically any left-wing literature on human rights. The wide common denominators create the false association between Israel and apartheid SA. The lies and the selective examples extend that association to the very existence of living, breathing Jews in the land of Israel, and beyond.  The idea is to make them accept atrocities against Israeli Jews, should they recommence on a massive scale. It happened before. 20 years ago Israelis were subjected to an horrific wave of suicide bombing knows as the second intifada. Nearly every day there was some kind of an attack that murdered several Israeli civilians. It was made possible by pressure from European governments on the Israeli government. That pressure kept Israel from using effectively its armed forces to end the atrocities. The reason Europe helped this mass murder campaign is because its media, along with major sections of its public, bought the language of the Palestinian propaganda. Then it rationalized the war crime as caused by the “occupation.” Now the far nastier charge of apartheid is there to facilitate greater atrocities. The Palestinian armed groups don’t have the means to deliver it. But Hizzbulah, and Iran, with the backing of Russia and China might.

 Why did the PA support the Chinese crackdown in Turkestan? 

What do they expect in return?

Related links in Hebrew about Jerusalem from the Jerusalem Institute.

 1 & 2 

Anti-Zionism, the case of Amjad Iraqi. When the apartheid blood libel is more than just anti-Semitism. Part 2.

Previous 

In order to prove that Israel is an apartheid state Amjad Iraqi uses extremely wide common denominators. They are so wide not only Israel and apartheid SA are included in it, but every society on earth, and every human activity. He also uses lies about SA and about Israel. But what is more dire is what he brings as examples of apartheid policies in the history of Israel.

He brings four examples, Israel’s absentees property law, from 1950. The annexation law of East Jerusalem in 1980. Banning family unification for WB Palestinians in 2003. And the military administration of civilian lives in the WB. (He also brings Israel’s nation state law, but that example had already been discussed). What these examples have in common is the lack of context. And that context is war, a violent conflict. This conflict is not just context. It is the cause of each of these examples. Avoiding mentioning that fact makes the deception possible. It helps create the false impression that these are the causes of the conflicts, and not the byproducts. Disputing them does more than rebuking the apartheid allegations. It demonstrates the actual complexities this conflict is trapped in.

The military administration of civilian lives is definitely a heavy burden on the civilians been administrated. But, this is another wide common denominator. This is a part of every occupation. Be it the genocidal imperialistic occupation of Europe by Nazi Germany. Or the occupation of Nazi Germany by allied forces that ended Nazi aggression.

There is no question that any military occupation should be and must be scrutinized by the standards of law and morality. But the critique itself must answer to moral and ethical guidelines. Those guidelines suggest that no decent critique of the IDF can ignore the threat to Israeli civilians on both sides of the green line. The historic and current record show that armed Palestinian groups are a threat to the very lives of Israeli civilians. As a result, both the IDF and its critics are on the same razor-sharp dilemma. The dilemma of finding a balance between the right of Israeli civilians to live, and the elementary human rights of Palestinian civilians. A critic that ignores that is not a critic. It is political propaganda of the worse kind.

An unavoidable follow up to this discussion are the settlements and the settlers. Aren’t they apartheid? Well…look at the images Amjad Iraqi choose to present. The first one (here on the right) shows a group of settlers walking through a market in Hebron, secured by armed IDF soldiers. Where is the apartheid here? Shopping? Walking? Are these activities constitute apartheid? Receiving military escort for everyday activity is very disturbing. But if those lives are under threat, they must be protected; regardless of your views on the issue of the settlements. These images are supposed to be examples of apartheid. They are supposed to be as clear as ‘whites only, blacks only’ signs. But the only thing these two images show, is the existence of tension between the two populations.

Source: 972 magazine

The second picture shows a confrontation between a settler and an Arab resident, near Hebron. The caption given to this describes the general situation, but not the two main participants in this scene. It is like a picture of a traffic accident with the caption, "Rush hour traffic." It is related, maybe, but it doesn't explain what happened and how the caption and the picture are related. Was this accident the result of rush hour traffic, or just happened to take place during the rush hour? The explanation may come in the body of the article. If it doesn't, all it creates is an impression. And accusations are not made based on impression. They are made based on information. Be it allegations over bad road safety maintenance, or apartheid. 

The irony is that this picture does not deliver the expected impression. The settler in this picture is begging for something. The Arab man is steadfast in his position. Whatever the debate is; no matter who is right and who is wrong; apartheid does not look like this. The oppressor never begs the oppressed. And remember, there is an armed soldier next to the settler. Under apartheid, and under oppressive regimes, a scene like this cannot take place, not even once. This does not mean that everyday life for Palestinians in the WB is a garden of roses. Far from it. This does tell us a lot about Amjad Iraqi. From the complex situation that exists in the WB, there are probably other pictures that are better suited for Amjad Iraqi’s purpose. Other scenes that can be taken out of context in order to make this nefarious accusation. Yet, he chose the most useless ones. Why did he chose them? The answer will reveal itself. It is not stupidity. 

There is no dispute that actions taken by Israeli governments had an impact on the lives of Palestinians. There is a conflict going on. And actions taken by either side had an impact on the population of the other side. Israel’s 1950 absentee’s property law contributed to the problem of Palestinian refugees. It prevented them from returning. But it did not cause it, and did not perpetuated it. The cause was a brutal civil war that devastated both societies, Jewish and Arab. The cause of that war was the Arab opposition to the two states solution, and to the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It was fueled by the mutual hostility both populations had towards each other. This law effectively ended that brutal war. The most likely outcome of allowing the return of these refugees would have been the resumption of hostilities. And the continued devastation of both societies. This is why other, similar conflicts, ended the same way. Therefore, those accusing this law of apartheid are knowingly or unknowingly making a moral case for the continuation of bloodshed. Apartheid is one of the most immoral systems of government in human history. If one thing is apartheid, then its opposite is highly moral. In this case the opposite to Israel’s absentee’s property law it is the resumption of bloodshed. One the worst this conflict has known. This is the razor-sharp dilemma “critics” keeps avoiding. And in this case, it is sharp enough to slice an eyelash from one end to the other.

This continuation of bloodshed would have denied Israel the legitimate right of national self-determination. This fact raises a question as to Amjad Iraqi views on the matter. Is he for or against the principle of national self-determination? His harsh accusations against the 1950 law suggests he is against it when it favors Israel. He does call it apartheid. He makes the same accusation against Israel’s nation state law. He calls that apartheid by falsely claiming it denies self-determination for the Palestinians. It seems that for Amjad Iraqi the principal of national self-determination is not a universal one. To him, denying it from the Palestinians is apartheid. But giving it to Jews is also apartheid.    

This law gave Israel not only the ability to have effective national self-determination, but also the ability to absorb hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. These refugees fled countries they were not a threat to, and societies they did not declare war on. But those societies were hostile to them, violently so.  Israel’s absorbed them, and ended their refugee status. While the Arab world, with the help of UNRWA, perpetuated the stateless conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Instead of absorbing them, they treated them as a threat. And they continue to do so today, with the exception of the Kingdom of Jordan. It is the only Arab state that gave them citizenship.

Israel’s absentee’s property law was brutal, there is no denying that. But it was the lease possible evil, from all the evils that were available. And only evils were available. This evil gave both sides the time and ability to recover. Israel took that chance, the Arab side scorned it. If Amjad Iraqi thinks that the creation of the refugees’ problem makes this law an apartheid law; then he must include in it the other, more dominate factors that contributed to the refugee problem. The segregation and ghettoization imposed by Arab governments on Palestinian refugees. And the war initiated by the Palestinian leadership. But if both sides are responsible, and both sides are responsible, this is not apartheid. It is an important part of a greater conflict that has to be resolved. The refugees’ problem is one of several open wounds that need to be closed. But it won’t be solved by destroying Israel. Each side has its grievances and concerns. Ignoring the other side concerns is not an act done in good faith.

It is important to be reminded that in traditional Palestinian polemics the accusation is not apartheid. It is ethnic cleansing. This accusation is challenged in a similar way. If it was ethnic cleansing, where is the responsibility of the Arab side, and the Palestinian side? As mentioned before, this conflict was their idea. And how come this is ethnic cleansing if many Palestinian Arabs remained in Israeli controlled territory? Today their descendants are a fifth of the Israeli population. If this is an ethnic cleansing what would you call the fact the Arab world had been emptied from its Jewish population?  There are slightly more than 3,000 Jews in the Arab World; mostly in Morocco and Tunisia. It is just 3 eighths of a percent from the 800,000 that used to live there. It is one of the best examples in history for the expression, a faint shadow of its former self. And one of the saddest. The one-sided nature of both accusations shows that the criterion is not the nature of the did. But the identity of the accused. And that is more than just bad faith. It is the very nature of bigotry.

Part 3

Anti-Zionism, the case of Amjad Iraqi. When the apartheid blood libel is more than just Antisemitism. Part 1

 A short prelude:
in this article I use repeatedly 3 initials:
WB - West Bank,
SA - South Africa
PA - Palestinian Authority.

Pro-Israel advocates always argue that accusing Israel of apartheid is false and antisemitic. A column by Amjad Iraqi, a writer and editor at +972 magazine, proves these accusations to be an understatement.

Amjad Iraqi titled his arguments under the headline, “Palestinians are tired of proving Israeli apartheid exist.” This is a clear acknowledgment of a failure; obviously. There could be many reasons for such a failure. It could simply be not true. Israel is not an apartheid state. After all, Amjad Iraqi himself is a Palestinian citizen of Israel. This means that he can vote, speak, and work like all other Israeli citizens, Jews and non-Jews. Like them, he can try and get elected to a public office, such as the Israeli parliament, or the council of a major city. And there is nothing in the Israeli legal system that prevents him, or any other non-Jewish citizen from becoming the Prime Minister, or the President of Israel.

There are other possibilities. They could be doing it wrong. Or maybe it’s a trust issue. It is possible that some people have a hard time believing the intentions behind such accusations. They see the corruption and internal divisions of Palestinian politics, and begin to suspect that Israel is being scapegoated to cover up these failures. There are probably more possibilities. But Amjad Iraqi does not need to explore any possibilities, these or others. He already has an answer. It is the target audience that is the problem. The world public opinion is the problem. Not the Palestinians, not even Israel. The world itself is the problem. According to Amjad Iraqi, the world does not understand what apartheid is. The world expects Israel to become an apartheid state in a specific moment in time, while in fact it is a process. That moments in time was supposed to be the annexation of parts of the WB on July 1^st 2020. As of the time of the writing of these words, this hasn’t happened. Whether it will take place or not, I do not know. After the declaration of open relationships between Israel and the UAE, doubt is the dominate assessment. I do think that attempting to predict the outcome of such a move is a fool’s game. And it does not matter who is doing the predictions.

    As for Amjad Iraqi, he tries to prove his thesis by outlining the main points in the development of the Apartheid regime of South Africa. According to him, apartheid, tyranny, and Zionism, are all processes. And he is right about that. Apartheid in SA was a process, and tyrannies across the world and across history are processes. And so are those that oppose them. Democracy and anti-apartheid are also social and political processes. Industrialization is a process. Environmentalism is a process. Education is a process. Fashion is a process. The changes a spoken language goes through is also a process. Amjed Iraqi had found a common denominator between apartheid SA and Zionism that is so wide, it includes apartheid and anti-apartheid forces.

Another wide common denominator that he points to is that both movements were founded by people that found home in a new land; “made this new land their home,” he quotes from the history of SA. Putting aside the fact that the land of Israel is not new, not for Jews, and not to western civilization. The statement, “made this new land their home,” can be said on every immigration movement. This includes the Indians of SA. They also suffered under the apartheid regime. Not as much as black South Africans, but they too were systematically, legally, and socially discriminated. And like the discrimination of black South Africans, it has a history that goes back to earlier years of Afrikaners politics and ideology in South Africa. This common denominator, binds the apartheid regime not only with Zionism, but also with the Mahatma Gandhi.  After all, he lived in SA for 21 years. Those years are known to contribute to the formation of his world view and the nature of his political activism.

These wide common denominators are a good explanation why the Palestinians have been failing to prove that Israeli apartheid exists. These are bad arguments. They are truly horrendous.  Lies are worse. And Amjad Iraqi does use lies. As the old rational from terrorist organizations goes, the aim justifies the means. He states: “Like South Africa, Israel’s complex regime was not created by a single dramatic moment: it was meticulously designed over decades, fueled by an ideology that rejected equality between the natives and the settlers…”. The first lie is about SA. Equality was not simply rejected in Apartheid SA. It was not some vague statement against equality, with a policy of jobs discrimination. In Apartheid SA inequality was glorified and imposed rigidly, and brutally. In all walks of life. That regime not only actively, and forcefully discriminated against people in every aspect of life. It also went after their thoughts on the matter. And punished them for those thoughts. Especially when they were not white. No one in Israel is going after Amjad Iraqi’s thoughts. He diminishes the horrors of that regime, in order to narrow down the differences between Israel and the apartheid regime of SA. Thus, creating the illusion that the two are similar. The aim justifies the means. He doesn’t say it, but he practices it.

Israel does not have a policy of rejecting equality towards the Palestinian Arabs. To begin with Israel and the Zionist movement never had a policy towards the local Arab population. Most of this “policy” was reaction to murderess violence coming from the Palestinian side. Occasionally, dotted with attempts of rapprochement. The most famous example, is the WeitzmanFeisal agreement of 1919. It was a mutually agreed framework to prevent the conflict from taking place in the first place. And it was signed by the leaders of both sides. But the Palestinian leadership chose not to enter into this framework. They made that decision on May 4^th 1920 in a classical pogrom, known as the Nebi Musa riots. The first in a serious of pogroms that got worse and worse. Another Zionists attempt in rapprochements was during the 1920’s. The Histadrut, tried to help Arab workers unionized. The Histadrut is the biggest labor union in Israel. It is an umbrella for trade unions from many fields. Before the creation of Israel, it was the de facto government of the Jewish Zionist community in the land of Israel. They were also Socialists that believed in the international mission of Socialism; unionizing and unifying workers around the word. Therefore, they tried to help Arab workers unionized and improve their working conditions.  This early rapprochement is a struck contrast to the history of apartheid SA. During the first decades of the 20^th century, trade unions of white Europeans in SA, turned against sharing joint cause and equal pay with black trade unions (see the 1919 mark on the timeline).

And the contrasts continue. When SA became separated from the British Empire, it imposed the Apartheid system, where black Africans had no political representation. When Israel became independent, it had Arab parliamentarians in its first legislative assembly. And in each and every elected legislative assembly since. This is why apartheid was more than just inequality. It denied political representation from entire ethnicities, especially the majority black population. In Israel all major minorities have political representations. They include Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Jewish ethnicities, and various branches of Judaism. Israel is, a one person, one vote political system.

 A luck of political representation is another form of oppression. And another key contrast between Zionist Israel and apartheid SA. Historically, and continuously, Zionism and Israel acknowledged the equality of the Palestinian Arabs. This was done on two levels, on the individual level, with equal rights to all the citizens of Israel. And on the collective level, by accepting the principle of the two states solution. A Palestinian nation state, alongside a Jewish nation state.

Even the much maligned, Israel’s “National State Law” does not denies it. It says that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. It does not forbid the establishment of another nation state on the same land. This Basic (constitutional) law has its problems. But saying that this law forbids national self-determination for Palestinians is false. Thewording of this law is very clear. “(b) The state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination. (c) The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the state of Israel, is unique to the Jewish people.” While Amjed Iraqi declare in a question, “what about the Jewish Nation-State law, passed two years ago, which decrees that self-determination in this land belongs solely to the Jews?” With the change of just one word, land instead of state, he created a gross lie. And the article his “decree” links to, is nothing but a failed attempt to make a duck look like a pig.

Part 2: