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:

972mag, and the made up drama of Ami Kaufman and Mairav Zonszein, a critical analysis of the rational of demented fantasies

Earlier this July the internet was abuzz with a new story of an Israeli atrocity in the West Bank. A 5 years old child was arrested by the IDF for throwing stones. That was the image been pierced into people’s mind, the actual story was less dramatic.

A first sign of manipulation been made, was the gap between the headlines. In Ami Kaufman’s commentary the key word was ‘detention’ (originally it was the more incriminating word ‘arrest,’ as indicated in the web link and the correction at the end of his column). But the Hebrew title of the youtube clip was ‘icuv,’ a word in Hebrew that can be translated in two different ways. The first option is ‘detention.’ This word raises the association of an arrest because some forms of detention are acts of an arrest, but not all of them. Another possible translation is ‘delay’ as in, “He was delayed for a few minutes.” These are two different situations and two different images rising from the same title. In the first a child faces the powerful might of military system, which raises the concern for his rights as well as the frightening possibility of an abuse. In the second it is just a brief encounter, uncomfortable but brief, and therefore without the concerns that come out of the first possible translation.

Which is true?

None of them!

Because all the soldiers did, with the help of local civilians, was to take the child to his mother.

But since the main block of Ami’s and Mairav’s readership does not read Hebrew, this double gap, (between the two headlines, and between them and the reality of what actually happened), is irrelevant. They have all that they dim necessary in order to launch a scathing righteous rebuke, of Israel, the IDF, the occupation, and the soldiers themselves. As well as individuals engage in Israeli advocacy, Hasbarah, people such as myself for example. People Ami Kaufman does not know, never met, and never talked with about this incident. But that does not stop him from condemning and insulting all of us as racists. And that is before anyone of us had said a single word about this incident.

Now, why do that? Why open a new front before you finished your business with the first front? Which I suppose is the occupation, or isn’t it Mr. Kaufman? And why attack those that are not even involved, yet? Don't you have a case to prove first?

If we choose to protect whatever it is you are criticizing Mr. Kaufman, then by all means, fire away. Since we have actually said nothing before you printed those nasty accusations, it is this nothing that you are accusing of racism. Now, Mr. Kaufman, what kind of person accuses nothing for being racist? Did nothing also steal the jellybeans when we weren’t looking?

Superficial righteousness surpasses logic, and surpasses wisdom. Because Ami Kaufman throws his insults while engaging in a dialogue with imaginary Hasbarah persons, created by his own imagination. And since he opened the door to personal insults I can only step in and merely ponder the possibility that Ami Kaufman is a mentally unstable individual that talks to imaginary persons. After all, he only invented this imaginary Hasbarah folks just so he could tell them to shut up. (Surprise, surprise, 972mag Ami Kaufman is intolerant to other people’s views, even the ones he invented.)

But that is not the case. This fantasy dialogue is a literary device. Its purpose is to fill the gap between the reality on the ground and the severity of the accusations. In fact all of Ami Kaufman’s commentary is a collection of similar devices, with the same purpose. It begins with a heads up warning designed to create an expectation for something serious; thus planting in people’s minds the idea that something bad had happened. Followed by a battery of heavy accusations such as sickness, racists, and smug. Apparently for Ami Kaufman these insults are a substitute for making a case. And of course there is the famous “what if these were my children” line, aimed to create sympathy in any parent heart. Indeed what if it was your child? What if your child got into trouble with the law? (God forbid!) What would you rather have the police do? Arrest him? Lock him up? Or bring him home back to you? Because this is what the Israeli soldiers in the video actually did. They brought the stones-throwing child to HIS MOTHER.

You see, this is what real Hasbarah folks do, check the facts. And the facts are simple, this was not arbitrary, the child was throwing stones, even B’eteselm does not dispute that. And he was not arrested, since the soldiers TOOK THE STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MATHER.

Checking the facts is one of the reasons it takes a long time for the truth to put on its pants before the lie travels across the world, but at least it is now out there. And the truth is that taking a child TO HIS MOTHER is not a violation of the child’s rights, it is not an abuse, and this is not an even arrest. It is most certainly has nothing to do with racism.  IT IS TAKING A CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, where he belongs. It is as simple as that. Otherwise is to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the family unit all over the world. That is the logical outcome of Ami Kaufman’s, and Mairav Zonszein’s assertion.

But it is too complicated for Ami Kaufman, Mairav Zonszein, and their ideological clones to understand. Reading their account it is as if they are in two different universes at the same time. On one hand they give the actual run down of the events, soldiers, and civilians, taking a stones-throwing child to his parents’ house. On the other hand, their rebuke of this act by describing an act of an arrest, something that did not happen, since according to their own account the soldiers TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!

But the scale of Ami’s and Mairav’s fantasy is even bigger than that. Supposed their dream fantasy was true, and the child was been arrested by the IDF soldiers. Even this would not justify their vitriol. For the simple reason that the underline premise of article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild acknowledges the right of authorities to arrest children when they break the law. And throwing stones is breaking the law. There are restrictions attached, of course, but the right/duty exists. If any of those restrictions were violated then they would have a case. But the mere act of an arrest is not considered a violation of the child's rights, therefore it is not an abuse, and has nothing to do with racism. And since no arrest was made in the first place, THEY TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, no restrictions were violated. True, IDF’s orders forbid the arrest of children under the age of 12, but that only show that the IDF is stricter and more vigil in protecting children’s rights than the UNICEF. Surprise, surprise!

Like I said, this is what real flesh and blood Hasbarah folks do, CHECK THE FACTS!

The fact is that fantasy is the underline thread of their entire commentary. As the video shows, the soldiers weren’t smug. They were thorough. They had their orders, and the orders were in conflict with one another. On one hand, keep order, on the other hand, do not arrest children under the age of 12. Solution: TAKE THE STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER. 

And the local civilians were not indifferent. Indifference suggests passivity. But these civilians, mostly kids by the way, were very much active. They are engaging the soldiers, and at some point (around minute 2:03) are the ones that are actually taking the child TO HIS MOTHER.

And why wouldn’t they?

He is a Palestinian, they are Palestinians, and his parents are Palestinians. It is their obvious collective interest to keep him on the Palestinian side. And what better way to do this than taking him back to HIS PALESTINIAN MOTHER.

Yes occupation is bad; everything that has to with war is bad.

Yes in a state of occupation soldiers and civilians are at odds most of the time. But sometime mutual interests meet. Call it a rarity, call it surreal, call it a limited meeting of interests, call it whatever you like. Sometimes there can be a solution that serves both sides, in the narrowest sense of the word most likely. But it can happen and it does. It is evident at the climax of the story. There, after minute 3:20, one of the soldiers asks “Eifo hu gar?” “Where does he live?” and receives answers from the surrounding teenagers, each pointing to the direction of the child’s resident. And later those teenagers are the ones who actually take the child into the army jeep.

Yes, the child was screaming his lounges out, and our heart goes out to any child who cries that way, whatever the reason. But if this is to serve as an indicator of an abuse, then any sibling rivalry would constitute a Breaking News item for all the global news corporations. What constitute an abuse are the circumstances, not just the reaction. And putting a child in a jeep in order to TAKE HIM TO HIS MOTHER is not an abuse, even if it is against his will. There is no question he was afraid of that jeep that is perfectly understandable. But what were the soldiers supposed to do? Once they made the decision to TAKE THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, wasn’t their elementary responsibility to provide a vehicle for that purpose?  What would the critics have them do, force him to walk in a hot summer day? If the soldiers had a Segway with a parasol attached the child would have undoubtedly reacted completely differently. But armed forces are using jeeps. This may sound too cynical but it is the sober reality.

Since the perpetrators of this article are insinuating a gross child abuse, we should ask ourselves what is more likely to be considered a child abuse?

A child who is sitting in a jeep that has air-condition; or, a child walking in a hot summer day?

He might be crying in the first example, and cheerful in the second one, but his health will be compromise in the second example, but not in the first one.

Shocking! Isn’t it?

Not only do these Israeli soldiers keep the rights of this stones-throwing child, they also take care of his health.

So why is he afraid? Probably because he did something wrong such as throwing stones, for example.

Even if we, (again), go towards the gang at the 972magazine, and accept their demented fantasy that every crying child is an indication of an abuse. What of all the non-crying children around him? The two boys at the beginning of the clip, patting a dog before, and after the soldiers came, completely unmoved by their arrival.

The smaller boy with a similar shirt at the middle of the clip, bewildered at the hysteric behavior of the stones-throwing child. And what of all the elder teens around them, non-of them fearing for their own lives, non-of them fearing for the lives of the stones-throwing child. It seems that the majority of children view the Israeli soldiers as human beings to be reason with. There is not a lot of love in that relationship, but also absent is the fear sick racist smug soldiers supposed to generate. Shouldn’t the majority overrule the minority? Not really since the circumstances are also important. But the folks at 972magazine do not touch the circumstances, aka the facts, they’ve written them out. They are the ones who created the arbitrary criterion that every crying child is an evident of an abuse. They are the ones that must accept the logical outcome of their own criterion, that a child that does not cry is an evident for the lack of an abuse. And when we face one crying child and half a dozen that don’t, then majority overrides the minority. That is the logical outcome of their criterion. And surprise, surprise, they do not accept it. Worse than that, they’ve written out those kids completely. Instead Mairav Zonszein replaced them with non-existing indifferent adults. In doing so she expanded the fantasy into a complete fiction. The reality behind her fiction is the opposite; the Israeli army respects and observes the rights and well-being of Palestinian children. At least according this evidence provided by Be’tselem and 972magazine.

In the video below Israeli soldiers take a stones-throwing child to his parents' home using an air-conditioned jeep, while aided by local civilians. Later it was the father who actually got arrested. The whole affair was resolved at the offices of the Palestinian Authority.

For some this undisputable conclusion is a heresy so unacceptable every bone in their body shakes at 10 on the Richter scale. But these are the facts. This is what real flesh and blood Hasbara folks do, check the facts. And the fact is that the perception of reality shared by the pack of writers in the 972magazine is a complete fantasy; a strange and demented one to be precise.

Now why would otherwise rational human beings adopt such an irrational fantasy?

The reason is very simple and very rational, rational from a very ago-centric point of view. This fantasy serves them in one of the most selfish ways there is.

When it comes to liberal and progressive causes, (as with any kind of popular causes), there are various types of champions and advocates that fight for these causes. The pioneers of the cause and their successors are people who serve their declared causes. They fight against human rights abuses in order to end them. Or they fight against the occupation in order to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. However the people behind the 972magazine belong to a sector of pseudo ideologists where the opposite is taking place. For them the occupation exists in order to serve them, to help portray them as champions of human rights and other Liberal causes. Some people wear fancy close as a status symbol, even if they cannot afford it. Others adopt social causes in order to wear them as lucrative ornaments. And the more devilish is the abuse they claim to fight against the more shining their ornaments become.

For the first group, the existence of situations were Israel and Israeli soldiers are not child eating monsters patrolling the West Bank, is not a problem. They have no problem in acknowledging the existence of human rights abuses made by the Palestinian Authority. They fully acknowledge the existence of incitement in the PA official activity, such as education, television, and diplomacy. Accordingly they recognize its destructive effects on the peace process. They also know that anti-Semitism exits among the loud voices of Israel's critics, and they confront it.

But for the later group such realities are a major inconvenience. If Israel is respecting the rights of children, as this story clearly reveals, then it is not racist, child abusing monster. That means that the folks at 972magazine cannot dwell in the splendor that comes with the position of protectors of abused Palestinian children. This keeps away the most sought of title that of glorious fighters against apartheid, which is one of the most ravishing and desired jewels on the shelf today. If, for example, they are to acknowledge the existence of anti-Semitism among Israel's critic, then this will taint the image of the integrity of Israel's critics, and with it their shining new clothes. They can always turn their attention to places where such atrocities do happen, but that will deny them the prestigious title of self-criticism. Therefore it is not surprising that they have turned to fantasy. But is it the only option, or just the lazy option?

The fact that even their collective fantasy is insufficient to justify their accusations, only demonstrates the pathetic state of their dandy liberalism. This condition however is not a unique one, whenever and wherever dandyism takes itself seriously, it comes out pathetic. And it does not matter in what field of life this takes place.

The main difference between real Liberals and dandy Liberals is in the fury factor. Real liberals will be upset when the authorities of the state do abuse the rights and well being of the people under their control, especially children. Dandy Liberals are upset when these authorities do the opposite, and take care and safeguard the rights and well being of the people under their control. Because this denies them the glamorous jewels, luxurious clothes, and smashing stylish hairdos that comes with the cause they claim to fight for. In their eyes they fight for all the suffering people on Earth, them being mostly and only the Palestinians. And like a spoiled rich girl that cannot take her tiara diamond everywhere she wants, they are furious. The reason they lashed out at the soldiers is not because they did the wrong thing, but because they did the right thing, TOOK THE STONES-THREWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!

For these folks the occupation will never end. Even when every Palestinian, every Arab, and every Muslim on Earth declare the conflict over and all grievances resolved. The Folks at 972magazine, and others like them, will continue to cry ‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ Without it they are like Carrie Bradshaw in a world without shopping for the basic non-necessities.

This is not a stretch of the cynicism employed in this column. It is an accusation proven by none other than one of the leaders of the pack, his royal-highness Larry Derfner. Larry Derfner opposes John Kerry's peace initiative. That in itself is not unusual, due to past experiences and past tragedies, many people are skeptic, and I, myself, am no different. For those who want peace, skepticism, and past experience is insufficient to oppose the John Kerry initiative. There are heavy issues involved. Such as trust, the integrity of the process, the ability of each side to deliver, overcoming misunderstandings and different interpretations, etc. However Larry Derfner’s reason has nothing to do with the peace process.  He fears this initiative will terminate the European boycott of Israelis. His rational is a folly no less than that of his two compatriots, if not bigger. “Israelis need to be scared out of the occupation” he says. It is a good thing that he acknowledges that this boycott is about persecuting Israelis. The settlements are just the excuse. What Larry's logic has however is amnesia. Israelis do compare the grim economic prospect of a boycott with their current economic situation. But they also compare it with the reign of terror they were under during the greater part of the second intifada. As unattractive as dire economic conditions are, the fear of living under the constant presence of death, where in each day there is one or two mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians, is far worse. Like most people Israelis are not looking forwards to live under stressed economic conditions. But like most people it is preferable to horrific death. And the last time Israel was under a massive delegitimation attack, it coincided, not coincidently, with the wave of mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians known as the Second Intifada.

Larry lives in a separate universe where terrorism never happened. Likewise the boycott he supports will not end the occupation and is not meant to bring peace. It is evident by the hypocrisy that characterizes every aspect of this boycott.  For one thing there is no need to put Israel through a financial squeeze in order to get it to make concessions on settlements and on land it conquered in 1967. Israel proved that in 1982 when it delivered the Sinai to Egypt and evicted all settlements there. This was proven again in 2006 with the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, of soldiers and civilians, and with the settlements freeze of 2010.  History has shown that if Israel’s concerns are attended to it will make painful concession for peace, or for even less. Any peace process must address these concerns, just as it must address the Palestinians concerns. A boycott washes them aside; hence the boycott is against the peace process. The second level of hypocrisy is the selectivity of this measure. We do not see any boycott of Morocco for its settlements policy in Western Sahara, nor of Turkey and its settlements policy in Northern Cyprus. And let's not forget the Chinese massive settlements policy in Tibet and Turkestan. This is not a universal principal; it is a selective one, aimed at targeting Israel. Why punish the one country that has cooperated on this issue?  Because that cooperation is not something the EU is interested in. This is a simple act of assault, and Peace Negotiators do not assault the negotiating parties. They work hard to build trust. And violence, and this is violence, does not built trust. Nor does it meant to be.

From the point of view of international law the boycott bases itself on one interpretation of the international law regarding the legal position of the settlements. One of the issues peace negotiations are expected to reach is an agreed interpretation of the international law, and not just over one issue. So, why does the EU do the opposite if they want peace? Clearly they do not want peace. For the purpose of peace one does not built machinery aimed at the economical persecution of each and every Israeli, no matter how trivial their connection to the settlements might be. For peace to succeed economic opportunities are to be increased not vanquished. But Larry Drefner would rather have the slightest chances for peace extinguishes, and the misery of both Israelis and Palestinians continues so this anti peace measure can be implemented. Totally irrational from the point of view of peace advocacy, completely rational from the point of view of someone who treats liberal values the way a fashionista treats cloth and jewelry. The EU is an important body in the international arena; therefore it can be treated as some kind of a judge. If it says Israel is a rough state then automatically it is. End of discussion before it begins. As demonstrated above, there is plenty to discuss but for Larry Drefner and his like this is an unnecessary distraction. With the EU as a seal of approval they can look oh so gorgeous fighters against this rough state whenever they look in the mirror. The mirror being the fantasies produced by their keyboard and displayed in their magazine. Someone like that, who wants to look high and mighty at the expanse of peace, at the expanse of those suffering from the lack of it, has a well known equivalency in the fashion world: Those that buy huge numbers of luxury goods and other status symbols that were made by child labor. This is a moral depravity, pure and simple.

For people who wish to rid their societies from liberal values, Dandy Liberals are a god sent. They ridicule liberal values more effectively than any right wing incitement. And alienate the majority of the public, including those inclined to support liberal causes. They put under a cloud every worthy liberal cause there is, as if the clouds are not thick enough already. And they make the two-state solution looks like the property of those insensitive to the concerns of every day Israelis, if not worse. For those of us wishing to understand and resolve the problems that incase our global society, among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dandy liberals should be recognized and distinguished from real liberals.

At the same time we must also know the differences between dandy liberals and fake liberals. Fake liberals are those that are advancing certain causes that have nothing to do with liberal and progressive values but nevertheless modern society places them under the wider banner of liberalism. These are causes such as Marxism, Anarchism, plain old anti-Semitism, and in some places even Islamic Jihadism. The values of these causes are a sharp contrast to liberal values. Some of their advocates are true believers committed to these causes; others are more like the dandy liberals. For fake liberals the dandy liberals are also a god sent, because they are willing to buy everything the fake liberals have to say. Kind of like before the issuing of a new smartphone, but less useful. But they are not one and the same. Dandy liberals do not seek to destroy liberal society, fake liberals most certainly do. However, Just like the peace process liberal society will benefit from non-of them. They represent lack of integrity and abundance of ignores. Before human rights were a popular cause, these were the very thing the human rights movement sought to eradicate. Instead this strange and demented off spring of our culture of affluence threatens to reintroduce them into the main stream of liberal society. If we desire to protect the precious achievements of the progressive movement, dandy liberals, and fake liberals, should be recognized and marginalized. Starting all over again is a frightening prospect.