Ha’aretz’s Apartheid Campaign Against Israel


Cross posted by Yishai Goldflam at CAMERA  (This is a translated version of the original which appeared at CAMERA’s Hebrew site, Presspectiva.)

Amidst its financial hardships and declining Israeli readership, the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, has upped its anti-Israel advocacy, engaging in a campaign to promote the apartheid canard about Israel. First, Akiva Eldar falsely alleged that the Israeli government had acknowledged Jews as the minority population residing between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a claim he was forced to correct. Then Gideon Levy wrote an article bearing the sinister headline, “Survey: Most Israeli Jews support apartheid regime in Israel.”

The online versions in English and Hebrew were subsequently changed slightly. And the print edition’s English headline was “Survey: Most Israeli Jews advocate discrimination against Arabs.”  This story was followed the next day by an article that attempted to solidify as fact supposed Jewish support for an apartheid regime, with the headline, “Arab MKs: Israeli Jews’ support of apartheid is not surprising.”

Levy’s article claimed that according to a recent survey the majority of Israelis not only support apartheid, but also hold racist views towards Israeli Arabs and believe that apartheid already exists today in Israel. Predictably, the story spread like wildfire and was quoted in major media outlets such as London’s The Guardian and The Independent, Toronto’s Globe and Mail, Agence-France Presse, and dozens of other sites, blogs and forums.

Pro- and anti-Israel activists have spent the past two days debating the reliability of the survey, its wording and meaning, as well as the accuracy of Gideon Levy’s article publicizing the poll. But most of those involved in the debate did not see the complete, original survey because it was not published anywhere, including in Levy’s article. One notable exception was this in-depth analysis by Avi Mayer which relied upon the original poll. CAMERA/Presspectiva obtained a copy of the original survey, and compared it to Levy’s article and Ha’aretz’s headline to see whether or not they accurately reflected the survey.

Unsurprisingly, Levy’s article was full of omissions and distortions. He apparently ignored the data that did not suit him and emphasized those that were in accord with his own well-known anti-Israel world view. At times, he completely reversed the survey’s findings. The sensational headline represents, at best, Levy’s interpretation of the survey and does not represent objective, factual reporting.

It also appears that the survey itself has its own share of problems – including the lack of clarity and hypothetical nature of the questions, no definition of terms that were used, limited answer choices, no correction for confounding factors, and general lack of explanation about what exactly was meant by the questions.

Yet even on the assumption that the survey was a valid one that was appropriately conducted, the results neither justify Ha’aretz’s bombastic headlines, which seem to be part of a campaign to damage and delegitimize the Jewish state, nor the article itself that cherry-picks or otherwise misrepresents the results in order to reach the predetermined conclusion of the headline.

Levy Distorts

Levy’s striking misrepresentations included the following:

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

Levy conveniently omitted the original question and answers from the survey. They were:

17. In the territories, there are some roads where travel is permitted only to Israelis and others where travel is permitted only to Palestinians. Which of the following opinions are closest to your own: A. It is a good situation. B. It is not a good situation, but what can you do? C. It is not a good situation and it needs to be stopped.

24% – it is a good situation.

50% – it is not a good situation, but there is nothing that can be done.

17% – it is not a good situation and it needs to be stopped

If the answers are divided according to those who see it as “good” and those who see it as “not good,” then 67% see it as a bad situation. But Levy did not bother to inform reader that the 50% of those who saw separate roads as “necessary” saw it as an undesirable situation.

When a “minority” becomes a “majority”

Levy devoted much of his fiery wrath to the alleged racism of Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs, but here too he distorted the results in order to make his case. Already in the third sentence of the article, he wrote:

A majority of Israeli Jews also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens…

Levy misled his readers. There are five questions in the survey relating to discrimination against Arabs. Below are the questions and results:

4. In your opinion, is it desirable or undesirable for Jews to receive priority over Arabs in government hiring? a
59% – desirable; 34% undesirable
 
5. In your opinion, is it desirable to enact a law that prevents Israeli Arabs from voting in the Knesset?
33% – desirable; 59% undesirable
 
7. Do you agree or disagree with the argument that the state needs to care more for its Jewish citizens than its Arab citizens?
49% – agree; 49% – disagree
 
8. Would it bother you if in your place of abode, for example in your apartment building, an Arab family also lived there?
42% – it would bother me; 53% – it would not bother me
 
9. Would it bother you if in one of your children’s classrooms at school, there were also Arab children?
42% – it would bother me; 49% – it would not bother me

Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs.

Moreover, there are confounding factors here that skew the numbers, making the majority a smaller one than might be expected.  For example, the highest percentages of negative answers to the questions about Arab children sharing a class room with their children and Arab families living in the same apartment building came from the group that self-identified as ultra-Orthodox Jews. This community tends to insulate their families from the outside world and would be expected to just as readily answer that they would not want their children sharing a classroom with secular Jews, or that they would want all their neighbors to share their same values and strictures. This artificially confounds the data. Israeli society is certainly not perfect, but it is a far cry from Levy’s misrepresentation that most Israeli Jews openly and explicitly favor discrimination against Arabs.

Levy’s misrepresentation was even worse in the commentary accompanying the main article, where he wrote: 

Most Israelis do not want Arab voters for the Knesset, nor Arab neighbors at home, nor Arab students near the bookcases of Jewish texts in Jewish schools that teach Jewish heritage. And our camp will be pure, as pure of Arabs as possible and perhaps even more.

What is amazing about the above paragraph is that Levy chose precisely the three examples that demonstrate the opposite of the scenario he describes. Unfortunately, readers horrified at the “findings” described by Levy do not possess the tools to see that the author was deceiving them, because the results of the survey were not included.

The issue of Levy’s selective reporting is evident throughout the article, in which he introduced the “negative” data without mentioning the “positive” data.

For example, when he wrote that “a third of the respondents support a law that would prevent Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset, ” he did not bother to mention that 59% oppose such a law.

Similarly, when Levy wrote that “36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements,” he did not bother to note that even more– 48% – oppose it. And when he wrote that “42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children,” he did not bother to note that even more – 53% and 49% respectively – would not mind.

The headline in Ha’aretz’s print edition trumpeted that “Most Israeli Jews advocate discrimination against Arabs” – a conclusion clearly not borne out by the results of the survey. But this was evidently of no concern to editors who opted for a sensational headline that presented Israel in the worst possible light, no matter how false it was.

Support for Apartheid?

The subject of apartheid – the focus of Ha’aretz’s headline and on which Levy places his primary emphasis, as well as the charge that was disseminated around the world – takes up just 3 out of the 17 questions in the survey and is divided into two separate allegations by Levy:

a) the majority of Israelis support an apartheid regime; and

b) most Israelis think that Israel is already an apartheid state

Levy shares an honest point acknowledged by the pollsters that provides a key to understanding the problematic nature of the above allegations:

The survey conductors say perhaps the term “apartheid” was not clear enough to some interviewees.

Indeed, in the three questions dealing with the concept of apartheid, there is no definition or explanation of what is meant by the term “apartheid.” This raises the question of how the pollsters concluded, on the one hand, that the respondents “support apartheid” even while admitting that the term may not have been clear to the respondents. This logical failure would have raised a red flag to responsible journalists. That it did not give Levy reason to pause is testament to his lack of journalistic ethics.

Levy began the article by stating:

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

It is an emphatic conclusion, but not what was asked in the survey. The only question addressing annexation of the territories was Question 16:

16. If Israel annexes the territories of Judea and Samaria, in your opinion, is it necessary to give 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote in the Knesset?

While 69% of respondents answered no, the survey’s question addressed a hypothetical scenario that had no bearing on the current situation. Moreover, there were more interviewees who responded that they oppose annexation than those who responded that they support it (48% oppose, 38% support). In other words, almost half the respondents were forced to choose an answer about a hypothetical scenario that they explicitly oppose. Yet Ha’aretz’s online edition turned this finding into a headline without noting that it only described a hypothetical scenario that was already widely rejected by respondents. The online headline was subsequently changed to include the word “would” presumably to account for the hypothetical nature of the result: “Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel” but the damage wrought by the original headline had already been done, demonstrating the success of Ha’aretz’s apparent campaign to portray Israeli Jews as racists who support apartheid.

What about the claim that the majority of Israelis believe that an apartheid regime already exists in the country? Levy wrote:

Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs.

This is what the survey says:

11. Which of the following opinions is closest to yours? A. There is no apartheid at all in Israel. B. There is apartheid in some areas. C. There is apartheid in many areas.

31% – There is no apartheid at all in Israel.

39% – There is apartheid in some areas.

19% – There is apartheid in many areas.

Beyond Levy’s ignoring of the survey’s nuance, with his blanket assertion that Israel “practices apartheid against Arabs,” are the problems inherent in the survey question itself – which Levy similarly ignores. What is “apartheid in some areas” or “apartheid in many areas”? The term “apartheid,” contrary to its superficial use in the survey, and contrary to the concept of “discrimination” has a very clear and precise meaning: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it refers to “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” (See more at “Israeli Apartheid Week“)

There is no such thing as “some” apartheid. There is either apartheid or no apartheid. Apartheid is not simply discrimination – the sort that exists in almost every country around the world including Israel, which is precisely why the term was created specifically to describe South Africa’s regime.

Anyone who understands the meaning of the word “apartheid” cannot reliably answer such an illogical question that seeks to reveal whether Israel practices apartheid “in some areas” or “in many areas.” Of even greater concern is the impact of Levy’s assertion “that 58% of Israeli citizens support apartheid” on those readers in London, New York, or Berlin who actually know what real apartheid is.

Despite the fact, that by any parameter, there is no connection between any Israeli policy and the South African apartheid regime, international activists are currently attempting to brand Israel with this smear in order to convince good and caring people that Israel is a second South Africa and should be treated as such – with boycott, divestment and sanctions. The Ha’aretz articles of the last few days indicate that the Israeli paper, too, seeks to demonize Israel as apartheid.

The fact that the survey question did not define “apartheid” or explain to respondents the difference between “apartheid” and “discrimination,” and the fact that the pollsters admitted that the term was not clear to all respondents suggests that respondents took the term “apartheid” to mean “discrimination” and understood it as simply a synonym for the latter. Moreover, the absurd response options of apartheid in “some” areas or in “many” areas also would suggest that the poll writers, intentionally or not, misled respondents into thinking that “apartheid” is interchangeable with “discrimination.” This is a plausible interpretation of the data that Levy chose to ignore.

It is difficult to overestimate the damage done to Israel by Ha’aretz’s sensational headlines and reporting. Instead of engaging in serious and balanced social criticism based on the findings of the survey, Ha’aretz chose instead to export Gideon Levy’s hysteria and obsession in the form of distorted headlines and an inaccurate story.

Ha’aretz’s campaign is transparent. Last week the paper falsely reported that the Israeli government admits to apartheid, this week it wrongly reported that the Israelis themselves admit to apartheid. Foreign journalists, ambassadors, diplomats, and policymakers around the world should take note. While Ha’aretz might have been perceived as a serious and reliable inside source of news about Israel, it is becoming increasingly clear that it nothing more than a tool for anti-Israel activists.

12 comments on “Ha’aretz’s Apartheid Campaign Against Israel

  1. The findings are simply appalling for the Israeli version of The Guardian.

    Reading through the basic facts, I am simply sickened that HaAretz constantly provides a prominent stage for the delusional Gideon Levy.

  2. The problem with a person like Gideon Levy, is that in a few words of lies, which Ha’aretz chooses to print ( to court controversy or freedom of speech?). he can cause a heck of a lot of damage, but it takes up hundreds of of column inches to deconstruct and expose the liar that he (and the paper? ) is, and to bring out the truth. The original story is not just inaccurate , but totally false.

    While there is racism in Israel, such articles prove to be a disservice to those who are really trying to combat it. (And I do not mean racism by only Jews). Levy and his ilk are really not interested. To him, anything Israel might do wrong (whether it does or not) is grist for the mill to his perverted cause. They are not interested in the welfare of any people, just in their own faked image of self.

  3. Arabs are about 20% of the population in Israel.
    He who checks Haaretz management members list
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/management
    and Haaretz Editorial members list
    http://www.haaretz. co.il/misc/editors would expect to find
    some Arabs as part of this liberal establishment. (in proportion to their part
    in the general population)

    BUT Actually there 0 (ZERO) Arabs in the lists. (Lists are in Hebrew),
    -Arabs do write in Haaretz, but being part of the paper-not in our house!

    Well ,In the spirit of the commentary by Jihadon Levy to the pool
    (don’t make a mistake,such main headline has the editor and publisher approval)
    but unlike him, based on the above evidence, it is fair to state
    that Haaretz has a long time policy of Apartheid against Arabs.
    (and the Guardian uses this Apartheid contaminated source happily)
    or in Hebrew “הפוסל,במומו פוסל”.

  4. The Middle East’s real apartheid (Arab apartheid – Muslim apartheid)

    Excerpted Article from
    The Middle East’s real apartheid – JPost – Op-Eds 5 Mar 2012
    [...]
    If apartheid is indeed a crime against humanity, Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest.

    By contrast, apartheid has been an integral part of the Middle East for over a millennium, and its Arab and Muslim nations continue to legally, politically and socially enforce this discriminatory practice against their hapless minorities.

    Why then should an innocent party be under constant pressure to “come clean” while the real culprits are not only left unscathed but also given a worldwide platform to blame others for their own crimes? Rather than engage in incessant apologetics and protestations of innocence, something Jews have been doing for far too long, Israel should adopt a proactive strategy, call a spade a spade and target the real perpetrators of Middle East apartheid: the region’s Arab and Muslim nations.

    Arab/Muslim apartheid comes in many forms, and some victims have been subjected to more than one.

    • Religious intolerance:

    Muslims historically viewed themselves as distinct from, and superior to, all others living under Muslim rule, known as “dhimmis.” They have been loath to give up this privileged status in modern times. Christians, Jews and Baha’is remain second-class citizens throughout the Arab/Muslim world, and even non-ruling Muslim factions have been oppressed by their dominant co-religionists (e.g. Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia, Sunnis in Syria).

    • Ethnic inequality:

    This historic legacy of intolerance extends well beyond the religious sphere. As longtime imperial masters, Arabs, Turks and Iranians continue to treat long-converted populations, notably Kurds and Berbers, that retained their language, culture and social customs, as inferior.

    • Racism:

    The Middle East has become the foremost purveyor of anti-Semitic incitement in the world with the medieval blood libel widely circulated alongside a string of modern canards (notably The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) depicting Jews as the source of all evil.

    Likewise, Africans of sub-Saharan descent are held in deep contempt, a vestige of the region’s historic role as epicenter of the international slave trade.

    • Gender discrimination:

    Legal and social discrimination against women is pervasive throughout the Arab-Islamic world, accounting for rampant violence (for example domestic violence or spousal rape are not criminalized) and scores of executions every year, both legal and extra-judicial (i.e. honor killings). Discrimination against homosexuals is even worse.

    • Denial of citizenship:

    The withholding of citizenship and attendant rights from a large segment of the native-born population is common. Palestinian communities in the Arab states offer the starkest example of this discrimination (in Lebanon, for example, they cannot own property, be employed in many professions, move freely, etc.). The Bidun (stateless peoples) in the Gulf states, and hundreds of thousands of Kurds in Syria have been subjected to similar discrimination.

    • Labor inequality:

    Mistreatment of foreign workers (especially household servants), ranging from sexual abuse to virtual imprisonment and outright murder, is widely tolerated throughout the Middle East, especially in oil-exporting countries that host large expatriate labor forces.

    • Slavery:

    The Arabic-speaking countries remain the world’s foremost refuge of slavery, from child and sex trafficking in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to actual chattel slavery in Sudan and Mauritania. Indeed, Islamists throughout the Middle East have had no qualms advocating the legalization of slavery.

    • Political Oppression:

    Many Middle Eastern regimes are little more than elaborate repressive systems aimed at perpetuating apartheid-style domination by a small minority: Alawites in Syria; Tikritis in Saddam’s Iraq; the Saudi royal family; the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan.

    Possibly the world’s most arresting anachronism, these endemic abuses have until now escaped scrutiny and condemnation. Western governments have been loath to antagonize their local authoritarian allies, while the educated classes have absolved Middle Easterners of responsibility for their actions in the patronizing tradition of the “white man’s burden,” dismissing regional players as half-witted creatures, too dim to be accountable for their own fate.

    It is time to denounce these discriminatory practices and force Arab/Muslim regimes to abide by universally accepted principles of decency and accountability. This will not only expose the hollowness of the Israel delegitimization campaign but will also help promote regional peace and stability….

    —-

    Books ref. about ISLAMIC APARTHEID

    Floating on a Malayan Breeze: Travels in Malaysia and Singapore – Page 139 – Sudhir Vadaketh – 2012
    He certainly seemed to represent the views of many Chinese in Kelantan: content with life, puzzled by why the rest of Malaysia thinks they’re living under some sort of Islamic apartheid. Strictly speaking, Kelantan was certainly not as …
    link

    The Case for Israel – Page x – Alan Dershowitz – 2011
    Even for those who reject any blameworthiness on the part of Palestinians and Arabs for the plight of the Jewish refugees from Nazism and Islamic apartheid— an untenable position in light of the history of widespread Palestinian support for …
    link

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) – R. S., 2005
    Presents a critical analysis of the differences between Christianity and Islam and maintains that Islam contains a political agenda which endorses violence and aggression against non-Muslims.
    link

    Organizer – Volume 40 – Page xvii – 1988
    FRANKLY SPEAKING
    JULY 3, 198* i ORGANISER Islamic apartheid in Pakistan and Bangladesh BANGLADESH has been declared as an Islamic State. The resistance movement in Bangladesh is catching on. It is to be seen whether it will …
    link

    Sudan – Volume 3, Issue 3 – Pax Sudani Network – 1993
    … forced Arabization and Isalmization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile regions. Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed …
    link

    India-Bangladesh cooperation broadening measures – Page 104 – Burhanuddin Khan Jahangir, Jayanta Kumar Ray, University of Calcutta. Dept. of History – 1997
    There is no reason why India should continue to abet Islamic apartheid in Bangladesh. The emergence of a small section of enlightened people in Bangladesh is a matter of great hope. But they might lose heart in their campaign against …
    link

    Pragna – Volume 8 – 2006
    This is open, clear and meticulously planned Islamic apartheid which might even surpass the enormity of the apartheid policies of the erstwhile South African government. In Saudi Arabia , non-Muslims are merely tolerated. They have no right
    link

    Books ref. about ARAB APARTHEID

    Africanity redefined – Volume 1 – Page 218 – Ali AlʼAmin Mazrui, Ricardo René Laremont – 2002
    Afro- Arab apartheid, 39 gender apartheid, 163 global apartheid, 75, 29, …
    link

    Israel and black Africa: time to normalise – Page 86 – N. Enuma el Mahmud-Okereke – 1986
    Against this background, it is most unfair and hypocritical to turn a blind eye on the on-going Arab apartheid, which has assumed a murderous onslaught in Sudan, only to single out South Africa for global villification.
    link

    Negative Ethnicity: From Bias to Genocide – Page 151 – Koigi Wa Wamwere – 2003
    … predominantly Muslim, have ruled Nigeria for thirty-one out of thirty-five years of independence and dominated the military for twenty-five years. When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab apartheid against NEGATIVE ETHNICITY…
    link

    Africa in chaos – Page 50 – George B. N. Ayittey – 1999
    In Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs held power and blacks were excluded (Arab apartheid); in Rwanda and Burundi, the Hutus and Tutsis alternatively usurped power; in Nigeria the Hausa-Fulani ran the government (tribal apartheid); Togo, Zaire,..
    link

    Historical Dictionary of Islamic Fundamentalism – Page 327 – Mathieu Guidère – 2012
    The huge humanitarian catastrophe that was the Darfur conflict was essentially an Arab apartheid in which non-Sudanese Arabs were repressed and brutally attacked by militant Sudanese Arab nationalists. The result was the deaths of over …
    link

    [I}]Africa betrayed – Page 287 – George B. N. Ayittey – 1992[/i]
    If black Americans are unwilling to help their true black brothers and sisters fight tyranny and Arab apartheid in the rest of Africa, then perhaps it would be best if they stayed out of Africa. The African people are becoming more and more irate at …
    link]

    Towards genocide in Kenya: the curse of negative ethnicity – Page 220 – Koigi wa Wamwere – 2003
    … of thirty-five years of independence and dominated the military for twenty-five years. – When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab apartheid against the black southerners did not end in Sudan. Arab insensitivity Towards Genocide.
    link

    Midstream – Volume 36 – Page 8 – Theodore Herzl Foundation – 1990
    … of open Israeli participation might not have produced a timely ending of Arab Apartheid (with European and American condonation) towards Israel. My guess is that given the alternatives of being overrun by Saddam’s Iraqis or being secured …
    link

    —-

    Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid are the largest ‘apartheid systems’, that exist today

    Virtually all non-Arabs and/or non-Muslims are second class citizens. Among minorities that feel the wrath of the bigoted Arab-Muslim world are:

    * Berbers (native N. Africans, before Arab invasion).

    * Copts (indigenous Egyptians suffer from both: Arab racism and Islamic bigotry).

    * Kurds (Examples include: [Saddam's] Iraq and Syria.

    * Blacks, in Arab lands or in Arab ruled Africa like the genocide in the Sudan and slavery in both Sudan and in Mauritania.

    * Asians, particularly in the Gulf Arab states. [Sex slaves or “plain” slaves).

    * Maronites-Christians [Native Lebanese] suffer from both Arab ethnic racism and religious bigotry, like the massacres in the 1970s by local Muslims and by Palestinian/Syrian forces.

    * Assyrians, are/have been persecuted both racially and religiously. Still very much marginalized in Iraq, for example.

    * Iran is not an Arab country but racism is huge against Kurds, Jews, Turkmens, etc. So is anti-non-Muslim bigotry against Christians, Bahai, Zoroastrians and other in the Islamic republic.

    * Turkey is also a Muslim non-Arab country and Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and other ethnicities have been through much suffering, genocide. Still there’s great wide racism against non-Turkish ethnic groups. Turkey’s policy in Cyprus has also been recognized as a real Apartheid by many. All non-Muslims are automatically branded as “foreigners” at the “moderate” Islamic supremacy of Turkey.

    * All non-Msulims in ‘Islamic Apartheid state’ of S. Arabia.

    * Asians [slaves!] in the Gulf Arab states.

    * Al-Akhdam in Yemen.

    * Gypsies in Jordan.

    Islamic-Arab “Palestine” apartheid:

    * Ahmadiyya Muslims are harshly persecuted in (Pakistan and in) the “Palestinian” Apartheid authority and/or by Hamas.

    * Descendents of slaves of the Bedouins are still stigmatized by racist “Palestinians”.

    * Christians are discriminated, persercuted against [especially since Y. Arafat's Islamization of Bethlehem], by Palestine authority and Hamas regime.

    From anti-Jewish Apartheid:

    – The Arab racist apartheid against the Jews attempted genocide ever since the 1920s, (Like Mufti of “Palestine” at his incited massacres, and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who called simply ‘to kill Jews’).
    – Chased out a Million Jews in the late 1940.
    – Has boycotted and demonized [every logical defensive action is branded "racist"] the Jewish democratic-free-equal-to-all state only because it’s the “other”. It is neither Muslim nor purely Arab.
    – The Arab racist world continues to play with Arab-Palestinians (grandchildren of Arab immigrants) like ping-pong against Israel.

    AND THE BEACON OF APARTHEID HAS THE AUDACITY TO CHARGE MULTI-RACIAL ISRAEL’S BEAUTIFUL DEMOCRACY [THAT OFTEN GIVES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR ITS ARABS OVER JEWS] WITH THIS TERMINOLOGY?

    THE ARAB DECEPTIVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT ACTS AS IF ARAB-ISLAMIC GENOCIDAL CAMPAIGN IS NOT OBVIOUS TO DETERMINE ISRAEL’S EXTRA SECURITY MEASURES [INCLUDING AN ANTI-TERROR / ANTI-MASSACRES WALL].

    As if we don’t know the ‘Arab oil lobby’s power’ over the UN and other major international organizations and some African officials to go along with the Arab propaganda.

    Despite some non-Arabs who jump on this wagon out of: ignorance, of confusion complex, or of sheer bigotry, never forget, that this entire “apartheid, racism” label was invented by Arab racists ganging up in the UN since 1975.

    Even promoter of the apartheid-slur [which was actually invented in 1961 by A. Shukairy, who was the henchman and spokesman for the infamous Mufti al-Husseini the Mufti, notorious for being A. Hitler's ally and adviser on exterminating the Jews. Shukairy also called to throw the Jews into the sea] J. Carter admitted on CNN: “I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.” edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/12/acd.02.html

    Incidentally, the lying Pallywood machine also created a fake “memorandum” claiming that N. Mandela ever uttered this crappy analogy.

    Last but not least:

    Isn’t it true that the anti-Jewish “apartheid” slur campaign is: 1) to demonize Jews and 2) to hide the real apartheid practiced by the Arab-Islamic world?

    Analysis: Haaretz ‘Apartheid’ Survey is False and Biased

    Journalistic Sham: Haaretz Acknowledges Misleading ‘Apartheid’ Survey Report
    OCTOBER 30, 2012
    Tom Nisani / Tazpit News Agency
    A recent survey presented by “Haaretz” newspaper claimed that the majority of Jews in Israel advocate the establishment of an apartheid regime, and further claimed that most Israelis believe that currently there are areas in the Jewish state in which apartheid measures are already exercised… Journalistic Sham: Haaretz Acknowledges False ‘Apartheid’ Survey … Gideon Levi, has long been known for his unreliability for writing the truth …
    http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/10/30/analysis-haaretz-apartheid-survey-is-false-and-biased/

  5. http://haaretzisnotreliable.wordpress.com – Unreliable Haaretz, [http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?ID=178843 - which aids the Arab terrorist enemy], and [http://biased-bbc.com/ - biased BBC] copies it), just like that drag queen/drama queen Ahmad Tibi (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6146 – accused of being himslef the real racist) are so quick to falsely brand worried Israelis of racist Arab attacks [http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=49178 - Israelis aren't 'racist' - they're worried] as “racism” but will never name the Arab racism that seeks out to attack Jews – by Israeli-Arabs or Palestinian-Arabs. [http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/98947/ - It’s about the bigotry]

  6. Pingback: Malicious unreliable Haaretz – enabler of Arab racism and Islamic jihad | Reality Show

  7. Pingback: Malicious unreliable Haaretz – enabler of Arab racism / apartheid and Islamic jihad « Freedemocracy’s Weblog

  8. Pingback: Haaretz Endorses Obama - VolNation

Comments are closed.