Home
HOW DOES THE ISM RECRUIT?
ARE THEY REALLY A THREAT?
CONTACT US/DONATE
WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ISM? THE PSM?
THE DUKE CONFERENCE: USING CAMPUSES TO PROMOTE ANT
SOLIDARITY WITH TERROR
MIDDLE EAST CHILDREN'S ALLIANCE
ISM INFORMATION PACK FOR YOUR CAMPUS ADMIN
LETTERS WE GET
LEE KAPLAN OF STOP THE ISM ON O'REILLY FEB.9
COMMENTARY ON GEORGETOWN
THE ISRAEL PROJECT ON THE GEORGETOWN HATE FEST
PSM ALLEGED TO WORK WITH TERRORISTS
BREAKING ARTICLE: INSIDE THE GEORGETOWN DIVESTMENT
MEIN FUHRER IS RACHEL CORRIE
DEATH FOLLOWS JOSEPH SMITH/CARR
DEALING WITH ISM LIES ABOUT ISRAELI ABUSES OF HUMA
SEE WHAT THE ISM CALLS "LEGITIMATE RESISTANCE"
ISM AIDS ISLAMIC EXPANSIONISM
WHY ISRAEL IN NOT AN APARTHEID STATE LIKE SOUTH AF
UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT
WHY EUROPEANS ARE IN THE ISM
WE GET LETTERS FROM ISM IDIOTS
MORE ON SFSU's NAZI-ARAB HATEFEST THIS WEEKEND
HANNAH MERMELSTEIN HELPS ARABS AGAINST ISRAEL: WHY
HANNAH MERMELSTEIN'S EMAIL
ONE ISRAELI SOLDIER WHO FELL
CANADA'S ISM AFFILIATES AREN'T "PEACE ACTIVISTS"
MORE ON CANADA ISM
EGYPTIAN STUDENTS CAUGHT BY FBI
ISM AIDING HIZBALLAH
WHAT THE ISM WORKS TO CONTINUE:
ISM EXCUSES LIST TO MURDER THE INNOCENT
READ THE RAP SONG BY ISM
WALID SHOEBAT AT COLUMBIA U. OCTOBER 11th!!!
HOW A LEFTIST ISRAELI JUDGE HELPS DESTROY ISRAEL
FILE AN IRS COMPLAINT AGAINST
ISM AND ARAB FRONT GROUP "JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE"
ISM BRINGING THEIR WALL PROTESTS TO AMERICAN SHORE
BRINGING ANARCHIST TACTICS TO THE USA/MEXICO BORD
A TYPICAL ISM PROTEST IN THE WEST BANK
ISM WITH GUNS THE ISM-TERROR CONNECTION
GEORGETOWN SUED FOR $8 MILLION FOR ATTACKING JEW
STOP THE ISM ACQUIRES LEGAL COUNSEL
THE REBUILDING ALLIANCE: FUNDING HAMAS TAX- FREE?
ISM AFFILAITES OUTED FROM BOSTON CHURCHES
CHRISTIANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST SABEEL PROPAGANDA IN
A "MUST READ." SHEIK PALAZZI'S DIRECTORY OF DEATH
PAYING THE PRICE FOR ALLEGIANCE TO SADDAM HUSSEIN
IMPORTANT STUDY YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN TO COUNTER
A.J. MUSTE FRONT FOR ISM IN VIOLATION OF NONPROFIT
EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN VICE CHANCELLOR JAMES SAND
HOW STOP THE ISM STOPPED AL AWDA
ISM/HAMAS SUPPORTER SCOTT KENNEDY AND THE RCNV
ISM'S FAKE HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR TOURS CAMPUSES
THE al-QAEDA-ISM TERROR CONNECTION
ISM MEMBER KILLED IN JENIN
TAX VIOLATIONS BY ISM AND AFFILIATES
SABEEL ACTIVIST DEPORTED THANKS TO STOP THE ISM
AL AWDA DISRIBUTING FAKE PASSPORTS
SABEEL ACTIVIST KRISTA JOHNSON DEPORTED FROM ISRAE
AL AWDA ISSUING FAKE PASSPORTS
FATSO LAUREN BOOTH HER LIES ABOUT A SIEGE IN GAZA
MEMORIAL TO 9/11 VICTIMS AND A PROMISE TO THE ISM
ISM ACTIVIST HUPPER FOUND GUILTY OF AIDING HAMAS A
MORE RADIO FROM STOP THE ISM
ABOUT THE GAZA FLOTILLA
ON THE GAZA FLOTILLA
ABOUT NEW ISM CONFERENCE IN CHICAGO
ON NEW ISM CONFERENCE
SEE PHOTOS OF NEWEST ISM RECRUITS
GAZA FLOTILLA VIOLATES US NEUTRALITY ACT
MORE ON PAUL LARUDEE
RIAD HAMAD OF OCWF-ISM FUNDRAISER-FOUND DEAD
ISMer JaILED FOR FUNDING HAMAS
ISM's CEASE AND DESIST LETTER AGAINST LEE KAPLAN
CAROLINE GLICK ON ISRAELI POLICE INEPTITUDE
ADAM SHAPIRO SIGHTED IN ISRAEL UNDER FALSE IDENTIT
WRITE THE IRS ABOUT ISM TAX VIOLATIONS
ISM'S SJP BRINGS GUNS ON CAMPUS
PROFILE ON ALISON WEIR

Information WHY ISRAEL IN NOT AN APARTHEID STATE LIKE SOUTH AF
One of the major lies "taught" at the ISM Georgetown conference to promulgate on US college campuses was the idea that Israel is an "apartheid state" like South Africa once was. The article below tells the truth and is a must read for anyone seeking to Stop the ISM.
February 20, 2006 by Alex Safian (Slightly edited extract)

Guardian "Defames Israel with False Apartheid Charges"


Further distortions exposed in March 8th update.

 


A recent series of articles in the Guardian by Chris McGreal charge that similar 
to the old South Africa, Israel is an apartheid state that engages in racist and 
discriminatory behavior against its Arab citizens. According to the paper, 
"after four years reporting from Jerusalem and more than a decade from 
Johannesburg before that, the Guardian's award-winning Middle East correspondent 
Chris McGreal is exceptionally well placed to assess this explosive comparison."

Explosive the comparison certainly is, especially because a CAMERA investigation 
reveals that Mr. McGreal's arguments are uniformly based either on materially 
false assertions, or on assertions wrenched grotesquely out of context. 

Like the original series of articles, our analysis and investigation will be 
published in multiple parts. This first installment deals with the first articles of the series, published on Feb. 6, 2006. And, 
since the investigation is ongoing, further updates will be posted as new 
information becomes available.

It is appropriate to begin with perhaps Mr. McGreal's most damning allegation * 
that most of the land in Israel is reserved for Jews only: 

Israeli governments reserved 93% of the land - often expropriated from Arabs 
without compensation - for Jews through state ownership, the Jewish National 
Fund and the Israeli Lands Authority. In colonial and then apartheid South 
Africa, 87% of the land was reserved for whites. 

This charge is utterly false. Before going into details concerning the actual 
land laws and practice in Israel, perhaps it's better to start with a simple 
counterexample: the city of Upper Nazareth. Upper Nazareth, a relatively new 
community (founded in 1957), is built on the slopes above the ancient city of 
Nazareth, has always had a Jewish majority, and was built entirely on "state 
land." Today, it has a population (look for Nazerat Illit in the following link) that is more than 20% 
non- Jewish, at least half of whom are Israeli Arabs, who, like their Israeli 
Jewish neighbors, lease their land from the Israel Land Administration (ILA).

The 93% claim is therefore obviously false, and it is a pity that in his "four 
years reporting from Jerusalem" Mr. McGreal never managed to notice this. 
Because the "93% of the land" claim is so common * it appears on thousands of 
anti-Israel websites and probably hundreds of such books * CAMERA produced a 
detailed refutation, available in slightly different versions here and here. The 
salient facts are these:

In 1960 under Basic Law: Israel Lands, JNF-owned land and government-owned land 
were together defined as "Israel lands," and the principle was laid down that 
such land would be leased rather than sold. The JNF retained ownership of its 
land, but administrative responsibility for the JNF land, and also for 
government-owned land, passed to a newly created agency called the Israel Land Administration or ILA. (Encyclopaedia Judaica, V 10, p. 77)

Today, of the total land in Israel, 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is 
privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between 
private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in 
Israel (Government Press Office, Israel, 22 May 1997).

Jewish and Arab Access to Government-Owned Land in Israel 

Statements that Israel refuses to sell state-owned land to Israeli Arabs are 
extremely misleading, since, as stated above, such land is not sold to Israeli 
Jews either, but is instead leased out by the ILA and is equally available to 
all citizens of Israel. 

The availability of state-owned land to Israeli Arabs is true not just in 
theory, but also in practice. For example, about half of the land farmed by 
Israeli-Arabs is leased from the ILA. (Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, 
Westview Press, p. 66, 1990)

Moreover, sometimes Israeli Arabs receive more favorable terms from the ILA than do Israeli Jews. Thus, for example, in new Jewish communities near 
Beersheva the ILA charged $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre, 
while at the same time Bedouin families in the nearby community of Rahat paid 
only $150 for the same amount of land. (Israel's Dilemma, Shapolsky 
Publications, p. 97, 1989)

In another case a Jewish citizen applied to the ILA to lease land in a new 
Bedouin community under the same favorable, highly subsidized terms available to 
the Bedouins. 

When the ILA refused to lease him land in the community under any circumstances, 
he sued. In Avitan v. Israel Land Administration (HC 528/88) the High Court 
ruled that ILA discrimination against the Jewish citizen Avitan was justified as 
affirmative action for Bedouin citizens. (Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, 
p. 81)

In addition, it is important to note the following from the Legal Status book 
cited above, regarding specifically the access by non-Jewish citizens of Israel 
to the 80 percent of the land that is state owned (ie "state land"), and the restrictions on access by 
non-Jews to the roughly 13 percent of the land that is privately owned by the 
JNF:

The legal arrangements described above, which prevent leasing of land to 
non-Jews, apply only to JNF lands. Under the principle of equality that binds 
all public authorities the ILA may not refuse to lease other Israel lands, i.e., 
lands belonging to the state or the Development Authority, to Arabs. In practice 
such lands are indeed leased to Arabs, mainly for urban use, but they are also 
sometimes leased to Arabs for agricultural use too ... (Legal Status, p. 66)

As noted elsewhere in the book, the JNF restictions are often evaded by the 
government in practice, meaning that non-Jews do in fact have access to much 
JNF-owned land. Finally, it should be noted that the book's author, Prof. David 
Kretzmer, is hardly an apologist for Israel * he was one of the founders of the 
Association for Civil Rights in Israel, more or less equivalent to the ACLU in the United States. While one might not necessarily agree with some of Prof. 
Kretzmer's conclusions, his technical treatment of civil rights law and practice 
in Israel seems quite reliable, unlike Mr. McGreal, who might have benefitted 
from reading the book or speaking with its author.

Similarly distorted was Mr. McGreal's treatment of building and demography in 
Jerusalem. He claims, for example, that:

At the heart of Israel's strategy is the policy adopted three decades ago of 
"maintaining the demographic balance" in Jerusalem. In 1972, the number of Jews 
in the west of the city outnumbered the Arabs in the east by nearly three to 
one. The government decreed that that equation should not be allowed to change, 
at least not in favour of the Arabs.

But had Mr. McGreal simply looked at the population figures published every 
year, he would have seen that the "demographic balance" has not been maintained 
and has indeed changed in "favour of the Arabs." According to the Statistical 
Abstract of Israel 2006,  Jews comprised 73.4 percent of Jerusalem's population in 1972 but only 64.9 
percent in 2004. (The Palestinian statistical abstract claims that the Israeli 
figures understate Arab population growth, so that would further undermine Mr. 
McGreal's case.) 

The bottom line is that all claims about "Israel maintaining the demographic 
balance" by "preventing Palestinian growth" are contradicted by the most basic 
demographic figures * in Jerusalem the Palestinian population has grown far 
faster than the Jewish population. In other words, if anyone is changing the 
demographic balance in Jerusalem it is the Palestinians.

Let us now turn to Mr. McGreal's claims that Muslims and Christians are barred 
from living in the so-called Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City: 

Israeli law also restricts where non-Jews may live. "Muslims and Christians are 
barred from buying in the Jewish quarter of the old city on the grounds of 
"historic patterns of life of each community having its own quarter'," says 
Seidemann, in a phrase eerily reminiscent of apartheid's philosophy. "But that didn't prevent the 
Israeli government from aggressively pursuing activities to place Jews within 
the Muslim quarter. The attitude is: what's mine is exclusively mine, but what's 
yours is mixed if we happen to target it."

This is arrant nonsense. Non-Jews can and do live in the Jewish Quarter, and in 
substantial numbers, while relatively few Jews live in the Muslim Quarter. 
According to the most recent figures available online (from the 1995 Census of 
Population and Housing) at least 480 Muslims lived in the Jewish Quarter, making 
up 22.5% of the quarter's population. In contrast, Jews made up just 1.68% of 
the Muslim Quarter's population. Even in absolute terms, the 480 Muslims living 
in the Jewish Quarter outnumbered the 380 Jews living in the much larger Muslim 
Quarter. (The Jerusalem Statistical Yearbook gives the total population of the 
quarters, along with their numerical designation * the Jewish Quarter is 
Sub-quarter 63 of Jerusalem, the Muslim Quarter Sub-quarter 64. The Census of Population and Housing then gives 
the religious breakdown of the population by sub-quarter and even by the more 
detailed measure of statistical area; the relevant figures are on and near line 
1639 of this spreadsheet.)

Thus, the reality is exactly the opposite of what Mr. McGreal charges * it is 
evidently far easier for a Muslim to live in the Jewish Quarter than it is for a 
Jew to live in the Muslim Quarter. And Danny Seidemann, the "expert" quoted by 
Mr. McGreal on this matter, is apparently less than reliable.

McGreal also falsely charged * once again relying on Seidemann * that 
Jerusalem's Arab residents were:

... denied permission to build new homes or expand existing ones, [so] many 
Palestinians build anyway and risk a demolition order. Israel's former prime 
minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, routinely defends the demolitions by arguing that 
any civilised society enforces planning regulations. But Israel is the only 
western society to deny construction permits to people on the grounds of race. Until 1992, so did South Africa.

In fact, contrary to McGreal's claims, Arabs in Jerusalem actually receive 
building permits at the same rate as Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the city (the two 
communities are demographically quite similar * in total population, family size 
and income). Indeed, in Jerusalem, Arabs have actually built new housing units 
at a faster rate than have Jews. As the chief Palestinian demography expert, 
Khalil Tufakji, admitted in a CNN interview, "We can build inside Jerusalem, 
legal, illegal -- rebuild a house, whatever, we can do. Maybe we lose ten 
houses, but in the end we build 40 more houses in East Jerusalem." (Sept. 19, 
1998)

Tufakji's statement that Arabs have no problem building in Jerusalem is 
confirmed in a comprehensive report by Israel Kimhi, Arab Building in Jerusalem: 
1967 * 1997, published by CAMERA. (Kimhi, of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel 
Studies, was formerly the municipality's chief city planner). 

An even more detailed report by Justus Weiner, Illegal Construction in Jerusalem, was recently 
published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Among the facts documented 
by Weiner is that the Jerusalem municipality:

has authorized more than 36,000 permits for new housing units in the Arab 
sector, more than enough to meet the needs of Arab residents through legal 
construction until 2020;

and that 

Both Arabs and Jews typically wait 4-6 weeks for permit approval, enjoy a 
similar rate of application approvals, and pay an identical fee ($3,600) for 
water and sewage hook-ups on the same size living unit. 

Thus, McGreal's claim that Israel denies construction permits to Jerusalem's 
Arabs is utterly false.

In order to support his charge that Israel is a racist, apartheid society 
McGreal also falsely attributed to Israeli leaders extreme anti-Arab positions. 
For example, he charged the veteran Israeli politician Uzi Landau with 
supporting the expulsion of Palestinians: 

In 2001, Sharon appointed Uzi Landau as his security minister, a position from which he openly advocated that Palestinians 
should be forced to move to Jordan because they were in the way of Israeli 
expansion in the West Bank. "For many of us, it's as though they (the 
Palestinians) are encroaching on our very right to be there (in the occupied 
territories)," he said.

First of all, the quoted statement has nothing to do with forcing Palestinians 
to move to Jordan. If indeed Uzi Landau had openly advocated such a thing, why 
can't McGreal come up with a direct quotation to prove it? Just to be sure, on 
Feb. 27 I called Mr. Landau and asked him about this. He vehemently denied that 
he has ever advocated, openly or otherwise, that Palestinians be forced to move 
to Jordan. In addition, both Jewish and Palestinian journalists verified that 
they had never known Mr. Landau to express or hold such views. Therefore, unless 
Mr. McGreal can provide proof that Mr. Landau has endorsed such forced 
relocation, it seems that both he and the Guardian are guilty of libel.

In addition, there are serious questions about the manner in which McGreal used 
the above statement by Mr. Landau, since McGreal had earlier used exactly the 
same statement in an entirely different context. The prior usage was in a 27 
October 2004 article covering the departure of Mr. Landau from the Israeli 
cabinet following his vote against disengagement:

Nearly half of Likud's MPs, led by Mr Landau, voted against the disengagement 
process last night. "Unilateral withdrawal is simply signalling to the 
Palestinians that terrorism rewards and that Israel is in an ongoing retreat.

"This is not going to reduce terrorism, it is going to boost it," he said.

"We see all these territories as our homeland. For many of us it's as though 
they are encroaching on our very right to be there, but also it casts a shadow 
on our ability to really defend ourselves.

"There are many, many Arabs who hate our guts and want our destruction. We don't 
want to see an additional terrorist state on our border."

It is hard to see what this statement has to do with Palestinians supposedly being 
"in the way of Israeli expansion in the West Bank." Mr. Landau is clearly 
referring to Israelis who voted in favor of disengagement as encroaching on the 
rights of fellow Israelis to live in the territories. By changing the context of 
Landau's statement, Mr. McGreal seems to have directly violated the Guardian's 
Editorial Code, which requires that "Direct quotations should not be changed to 
alter their context or meaning."

Mr. McGreal also falsely claimed that Prime Minister Sharon essentially agreed 
with expelling Palestinians:

Sharon rarely objected to the expression of such views, and when he did it was 
not because they were racist or immoral. The prime minister told Likud party 
members who pressed him to expel Palestinians that he could not do so because 
the "international situation wouldn't be conducive".

In fact, contrary to McGreal's claims, Sharon, in his autobiography, strongly 
supported Jewish-Arab coexistence:

It had always been one of my convictions that Jews and Arabs could live 
together. Even as a child it never occurred to me that Jews might someday be 
living in Israel without Arabs, or separated from Arabs. On the contrary, for me 
it had always seemed perfectly normal for the two people to live and work side 
by side. That is the nature of life here and it always will be.

... though Israel is a Jewish nation, it is, of course, not only a Jewish 
nation... I begin with the basic conviction that Jews and Arabs can live 
together. I have repeated that at every opportunity, not for journalists and not 
for popular consumption, but because I have never believed differently or 
thought differently, from my childhood on. I am not afraid of Arabs. I feel I 
can live with them. I believe I understand their problems. I know that we are 
both inhabitants of this land, and although the state is Jewish, that does not 
mean that Arabs should not be full citizens in every sense of the word. 
(Warrior, p343, 542-3)

In adition, Mr. McGreal's claims about Sharon seem remarkably similar to those made in 
Al-Ahram by Khaled Amayreh, an open Hamas supporter and "journalist" who works 
out of Hebron. But even Mr. Amayreh was more cautious than McGreal in using this 
alleged Sharon statement. Amayreh phrased it this way: 

... when members of his Likud Party approached him with the idea, Sharon 
reportedly told them that "the international situation wouldn't be conducive to 
expelling the Palestinians"

By using the word "reportedly" Amayreh is indicating that he didn't actually 
have any source for the alleged statement. Why then did Mr. McGreal treat this 
as if it were a genuine quotation? Once again Mr. McGreal seems to have directly 
violated the Guardian's Editorial Code on quotations.

Mr. McGreal's also deceived readers by claiming that an "influential Likud MP 
Uzi Cohen" supported expelling Palestinians from Israel:

An influential Likud MP, Uzi Cohen, said Israel and its western allies should 
demand that a part of Jordan be carved off as a Palestinian state and that Arabs in the occupied territories 
should be given 20 years to "leave voluntarily". "In case they don't leave, 
plans would have to be drawn up to expel them by force," Cohen told Israel 
radio. "Many people support the idea but few are willing to speak about it 
publicly."

But, in fact, there is no Knesset member, influential or not, named Uzi Cohen. 
Indeed, there has never been in Israel's history an MK named Uzi Cohen, 
demonstrating once again Mr. McGreal's reckless urge to damn Israel, no matter 
what the facts.

Finally, Mr. McGreal's assertions about Israeli Arab political parties were also 
false:

Arab Israelis have the vote, although they were prevented from forming their own 
political parties until the 1980s.

In fact, Israeli Arabs were never prevented from forming their own political 
parties, and they did so long before the 1980's. As Professor Jacob Landau wrote 
in his book The Arab Minority in Israel, 1967 * 1991, Political Aspects :

... although no legal ban existed on the formation of Arab political parties and political 
groupings, it took a while until a second generation of Israeli citizens became 
aware of the significance of political organization and activity.

In accord with this, in the 1977 elections, for example, the Arab-dominated 
Democratic Front for Peace and Equality won five Knesset seats, one more than 
they won in the 1973 elections. In addition, a number of smaller Arab parties 
ran unsuccessfully. Among these were the Arab Reform Movement, which received 
5695 votes (about 9000 votes short of winning a Knesset seat) and Coexistence 
with Justice, which received over 1000 votes.

According to the Guardian website "it is the policy of the Guardian to correct 
significant errors as soon as possible." The Guardian also claims to follow the 
UK Press Complaints Commission Code of Conduct, which requires that newspapers 
"should take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material, 
including pictures," and that "whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted 
report has been published, it should be corrected promptly and with due 
prominence." 

Will the Guardian live up to these high-minded words by presenting forthright 
corrections of their reporter's  falsehoods, and will these corrections be 
prominently displayed both in its printed pages and on its website?  We shall 
soon see.


 
           Please visit our website at: www.anglicansforisrael.com