Forget the so called “anti-semitism” , apartheid is the number one problem

Knesset Head to Push Bill Promoting Arabs as Second Class Citizens

IMEMC News & Agencies – December 22, 2017

 

.singleblog-contan .summary-image:not(:first-child){
display: none;
}

22 Dec
9:08 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tasked Head of the Israeli Knesset, David Amsalem, to promote the nationality bill, which considers Arabs as second-class citizens.

On Wednesday, Amsalem replaced MK David Bitan, who stepped down from the position, amid a corruption investigation against him.

“The first mission of the coalition chairman, MK Amsalem, will be to pass the nationality bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation that will enter Israel’s history books,” Netanyahu said, according to Days of Palestine.

The bill proposal, first submitted 4 years ago by Likud MK Avi Dichter, seeks to enshrine, as a basic law, the concept that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. The legislation determines that all Israeli law must be interpreted according to this principle.

As discriminatory towards Arab-Israelis (the Palestinians who remained home during the Israeli ethnic cleansing in the 1940s), the bill specifies some of the practical aspects of Israel being the nation-state of the Jewish people.

It recognizes and prioritizes the Judaization of state symbols, claims Jerusalem as the capital, Hebrew as the official language, the right of Jews to easily migrate to Israel, Jewish settlement, relations with the Jews abroad, the Hebrew calendar and holy sites.

Netanyahu requested to complete a first reading before the Knesset adjourns for the summer. However, Eyal Yinon, the Knesset’s legal advisor, informed Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein that a proposal such as this cannot be advanced on such a short schedule.

11/14/17 Netanyahu is Redefining Ethnic Cleansing, Not Pursuing Genuine Peace

Advertisements

JJP condemns Jerusalem’s fake history by “Board of Deputies” and Trump

JJP condemns fake history of BoD and Trump

 

JJP condemns Donald Trump’s incendiary statement recognising “Jerusalem” as the capital of Israel

Donald Trump has abandoned all pretence of being even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians, or of respecting international law. He recognised “Jerusalem”, not West Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, and further said that America would not seek to prescribe the city’s boundaries or the contours of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. When he said “This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality”, he was praising force over law.

With those casual statements, he gave America’s blessing to Binyamin Netanyahu and his allies to keep as much of Jerusalem and the West Bank as they want, because he knows full well they have no intention of agreeing a fair resolution of the conflict along the internationally legitimate lines. Netanyahu will now be emboldened to keep expanding the settlements. He will insist that negotiations resume solely on Israel’s terms. When Mahmoud Abbas, PLO President, refuses, as he must, he will be blamed for being obstructive.

The consequences of his irresponsibility are already being seen in demonstrations by Palestinians, met with the all-too-usual lethal repression by the Israeli army.

__________________________________________

JJP criticises the Board of Deputies for supporting Donald Trump’s reckless act

On December 7, in response to President Trump’s announcement, the President and Vice-President of the Board of Deputies issued a statement entitled: “Recognising the truth of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital should ease the path to peace”.

It includes the words: “As soon as Israel declared independence in 1948, it declared Jerusalem as its capital and placed its parliament in the west of the city, in territory recognised as Israel by the international community”.  It is hard to imagine a sentence more breathtakingly false.  Neither West nor East Jerusalem has ever been recognised as part of Israel by the international community.  The 1948 UN Partition Resolution 181 established Jerusalem as “a corpus separatum under an international regime”.

That separation in international law has been maintained to this day.  Neither Jordan’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 1950, nor Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, nor the Israeli law, passed in 1980, claiming that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”, has been accepted by the United Nations.  In fact, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 declared the 1980 Israeli law “null and void”.  In other words, the status of Jerusalem is not in Israel’s or America’s gift.  It can only be changed by internationally recognised agreement

Once Again NYC’s 100 Worst Landlords list looks like my Bar Mitzvah guest list

November 21, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

barmitzvah gilad.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

The list of NYC’s 100 worst landlords is, once again, overwhelmingly dominated by Jewish names. Naturally, I  wondered whether this bar mitzvah guest list quality also applies to the list of NYC’s 100 best landlords. If it does, problem solved. We would assume that since Jews are overrepresented in the NYC rental business, they are amongst the best landlords as well as the worst.

A quick search reveals that there is no official NYC best landlord list. The  Yelp search engine offers something that resembles such a list and it doesn’t approximate my bar mitzvah guest list in the least.

Since the demography of the list of NYC 100 worst landlords is obvious, the list raises the following questions:

1.  How is it possible that there are no academic texts that examine this serious anomaly of extreme over-representation of one ethnic group in this gruesome list?

2.  How is it possible that not one social science graduate student has dedicated his/her PhD to the study of the 40 times over-representation of one ethnic group in the shameful list of abusive landlords?  I ask because an over-representation of 1.3 of an ethnic group in crime statistics has justified academic research and even institutional study.

3.  How is it possible that not one cultural studies scholar has attempted to identify the possible cultural conditions that have led to the concentration of one tribe in this horrid list?

4.  And what about American media? Shouldn’t we expect CNN, the NY Times or even Breitbart.com to ask the obvious question? What is it about Gilad’s bar mitzvah guests, why are they so horrid to their tenants?

5.  How can we explain the fact that the NYC based Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Jewish anti Zionist outlets such as Mondoweiss that ‘care’  for ‘justice’ and ‘Palestinian rights’ are blind to the abuse that is taking place within their own backyard? I wonder, is Jewish ‘anti’ Zionism there to divert attention from gross wrongdoing elsewhere?

6.  We should all ask ourselves, why are we, you and I, afraid to raise these questions?

 video: NYC’s Public Advocate Letitia James Explains Critera For Worst Landlord List (https://youtu.be/guOMSS8-V1A)

Some disturbing videos can be found here and here and here

It is also worth watching and listening to  Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman’s announcement so you grasp how grave the situation is,,,(https://youtu.be/f0_U0hPdm2I)

 If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

“The Protocols of Zion – A Documentary”

MUST WATCH: “The Protocols of Zion – A Documentary”

A compilation of eye-opening material that will ‘red pill’ anyone with half of a brain

A Major Jewish Philanthropist Just Published A Plan To Ethnically Cleanse Palestinians

Source

A far-right faction within Israel’s Likud-led governing coalition has endorsed a plan for Israel to annex the entire West Bank and encourage the Palestinian residents to immigrate to neighboring Arab countries. The plan would allow Palestinians who voluntarily gave up all “national aspirations” to remain, granting them limited municipal self-government, but without Israeli citizenship or Knesset voting rights.

Make no mistake about this — this plan amounts to a none-too-subtle form of ethnic cleansing. It presents Palestinians with an untenable choice: Leave your home or be stripped of basic civil rights, perhaps forever.

Despite (or because of) its draconian nature, the plan was adopted unanimously at a September 12 convention of the National Union-Tekuma party, which holds two Knesset seats as the junior partner in the religious-nationalist Jewish Home bloc. National Union leader Uri Ariel serves as minister of agriculture in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet. The party’s other Knesset member, Bezalel Smotrich, is the author of the annexation plan.

 It’s a marginal enough party that those concerned with human rights or with Israel’s international standing needn’t fear the plan’s immediate implementation. But we should be troubled by the plan’s institutional backing — not just in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, but also in the heart of American Jewish philanthropy.

Smotrich’s plan was released September 6 in an 8,600-word lead essay, “The Decision Plan” (Tochnit Ha-Hachra’ah), in the fall issue of the Hebrew-language bimonthly Hashiloach, a conservative journal of ideas published by the New York-based Tikvah Fund.

That’s right — this plan’s institutional backing includes one of the most distinguished philanthropies in Diaspora Jewry. Tikvah is one of several conservative foundations endowed by the estate of the late investment fund manager Zalman-Sanford Bernstein. It is largely controlled by his widow, the philanthropist Elaine Mem Bernstein, and Tikvah’s board of directors includes some of the most prominent names in Jewish neoconservatism, among them William Kristol and Elliott Abrams.

In addition to Hashiloach, launched a year ago, Tikvah has a number of other publications, including the English-language journals Mosaic, Jewish Review of Books and the Library of Jewish Ideas, a book series published jointly with Princeton University Press. Another Bernstein foundation, Keren Keshet-The Rainbow Fund, publishes Nextbook and Tablet magazine. A third, the Avi Chai Foundation, is a major force in Jewish education reform.

Hashiloach takes its name from an early Hebrew-language journal founded in 1897 by the Zionist essayist and gadfly Ahad Ha’am and later edited by the revered poet Hayim Nachman Bialik before folding in 1919. Tikvah’s choice of that name for its journal might be deemed ironic, given the contrast between the liberal stance of the original Hashiloach, which championed a spiritual, anti-nationalist brand of Zionism, and the hard-line politics of the current incarnation.

On the other hand, the choice is in character for the Bernstein family of publications, which tend to combine their core political conservatism with a free-wheeling cultural sensibility and an openness to diverse, challenging ideas.

Still, Smotrich’s right-wing theories are a stretch even for the free-wheeling, open-ended conservatism of Bernstein-world. The notion of a mass population transfer to rid Israel of Palestinians, even if imagined as somehow voluntary, has long been consigned to the fetid corners of Israel’s radical right. If it’s now moved into the mainstream to the point where it can be taken seriously in a distinguished journal of ideas, that’s a depressing comment on the current state of Israeli and Jewish political discourse. If, on the other hand, it hasn’t gained that sort of broad respectability, then its appearance in Hashiloach suggests an alarming erosion of moral focus in Jewish neoconservative thought, as represented by the Tikvah Fund and its affiliates.

The respectability granted to Smotrich’s essay is particularly puzzling given its intellectual weaknesses, from faulty logic to naivete regarding international relations to plain ignorance. He claims, for instance, that the name Palestine, coined by the ancient Romans after their conquest of Judea, was revived by the Arabs of the Holy Land “when they launched their struggle against the Zionist movement” — when in fact the name had been in common use in Europe for centuries before and was imposed on the local Arabs by the British Mandate, not vice versa.

At another point, Smotrich writes that Palestinian extremism and terrorism were products of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Perhaps the 37-year-old settler-lawyer, born and raised in the hermetic world of the settlements, is unfamiliar with the bloody record of the pre-1967 Palestinian Fedayeen. Maybe he’s never heard of the horrific wave of Palestinian terror attacks throughout the 1970s on Israeli homes, schools, hotels, airport terminals and even Olympic athletes. It was before his time.

Smotrich recites at great length the paradoxical argument that coexistence between two nations living side by side in the Land of Israel is impossible because, first, the Palestinians refuse to accept the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, and second, the Jewish claim to the land is the only legitimate claim — meaning, by his lights, that even if the Palestinians were to accept the legitimacy of two states, the Jews could not legitimately do so. That is, the Palestinians are at fault for not accepting the principle of sharing, which we don’t accept either.

Picking at the holes in Smotrich’s arguments shouldn’t distract us from the larger questions raised by his plan. A morally repugnant concept that was rightly condemned as racist a generation ago is now the policy of an Israeli government coalition partner. This should have caused an immediate coalition crisis but, shamefully, it hasn’t. The plan’s mainstreaming in Israeli public life has been partly enabled by one of American Jewry’s most important philanthropies. This should have caused a crisis in Israel-Diaspora relations but, again shamefully, it hasn’t.

If there’s a bright spot in all this, it’s that we have a week and a half until Yom Kippur — time enough to repent our sins, to do justice and love mercy

Read more

The History of israeli Support for Oppression and Genocide across the World (Part II)

(Part II)

The history of supports that the Zionist regime has provided for dictatorships around the world is filled with examples that should be registered in a long list.
South African Prime Minister Vorster meets with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Knesset members Menachem Begin and Moshe Dayan, during a reception at Jerusalem’s Hilton.

The Israeli regime, weak at the beginning in the mid of twentieth century, made attempts to favor the countries from which it could get a mutual support. From the US to Britain, Germany and smaller countries like Myanmar, the Zionists made a long history of lining up with dictatorships.

Between 1973 and 1991, Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile received weapons and training from Israeli governments and the IDF. The regime committed crimes against humanity, disappeared thousands, and tortured tens of thousands. The Pinochet regime brought torture to new heights of cruelty, unseen in modern history.

Between 1991-1995, the second Rabin Government sold arms used in both the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian War. As early as mid-1992, reports and footage of concentration camps set up by the Serbs for Bosnian Muslims began to emerge. Detainees in these camps were starved and tortured, and their bodies were thrown to the animals. Additional findings attested to the existence of rape camps, where Serbs held Muslim and Croatian women. Yet Israeli arms exports did not stop.

It was revealed, in September 2016, that Israel is trying to ensure the lifting of sanctions against Sudan, following the latter’s abandonment of its alliance with Iran. This took place although no one can deny that Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir — wanted by the International Criminal Court for the genocide in Darfur — continues to commit grave crimes.

The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950), The Israeli Law on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (1950) and Article 16 of the Israeli Penal Law (added in 1994) were the Three laws which deals with offenses by “the Law of the Nations.” They have all stipulated universal jurisdiction in Israel for severe crimes under international law. In reality, these laws have been rendered null and void by the IDF, the Ministry of Defense, Israeli arms dealers, and senior Israeli officials.

The State of Israel’s fight against global anti-Semitism has been hollow from the beginning, in view of the racist elements underlying the ostensibly democratic regime within the Green Line and the military government in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as Israel’s treatment of Mizrahi Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Palestinian citizens, refugees, and foreign workers.

One cannot fight anti-Semitism seriously without fighting racism inside and outside Israel, and without ending Israeli support for racist regimes across the world. One cannot speak of the lessons of the Holocaust while abetting the genocide of other nations, and even inviting murderers to lay wreaths at Yad Vashem.

Israel is the modern version of dictatorship from which no one could expect justice because it has been ruled mainly by dictators who excuse anything for the sake of reaching selfish and inhumane aims.

Religious bigotry is alive and well in israel

Source

Huge Spike in Number of Israelis ‘un-Jewed’ by Chief Rabbinate in Past Two Years

Trend appears related to new practice of re-examining and revoking religious status of citizens already recognized as Jewish

Judy Maltz, Haaretz
17 September 2017

The number of Israelis featured on a blacklist of  “unmarriageable” individuals, maintained by the Chief Rabbinate, has grown exponentially over the past two years, a new document obtained through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry shows. The list refers to individuals who are recognized as Jewish in the Population Registry but who are prohibited from marrying in Israel for various reasons.

This spike, as documented in a recent petition to the Supreme Court, coincides with a relatively new practice embraced by the Chief Rabbinate: Over the past two years, its representatives have begun summoning immigrants, already recognized as Jewish and who married in Israel, for background checks after doubts were raised about the religious status of relatives seeking to marry in the country. In such cases, after the marriage applicants had their request to marry denied, their relatives in Israel were suddenly notified that their Jewish status was either revoked or awaiting clarification.

Jews cannot marry in Israel without providing evidence to the Chief Rabbinate that they are Jewish. Typically, that evidence consists of the marriage certificates of their parents or, in the case of Jews from abroad, letters of certification from their congregational rabbis. Immigrants are often asked to provide the names of relatives living in Israel who can vouch for them. The Chief Rabbinate has the sole authority over marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel. Without being approved by the Chief Rabbinate, Jews cannot marry legally in Israel.

According to the newly released document compiled by the administrative offices of Israel’s rabbinical courts, almost 900 Israelis were added in 2015 and 2016 to the list of “unmarriageable” individuals in the following two categories: “pending clarification” and “non-Jews.” In all cases, these were individuals who were previously registered as Jewish.

The Chief Rabbinate began compiling its blacklist of “unmarriageable” Israelis in 1954. Since then, the total number of individuals in these two categories has been fewer than 4,000. That means that 22 percent of them were added in the past two years alone. Other categories included on the blacklist are “mamzerim” (the offspring of relationships forbidden by Jewish law), individuals suspected of still being married or divorced couples who have resumed living together. The total number of individuals on the list, since it was first compiled, is close to 6,800.

These numbers were compiled by the administrative offices of Israel’s rabbinical courts in response to a Freedom of Information Inquiry submitted by ITIM, an organization that advocates on behalf of immigrants facing challenges from Israeli religious authorities.

They are cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court filed by the organization several weeks ago on behalf of four families in Israel whose members were recently added to the blacklist.

The appeal was filed after the highest court of the Chief Rabbinate ruled, on appeal, that its representatives are authorized to reexamine the Jewish credentials of Israelis who have already been recognized as Jews in Israel. The ruling was issued in December, just days after the Chief Rabbinate published a new regulation allowing it to investigate the religious status of Israelis even if they are not applying to marry in Israel and even if they were already recognized as Jewish for the purpose of marriage.

In its appeal, ITIM argues that the Chief Rabbinate does not have this authority. It also argues that such background checks constitute an invasion of privacy.

According to Rabbi Seth Farber, the founder and executive director of ITIM, never in the past have relatives of marriage applicants had their Jewish status revoked or subject to further clarification.

“The idea that the Chief Rabbinate can suddenly ‘un-Jew’ individuals,” he said, “is completely antithetical to halakha (Jewish religious law), which states that one must take the word of people who say they are Jewish,” he said.

Representing the four families whose Jewish status in Israel has been challenged are also the Center for Women’s Justice and the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University.

One case involves an American-born woman who married an Israeli in a civil ceremony in Florida in 1984. The couple moved to Israel that year, and the woman and the couple’s oldest child converted to Judaism the following year. Both were subsequently registered as Jewish in the Population Registry, as were two daughters later born to the couple. A few years ago, the oldest daughter applied to marry in Israel. In the process, her mother was notified by a representative of the Chief Rabbinate that her marriage was no longer valid because she was not Jewish. Her daughter subsequently decided to marry in a civil ceremony in Cyprus. The couple’s other daughters were notified that their names had been added to the blacklist until further clarification.

A second case involves a family of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Recently, a relative of theirs who applied to get married in Israel was rejected because he could not provide sufficient proof that he was Jewish. After he was rejected, all his family members, who had already been registered as Jewish, were notified that their Jewish status was now pending clarification. A third case involves another family that immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union. When a daughter of theirs applied to get married two years ago and was not able to provide sufficient proof of her Jewish ancestry, all her relatives in the country, who already had been registered as Jewish, were subsequently informed that their religious status was now also pending clarification.

The fourth case also involves a family of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. In this particular case, an investigation was launched when a member of the family sought to divorce her husband, citing domestic violence. The estranged husband, in response, claimed that his wife had converted to Christianity. Based on this claim, which the woman categorically denied, the Chief Rabbinate notified relatives, who had already been registered as Jewish, that their Jewish status was now pending clarification.

Commenting on the four cases, Farber said: “ Behind each story here are real families who have had the carpet pulled out from under their feet. Halachic Judaism is not meant to cause suffering. By initiating Jewishness investigations, the rabbinate is further undermining its historic role in Israel.”

A few months ago, it emerged that the Chief Rabbinate also maintains a blacklist of rabbis from abroad whose letters of certification for the purpose of marriage it does not honor. This controversial list was also obtained through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. The Chief Rabbinate has since announced that it plans to make public a new list of criteria for approving rabbis from abroad for such letters of certification.

%d bloggers like this: