31 October 2012

A War Against the Truth - Zionist Propagandists In Action over Poll Over Israeli Racism

Jonathan  Hoffman Defends the 42% of Israelis Who Don't Want Arab Children in the same Nursery as Jewish Children

The Ha'aretz Article that had Hoffman & co. screaming
The Article that Drove the Racists Made
I was first alerted to the fightback by Zionist propagandists against an article by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz last week on a survey on opinion among Israeli Jews.  It isn't the first such survey and it won't be the last either to show how deeply ingrained racism is among Israeli Jews. 
Gideon Levy - one of the few brave anti-racist Israeli journalists

We saw that in the number of comments on the article, in particular by someone who called himself  'A Jewish Guy' who tried to defend the bigotry of Israeli Jews by pretending that it was all the fault of Hamas!  And no doubt anti-Semitism among (far fewer) Germans in the 1930's was all because of the Jewish 'stab in the back' in 1918!

My own article was headed ‘Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel’ and subtitled ‘Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews

I referred to an article in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz.  I didn’t even feel the need to comment, so obviously racist were the views that the opinion poll told.  Nor were they any different from those in similar opinion polls taken over the years.

On 27.3.07. another Israeli daily newspaper, Yediot Aharanot carried an article by Roee Nahmias ‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’  It showed how 75 percent of Israeli Jews didn’t approve of shared apartment buildings, over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason, over 75 percent did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews and 60% said they would not allow an Arab to visit their home.

40 percent of participants agreed that “Arabs should have their right to vote for Knesset revoked” and over half of the participants agreed that Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate from the country.   Over half of the participants said they would not want to work under the direct management of an Arab, and 55 percent said “Arabs and Jews should be separated at entertainment sites”.
Thirty-one percent said they felt hatred, while 50 percent said they felt fear of Arabs.  Over 56 percent of participants said they believed that Israel’s Arab citizens posed both a security and a demographic threat to the country.   When asked what they thought of Arab culture, over 37 percent replied, “The Arab culture is inferior.”   This survey was carried out on behalf of the Geocartography Institute.

As Gideon Levy wrote, ‘Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.  Just change 'Arabs' to 'Jews' and go back 70 years’.  59% of Israeli Jews want preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to government jobs, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent didn’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.

A third of Israeli Jews wanted a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and no less than 69 percent objected to giving Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.  And if that wasn’t enough then 74 percent were in favour of separate roads for Jews and Palestinians in the West Bank.   And nearly half, 47 %, wanted part of Israel's Arab population transferred into the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent supported transferring some of Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.

And despite screaming against any notion that Israel is an Apartheid state, 58% already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.

You might therefore think that all but the nuttiest, hard-line Zionists would condemn these findings as reminiscent of the Nazi era.  What would one say if 42% of British people (in fact 75% in the Yediot poll) said they didn’t want to live in the same building as a Jew or didn’t want their child in a nursery that has Jewish children or if a majority wanted non-Jews to be treated better than Jews or if nearly 60% wanted non-Jews to be given preferential treatment in terms of government jobs?

Anti-Semitism would be the least of it, but Zionism's hacks and scoundrels, the propagandists who would  put Goebbels himself to shame, weren’t to be put down.  According to a man who would put Goebbels to shame, one Jonathan Hoffman, this was ‘a “ ‘push poll’ - in other words one where the questions are framed to get the answers that those who commission the poll seek.”  You see it was all the fault of those who asked the uncomfortable questions in the first place!  But even Hoffman knew that this was hardly the most convincing argument and so, he tried another couple of attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

Apparently it wasn’t true that 59% didn’t want Arabs to have the same chances in the jobs marked.  Good gracious no.  ‘The fact that 59% want preference for Jews when it comes to jobs says it all." Like Gideon Levy he's twisting the poll. (No surprise). It said that 59% approve of hiring only Jews for GOVERNMENT jobs. Given the security issues surrounding a small minority of Israeli Arabs, that is really hardly surprising.’
Nice phrase that 'security issues surrounding a small minority of Israeli Arabs'.  In other words Israeli Arabs are a fifth column!  No matter how hard Hoffman tries he resorts to the same arguments the Nazis used against Jews.  So you see, it was only government jobs, such as working for Israel Rail, which was affected.  But surely if it is just a question of security issues then all one needs is, as in Britain, a system of individual vetting.  But Hoffman is defending a general prohibition against the employment of all Arabs in particular jobs.

Israel Rail, some years ago, tried to bar those who hadn’t served in the army from working for them.  Security?  Well I’ve no doubt that a security argument could be found for any job but that wasn’t the real motivation.  The policy of Jewish Labour dates back to the 1920’s when the main reason for its existence was the need to provide employment for Jews, not Arabs.  No doubt the reason why 42% of Israeli Jews don’t want Arab children in the same class is also for ‘security; reasons.  Or maybe it’s because they’re not Jewish and this is a Jewish state.  Hoffman as usual is dishonest, but who can blame him when the truth is so self-evident?

However the Zionist propagandists picked up on a small mistake, namely that 69% of  Israelis only support apartheid in the Occupied Territories if they are formally annexed.  Indeed it is arguable that this was not a mistake since the situation at present is clearly an apartheid one, and 59% recognise this fact.  That is why most Israeli prefer the present situation, where the West Bank is de facto annexed but not de jure annexed because that way the apartheid nature of Israel’s rule doesn’t have to be formalised in law.

How right was Sir Walter Scott when he wrote about the Hoffmans of his day:  'What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive'

Tony Greenstein

Gideon Levy: Errors and omissions excepted – more on the Israeli apartheid survey

By Gideon Levy, Haaretz – 29 Oct 2012

The headline of a news article last week was misleading. Most Israelis do support an apartheid regime, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; however, most Israelis oppose such annexation.

Gideon Levy

This article is meant to fix a few mistakes. They shouldn’t have happened; we must acknowledge them, apologize for them and fix them. They were not made intentionally, but as a result of neglect due to time pressure. Now is the time to make things right.

The Dialog poll commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund, whose results were published in Haaretz last week, unearthed extremely serious and disturbing findings. It sketched a troubling portrait of a nationalistic and racist Israeli society. This isn’t the first survey to demonstrate such a trend and, unfortunately, it won’t be the last. The Hebrew headline of the news article describing the survey results (“Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel”) was misleading. Most Israelis do support apartheid, but only if the occupied territories are annexed; and most Israelis oppose such annexation. Haaretz explained this in a clarification published in the Hebrew edition on Sunday.

The article itself, which I wrote, did not contain any mistakes. It provided a precise and detailed description of the survey results. In my analysis of the survey, which appeared as a separate article, there was a single sentence that did not accurately represent the poll results and contradicted what I had written in the news piece a short time beforehand. My sin was to write: “The majority doesn’t want Arabs to vote for the Knesset, Arab neighbors at home or Arab students at school.”

The truth, as I wrote in the news piece, is different: “Just” 33 percent of the respondents said they don’t want Arabs to vote in parliamentary elections, “just” 42 percent wouldn’t want an Arab neighbor, and about the same proportion said it would bother them if there were an Arab student in their child’s class. Not a majority – just a (large ) portion of Israelis espouse these frightening views. Cold comfort.
Imagine a similar survey in France: A third of the French don’t want Jews to be eligible to vote and nearly half don’t want a Jewish neighbor or a Jewish student in their child’s class. The right-wing propagandists who are currently causing a ruckus about my mistake would be among the first to shout “anti-Semitism.” But for us, the Jews, it’s allowed.

The routine excoriation took off. The mirror reflects an unsightly image? Let’s smash it. The messenger stumbles? Let’s slander him, and to hell with everything else described in his article, even discounting the mistake. This is what propagandists always do. One particularly pathetic one has built an entire career out of ridiculously rummaging through negligible errors. Instead of anger being directed toward the findings of the survey – which is what should have caused a scandal – many readers and commentators focused on the unfortunate mistakes that were made. Those errors did not change the survey results even one iota, but they did divert the public’s attention from the important to the trivial.

This deviation from the important issue, this incitement against the mistakes, was done deliberately. It was intended to obscure the truth revealed by the survey, which justifiably has garnered harsh responses around the world. It was the final means of propaganda available to those who seek to blur the true image of Israeli society and paint an unrealistic, imaginary portrait instead.

The most important thing was, and remains, that a significant portion of Israel's Jewish society advocates positions that can only be described as nationalistic and racist. Nearly half of the respondents don't want an Arab neighbor or an Arab student in their child's class; a third don't want Arabs to vote; nearly half want to discriminate against Arabs living in the country. Isn't that enough to scare anyone who fears for the future of this country?

But the right wing and its mouthpieces aren't interested in any of that. They are interested solely in an unfortunate mistake that barely changed anything. Herein lies a challenge for those who are not bothered by the results of the survey but are horrified by the errors made in reporting it: Bring us another reliable poll that proves Israeli society is not as racist and nationalistic as depicted in this survey. That would really make things right.

28 October 2012

Sodastream in Brighton - A Loss Leader in the Fight Against Apartheid

Why Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu Oppose Israeli Apartheid and Support BDS

Nelson Mandela - a long-time opponent of Israeli Apartheid

Christian fundamentalist supporters of Sodastream - 20 years ago the same people supported South African Apartheid

Black Zionist who tells anti-Zionist Jews they should have been annihilated by Hitler - and then claims that Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu would have agreed with them!

PSC stall in background as we hand leaflets out

One of many PSC leafletters

Zionists looking demoralised as they are shunned by the public

one of the Zionists tries putting on imaginary handcuffs (for Palestinians of course)

Simon - the Zionist jester looking non-too pleased

Christian Zionist (potty mouth) holds up poster proclaiming Jews have lived  in Palestine for 3,000 years (actually dear they were Canaanites then!)

handing out leaflets
At the regular Saturday picket today, local Zionists hit on a new ploy.  They go into the shop, buy something and then claim it as some kind of victory.  Meanwhile over 90% of members of the public who we talk to, don't want anything to do with an apartheid shop.  Of course there are few reactionaries who enter the citadels of Israel's apartheid shop.  But there were also people who gleefully broke the anti-Nazi boycott of Germany between 1933 and 1939.

Every week we are in danger of running out of leaflets as the Zionists stand around gossiping at their stall or hurling a few insults at us, which results in normal people finding that if the supporters of a cause are obnoxious, then the cause itself must be obnoxious.

The picketers are mainly Christian fundamentalists and Jewish Zionists.   The former even have a Black woman who tries to pretend that South African Apartheid and Zionist Apartheid are not the same and that she supports Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu!  Today this particular creature told me, and it was recorded, that I should have been annihilated by Hitler.  Such lovely people the Zionists mix with!

She gets particularly angry when told that the heroes of the Anti-Apartheid struggle saw Israel as an apartheid state and hence support BDS.  However the evidence is quite clearOn the occasion of his visit to Israel in 1999 Mandela stated that 'To the many people who have questioned why I came, I say: Israel worked very closely with the apartheid regime. I say: I've made peace with many men who slaughtered our people like animals. Israel cooperated with the apartheid regime, but it did not participate in any atrocities'.  Indeed he was being very diplomatic.  Dr Verwoerd, South Africa’s former Prime Minister described Israel as a fellow partner in crime:

'The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In this I agree with them. Israel like South Africa is an apartheid state. Rand Daily Mail 23. 11. 1961.'   Indeed from the very beginning of Zionism, there was an affinity with the white settlers of Southern Africa.  To Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist after whom Rhodesia is named, Theodor Herzl wrote:  'Please give me a statement saying you have examined my programme and found it appropriate. And why do I come to you, Mr Rhodes, you will ask. Because- my programme is. a colonial programme.' T Herzl; Diaries, , Vol III p.l05

  Anti-Apartheid hero Nelson Mandela demands end to Israeli Apartheid

Nelson Mandela (born 18 July 1918)  is a former President of South Africa (the first to be elected in fully democratic election) 1994 to 1999. Before his presidency, Mandela was an anti-Apartheid activist and the leader of the African National Congress (ANC). Mandela served 27 years in prison, spending many of these years on Robben Island. Following his release from prison on 11 February 1990, Mandela supported reconciliation and negotiation, and helped lead the transition towards multi-racial democracy in South Africa. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 (see) In this letter, Arjan El Fassed, mimicks a similar letter Friedman wrote, purporting to be from George Bush to Yasser Arafat.  Instead it is from Nelson Mandela to Friedman!

Nelson Mandela, Letter to Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times) (March 2001):

March 30, 2001

To: Thomas L. Friedman (columnist New York Times)
From: Nelson Mandela (former President South Africa)

Dear Thomas,

I know that you and I long for peace in the Middle East, but before you continue to talk about necessary conditions from an Israeli perspective, you need to know what's on my mind. Where to begin? How about 1964. Let me quote my own words during my trial. They are true today as they were then:

"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Today the world, black and white, recognise that apartheid has no future. In South Africa it has been ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. That mass campaign of defiance and other actions could only culminate in the establishment of democracy.

Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. This was demonstrated in your recent column "Bush's First Memo" in the New York Times on March 27, 2001.

You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa.

In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea.

Israel was not thinking of a "state" but of "separation". The value of separation is measured in terms of the ability of Israel to keep the Jewish state Jewish, and not to have a Palestinian minority that could have the opportunity to become a majority at some time in the future. If this takes place, it would force Israel to either become a secular democratic or bi-national state, or to turn into a state of apartheid not only de facto, but also de jure.

Thomas, if you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognised as private property because it can be confiscated.

As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called "Palestinian autonomous areas" are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.

The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a "Jewish" state.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

Thomas, I'm not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I'm not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you're about, give me a call.
” [1].

2. Nelson Mandela speech on International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinians (excerpt) :  
"The temptation in our situation is to speak in muffled tones about an issue such as the right of the people of Palestine to a state of their own. We can easily be enticed to read reconciliation and fairness as meaning parity between justice and injustice. Having achieved our own freedom, we can fall into the trap of washing our hands of difficulties that others faces. Yet we would be less than human if we did so.

It behooves all South Africans, themselves erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice.
Even during the days of negotiations, our own experience taught us that the pursuit of human fraternity and equality -- irrespective of race or religion -- should stand at the centre of our peaceful endeavours. The choice is not between freedom and justice, on the one hand, and their opposite, on the other. Peace and prosperity; tranquility and security are only possible if these are enjoyed by all without discrimination.

It is in this spirit that I have come to join you today to add our own voice to the universal call for Palestinian self-determination and statehood." [2].

[1]. Arjan El-Fassed, “Letter from Nelson Mandel to Thomas Friedman”, Bint Jbeil, March 2001: http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/mandella.html .
[2]. Edward. C. Corrigan, “Israel and apartheid: a fair comparison?”, rabble.ca, 2 March 2010: http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/03/israel-and-apartheid-fair-comparison .

In case there is still any doubt left about where Mandela and Tutu stand then the article on the Christian Fundamentalist site ‘Why Israel’ http://www.whyisrael.org/2012/09/04/south-africas-boycott-of-israel-is-mandelas-legacy/ should dispel all illusions:

South Africa’s Boycott of Israel Is Mandela’s Legacy

editor Tuesday 4 September 2012 Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare by emailPrinter friendly

By Giulio Meotti.. The South African government instructed that products made in Judea and Samaria not be labeled as “products of Israel.” Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, vehemently declared that South Africa “remains an apartheid state,” which is now turning its discrimination against Israel. A post-apartheid Pretoria boycotting Jerusalem is one of the more powerful victories for the boycott and divestment campaign. And it’s Nelson Mandela’s legacy.
On March 30, 2001, the anti-apartheid icon Mandela sent a letter to the American journalist Thomas Friedman. Israel, said Mandela, is “not a country that was established normally.”

Rather, it had “occupied another country.” He accused Israelis of indulging in “a vulgar racism.” And then came the peak of his anti-Jewish hatred: “Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality.” This is “an apartheid system.”

Since then, the definition of the Jewish State as an “apartheid state” has become the code word for evil. The labeling of Israel as an “apartheid state” is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism.
Historically, black leaders in South Africa such as Desmond Tutu viewed the Jews as a part of the “capitalist camp,” and therefore exploitative of the blacks. Neo Mnumzama, chief representative of the ANC (Mandela’s party) at the United Nations, called Zionism an “ally of apartheid” and “an accomplice in the perpetuation of the crimes of Pretoria against the South African people.”

Mandela fabricated the comparison between Israel and South Africa. In his twisted version: both are small bastions of Western values and interests surrounded by a larger and non-Western people; both govern hostile majorities, using force and denying rights to subjugate them; both are run by nationalistic, racist governments unwilling to grant rights to these people but anxious to exploit labor. However, Mandela concealed the truth: in South Africa’s apartheid, there were 26 million blacks and 6 million whites, while in Israel there is a Jewish majority and a minority of Arabs who attack the Jews.

The special relationship between Israel and South Africa, according to Mandela, was an unholy alliance between pariah states (during the apartheid era, most of the black African states broke relations with Israel). The truth was another thing, however: like blacks in America before the civil rights movement, or in South Africa under apartheid, Israeli Jews and their connection to the holy land have been erased from the environment by the Arabs. It’s Palestinian anti-Semitism, not Israel’s Jewish democracy, which must be compared to apartheid’s Aryanism.

In 2000, the American Jewish Committee canceled a Washington luncheon scheduled to honor Mandela after he said that 13 Jews tried for “espionage” (read: Judaism and Zionism) in Iran were receiving a “fair trial.” While Jews — including community leaders and a rabbi — were presented as agents of Israel and the US, Mandela was laying a wreath on the grave of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of the Iranian revolution, and warmly greeting his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In 1990, Mandela likened Israel to a “terrorist state” and declared that “we do not regard the PLO as a terrorist organization. If one has to refer to any parties as a terrorist state, one might refer to the Israeli government because they are the people who are slaughtering defenseless and innocent Arabs in the occupied territories.”

In 1999 Mandela supported the Palestinian use of violence. With Yasser Arafat seated next to him at a Palestinian Legislative Council session in Gaza City, Mandela said: “All men and women with vision choose peace rather than confrontation, except in cases where we cannot proceed, where we cannot move forward. Then if the only alternative is violence, we will use violence.” “Arafat and Mandela – Freedom and Victory,” read one of the Palestinian Authority banners hoisted in Gaza for the visit. A few weeks later, the Palestinians began the Second Intifada. Fifteen hundred Jewish civilians have since been killed in suicide attacks and shootings; 10,000 have been wounded.

We should also mention Mandela’s friendship with Colonel Gaddafi (“my brother leader”) and his endorsement of Gaddafi’s long refusal to surrender for trial those accused of the Lockerbie atrocity.
Under Mandela’s apartheid analogy, the World Conference against Racism, held by the United Nations in Durban in 2001, was transformed into a racist conference against Israel. In the same city where President Mbeki held his festival of victory against real apartheid, another death sentence was passed for the Jews. Many black leaders were involved in the Durban proto-Nazi saga.

Nelson Mandela might be a symbol of goodness for many, but as the recent boycott has proven, for Israel’s Jews, Mandela has been an enabler of anti-Semitism.

‘In an article ‘Africans for Israel: A breath of fresh air’ the Jerusalem Post carried an op ed which told readers that ‘it would not be true to say that all Black Africans oppose Zionism and Israel.  A breath of fresh air was welcome on June 28 in the form of a peaceful and dignified protest, Africans for Israel, organized by the African Christian Democratic Party and the Inkatha Freedom Party. They were joined by the Shembe Church, estimated to have one million followers, many of them ANC members. The ACDP in turn invited the South African Zionist Federation to join among others.;
The only problem with this is that Inkatha and Buthelezi were African quisling groups who collaborated with Apartheid.  The ANC only took Buthulezi into government to avoid bloodshed in Natal but his record was one of collaboration with apartheid.  Given the close ties Israel and Apartheid South Africa, which included a visit by Buthulezi to Israel during the Apartheid years, it is no surprise that Buthulezi is now opposed to BDS

Israel, Jimmy Savile and the Independent

Was Savile a Zionist
I had a weird message earlier today on the Argus blog from Harvey Garfield, Hoffman’s uglier twin (yes it is possible) and also a somewhat less eloquent(!) but equally viperous soul, asking me to dissociate myself from a Scottish PSC article, which apparently linked Jimmy Savile and Israel together.

Garfield it was who was the 3rd person in the famous photo of Jonathan Hoffman dancing down the street with Robert Moore - neo-Nazi EDL member.   It is he on the right.

Having not seen the article it was a bit difficult to dissociate myself from it but I can’t imagine I would want to dissociate myself from anything Scottish PSC puts out on its excellent site as they have always been in the vanguard of anti-racism in Palestine 
solidarity circles.

Of course it would not surprise me that Savile was pro-Israeli.  His type usually is.  A reactionary buffoon as well as a rapist and child molester.  Strong?  Well states that shackle (Palestinian not Jewish of course) children, beat them up and torture them must prove very attractive to the likes of Saville.

But I remembered that I had a letter in the Independent today on much the same subject!  Jimmy Savile, the BBC and Israel – though it related to the way the BBC acted as it was above the law – whether in relation to Jimmy Saville or Israel.

23 October 2012

Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel

By Gideon Levy | Oct.23, 2012
It's called co-existence!

Palestinians waiting to cross through the Hawara checkpoint near Nablus. Photo by Nir Kafri
Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.
Just change 'Arabs' to 'Jews' and go back 70 years
 A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state's Arab citizens, a survey shows.

The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.
Like the Hitler Youth - they get 'em young
 The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 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.
A right-wing demonstrator holding a sign that reads 'The Land of Israel for the People of Israel' during a protest in 2009. Photo by Emil Salman / Jini
 A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.
It's another way of saying 'Shalom'
 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."
Almost half - 47 percent - want part of Israel's Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.
Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.
You can't fool an Israeli soldier when it comes to spotting terrorists
 The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society - secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants. The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer.

The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group - 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.

The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups. However, the number of people who answered "don't know" in the "Russian" community was higher than in any other.

The Russians register the highest rate of satisfaction with life in Israel (77 percent ) and the secular Israelis the lowest - only 63 percent. On average, 69 percent of Israelis are satisfied with life in Israel.

Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist - 68 percent of them would not mind having Arab neighbors in their apartment building, 73 percent would not mind Arab students in their children's class and 50 percent believe Arabs should not be discriminated against in admission to workplaces.

The survey indicates that a third to half of Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that practices formal, open discrimination against its Arab citizens. An even larger majority wants to live in an apartheid state if Israel annexes the territories.

The survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all."

In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced "in a few fields"; 19 percent believe "there's apartheid in many fields" and 11 percent do not know.

The "Russians," as the survey calls them, display the most objection to classifying their new country as an apartheid state. A third of them - 35 percent - believe Israel practices no apartheid at all, compared to 28 percent of the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, 27 percent of the religious and 30 percent of the observant Jews who hold that view. Altogether, 58 percent of all the groups believe Israel practices apartheid "in a few fields" or "in many fields," while 11 percent don't know.

Finally, the interviewees were asked whether "a famous American author [who] is boycotting Israel, claiming it practices apartheid" should be boycotted or invited to Israel. About half (48 percent ) said she should be invited to Israel, 28 percent suggest no response and only 15 percent call to boycott her.
We're racists, the Israelis are saying, we practice apartheid and we even want to live in an apartheid state. Yes, this is Israel.
By Gideon Levy | Oct.23, 2012 

Arab Israeli activists protest an upcoming wine festival to be held in the courtyard of Be'er Sheva's oldest mosque. Photo by Eliyahu Hershkovitz

As elections draw near, the season of public opinion surveys is upon us. But here is a survey that is more disturbing and significant in its revelations than those informing us whether Yair Lapid is taking off or Ehud Barak is crashing in the polls.

This one lays bare an image of Israeli society, and the picture is a very, very sick one. Now it is not just critics at home and abroad, but Israelis themselves who are openly, shamelessly, and guiltlessly defining themselves as nationalistic racists.
We're racists, the Israelis are saying, we practice apartheid and we even want to live in an apartheid state. Yes, this is Israel.

Among its terrifying results, the survey discovers a certain innocent candor. The Israelis admit this is what they are and they're not ashamed of it. Such surveys have been held before, but Israelis have never appeared so pleased with themselves, even when they admit their racism. Most of them think Israel is a good place to live in and most of them think this is a racist state.

It's good to live in this country, most Israelis say, not despite its racism, but perhaps because of it. If such a survey were released about the attitude to Jews in a European state, Israel would have raised hell. When it comes to us, the rules don't apply.
The "Jewish" part of "Jewish democracy" has won big time. The "Jewish" gave "democracy" a knockout, smashing it to the canvas. Israelis want more and more Jewish and less and less democracy. From now on don't say Jewish democracy. There's no such thing, of course. There cannot be. From now on say Jewish state, only Jewish, for Jews alone. Democracy - sure, why not. But for Jews only.

Because that's what the majority wants. Because that's how the majority defines its state. The majority doesn't want Arabs to vote for the Knesset, Arab neighbors at home or Arab students at school. Let our camp be pure - as clean of Arabs as possible and perhaps even more so.

The majority wants segregated roads in the West Bank and does not flinch in the face of the implications. Even the historic connotation does not bother it in the slightest. It wants discrimination in the workplace and it wants transfer. Enough with the whitewashing and pretense. This is what we want. Because that's the way we are.
The right will probably attack the New Israel Fund for commissioning the survey. Gevalt! It will screech. Leftists, Israel-haters. But the right's hollering will not change the result. This was done by a reliable, well-known polling firm. Besides, what's wrong with the survey? What didn't we know before, apart from the loss of shame? Let the right prove that this is not the way we are, that most Israelis want to live with Arabs. That most of them see Arabs as people like themselves, their equals in rights and opportunities. Let's see them prove it wrong. That would be a true cause for celebration.

The survey does not only confront Israelis with their present, but with their future as well. This appears to be the survey conductors' main goal. It tells them: You wanted settlements, you wanted occupation, you want Netanyahu and you've done nothing for the two-state solution, and it's died. Now let's see what's the alternative.

The alternative, as every infant knows, is one state. One state? Most Israelis say it will be an apartheid state, yet are doing nothing to prevent it. Some of them even want it. They don't even ask, Where are we going? Where are we being led? What's the vision for the next 10, 20 years? Well, if all goes well, if all continues they way it is now, the Israelis know the answer and it's a bitter one indeed.

Until then, the image of Israel 2012 is this: We don't want Arabs, don't want Palestinians, don't want equality, and the hell with all the rest.

Values-shmalues, morals-shmorals. Democracy and international law - those are matters for anti-Semites, not us. We will vote for Netanyahu again, recite that we're the only-democracy-in-the-Middle-East and wail that the whole world is against us.