Racism against Arabs in Israel escalates
Middle East Monitor | April 4, 2010
A report by the Centre for Equality and Coalition Against Racism has confirmed a 28% rise over the past year in incidents of racism against Palestinians in Israel who constitute 20% of its population.
The centre monitored 286 racist incidents against Palestinians by Israelis, pointing out that 21 draft racist laws were proposed since the election of the current parliament. The data also revealed that racism is now endemic in the Jewish religious establishment, pointing to high levels of incitement carried out by rabbis against Palestinian Arabs.
The report said that the police continue to deal with Arab citizens as enemies, and instead of protecting them, neglect them. As a result, “Arab citizens’ confidence in the body that is supposed to protect them is lost.”
Human rights activists and researchers in the field of anti-racism note that: “racism has become legitimate in the Israeli street and is part of the general atmosphere and the lives of its victims.” They stress, however, that it does not mean that Palestinians living in lands occupied in 1948 should give in to the status quo, but they should step up their opposition and organize their struggle against racism.
Arab MP in the Knesset, Dr. Afou Ighbaria, President of the parliamentary lobby against racism said: “the majority of the Israeli street is heading toward extremist forms of racism as a result of the campaigns of incitement led by the right-wing government through the legislation of the worst racist laws.”
He also affirmed that the parliamentarian lobby against racism which was recently established under his initiative will be the vehicle of opposition inside the Knesset, in collaboration with the anti-racism movement, which includes 19 Arab and Jewish institutions, as well as Islamic figures and human rights committees.
Meanwhile, Nidal Othman, a lawyer from the Centre for Equality, said: “the increasing incidence of racism in recent years has a direct relationship to rejection of internal peace in Israel and peace in the region generally.”
He added: “the continuation of the occupation policy in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, and blockade of the Gaza Strip, as well as the continued expansion of settlements, are in themselves racist practices that blatantly and criminally violate human rights and the rights of the Palestinian people.”
Othman pointed out that recent years have witnessed a steady decline of the judiciary system in Israel resulting in proposals for laws that circumvent the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice, and official institutions refraining from implementing court decisions, in addition to massive attacks on the judicial system by the media and politicians.
Another official, Baker Awawdeh, Director of the Centre Against Racism in Israel added: “It is not surprising that the phenomenon of racism is increasing in the Israeli streets, as long as there are Jewish MPs in the parliament who continue to describe the Arabs as a demographic bomb and a cancer within the state, and as long as textbooks continue to be swamped with hatred and prejudice against Arab citizens in order to restrict and force them to leave their land.”
Awawdeh recalled that Foreign Affairs Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has already urged the House to prosecute Arab MPs and execute them. He pointed out that the Israeli Judiciary system is dealing very softly with the racists who trample under their feet local and international laws that prohibit discrimination and incitement of racism.
Video: Unequal Before the Law
Al-Jazeera — January 13, 2010
People & Power investigates whether Israeli Arabs are regularly the victims of legal double standards. Film-maker Tony Stark’s One Law for All, examines how Israel’s Arab citizens have been and are currently being subjected to an institutional form of racism through the unequal application of the law. – Tip of the hat to Pulse Media
‘Simpsons’ go to the ‘happiest place on earth’
By Barnabe Geisweiller on April 3, 2010
When I learned the Simpsons, America’s famous cartoon family, were going to Israel (S21E16), I thought: Oy vey!
The episode predictably glosses over the real Israel. All is well in cartoon Israel. The Muslims in Jerusalem are voiceless, sour-faced caricatures that prostrate themselves in the street (perhaps the Israeli security forces had sealed off the entrance to the Noble Sanctuary, home of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque). There is of course no mention of that dirty, little word: Palestine. No, Israel is the Holy Land, Jerusalem is “the happiest place on earth.”
But the writers of the episode seemed intent on doing more than just ignoring the reality of the 5 million Palestinians in Israel-Palestine: they thought it would be funny to diss them too.
The Simpsons’ Israeli tour guide takes the family straight to the Dome of the Rock, as though that was no big deal, and stupidly tells Marge: “OK, this shrine contains the rock on which Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. And Muslims believe something, too. To find out, hire a Muslim tour guide—that’s a barrel of laughs.”
But the real insult comes earlier on as the Simpsons land in Israel, and Krusty the Clown heads to the Gaza Strip Club. Get it? Gaza Strip. Gaza Strip Club. It’s comedic retardation, and it’s unbelievably insulting to the 1.5 million Palestinians forced to live there under an Israeli blockade. The Gaza Strip was intentionally de-developed after Israel withdrew its colonial-military infrastructure, and much of the strip was devastated by Israel’s offensive there over a year ago. To compare the Gaza Strip to something that is consider haram, meaning against God, in Islam, is an outrage. Could you imagine Krusty the Clown going to the Darfur Whore House, or the Haiti Bordello? No, people would be livid. But the Palestinians have been so thoroughly dehumanized in America that this tasteless joke raised no eyebrows.
Oh, I forgot to mention the special guest appearance. That was Sacha Baron Cohen playing the Israeli tour guide. The same guy that did this:
A Palestinian-American discovers that the State Department allows Israel to define his national identity
By Ahmed Moor on April 3, 2010
It occurred to me recently that I ought to try to gain entry into the West Bank. As a Gaza-born Palestinian with dual American citizenship, I regularly travel using my American passport without any problems. I thought I’d do some due diligence before committing, so I pulled up the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs webpage to see what sort of preparations I had to make to fly into Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport.
Before I launch into the content of the site, I want to highlight some formatting and visuals. The page is entitled, “Israel, the West Bank and Gaza: Country Specific Information.” Whatever the nattering ninnies at the top may say, the bureaucrats have it right: Israel, the West Bank and Gaza represent one control system – and therefore, one political (if dysfunctional and fragmented) unit. Just as significantly, the map on the page asterisks both Gaza and the West Bank with a footnote that reads in part, “Israeli-occupied.” Well, so much for Sharon’s disengagement.
The site tells us that the American government “seeks equal treatment and freedom to travel for all American citizens regardless of national origin or ethnicity.” Excellent! Go America!
Wait, there’s more. Just a few more lines into the text we learn that, “American citizens whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab or Muslim origin are likely to face additional, often time-consuming, and probing questioning by immigration and border authorities, or may even be denied entry into Israel [italics mine].”
Well, this is problematic. A government that America wet-nursed now reserves the right to discriminate against Americans on the basis of race and religion. But let’s be reasonable. Israel has a special history of violence and security requirements. And, while all Muslims may not be terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims –TimothyMcVeigh, the Tax-me-not terrorist and these guys notwithstanding. And this is Israel, and there is no light between us.
I continued to read down the page: “It is possible that Israeli authorities would consider as Palestinian anyone who has a Palestinian Identification number, was born in the West Bank or Gaza, or was born in the United States but has parents or grandparents who were born or lived in the West Bank or Gaza. Any such U.S. citizens may be required to travel to Israel using their Palestinian Authority passport, regardless of whether they hold the U.S. citizenship… Individuals who hold a Palestinian Authority ID, as well as persons judged by Israeli authorities to have claim to a Palestinian Authority ID by virtue of ancestry, will be considered subject to Israeli law and to regulations that Israel applies to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether they also hold U.S. citizenship [italics mine].”
This is important. Basically, the American government, by continuing to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, is ceding American-identifying authority to the Israeli government. Put differently, within a circumscribed geographical space, the Israeli government gets to decide who is an American and who is a nigg… excuse me, a Palestinian.
Here’s an important jurisdictional question: Does this provision also permit the Zionist state to kidnap Palestinian-Americans from foreign cities? Or do they cease to be Americans only when they’re in or on the border of Palestine/Israel?
In effect, this provision also limits the capacity of the American government to fill vacancies on a race-blind basis. For instance, I could never be the American ambassador to Tel Aviv. Neither my children, nor my grandchildren could fill that post in the future. Paradoxically, if they were born in the United States itself, they could be the president, but not ambassador to Israel. Imagine for a moment that South Africa were still an apartheid state and Barack Obama has just been elected president – how embarrassing for everyone, having to confront racism upfront like that… Full article
Obama Can Stop Funding Illegal Settlements
Pull the Jewish Agency’s US Tax Exemption, and the Settlement Problem Goes Away
By Grant Smith | April 02, 2010
President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton have been uncharacteristically frank about how illegal Israeli settlements obstruct prospects for Middle East peace. General Petraeus went even further, advising a reluctant Congress that Arab perceptions of one sided US support for Israel actually harms US national security and endangers troops. It is now time for President Obama to cut off hidden US funding — private and public — to illegal Israeli settlements.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee marshaled all of its congressional beneficiaries of Israel lobby campaign contributions. AIPAC demands [pdf] the administration stop publicly confronting Israel, take the dispute behind closed doors and get back to the AIPAC agenda against Iran [pdf]. But Obama long ago stated backroom deals with the Israel lobby were off the table, because such deals have a track record — like illegal settlements — of derailing efforts toward peace in the region.
Both Israel and its US lobby have long followed the doctrine that transgressions committed to advance Israeli interests would never be prosecuted in the United States. David Ben-Gurion established an enormous US arms procurement, theft, and smuggling network [pdf] — violating scores of US export controls [pdf] in the 1940s — during his visits to the United States as an officially registered foreign agent of the Jewish Agency beginning in September of 1943. The Jewish Agency, a nonprofit corporation established to realize Theodore Herzl’s vision of a Jewish State in Palestine has constantly clashed with Presidents and the US Department of Justice not only over arms smuggling but money laundering into the US for covert lobbying and public relations campaigns, and failing to disclose its secret covenants with the Israeli government in mandatory US foreign agent activity reports. More recently the Jewish Agency and its twin sister (the World Zionist Organization) were identified in a lengthy official 2005 report by Israeli prosecutor Thalia Sasson as being at the very core of illegal settlement activity — a secret venture that has laundered $50-60 billion according to USA Today.
Historically both the Jewish Agency and its US startups dodged accountability by changing shell corporations like agile hermit crabs. AIPAC scuttled out from under the protective shell of the American Zionist Council a mere six weeks [pdf] after the Department of Justice ordered its parent to register as the foreign agent of the Jewish Agency in 1962. The Jewish Agency-American Section, which laundered funds into the AZC, also claimed to the DOJ that it “reconstituted itself” into two unique and separate organizations after damning Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigators and US watchdogs caught it failing to properly file declarations of its secret ties to the Israeli government. But even in 1970, the DOJ found this claimed rehabilitation to be “very sketchy” [pdf]. Today the Jewish Agency still claims to somehow be separate from its sister organization, the World Zionist Organization, even though one director heads “both” organizations, provides all of the funding and shares the same physical facilities. Arcane Jewish Agency history is important to Americans. As in the 1960s, US tax-exempt funds donated to the Jewish Agency are still quietly recycled back into the United States through the World Zionist Organization’s American Section, itself conveniently located in the same New York office building as the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Their major function is lobbying the White House and organizing AIPAC’s executive committee.
Israel’s leaders and lobbyists have long used intricate wire diagrams to obfuscate through complexity blatantly obvious (and unlawful) activities. In the past, this has assuaged compliant US regulators during times of crisis. The alphabet soup of ever changing, similar sounding Israel lobby organizations is as confusing to average Americans as it is to regulators — and that’s because it’s designed to be that way. The Jewish Agency let lose another wire diagram in 1971 as it tried to convince skeptical Department of Justice officials that it would behave and stop infiltrating the US advice and consent process through covert lobbying and public relations campaigns. Benjamin Netanyahu recently foisted one on Obama to show how he couldn’t possibly be held accountable for the timing of the infamous 1,600 East Jerusalem housing units. These ploys have grown very, very tiresome.
Analysis of cash flows confirms that funds for illegal settlement expansion continues to move from the US like water — pumped by US tax exemptions for committed donors as well as through Congressional siphoning of unsuspecting US taxpayers. The Jewish Agency received at least $140 million in tax-favored donations in 2008 from US charitable federations. Congress allocates $40 million a year in US taxpayer contributions to the Jewish Agency, but exercises no real oversight into how it actually uses the funds. In addition to building illegal settlements, the Jewish Agency funds think tanks such as the Jewish People Policy Institute, which Dennis Ross established in 2002 and chaired before joining the Obama administration to spearhead efforts against Iran. The Jewish Agency has long been the world’s largest quasi governmental nonprofit corporation, its budget was $592 million in 2007.
It is no secret that United Jewish Communities is the currently the designated lead US nonprofit funding umbrella for federations providing unrestricted funds to the Jewish Agency — though it has never revealed this simple fact in its mandatory public IRS filings. US tax exemptions are supposed to be granted only to promote social welfare within designated US municipalities. Land grab campaigns against foreign nations with which the US is at peace are not even legal, much less a charitable activity. Tax exemptions for feeder funds and the Jewish Agency itself were granted so long ago the IRS doesn’t even remember [pdf] precisely what justified many of them. No new wire diagrams, appeals for secrecy, or shell company reorganizations can obscure the fact that US tax exemptions and tax dollars have long been misused to create “facts on the ground” that imperil US national security.
No unit of government is more responsible for enabling illegal settlement money laundering than the US Treasury Department. In the days of Henry Morgenthau Jr., opaque Treasury busybodies even helped and ferried pre-state terrorists through Europe and into the US — just as today they quietly wage economic warfare on Iran beyond the reach of broad public scrutiny or the Freedom of Information Act. In 1968, two years after the AZC foreign agent battle ended, AIPAC applied for a tax exemption. The Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury Department not only granted it two months later, but made it retroactive to 1954 so that AIPAC could lay claim to a much longer existence than actual corporate filings or the press record warrant. AIPAC then happily conducted the AZC’s business as usual as if the 1962 DOJ foreign agent registration order never happened — what maneuverability the DOJ temporarily took from the Israel lobby, the US Treasury Department permanently restored.
Today public complaints about the Israel lobby’s charitable money laundering are treated with the same contempt Harry Markopolos experienced years ago when he tried to warn the Securities and Exchange Commission about the Madoff Ponzi scheme. US political appointees at Treasury in a position to make a difference simply refuse to receive petitions in Washington, much less enforce the law. Although IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman was recently urged to tackle tax exempt donation laundering on National Public Radio, only action against Muslim charities is carried out behind the impenetrable wall of bureaucratic Treasury disinterest. Dwight Eisenhower once threatened to cut off such misused tax exemptions and Treasury enablers — like Ike, ending US illegal settlements funding is something only president Obama can do.
President Obama should revoke the Jewish Agency’s 1948 US tax exemption. This would immediately shut down all US charities acting as feeder funds and throw into question the deductibility of individual US donor contributions. This strong message would be timely, but generate some political backlash. Israel lobbyists inside and outside the federal government exploit elected American politicians’ own insatiable thirst for campaign contributions from the tributaries of this massive slush fund — politicians know they are only welcome to partake if they unconditionally support Israel and its lobby — no matter the cost to their American constituents.
But canceling all US tax exemptions for major charitable Jewish Agency feeder funds until Israel takes the necessary steps toward peace wouldn’t necessarily be controversial if American donors and concerned citizens are properly educated. Sordid recent events may even convince grassroots donors to welcome an Obama ban — donors are often held in pure contempt by elite Israel lobby officialdom anyway. Their donations have been constantly misused for nonexempt political activities and unlawful attempts to subvert the advice and consent participation in government of their fellow countrymen. The most toxic donor contempt is perhaps no clearer than in former lobbyist Steven J. Rosen’s insistence that AIPAC pay him $20 million from its coffers for what appears to be an illegal attempt to unlawfully influence US policy toward Iran through purloined classified US national defense information. AIPAC’s grassroots donors probably wouldn’t have knowingly relinquished their funds to pay AIPAC’s legislative director Ester Kurz to mishandle and improperly dispose of classified US trade secrets either — legitimate American charitable organizations simply don’t behave this way.
Obama must also permanently end all US taxpayer support to the Jewish Agency. By quietly funding an entity with such a long history of arms smuggling, illicit US lobbying, propagandizing, and illegal settlement expansion, the Jewish Agency and its US lobby have compromised Congress and turned every American taxpayer into an unwitting accomplice.
Read more by Grant Smith:
- Israel’s Lobby Imposes Crippling Sanctions on America — Again – March 11th, 2010
East al-Quds only open to ‘non-Palestinian’ Christians
Press TV – April 1, 2010

Only non-Palestinian Christians will be allowed to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in East Jerusalem (al-Quds) on Saturday, when eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate “Saturday of Light.”
Israeli security officials informed church officials that only international pilgrims would be allowed to access the Old City and the church located in the site.
Saturday of Light is held the day before Easter with Christians lining in the streets of the Old City and holding bunches of candles in anticipation of the miracle fire.
Worshipers in the church light their candles and spread the fire to waiting pilgrims who take the miracle fire back to their homes as a symbol of community, hope and renewal. The Israeli restrictions are the latest in a wave of prohibitions targeting Christian Palestinian worshipers in the Easter season.
On Palm Sunday, West Bank Christians were prevented from taking part in the Triumphal Entry procession, which traces the path believed to have been taken by Jesus on his return to the holy city before his crucifixion. West Bank Christians were initially granted Easter permits to access the area, but a closure announced a day before the week-long Jewish event of Passover shut down checkpoints for permit holders.
On Palm Sunday, hundreds of international activists, Muslim supporters and Christians in Bethlehem (al-Quds) marched toward the 300 checkpoint that Israeli officials had closed earlier in the day. Israeli soldiers detained 10 protesters including Abbas Zaki, member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee. It is unclear whether the restrictions would stand for Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
Israel also imposed harsh access limitations on Palestinian Muslims during Ramadan last year.
When it comes to East Jerusalem, ‘NPR’ misleads and misinforms
By Henry Norr on March 26, 2010
It’s been almost two weeks since I wrote to National Public Radio’s senior Washington editor, Ron Elving, and to the network’s ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, to ask why Elving used an Israeli formulation – “disputed” area – to characterize East Jerusalem, instead of calling it “occupied,” the term used by the U.S. government, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and virtually every other international body. So far, neither has replied.
While I wait, I’ve spent some time looking a little more deeply into NPR’s coverage of East Jerusalem since Israel’s announcement of plans to build 1,600 new housing units there put the area in the spotlight. The network posts transcripts of all its stories, interviews, and talk shows on the Middle East (and nowadays most other stories, too) on its website, and it has a pretty good search engine, so it wasn’t hard to review all 22 broadcasts that have discussed East Jerusalem since the controversy exploded. (NPR doesn’t transcribe its hourly headlines, so they’re not included. Neither are the Associated Press reports and Foreign Policy articles it posts on its website but doesn’t read over the air.)
Here’s some of what I found anyone depending on NPR for information about the issue would have gathered about East Jerusalem:
1. It’s part of Israel’s capital. Regular listeners have heard Jerusalem described that way in at least eight stories. In five of those cases the city was called Israel’s “undivided capital;” once the phrase was “unified capital.” When NPR’s reporters say it (as opposed to when they’re quoting Netanyahu or Michael Oren, for example), they scrupulously precede these phrases with something like “the Israelis have proclaimed” or “Israel considers” the whole city their capital. But since NPR reporters hardly ever even hint that anyone except the Palestinians disputes this claim, these are essentially throw-away words. (The closest they come to questioning the Israel position is the statement, which I found in two stories, that “The international community believes that the final status of the city should only be determined through negotiations.”)
2. Israel has a deep historical claim to all of Jerusalem. Netanyahu’s assertion in his AIPAC speech that “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago” was quoted in three separate stories. Twice listeners have been told that Israelis consider the city – implicitly the whole thing – just as much theirs as Tel Aviv. On “Talk of the Nation” they heard an Israeli analyst explain that no government would agree to a construction freeze because Jerusalem is “the heart and soul of the Jewish people.” Weekend news analyst James Fallows informed listeners that the Israeli public considers the government’s East Jerusalem policy “necessary for their survival.”
3. Ramat Shlomo, the East Jerusalem settlement where the government plans to add the 1,600 new units, is an idyllic “neighborhood” (a word NPR reporters have used at least eight times in this context) or “community” on a hilltop. It’s “tranquil” or even “very tranquil,” full of pious Jews who “focus on their religious studies and pay little attention to the outside world.” Their only problem is that they have large families and therefore “housing needs;” this “housing crunch” explains the government’s decision to build the 1,600 units.
4. As for the Palestinians, including the roughly 250,000 who live in East Jerusalem, they are presented to NPR listeners not as people whose roots in Jerusalem go back millennia – who, legally, own East Jerusalem – but as people who, for some unexplained reason, lay claim to what Israel has: they “want” East Jerusalem, they “claim” it, they “hope” it will be part of their “future state,” they “aspire” to make it their capital. In the meantime, unlike the “unfazed” Jewish residents of Ramat Shlomo, they can barely contain their emotions: they are “angry,” “frustrated,” “incensed.” Some of them even think Israel wants to push them out of the city, but the Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem is promptly called upon to dismiss this charge, and he’s given the last word.
Now, some things NPR listeners have not been told about Jerusalem since the [latest escalation of] controversy flared :
1. Except Israel, no government in the world, even the U.S., recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Not a single country, even the U.S., has an embassy there. Under the U.N.’s 1947 partition plan, it was not to be part of Israel at all, but a separate entity – a “corpus separatum” – under U.N. administration.
2. In legal terms, East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory by the United States government, the United Nations, the European Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice, including even the American judge who was the one holdout when the ICJ in 2004 ruled the separation Wall in East Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal. (In fairness, weekend host Guy Raz noted in passing on March 13 that East Jerusalem is “an area Israel has occupied since 1967,” and in one report Garcia-Navarro said that Ramat Shlomo is “on land captured by Israel during the 1967 war.”)
3. Under international law (specifically, the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention) occupying powers are clearly prohibited from transferring their civilians into such territories.
4. The “international community” has repeatedly and forcefully rejected Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem. In the aftermath of Israel’s seizure of the area as well (as the rest of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights) during the 1967 war, the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S., adopted several resolutions reaffirming that “acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible” In 1971 Security Council Resolution 298, adopted with U.S. support, declared that “al1 legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the: City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status.”.In 1980, when Israel adopted the “Jerusalem Law,” through which it attempted to formalize its annexation of East Jerusalem and surrounding areas and to declare the city its “”eternal and indivisible” capital, Security Council Resolution 478 said the law’s adoption constituted “a violation of international law” and “a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” declared it “null and void,” and asserted that it “must be rescinded forthwith.” (This resolution was adopted by a vote of 14-0; the U.S. abstained but declined to use its veto power.)
5. In recent days U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has on at least two occasions declared publicly that East Jerusalem, like the West Bank, is occupied territory and that Israel’s settlement expansion plans are “unacceptable.” “Let us be clear,” he said on March 20. “All settlement activity is illegal anywhere in occupied territory and must be stopped.” NPR has completely ignored Ban’s statements on these issues.
6. The 1,600 Jewish housing units planned for Ramat Shlomo are only a small part of Israel’s plans to “Judaize” East Jerusalem. Ha’aretz and other reputable sources reported on March 11 that some 50,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem are in various stages of the Israeli planning and permitting process. Coming on the heels of the Biden visit and the flap about the 1,600 units, this report got wide circulation around the world. NPR hasn’t mentioned it.
7. Much of the Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem is organized and financed by ultra-right-wing Zionist organizations such as Elad and Ateret Cohanim, which openly proclaim their intention to evict Jerusalem’s Palestinians. These groups are funded largely by tax-deductible donations from American Jews, most notably Miami doctor and bingo billionaire Irving Moskowitz. Yet NPR has never once – not just this month, but never, as far back as its archives go – mentioned Irving Moskowitz or Ateret Cohanim; Elad was mentioned only once, last September, as the funder of archaeological digs in the Silwan section of East Jerusalem – which host Robert Siegel referred to only as “the City of David,” the patently ideological name the Zionists recently bestowed upon the area.
Likewise, NPR has never reported on the recent expulsions of Palestinian families from homes built for them in the 1950s by the U.N. in the Sheikh Jarrah section of East Jerusalem – nor on the growing non-violent movement that’s brought thousands of Palestinians and Israelis together to protest these evictions.
8. Even as it repeats Netanyahu’s assertion that “the Jewish people” were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, NPR has not raised any question or qualification about this claim. If ancient history is to be considered grounds for sovereignty, there are several issues that deserve attention: Many mainstream archaeologists doubt that there was such a thing as a Jewish people or even a Jewish religion 3,000 years. Whoever may have been building there 3,000 years ago, today’s Palestinians have a considerably stronger claim to be their descendants than Ashkenazi Jews like Netanyahu. As Juan Cole has recently pointed out, Jews have ruled Jerusalem for only a few brief moments in its history; Muslims have ruled the city and done most of the building there over the last 1,500 years.
9. If the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are angry and frustrated, one reason is because Israel treats them like second- or third-class citizens – except that they’re not even citizens. They can’t vote in national elections, and they’re not entitled to Israeli passports. They’re prohibited from engaging in political activity, and Israel has repeatedly barred celebrations of their national culture. Thousands of them have had their Jerusalem residency rights revoked for such “offenses” as spending too much time outside the city. If a Jerusalem Palestinian marries someone from elsewhere in the occupied territories – even from, say, Bethlehem or Ramallah, which are just a few miles away – they’re not permitted to live together, either in Jerusalem or in the territories.
Meanwhile, social and economic conditions in East Jerusalem are miserable and rapidly deteriorating, in part because the giant separation wall Israel has built within and around East Jerusalem cuts the area off from the rest of the Palestinian population and economy. 68.4 percent of the population of East Jerusalem live below the poverty line, yet only 22 percent receive any government social services. While the Palestinians make up 32 percent of Jerusalem’s total population, and the municipality collects around 30 percent of its tax revenue from them, less than ten percent of the municipal budget is spent on services for them. The municipality spends four times as much per pupil on primary schools in West Jerusalem as in East Jerusalem, which suffers from a drastic shortage of classrooms. Entire Palestinian neighborhoods are not connected to a sewage system and do not have paved roads or sidewalks. Almost 90 percent of the city’s sewage pipes, roads, and sidewalks are found in the western part of the city. West Jerusalem has 1,000 public parks, East Jerusalem has 45. West Jerusalem has 34 swimming pools, East Jerusalem has three. West Jerusalem has 26 libraries, East Jerusalem has two. West Jerusalem has 531 sports facilities, East Jerusalem has 33. And so on.
As for housing, NPR somehow hasn’t noticed that the Palestinians too have large families and suffer from a “housing crunch” far more drastic than that afflicting Ramat Shlomo. While the government works overtime to develop plans for additional Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem, it’s all but impossible for Palestinians to get construction permits, and if they build anyway, they’re at constant risk of having their homes demolished. (All Things Considered did run a reasonably good report by Lourdes Garcia-Navarro last November about “allegations” by East Jerusalem Palestinians that Israel is “intensifying a campaign to evict them from their homes.”)
10. NPR found time this month for a long story about an Israeli tariff that’s threatening the business of an Illinois company that exports carp for gefilte fish, but the last time the network’s listeners heard that Israel receives $3 billion a year in U.S. aid was when Stephen Walt mentioned it in a July 2006 interview. This month, even as debate about U.S. relations with Israel has boiled up, the network’s news shows haven’t bothered to mention U.S. aid at all. (The subject has come up briefly on Talk of the Nation – once mentioned by guest Ted Koppel, once in a quote from Gideon Levy read by host Neal Conan, and once when a caller from California observed that for $10 million a day, “You would think that would buy us a little more influence than it does” – to which Conan responded “Well, part of that is the billion dollars that we promised both to Israel and to Egypt, that’s included in the peace agreement that got those two people to recognize each other, which is a benefit that I think everybody can agree on.”)
A stark truth: Israeli arms, U.S. dollars
By Glenn Greenwald | March 23, 2010
One does not normally see this truth stated so starkly in places like Time Magazine — from Michael Scherer’s interesting article on AIPAC’s current strategy to “storm Congress”:
The third “ask” that AIPAC supporters will make of Congress on Tuesday is to once again pass the $3 billion in U.S. aid provided annually to Israel. “It’s a very tough ask this year,” [AIPAC lobbyist Steve] Aserkoff admitted, noting the U.S. domestic budgetary and economic challenges. Among other major purchases, the Israeli government has announced plans to replace its aging fleet of F-16 fighter jets with new, American-made F-35 fighters, a major cost that Israel hopes will be substantially born for [sic] by American taxpayers.
Those would be the same “American taxpayers” who are now being told that they have to suffer cuts in Medicare and Social Security because of budgetary constraints, who are watching as the most basic social services (the hallmark of being a developed country) are being rapidly abolished (from the 12th Grade to basic care for children, the infirm and elderly), and are burdened with a national debt so large that America’s bond ratings are being degraded by the minute. Why should those same American taxpayers bear the enormous costs of Israel’s military purchases (as Israel enjoys booming economic growth)? Especially if the issue is presented as cleanly and honestly as Scherer did here, and especially if Israel continues to extend its proverbial middle finger to even the most basic U.S. requests that it cease activities that harm American interests, how much longer can this absurdity be sustained?
On a related note, a new Rasmussen Poll found that only 58% of Americans now view “Israel as an ally” — down from 70% just nine months ago. The same poll found that 49% of Americans believe Israel should be “required” to stop building settlements, with only 22% disagreeing. That’s why the primary objective now of AIPAC and its bipartisan cast of Congressional servants is — as Scherer put it — “to pressure the Obama Administration to avoid airing disagreements publically [sic].” Indeed: you can’t have the American people knowing anything about the U.S./Israel relationship and the ways in which the interests of the two countries diverge.
Having these issues discussed openly and having the American citizenry be informed might shatter all sorts of vital myths, which is exactly what has happened over the last month, which has, in turn, led to this change in public opinion (that, along with the fact that the Israeli Government, by being viewed as the opponent of Obama, has incurred the wrath of large numbers of Democrats who are loyal to Obama and automatically dislike any of his critics or opponents). That’s why their overriding goal is to hide all these differences behind a wall of secrecy — “the Administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find way[s] to do so in private,” demanded Democratic Rep. Steve Israel — because an open examination of this “special relationship,” how it really functions, and the costs and benefits it entails, is what they want most to avoid. It’s common in a democracy for government officials to openly air their differences with allies; why should this be any different?
Israelis are behaving like spoiled rich brats
Haaretz | 21 March 2010
The terrifying specter of non-violent resistance to the occupation and the apartheid regime is hovering over the State of Israel, and all the state’s dignitaries have been recruited to battle it.
This non-violent resistance operates both in areas under Israel’s reign of control, in the form of a popular struggle on both sides of the green line, and across the globe, through the Israeli and international affirmative response to the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions on Israel, until it ends the occupation and grants full equality to people from both nations living under its rule.
As an act of solidarity with the subjugated Palestinian people, a group of Jewish Israelis has decided to join those Palestinians who have chosen the non-violent struggle for civic and national justice.
This act has given politically conscientious Jewish Israelis a golden opportunity to join a campaign against their own government without forsaking their own people. Indeed, this act leads the way towards a broader joint struggle with the oppressed people, through a rebuilding of our fundamental human values, enabling us to do away with the friend/foe dichotomy, which lies at the root of Israeli racism and anxiety.
One should hope that this non-violent resistance, led by a popular Palestinian leadership, will evolve into a binational Palestinian-Jewish front for an equitable and egalitarian political solution.
Right-wing groups and government organs have joined forces with all their might at the face of this new adversary who has risen up to challenge the decades-long racist theft of land from one ethnic group and its transfer into the hands of another. This is not surprising.
It is the hysterical reaction coming from so-called “leftist” circles which ought to be considered more surprising. Those “liberals” prefer to march, shamed and humiliated, alongside the Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman triangle, than associate themselves with enlightened Palestinians.
From their viewpoint, violating a Tel Avivian’s right to listen to Elton John in concert here is equivalent to, and possibly worse than, violating a Palestinian farmer’s right to cultivate his land. They accuse the “radicals” of opposing dialogue, though the support for the non-violent struggle and the boycott campaign is precisely what has breathed new life into the cooperation between action groups from both nations.
The call issued to rock musicians not to perform in Israel, which has elicited angry responses in Israel, is aimed at thwarting the normalization of occupation and apartheid, a normalization reflected in the insouciant everyday life of the city of Tel Aviv.
The majority of Jewish Israelis are complicit in the perpetuation of the current state of affairs. When growing groups of conscientious people refuse to play the game of building a fictitious democratic sand castle on the shores of the Mediterranean, the Israeli Jew behaves like a spoiled rich brat, who would rather destroy his own castle than see natives share his world and his dreams.
As long as the Jewish settler who is sitting on the plundered land of Bil’in, and the contractor from uptown Tel Aviv who is making a fortune from building on that land, are free to go to the Pixies concert, while the original inhabitants of Bil’in are prevented from doing so, simply because they are Arab – the concert should be regarded as an apartheid concert.
Neither establishment-drafted artists nor the President of the Israel’s Supreme Court can erase this sign of infamy from the collective face of Israeli society. Only those modest, yet determined, groups of individuals who have joined the non-violent Palestinian struggle can succeed in this. On that day, instead of smearing them as “irrelevant”, “puritan”, “condescending” and “self-hating”, the following statement will apply to them: never was so much owed by so many to so few.
‘US knows construction in al-Quds is as in Tel Aviv’
Press TV – March 21, 2010

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says construction policies in Jerusalem al-Quds are the same as in Tel Aviv and that the regime has informed Washington of that in writing.
“Construction in Jerusalem (al Quds) is like construction in Tel Aviv and we have clarified that for the American government,” Haaretz quoted Netanyahu as saying on Sunday at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.
The Israeli prime minister also said that Israeli policy regarding construction in Jerusalem (al-Quds) has remained unchanged for different Israeli administrations.
Netanyahu has repeated his refusal to freeze settlement expansions in al-Quds. Just over a week ago, the premier approved the construction of another 1,600 settler units on occupied Palestinian land.
The remarks comes as there have been reports of an alleged row between the two allies [sic] over Israel’s settlement activity and US officials criticized Tel Aviv over the issue.
The Israeli prime minister is scheduled to leave for Washington Sunday night with Defense Minister Ehud Barak to attend the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington. Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni and Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau will also accompany him.
Rampant patriotism breaches on America’s right
By Glenn Greenwald | Salon.com | March 19, 2010
During the Bush years, the Bush-following Right’s Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, frequently accused opponents of the Iraq War of being “unpatriotic,” endangering the Troops, and committing treason: “They’re not so much ‘antiwar’ as just on the other side,” he often wrote. Today, the same Glenn Reynolds wrote (emphasis added):
If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I’d do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible.
Calling on a foreign country to act in a way that creates “as much trouble as possible” for your own country seems to be the very definition of being “on the other side,” does it not? (and his cover sentence — “Are the Israelis less obnoxious than me? I guess we’ll find out soon enough . . . .” — changes nothing). That’s especially true since the action Reynolds is endorsing — Israel’s bombing of Iran — likely would, according to America’s top military official, directly result in the deaths of American soldiers:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region’s stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf “who are under the threat envelope right now.”
By Reynolds’ own standards, blithely endorsing such outcomes would seem, definitively, to place one “on the other side.” But over the last week, as the U.S./Israel dispute has blossomed, the American Right generally has engaged in much conduct that they have always denounced as disloyal and treasonous. Almost unanimously, they have adopted what Jeanne Kirkpatrick famously condemned as a “Blame America First” attitude, with super-patriots such as National Review and Charles Krauthammer, among many others, heaping all blame on America and siding with the foreign government. According to these Arbiters of Patriotism, this dispute is The Fault of America; indeed, when it comes to American conflicts with Israel generally, as Kirkpatrick put it in her famous refrain: “somehow, they always Blame America First.”
Along those lines, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman yesterday formally condemned Gen. David Petraeus for warning that Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians increases anti-American hatred and endangers American troops due to a “perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.” Foxman attacked Petraeus’ remarks as “dangerous and counterproductive” — and, indeed, they are: “dangerous and counterproductive,” that is, for those (like Foxman and the neocon Right) who want the U.S. to blindly support Israeli actions even when doing so directly harms American interests. As Andrew Bacevich explained in Salon yesterday, the fact that Petraeus has now linked U.S. support for Israel to harm to U.S. interests will make it impossible for Israel-centric neocons to stigmatize that linkage ever again, and is thus “likely to discomfit those Americans committed to the proposition that the United States and Israel face the same threats and are bound together by identical interests.” Isn’t it Barack Obama’s overriding duty as Commander-in-Chief to listen to his military commanders and take aggressive action against anything which undermines America’s war effort and Endangers the Troops — including Israel’s settlement expansions?
Beyond that, wasn’t it only recently that attacking Gen. David Petraeus the way the ADL has done was deemed so unpatriotic that it merited formal, bipartisan Congressional condemnation? As Joan Walsh proposed yesterday, shouldn’t Congress now be preparing to condemn the ADL and Foxman for their attack on Petraeus, launched at him as he commands brave American men and women in harm’s way, fighting for our country? After all, Petraeus is responsible for the safety of those troops and is trying to alert government leaders about policies which endanger those troops and undermine the American war effort. What kind of person would attack Gen. Petreaus for doing that, all in the name of serving the interests of a foreign government? One hasn’t seen attacks on Gen. Petraeus this vicious since he condemned torture and called for the closing of Guantanamo, thereby provoking the unhinged wrath of America’s Right.
And then we have what I thought was the patriotic standard that one should not attack the President in his conduct of foreign policy during a time of war. What happened to Joe Lieberman’s solemn 2005 warning that “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril“? This is the same Joe Lieberman who, along with his conjoined twin, John McCain, this week went to the Senate floor to rail against President Obama for the crime of Excess Criticism of Israel. Isn’t Al Qaeda going to be emboldened if they see the Commander-in-Chief being weakened and attacked by these U.S. Senators as inept and our country riddled with internal divisions of this sort? That was the argument made by these same right-wing super-patriots for years (and, indeed, is now being echoed — not ironically but earnestly — by their mirror images on the dissent-hating, Beltway version of the “Left,” such as Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter). But for the neocon Right, that uber-patriotic standard seems to have been suspended as of January 20, 2009, and (like so many standards) is revoked altogether when it comes to Israel.
Whatever else is true, the American Right is now openly siding with a foreign government against their own, and bitterly Blaming America for these problems. They’re protecting this foreign government’s actions even though our top Generals say those actions undermine our war effort and directly endanger American troops. They’re advocating policies — such as the Israeli bombing of Iran — which America’s Joint Chiefs Chairman has gravely warned will seriously impede our wars and lead to the deaths of our soldiers. They’re demeaning the top American General with command responsibility for two theaters of war. And, in a Time of War, they’re attacking the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief — and relentlessly depicting him as weak and inept — all because he’s prioritizing American interests over those of a foreign country. All of that seems to severely breach the standards of Patriotism they have long advocated and which have long prevailed, to put that rather mildly.

