Arab Apartheid - Islamic Apartheid

The Koran and the kafir: Islam and the infidel : Islam and the infidel : all that an infidel needs to know about the Koran but is embarrassed to ask - A. Ghosh - 1983 - 170 pages - Snippet view [Page 158]
One of the early Caliphs, Omar "insisted on a medieval Apartheid with the Arabs as master race." In subsequent years the Arabs had one of the worst records of slavers, and this has continued right up till the latter years of the 20th century and may still be going on. Some of the worst feudal regimes in history were based on Islam as is the present regime in Saudi Arabia.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=AJ9IAAAAMAAJ&dq=apartheid

Arab states remain the last great outpost of despotism and tyranny.

In nearly three dozen cities across the world, a coordinated series of events is being held this week with the express aim of demonizing Israel. Now in its sixth year, the annual hate-fest known as “Israel Apartheid Week” has sought to portray the Jewish state as a bastion of bigotry, inequality and discrimination.

The organizers do not mince words in describing their objectives, asserting on their Web site that they aim “to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns” against the Jewish state. This, they confidently declare, is a key part of “the battle to end Israeli apartheid,” whatever that means.

Naturally, behind the sloganeering stands a clear political platform, one which essentially seeks to dismantle the Jewish state by stripping it of territory and flooding the country with millions of Palestinian refugees through the so-called right of return.

The first step in this campaign, of course, is to equate Israel with the evils of apartheid-era South Africa, thereby laying the groundwork for increased diplomatic and economic pressure to make far-reaching concessions. And so, as usual, the only democracy in the Middle East
once again finds itself on the receiving end of yet another indefensible canard, accused of one of modernity’s greatest political sins without any basis or justification.

SIMPLY PUT, this slur cannot be allowed to stand. It is an insult to Israel and its democracy and dangerously analogous to asserting that Zionism is a form of racism. If allowed to take hold in the public’s consciousness, it could have far-reaching and extremely damaging
effects on support for Israel in the near- and long-term. In the past, the typical response by pro-Israel activists to such charges has been to go on the defensive, responding to the slanders and explaining in great detail the myriad differences between democratic Israel and the racist regime that once ruled South Africa.

Well, I say the time has come to stop playing defense and to bring the offense out onto the field. We need to turn the tables and fight back against our opponents by taking the struggle toward their end-zone.

A good place to be start would be to organize an annual “Arab Apartheid Week,” which would highlight the decrepit state of human and political rights throughout the Arab world.

There is a solid case to be made that the Arab states remain the last great outpost of despotism and tyranny on earth, and people need to be reminded as much. Indeed, the Arab world today is a living encyclopedia of outmoded forms of government, from sultanates such as Oman and emirates such as Qatar, to thuggish dictatorships such as Syria and dynastic monarchies along the lines of Jordan. It may be a political scientist’s dream, but it is a nightmare for the hundreds of millions of Arabs chafing under oppression and tyranny.

Basic and fundamental freedoms such as personal autonomy and individual rights are routinely trampled upon, and ethnic and religious minority groups suffer extreme discrimination and
intolerance. Just ask Coptic Christians in Egypt, Baha’is in Iran or Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia for starters.

This was borne out most recently by a report issued by Freedom House, the independent Washington-based group that advocates for freedom worldwide. Its annual survey, “Freedom in the World 2010,” would make for eye-opening reading for all those who cry “apartheid” whenever they see a flag with a Star of David.

Of the 18 countries in the Middle East that Freedom House surveyed, only one is considered to be “free.”

Not a single Arab country – not one! – did Freedom House consider “free.” Three Arab states – Morocco, Lebanon and Kuwait – were labeled “partly free,” while 13 other Arab states as well as Iran merited the dubious distinction of being branded as “not free.”

In effect, then, this means that of the approximately 370 million human beings currently residing in the Middle East, only 2 percent enjoy true freedom – namely those who live in the Jewish state.

NOT SURPRISINGLY, in a press release announcing the report’s publication, Freedom House concluded that “the Middle East remained the most repressive region in the world.” It is this message that Israel and its supporters need to begin highlighting. By casting a spotlight on the subjugation, oppression and tyranny that typify nearly the entire Arab world, we can open some eyes out there and educate the Western public as to who really shares their democratic values.

As Prof. Bernard Lewis has written, the Arab states are little more than “a string of shabby tyrannies, ranging from traditional autocracies to new-style dictatorships, modern only in their apparatus of repression and indoctrination.”

An annual Arab Apartheid Week, held on campuses and at community centers, could be an effective vehicle for driving home this fundamental truth.

Doing so will reframe the debate. More importantly, it will help Westerners to finally begin recognizing the Arab regimes for what they are: a dangerous mix of despotism and dictatorship.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=170729

Freedom And The Middle East
By: Michael Freund
Date: Wednesday, February 16 2011
[...]
This was borne out most recently by a report issued by Freedom House, the independent Washington-based group that advocates for freedom worldwide. According to its annual survey, "Freedom in the World," of the 18 countries in the Middle East, only one is considered to be "free."
And that one, of course, is Israel.
Not a single Arab country - not one - did Freedom House consider fully "free."
In effect, then, this means that of the approximately 370 million human beings currently residing in the Middle East, only 2 percent enjoy true freedom - namely, those who live in the Jewish state.
With the world's attention focused on the region, it is essential to underline the repressive and high-handed nature of the various Arab regimes. Pro-Israel activists need to make the case that if there is apartheid to be found in the Middle East, it is in those Arab countries that oppress the majority of their citizens while denying them the basic right to elect their own leaders.
Now is the time to drive home the extent of "Arab Apartheid" while emphasizing the danger this poses to the West and its interests.
http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=47274

What About "Arab Apartheid Week"?
by Arsen Ostrovsky
March 7, 2011 at 5:00 am

Today, March 7, begins an annual part of the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, as student groups and academics -- on campuses around the world -- hold events marking "Israel Apartheid Week" [IAW].

None of these groups is holding similar events protesting human rights abuses in any number of Arab and Muslim countries -- Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, the Sudan or Jordan -- where people are being jailed, tortured and often killed fighting for their human rights.

The IAW features a series of events, including lectures, films, demonstrations and other activities, which, according to organisers (http://apartheidweek.org/en/about), is aimed at "raising awareness about Israel's apartheid policies toward Palestinians and gathering support for the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign."

If Israel were an apartheid State, people like Arab Israeli Salim Jurban would not have been elected to Israel's Supreme Court and Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin Muslim, would not have been appointed an advisor to Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, and then to the position of deputy Consul General of Israel in San Francisco. If Israel were an apartheid state, there would not be 5 different Arab parties and 14 Arab Israeli members of Knesset, some of whom are the most outspoken and harshest critics of Israel, including Haneen Zoabi who participated in the terrorist flotilla in June 2010, and Ahmed Tibi, currently one of the Deputy Speakers of the Knesset.

There are Arab parties in the Israeli Parliament; full Arab voting rights. Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. The only national institution from which they are exempted is the military, so that, if necessary, they should not be required to fight against their own brothers. Israel is clearly not an apartheid state.

Attempts, therefore, to compare Israel, to white South Africa are at best uninformed; at worst, maliciously dishonest and anti-Semitic.

The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbours in any number of Middle East countries currently fighting for these very same privileges. As the Muslim Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh repeatedly says (http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses):

"Israel is not an apartheid state... Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first class citizen in any Arab country."

The real apartheid today is in places such as Saudi Arabia, where the government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions, the presence of a Bible there, officially labels both Christians and Jews "unbelievers," and cautions in the Qu'ran Muslims not to befriend Christians or Jews:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and Christians for friends: they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." {Qu'ran 5:51)

"You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for , that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide [ie: Muslim who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.] " {Qu'ran 5:80}

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah," {Qu'ran 3:28)

"O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among other than your own people… they love what distresses you…." {Qu'ran 3:18)

"O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your bretheren for friends if they take take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith." [ie: Even family members should not be friend if they do not submit to Islam.} (Qu'ran 9:23) *

Also in the Qu'ran, Muhammed curses the Jews and turns them into pigs and monkeys. (Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166)

Iran routinely executes, tortures and persecutes Baha'is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities. How many Christians or Jews, for example, are in its government?

In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

Jordan last year revoked the citizenship of thousands of Jordanian Palestinians, and still denies citizenship to Jews.

Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

Yet Israel is the only country constantly to be singled out for opprobrium by groups such as the IAW. If its organizers were truly interested in human rights, going from worst to best, wouldn't a better starting point be to hold an Arab Apartheid Week?

The main weapon in the campaign to brand Israel an apartheid state is the Boycott Divestment Sanctions [BDS] Campaign, which seeks to ostracize the Jewish state by severing all ties with it -- economic, diplomatic, cultural, academic among others.

Marwan Barghouti for example, who is the founder and one of the leaders of the BDS Campaign (and incidentally, also a PhD student of ethics at Tel Aviv University), has said (http://vimeo.com/9605827) that the Palestinian refugees right of return to Israel is the "litmus test of morality for anyone suggesting a just and enduring solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." First, the Palestinians' claim to a right of return is hotly disputed - where in history has one been able to defect to countries that have initiated four wars in sixty years against Israel; then, when these countries lose those wars that they have initiated, say that one would like to return and expect such a choice to be automatically accepted? The relocation of some 4 million plus Palestinians to Israel would clearly entail a demographic death of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state – rather than have two states, a Jewish Israel and a Palestinian State, you would have a Palestinian state displacing Israel, a point that is not lost on Barghouti, who says (http://vimeo.com/9605827):

"I clearly do not buy into the two-state solution...[I]f the refugees were to return, you would not have a two-state solution, you would have a Palestine next to Palestine, rather than a Palestine next to Israel."

Other BDS leaders are equally forthright about the aims of their movement. Ronnie Kasrils for example says (http://vimeo.com/9617367): "BDS will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." And Ahmed Koor, another leader, proudly proclaims (http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/bds-is-a-long-term-project-with-radically-transformative-potential.html): "Ending the occupation doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mean upending the Jewish state itself… BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state."

Koor goes even further, clarifying that: "BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown."

It difficult to overlook the similarities between this "The Final Showdown" and Hitler's "Final Solution." Whereas Hitler's Final Solution sought to bring about the end of the Jewish people, the BDS Campaign's Final Showdown, by endorsing a one-state solution and return of Palestinian refugees, seeks to bring about the end of the State of Israel as the Jewish state.

The leaders of the apartheid and BDS movements may talk "peace," "justice" and "ending the occupation," however, their real goal seems to be the vilification, delegitimization, and obliteration of Israel as a Jewish state by branding it the pariah of the international community. From their statements, their goal is not to advance Palestinian rights, but to deny and strip Israel of its rights.

The IAW and BDS supporters do nothing to advance the cause of peace or the well-being of the Palestinians. But then again, has that ever really been the goal of the IAW and BDS movements?

F L A M E HOTLINE: Exposing the outrageous truth: The world (again ...Mar 16, 2010 ... Secondly, if everyone involved in IAW truly cared about human rights, they would rename their movement Arab Apartheid Week.
http://www.factsandlogic.org/flame_hotline_031610-p.html

The simple facts

Dershowitz’s film reminds Yair Lapid that case for Israel based on basic facts
Yair Lapid Published: 02.01.10, 10:01 / Israel Opinion
[...] How dare they refer to Israel as an apartheid state? He asks with genuine amazement. Arab society features apartheid of women, apartheid of homosexuals, and apartheid of Christians, Jews, and democracy. Gays are being hanged in Saudi Arabia, genocide is taking place in Sudan, and women across the Arab world are murdered for not wearing a hijab or for falling in love with the wrong man.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3842037,00.html

Apartheid in the Arab Middle East
How can the U.N. turn a blind eye to hateful, state-sponsored discrimination against people because of their race, ethnicity, religion and gender?
[FLAME - April, 2011]

While apartheid—the legally-sanctioned practice of segregation, denial of civil rights and persecution because of race, ethnicity, religion or gender—has been eliminated in South Africa, where the term originated, it continues to be practiced in many parts of the world, particularly in the Arab Middle East and Iran. Why does the United Nations Human Rights Council continue to attack free, democratic Israel, yet refuse to condemn these true crimes against humanity?

What are the facts?

Apartheid has been practiced in Middle East nations for decades, yet it has managed to escape the scrutiny and condemnation of most of the world, including the United Nations Human Rights Council. It's time to denounce these discriminatory laws and customs and declare them illegal. Can moral people ignore such blatant, heinous examples of apartheid in the Middle East?

Racial Apartheid against Black Africans. One of the world's most deadly examples of racism is in Sudan, where native black Sudanese have been enslaved, persecuted and slaughtered by Muslim Arabs. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the "Darfur pogrom is part of a historic continuum in which successive Arab governments have sought to entirely destroy black Africans in this biracial nation … The raison d'etre of the atrocities committed by government-supported Arab militias is the racist, fundamentalist, and undemocratic Sudanese state." Since 1983, more than two million black Sudanese have been killed, displaced or exiled.

Ethnic Apartheid against the Kurds. Few ethnic minorities in the Middle East have suffered as much repression as the Kurds. In Syria in 1962, hundreds of thousands of Kurds had their citizenship taken away or were denied citizenship. In 2008, the Syrian government issued Decree 49, which expelled Kurds from the country's so-called "Arab Belt" and dispossessed them of rights to own land. The Kurdish Union Party called this an "ethnic cleansing decree … aimed at ending national Kurdish existence." In Iran, following the Islamic revolution, the Shiite majority denied the Kurds a role in defining the new constitution, and in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini declared a holy war against Kurdish political organizations: Entire Kurdish villages and towns were destroyed, and thousands of Kurds executed without due process.

Ethnic Apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. For some 40 years Palestinians have been denied citizenship in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Palestinians have been expelled from many Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait, Jordan, Libya and Iraq. In Lebanon, Palestinians must live in designated areas, cannot own homes and are barred from 70 occupations.

By contrast, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are self-governing. They have their own government—the Palestinian Authority—hold elections (albeit irregularly) and run all aspects of civil society.

Religious Apartheid against Christians and Jews. Persecution, discrimination and attacks against religious minorities, especially Christians and Jews, are rampant in the Middle East. Pressure by radical Islamists has become so great that in the last 20 years some two million Christians have been driven out of their Middle East homelands. Christians in the Palestinian territories have dropped from 15 percent of the population in 1950 to just two percent today. In Egypt, two Coptic Christian churches were burned down over the past year, and according to a recent NPR report, Egyptian police commonly stand by and watch as Copts are physically attacked by Islamist vigilantes. In Saudi Arabia, Christians and Jews may not be citizens at all. Some 700,000 Jews have been forced out of Arab nations, effectively extinguishing the Jewish population in the region, except in Israel, the world's only Jewish state. In the disputed Palestinian territories, Jews are the victims of hate-motivated murders and, according to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Jews will be banned from any future Palestinian state.

Gender Apartheid against Women. A 2002 United Nations report states that "women in Arab League countries suffer from unequal citizenship and legal entitlements often evident … in voting rights and legal codes [and] from inequality of opportunity, evident in employment status, wages and gender-based occupational segregation." In Saudi Arabia, women must walk on separate sidewalks, must be covered from head to toe, and are not allowed to drive or vote in municipal elections. Women in many Middle Eastern countries are commonly forced into marriages, the law usually requires absolute obedience to husbands, and millions of girls must undergo genital mutilation.

Only Israel, among all Middle Eastern nations, guarantees equal civil rights for all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual preference. Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which the Christian population is growing. Some 1.4 million Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights than citizens in any Arab country. Isn't it time for the U.N. Human Rights Council to stop persecuting Israel and condemn apartheid where it really lives—in Arab nations—and demand immediate reform and sanctions against all countries that commit such crimes against humanity?
http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_126.html

Reaction: Apartheid Week Goes On
[Published: 03/15/11, 8:34 PM]
by Victor Sharpe
[...]
There is no such thing as Israeli apartheid against the Arabs. But there most certainly is Arab Apartheid imposed upon Jews, who are denied the right to live amongst Arabs even in the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland, which is occupied and controlled today by the Palestinian Authority and the Islamist Hamas.
It truly is an upside-down world, viewed now through a window so terribly distorted as to bewilder and confuse untold millions. It is much more than an Arab-Israel conflict over territory; it is much deeper than that. It is an Islamic refusal to accept a reconstituted Jewish homeland where once the Muslim foot trod triumphal. The very fact that the Palestinian Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, will never accept a tiny Jewish state within the enormous Arab landmass that stretches from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east is clear and present evidence of Muslim and Arab Apartheid. This empirical fact must be understood.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10067

The Arab Apartheid

By Ben Dror Yemini
Maariv (translated from Hebrew)
May 14, 2011

In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which states as follows: “The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.” That is a stunning resolution, which was diametrically opposed to international norms in everything pertaining to refugees in those years, particularly in that decade. The story began, of course, in 1948, when the Palestinian “nakba” occurred. It was also the beginning of every discussion on the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the blame heaped on Israel, because it expelled the refugees, turning them into miserable wretches. This lie went public through academe and the media dealing with the issue.

In previous articles on the issue of the Palestinians, we explained that there is nothing special about the Israeli Arab conflict. First, the Arab countries refused to accept the proposal of partition and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Second, this entails a population exchange: indeed, between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs (the most precise calculation is that of Prof. Ephraim Karash, who calculated and found that their number ranges between 583,000 and 609,000). Most of them fled, a minority were expelled because of the war and a larger number of about 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries ( the “Jewish nakba”). Third, the Palestinians are not alone in this story. Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time. They occurred in dozens of other conflict points, and about 52 million people experienced dispossession, expulsion and uprooting (”And the World is lying”). And fourth, in all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, or on the backdrop of the establishment of a national entity, or the disintegration of a multinational state and the establishment of a national entity - there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state. The displaced persons and the refugees, with almost no exceptions, found sanctuary in the place in which they joined a population with a similar background: the ethnic Germans who wore expelled from Central and Eastern Europe assimilated in Germany, the Hungarian refugees from Czechoslovakia and other places found sanctuary in Hungary, the Ukrainians who were expelled from Poland found sanctuary in Ukraine, and so forth. In this sense, the affinity between the Arabs who originated in mandatory Palestine and their neighbors in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, was similar or even greater than the affinity between many ethnic Germans and their country of origin in Germany, sometimes after a disconnect of many generations.

Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. They crushed the refugees despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation. They instituted a régime of apartheid to all intents and purposes. So we must remember that the “nakba” was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The “nakba” is the story of the apartheid and abuse suffered by the Arab refugees (it was only later that they became “Palestinians”) in Arab countries.

Throughout many eras, there was no real distinction between the inhabitants of Egypt and the inhabitants of the coastal plain. Both were Muslims, Arabs, who lived under Ottoman rule. According to the researcher Oroub El-Abed, commercial ties, mutual migration and intermarriage between the two groups was commonplace. Many of the residents of Jaffa were defined as Egyptians because they arrived in many waves, like the wave of immigration to Jaffa during the rule of Muhammad Ali and his son over many parts of the coastal plain. Inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, which became mandatory Palestine, did not have an ethnic or religious identity that differed from that of the Egyptian Arabs.

Various records from the end of 1949 show that 202,000 refugees went to the Gaza Strip, primarily from Jaffa, Beer Sheva and Majdal (Ashkelon). That number may be exaggerated because the local poor also joined the list of aid recipients. The refugees went to the place where they were part of the majority group from all standpoints: ethnic, national and religious. Egypt, however, did not think so. At first, back in September 1948, a “government of all Palestine” was established, headed by Ahmad al-Baki. However, it was an organization under Egyptian auspices due to the rivalry with Jordan. The ostensible Palestinian government gave up the ghost after a decade.

What happened to the people in the Gaza Strip? How did the Egyptians treat them? Strangely, there is almost no research dealing with those days. But it is a bit difficult to hide that not so distant past. The Gaza Strip became a closed camp. It became almost impossible to leave Gaza. Severe restrictions were imposed on the Gazans (the originals and the refugees) in everything connected with employment, education and other matters. Every night there was a curfew until dawn the next day. There was only one matter in which the Egyptians assisted to the best of its ability: the school books contained serious incitement against Jews. Already in 1950, Egypt notified the UN that “due to the population crowding,” it would not be possible to assist the Palestinians by resettling them. That was a dubious excuse. Egypt thwarted the UN proposal to resettle 150,000 refugees in Libya. Many of the refugees who had fled in the earlier stages and were within Egypt were also forced to move to the giant concentration camp that was forming in the Gaza Strip. In effect, all the settlement arrangements proposed for resettling the refugees were blocked by the Arab countries.

Despite the absolute isolation, there is testimony about what happened in the Gaza Strip during those years. The important American journalist Martha Gellhorn paid a visit to the refugee camps in 1961. She also went to the Gaza Strip. It wasn’t simple. Gellhorn described the bureaucratic ordeal involved in obtaining an entry permit to the Gaza Strip and the days of waiting in Cairo. She also described the “sharp contrast between the amiability of the clerks, and the anti-Semitic propaganda that blossomed in Cairo.” “The Gaza Strip is not a hole,” Gellhorn stated, “but rather one big prison. The Egyptian government and is the warden.” She described a harsh military régime with all the elite of the Gaza Strip expressing enthusiastically pro-Nasser positions. Thus, for example, “For 13 years (1948-1961) only 300 refugees managed to obtain temporary exit visas.” The only thing that the Egyptians gave the Palestinians was hate propaganda.

That is not the only testimony. In 1966, a Saudi newspaper published a letter by one of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip:

Even assuming that those were exaggerated descriptions in the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Nasser, we are still left with an oppressive régime of two decades. And it is worth noting another fact - when Israel arrived in the Gaza Strip, the life expectancy there was 48 years of age. After a little over two decades, the life expectancy has jumped to 72 years of age, past that of Egypt. More than the fact that this awards points to Israel, it also shows the abyss in which the Gaza Strip found itself during the days of the Egyptian régime.

Refugees from mandatory Palestine also lived in Egypt itself. Many of them did not even feel that they were Palestinians and preferred to assimilate. The Egyptians prevented them from doing so. Except for a short period of time that was considered the “golden age,” during some of the years of Nasser’s rule, which did not include the Gaza refugees, even those who were in Egypt suffered from restrictions on purchasing land, engaging in certain professions and education (for example, there was a prohibition on the establishment of a Palestinian school). The Egyptian citizenship law allowed citizenship for someone whose father is Egyptian, and later the law was expanded to anyone whose mother is Egyptian. In actuality, however, restrictions were imposed on anyone considered a Palestinian. Even the decision of an Egyptian court canceling the restrictions did not help. The new régime in Egypt has recently promised change. The change, even if it happens, cannot erase many years of discrimination, which was tantamount to collective punishment. Thus, for example, in 1978, Egyptian Minister of Culture Yusouf al-Shib'ai was murdered in Cyprus by a member of Abu Nidal’s group. In reprisal, the Palestinians suffered a new wave of attacks and the Egyptian parliament renewed legislation restricting the Palestinians in education and employment services.

Precisely like the identification and unity between the Arabs of Jaffa and southern Israel, and the Arabs of Egypt, similar identification exists between the Arabs of the West Bank and the Arabs of Jordan. Thus, for example, the Bedouin of the Majalis (or Majilis) tribe from the al-Karak region are originally from Hebron. During the days of the Ottoman Empire, Eastern Jordan was part of the Damascus district, like other parts of what later came under the auspices of the British mandate. According to the Balfour declaration, the area now called Jordan was supposed to be part of the Jewish national homeland.

The initial distress of the refugees on both sides of the Jordan River, was enormous. For example, Iraqi soldiers controlled the area of Nablus, and there is testimony about “the Iraqi soldiers taking the children of the rich for acts of debauchery and returning the children to their families the next day, the inhabitants are frequently arrested.” (in Hebrew) Indeed, Arab solidarity.

It seemed that Jordan treated the refugees differently. Under a 1954 Jordanian law, any refugee who lived in the area of Jordan between 1948 and 1954 was given the right to citizenship. However, that was only the outward façade. Below is a description of the reality under the Jordanian régime in the West Bank:

Because these things are liable to sound like an ad from a public relations campaign by the occupying force, it should be noted that they were published in the name of critics from the West Bank in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al Hawadith on April 23, 1971.

As in all other Arab countries, Jordan did not do a thing to dismantle the refugee camps. While Israel was absorbing hundreds of thousands of refugees from Europe and the Arab countries in similar camps (transit camps), and undergoing a punishing process of rehabilitation, building new settlements and dismantling the camps, Jordan did exactly the opposite and prevented any process of rehabilitation. During those same two decades, not one institution of higher learning was established in the West Bank. The flowering of higher education began in the 1970s, after the Israelis took control..

Even the citizenship that was given to the refugees was mainly for the sake of appearances. Despite the fact that the Palestinians number over 50% of the inhabitants of Jordan, they hold only 18 seats - out of 110 - in the Jordanian parliament, and only 9 senators out of 55, who are appointed by the king. It should also be recalled that during just one month, September 1970, in one confrontation, Jordan killed many more Palestinians than all the Palestinians who have been hurt in the 43 years of Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The first Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations, the first Palestinian Arab conference, was held in Jerusalem in 1919. At the conference, it was decided that Palestine, which had just been conquered by the British, was southern Syria - an integral part of greater Syria. Over the years of the mandate, the immigration from Syria into the British mandate territory increased, for example, the Al-Hourani family, which arrived from the Houran in Syria, and others. The idea of “greater Syria,” which included mandatory Palestine, was also reflected in the growing involvement of Syrians in the great Arab rebellion and in the gangs that arrived from Syria during the War of Independence. The refugees, therefore, were not strangers politically, religiously or ethnically. To the contrary. Their fate should not have been different from the fate of other ethnic groups who were expelled to a place in which they constituted the national and cultural majority.

Between 70,000 and 90,000 refugees arrived in Syria, the decisive majority of them from Safed, Haifa, Tiberias and Acre. Thus, in 1954, they were granted partial rights, which did not include political rights. Until 1968, they were prohibited from holding property. Syrian law enables any Arab citizens to obtain Syrian citizenship, provided that his permanent residence is in Syria and he has a proven capacity for economic subsistence. However, the Palestinians are the only ones outside the applicability of the law. Even if they are permanent residents and possess means, the law prevents them from obtaining citizenship.

Only 30% of those who, for some reason, are still considered “Palestinian refugees in Syria” still live in refugee camps. Actually, they should long ago have been considered Syrians to all intents and purposes. They were part of the national Arab identity, they are connected by family ties, they should have been assimilated into the economic life of the country. But despite that, as a result of the political brainwashing, they remain in Syria as a foreign element, they daydream about the “right of return,” and are kept perpetually in their inferior status. Most of them are at the bottom of the employment ladder, in the service (41%) and construction (27%) professions. But there is nothing like the field of education to clarify their situation. 23% do not even go to elementary schools and only 3% reach academic education.

In the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians suffered for only two decades because of the Egyptian régime. In Lebanon, the apartheid continues to this day. The result is poverty, neglect, and enormous unemployment. Up to 1969, the refugee camps were under the stringent military control of Lebanon. According to the descriptions of Martha Gellhorn, most of the refugees were in a reasonable situation. Many even improved their standard of living compared with the days before the “nakba.” But in 1969, the Cairo Agreement was signed, which transferred control of the camps to the refugees themselves. The situation only grew worse. Terrorist organizations took control of the camps, which turned them into arenas of conflict - mostly violent - among the various groups.

A new study that was published in December 2010 presents data that makes the Gaza Strip look like paradise compared with Lebanon. Indeed, there was some scant publicity about it here and there, but as far as we know, there was no worldwide protest, not even a Turkish or international flotilla.

In contrast to Syria and Jordan, in which most of those defined as refugees are no longer in refugee camps, two thirds of the Palestinians in Lebanon live in camps, which are “enclaves outside the control of the state.” The most stunning data is that, despite the fact that about 425,000 refugees are registered with UNRWA, the study found that only between 260,000 and 280,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon. The paradox is that UNRWA is receiving financing for more than 150,000 people who are not even in Lebanon. This figure alone should have led to a serious inquest by the financing countries (primarily the US and Europe), but there is no chance that that will happen. The issue of the refugees is fraught with so many errors and lies that one more lie doesn’t really change anything. And so UNRWA can demand a budget for 425,000 people from the international community, while its website has a link to the study that shows that it’s all a fiction.

According to the study, the refugees are suffering from 56% unemployment. That seems to be the highest figure, not just among the Palestinians, but in the entire Arab world. Even those who are working are at the bottom of the employment ladder. Only 6% of those in the workforce have some kind of academic degree (compared with 20% of the workforce in Lebanon). The result is that 66% of the Palestinians in Lebanon live below the poverty line, which was set at six dollars per day per person. That is double the number of the Lebanese.

This dismal state of affairs is a result of apartheid to all intents and purposes. A series of Lebanese laws restrict the right to citizenship, to property, and to employment in the fields of law, medicine, pharmaceutics, journalism, etc. In August 2010 there was a limited amendment to the labor law but the amendment did not actually lead to any real change. Another directive prohibits the entry of building materials into refugee camps, and there are reports of arrests and the demolition of houses resulting from construction in the refugee camps. The partial and limited prohibition imposed by Israel on bringing building materials into the Gaza Strip stemmed from the firing of rockets at population centers. As far as we know, no prohibition was imposed in Lebanon due to a similar firing of rockets at population centers. And despite that, again, beyond the dry reports of human rights organizations, as part of the outlook that “they are permitted to do as they please,” no serious protest was recorded and no “apartheid week” was held against Lebanon.

In 1991, the Palestinians constituted 30% of the country’s population. Relative to other Arab countries, their situation there was reasonable. Then Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. As part of the attempts at compromise that proceeded to first Gulf War, Saddam made a “proposal” to retreat from Kuwait in exchange for Israel’s retreat from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The PLO, headed by Yasir Arafat, supported Saddam’s proposal. That support was the opening salvo in one of the worst events in Palestinian history. After Kuwait was liberated from the Iraqi conquests, and anti-Palestinian campaign commenced, which included persecution, arrests and show trials. The terrible saga ended in the expulsion of 450,000 Palestinians. Incidentally, some of them had settled there back in the 1930s, and most of them had no connection to Arafat’s support for Saddam. Nevertheless, they were subject to collective punishment, a transferor of proportions similar to the original nakba in 1948, which barely earned any mention in the world media. There are endless academic publications on the expulsion and flight in 1948. There are close to zero studies on the “nakba” of 1991.

These are the main countries in which the refugees are located. Apartheid is also rampant in other countries. In Saudi Arabia, the refugees from mandatory Palestine have not received citizenship. In 2004, Saudi Arabia announced some changes but clarified that the changes do not include the Palestinians. Jordan also prevents 150,000 refugees, most of them originally from the Gaza Strip, from receiving citizenship now. In Iraq, the refugees were actually given preference under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, but since he fell from power they have become one of the most persecuted groups. Twice, both on the Libyan-Egyptian border and on the Syria,-Iraqi border, thousands of expelled Palestinians lived in temporary camps and not a single Arab state agreed to take them. That was a formidable show of “Arab solidarity,” in making the “Arab nation.” And it continues. Palestinians from Libya, refugees from the civil war, are now arriving at the border of Egypt, which refuses to grant them entry.

Time after time the Arab countries have rejected proposals to resettle the refugees, despite the fact that there was room and there was a need. The march continues. In 1995, the ruler of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, decided to expel 30,000 Palestinians, just because he was angry about the Oslo accords, about the PLO, and about the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. A Palestinian doctor, Dr. Ashraf al-Hazouz, spent 8 years in a Libyan prison (together with Bulgarian nurses), on false charges of spreading AIDS. In August 2010, before the present uprising, Libya passed laws that made the lives of the Palestinians impossible. It was precisely at the time when Libya dispatched a “humanitarian aid ship” to the Gaza Strip. There is no limit to hypocrisy.

The following is a summary of the apartheid against minorities in the Arab world in general, and against the Palestinians in particular. But there is a difference. While the Copts in Egypt or the Kurds in Syria are, indeed, minorities, the Arabs from mandatory Palestine were supposed to be an integral part of the Arab nation. Two of the symbols of the Palestinian struggle were born in Egypt - Edward Said and Yasir Arafat. Both of them tried to fabricate their birthplace as Palestine. Two other prominent symbols of the struggle by the Arabs of mandatory Palestine are Fawzi al-Qawuqji (who competed with the mufti to lead the Arab struggle against the British) and Izz al-Din al-Qassam - the former Lebanese and the latter Syrian. There is nothing strange about this, because the struggle was Arab, not Palestinian. And despite that, the Arabs of mandatory Palestine became the most downtrodden and spurned group of all, following the Arab defeat in 1948. The vast majority of the descriptions from those years talks about Arabs, not about Palestinians. Later, only later, did they become Palestinians.

The Arab countries are well aware that their treatment of the refugees from mandatory Palestine was no less than scandalous. To that end, they signed the “Casablanca Protocol” in 1965, which was supposed to grant the Palestinians the right of employment and movement, but not citizenship. To have it almost within their grasp. But like other documents of that type, this one did not change a thing. The abuse continued.

At the comparative level, it seems that the Palestinian group that underwent the most significant growth is the one that is under Israeli sovereignty - both the Israeli Arabs who received Israeli citizenship, whose situation is far better, and the Arabs of the territories. Despite the harsh living conditions in Lebanon and Syria, and before that also in Egypt and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians under Israeli rule, beginning in 1967, have enjoyed a steady rise in their standard of living, in employment, in health services, in life expectancy, in the dramatic drop in infant mortality, and in the enormous growth of higher education.

For example, in all the territories captured by Israel in 1967, there was not one institution of higher education. In the 1970s, academic institutions began to sprout one after the other, and today there are at least 16 institutions of higher education. The growth in the number of students has continued for three decades, including during the years of the Intifada in the last decade. Within six decades the Palestinians - only those under Israeli rule - have become the most educated group in the Arab world.

The same is true in the political arena. After decades of political oppression, it was only under Israeli rule that the Palestinian national consciousness sprang up. For two decades after the War of Independence, the Arabs could have established a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. They did not do so - until Israel arrived and released them from the oppression of two decades. That didn’t make the occupation desirable. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t injustices and dispossessions. There were. But it seems that after the first two decades following the “nakba,” it was actually the era of Israeli rule that caused the enormous flourishing growth in every field. We should, and we must, criticize the negative aspects of the occupation. But we should, and we must, also remember the aspect that is ignored.

In the past decades, the lie has arisen again and again about Israel’s responsibility for the distress of the Palestinians, so it is advisable to set matters straight. The Palestinians went through a terrible experience of uprooting and expulsion. Most of them fled. Some of them were expelled. But, again, that type of occurrence was experienced by tens of millions of others. The difference lies in the fact that all the other tens of millions were absorbed by the countries to which they went. That has not been the case with the Palestinians. They have gone through ordeals of oppression, abuse, and denial of rights. That was the work of the Arab countries, which decided to perpetuate the situation. Many proposals to resolve the problem of the Palestinians and resettle them have been rejected again and again. The open wound has festered. Time after time the Arabs themselves have claimed that the Arabs are one nation. The borders between the countries, and of this there is no dispute, are a fiction of the colonial government. After all, there is no difference, either ethnic, or religious, or cultural, or national, between the Arabs of Jaffa and Gaza and the Arabs of El Arish and Port Said, or between the Arabs of Safed and Tiberias and the Arabs of Syria and Lebanon. Despite that, the Arab refugees have become the forced victims of the Arab world. The “right of return,” which is primarily a propaganda invention, has become the ultimate demand. Behind this demand was hidden, and still hides, one single intention: the annihilation of the State of Israel. The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, said back in 1949 that the “demand for the right of return was actually intended to achieve the purpose of annihilating Israel.” That was also the case at a conference of refugees that was held in 1957 in Homs in Syria, where it was declared that “Any discussion of the refugee issue that does not promise the right to the annihilation of Israel will be deemed a desecration of the Arab nation and treason.” There is no confusion here between the “right of return” and the “right of annihilation.” It is the same “right.” Identical words about return, whose purpose is the annihilation of Israel, were stated in 1988 by Sacher Habash, Yasir Arafat’s adviser. So, too, in our day, is the BDS campaign, whose platform supports the “right of return,” and whose leaders, such as Omar Barghouti, explained that the real objective is the annihilation of Israel.

Already back in 1952, Alexander Galloway, a senior official in UNRWA, stated that “The Arab countries do not want to resolve the problem of the refugees. They want to leave them like an open wound, as a weapon against Israel. The Arab rulers don’t care at all if the refugees live or die.” The Palestinian - and usually also the academic - historiography mimics a series of expressions of that type, just as it mimics the absorption of tens of millions of refugees in other places, and as it mimics the “Jewish nakba,” the story of the dispossession and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, and as it mimics the story of the Arab apartheid. But the truth must be told. Indeed, there was a nakba, but it is a nakba that is recorded primarily in the name of the Arab apartheid.

Ben-Dror Yemini is a researcher, a lecturer and a journalsit

For Zion's sake - Yehuda Zvi Blum - [Associated University Presse,] 1987 - 242 pages - [0845348094, 9780845348093] - pp. 220-221

Most regrettably, many of the countries represented here today, although pretending to be among the most outspoken critics of racism, have cynically exploited that issue to serve their own nefarious partisan objectives, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the eradication of racism. On the contrary, these pretentious critics represent regimes that, themselves, have come to exemplify the worst evils of discrimination, intolerance and oppression. We must never lose sight of the fact that many, if not most, of the states that orchestrate and lead the verbal offensive against Israel, while ostensibly addressing the problem of apartheid, have ruthlessly trampled underfoot their own minorities and have enslaved their peoples under cruel dictatorships. Widespread imprisonment without trial, disappearances of alleged political opponents, degradation and torture, summary executions and wholesale butchery have become their hallmarks.

Among the countries represented on the Special Committee Against Apartheid we note, for example, Syria. The brutal policies of Syria's ruling Alawite minority have claimed thousands of victims and in 1982 culminated in the horrifying massacre of between 10,000 and 25,000 people and the annihilation of whole families at Hama; the orphaning of an estimated 20000 of that town's children, and the widespread devastation of the town's historic quarter. The savage character of the Syrian regime was also pointed out recently in a special report of Amnesty International that described not only the atrocities committed by Syrian forces in Hama, but also cited overwhelming evidence showing that over the years thousands of people have been harassed, arbitrarily arrested, horribly tortured and even summarily executed by Syrian security forces.

Algeria, another member of the special committee, is noted for its oppression of the native Berbers, who are denied the right to separate cultural expression.
[...]
Outside the special committee, but very outspoken nevertheless, are such countries as Libya and Iraq. The fanaticism and extremely oppressive character of Libya's regime has become notorious. Indeed, the hysteria that marks the religious intolerance of Libya's dictator has recently reached a higher pitch as Colonel Khaddafi has increasingly taken to openly inciting against people of other faiths, particularly Christians — as, for eaxmple in his speech of 1 September 1983 in the anniversary of his coup. Iraq, too, has become infamous for its own brand of bloody suppression of human liberties and the cruel persecution of its Kurdish and Assyrian minorities.

In conducting their cynical campaign against Israel in the context of apartheid, Arab states and their allies conveniently manoeuvre attention away from their own central role in the history of racism against black Africans . For centuries, the slave trade in Africa was dominated by Arab traders and in certain Arab countries today slavery still exists.

Arab brutalization of black Africans was recalled in the 17 February 1973 issue of Ghana's Weekly Spectator, which wrote that, during Ghana's struggle for independence , Arab merchants "constituted themselves into a volunteer force and with batons cudgelled down freedom fighters in the streets of Accra in open daylight." Khaddafi's calls for a jihad — a holy war — against Christianity in Africa led the black African Archbishop of Abidjan to raise the question in the Milan newspaper Avenire (19 June 1974) whether this might mean a return to the days when this might mean a return to the days when eighty thousand Africans a year were enslaved by the "Arab colonialists." Arab economic domination led Joseph Nyerere, the brother of Tanzania's president, to write that

West Africa (West Africa Pub. Co., ltd.) 1988 - Page 419
In the late 1970s, it was an open secret in New York that Arab diplomats never invited their black counterparts to their receptions. The ex-President of Senegal, Leopold Scn- ghor, was hesitant in giving recognition to the Polisario Front of SADR because whenever the Front took Moroccan prisoners the blacks amongst them were segregated and shot because the little food they had was not meant to feed black people,..
http://books.google.com/books?&id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=Front+of+SADR
It's quite disheartening to learn that black people are being relegated to second-class citizenship in Mauritania. Black African states must protest to the Arab Berber- government of Mauritania and to all Arab states to respect black people. Abuse of black people by Arabs, especially Syrians and Lebanese, has been ignored for too long. ... two sides in the conflict (Arabs and Israelis): they always have praise for Israelis while wondering why the Arabs hate black people.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=Syrians+and+Lebanese
In the face of these insults and disrespect no African Head of State has been bold enough to raise a voice apart from Zaire's President Mobutu. This is because either they risk being overthrown or fear sanctions in the form of in the form of withdrawal of Arab petro-dollars. It is high time for African states to forget this senseless and blind solidarity with the Arabs and to think of the emerging Arab apartheid.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PMVyAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22

Mauritania, the other apartheid? Garba Diallo - Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1993 - 57 pages
[Page 29]
"Non-Arabs are discriminated against in all walks of life, including unequal access to education, employment, and health care" said the resolution. "Even the heinous practice of slavery, although formally abolished in 1980, continues in some parts of the country"
[Page 30]
The implementation of Arabisation policies, and the imposition of Shari'a laws by Arab regimes on black Africans suggest that deliberate efforts are being made by these regimes to forcebly assimilate non- Arabs.
http://books.google.com/books?id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=non-+Arabs
[Page 42]
Mauritania, including the question of slavery. Among those who spoke with Africa Watch were a number of slaves who escaped from Mauritania, or slaves who came to Senegal with their masters years ago and chose to remain in Senegal for fear mat if they returned to Mauritania, they would be forced to live as slaves...
http://books.google.com/books?&id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=slave
In an Article in Etterge, Roberto Santiago has this to say about what he terms "modern African slavery: Mauritanian's version of Apartheid": "When apartheid is slowly being dismantled in South Africa, a similarly harsh institutionalized racism and defacto slavery continue to flourish in the Arab-ruled north-west African nation of Mauritania, with little public outcry from the international community.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=g5AuAQAAIAAJ&dq=defacto

Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3 - Pax Sudani Network - 1993
Moreover, they have committed to a program of de-Africanization through forced Arabization and Isalmization of the people in South Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and southern Blue Nile regions.
Had the African Sudanese succumbed to this policy of Arabism and Islamism, Islamic apartheid would have prevailed in the Dusan said Elias N. Wakoson. In 1955, a group of Southern Sudanese revolted against the system... they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab Apartheid and enslavement of black Africans. ...
http://books.google.com/books?&id=d_IPAQAAMAAJ&dq=arabism

Negative ethnicity: from bias to genocide - Page 152
Koigi wa Wamwere - 2003 - 207 pages
When racial apartheid fell in South Africa, Arab Apartheid against the black southerners did not in Sudan. Arab insen- sitivity to the suffering of Africans in the South has led to an ongoing war that sends Arab militias from Khartoum ...By 1997 Moorish apartheid in Mauritania had driven 55000 black Africans into Senegal, Mali, and surrounding countries. Judging by the numbers slaughtered, black, Arab, and Moorish apartheids have killed more Africans than white ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=8duB0b-C1WAC&pg=PA152

Africa betrayed - Page 124
George B. N. Ayittey - 1992 - 412 pages
Arab Apartheid In some parts of Africa there is a dominant Islam which allows practically no room for other ... by Arabs against black Africans has become a growing problem in Africa, especially in Mauritania, Sudan, and Tanzania.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PGwYMojX06wC&pg=PA124

Indigenous African institutions
George B. N. Ayittey - Transnational Publishers, 1991 - 547 pages - Page 29
Arab Apartheid reigns supreme in Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, blacks have no political power and cannot vote. Like their counterparts in South Africa , they are persecuted and discriminated against by Arab masters.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=NLC0AAAAIAAJ&dq=persecuted

Africa after the Cold War: the changing perspectives on security - Pages 126-127
Adebayo Oyebade, Abiodun Alao - 1998 - 228 pages - Preview
This ethnic crisis is invariably between the Arabs and the black population. Although the conflict had been on for some time, it was only in the late 1980s that it came into the open. In 1984, the Force de Liberation Africaine de Mauritanians (FLAM) was formed, and in June 1986, it published the "Manifesto of the Oppressed Black Mauritanians."
The manifesto denounced what it called "Mauritanian apartheid" and the " Arabization of the Mauritanian society."... The Black/Arab ethnic conflict inside Mauritania has influenced the neighboring states of Mali and Senegal. The largely black state of Senegal ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=jVI1jF5ireQC&pg=PA126

Africa in chaos - Page 50
George B. N. Ayittey - 1999 - 416 pages - Preview
In Sudan and Mauritania, Arabs held power and blacks were excluded (Arab Apartheid); in Rwanda and Burundi, the Hutus and Tutsis alternatively usurped power; in Nigeria the Hausa-Fulani ran the government (tribal apartheid); Togo, ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=5HtUn_dUmSYC&pg=PA50

Sudan: Volume 3, Issue 3
No cover image Pax Sudani Network [A newsletter committed to the rights and liberties of African Sudanese people] - 1993
While African American leaders have played an important role in dismantling apartheid in South Africa, they have maintained a passive stance on the Arab Apartheid and enslavement of black Africans."
http://books.google.com/books?&id=d_IPAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22

Africanity redefined: Volume 1 - Page 39
Ali AlʼAmin Mazrui, Ricardo René Laremont - 2002 - 225 pages - Preview
Ex-President Mobutu of Zaire [now Congo] — who once called Egyptians "brothers" — later called for Afro-Arab Apartheid on a continental scale, a continent partitioned. It is worth remembering that the cultural links between North Africa
http://books.google.com/books?id=JLpTSC26yNEC&pg=PA39

Biculturalism, self identity and societal transformation - Page 13
Rutledge M. Dennis - 2008 - 267 pages - Preview
This was the pattern in South Africa before the fall of apartheid, and until more recent times, the way of life of ... This is intended to impose a monolithic Arab culture over non-Arab Southerners, and Muslim, but non-Arab Darfurians.
http://books.google.com/books?id=R-DoqvVmqQsC&pg=PA13

Arab Racism And Imperialism In Sudan (Africa) [2001]
ARAB COLONIALISM AND SANCTIFIED RACISM IS RAMPANT IN AFRICA...
One of the most insulting events occurred a few months ago when thousands of Nigerians, Ghanians and other West Africans were lynched, attacked and killed in the streets of Libya, an Arab nation. Yet Africans continue to allow the Arab extermination of Blacks in Sudan and Mauritania, Arab racism and apartheid/racism in Zanzibar and parts of East Africa, and Arab mischief in some of the wars in West Africa. The time has long past for Black Africans to realise two things.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/09122001.htm

Racism in Sudan | PRI's The World Feb 7, 2011 ...
Joseph Lagu says that what the Sudanese have been fighting is “Arab racism, apartheid in the Sudan.” He led the first armed resistance ...
http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/racism-in-sudan/

Midstream: Volume 36
Theodore Herzl Foundation - 1990 - Page 8
... was that much more effective for having been Judenrein or whether the pepper and salt of open Israeli participation might not have produced a timely ending of Arab Apartheid (with European and American condonation) towards Israel.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w3wMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22arab+apartheid%22

The last option: after Nasser, Arafat, & Saddam Hussein : the quest for peace in the Middle East - David Kimche - [Charles Scribner's Sons,] 1991 - 328 pages - Page 235
We were told that without the international community's acceptance of this policy of Arab Apartheid concerning Israel, the anti-Saddam coalition at the United Nations and in the field in Saudi Arabia would disintegrate. The American request for an Israeli 'low profile' and Israel's acceptance, since we really had no choice in the matter, was understandably not publicly discussed or fully considered in Israel at the time. The first short-sighted and
http://books.google.com/books?&id=RYVtAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22arab+apartheid%22

1947 Arab Apartheid
[Wednesday, March 9, 2011]
Jews expelled from Arab lands
In 1947, the political committee of the Arab League drafted a law that would direct the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League. Jewish anti-discriminatory legislation is approved by Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, with the exception of non-Arab countries (Turkey, Iran ...) Legislation passed by the political committee of the Arab League in 1947...
http://www.israelifrontline.com/2011/03/1947-arab-apartheid.html

Middle East review: Volume 9 - American Academic Association for Peace in the Middle East - 1976 - Page 116
If the President of Egypt wishes to pursue his policy of Arab Apartheid and to continue to bar Israelis from visiting Cairo, that is his privilege.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LTssAQAAIAAJ&q=%22arab+apartheid%22

March 03, 2010
Apartheid is Alive and Well in Araby
By Victor Sharpe
We stand in the midst of a new round of Israel-bashing called by the organizers of "Israel Apartheid Week." Those doing the bashing are busy turning logic on its head. For them, up is down, day is night, and right is wrong. The collected hatemongers of the radical Left allied with the terminally hate-filled Muslim world, their ranks filled with empty-headed and gullible drones, are combining to shriek misplaced support for an Arab people calling themselves Palestinians, who, they allege, are suffering from apartheid. They make this false charge by slandering the Jewish state, equating it with what was once the South African apartheid regime.

According to the upside-down world of the "hate Israel" crowd, Arabs are separated from Jews within Israel just as the black Africans were segregated from the whites within South Africa. This is where facts retreat into the fantasy world one finds within the Thousand and One Arabian Nights.

The real apartheid that exists in the Middle East can be found not in Israel, but within the territories currently occupied by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-occupied Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Arabs ban all Jews from living amongst them. Any Jews found are summarily murdered in cold blood. This is sanctioned by Fatah and Hamas, who both delight in describing the Arab terrorist thugs as heroes -- even naming streets and town squares in their honor. Any Arabs found to have sold property to Jewish purchasers are summarily executed - often in the public squares and streets of Palestinian Arab settlements.

The geographical territory known as Palestine has, of course, never existed as an independent, sovereign nation in all of human history, and certainly never as an Arab state. The current territory within the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip formed integral parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority sits upon the very Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, known now by its Jordanian name, the West Bank.

The vast territory east of the River Jordan, now called the Kingdom of Jordan, includes large tracts of land that also formed part of the biblical Jewish and tribal lands. But now that same vast territory, which extends eastwards to Iraq, north to Syria, and south to Saudi Arabia (dwarfing tiny Israel in size), is also closed by the Jordanian authorities to Jews, who may not live within its borders upon pain of death. In contrast, Arabs, who make up 20% of the overall Israeli population, may live within the reconstituted Jewish state as citizens enjoying equal rights with justice for all.

The Jordanian regime instituted a law in 1954 prohibiting Jews from living in Jordan. They did this by conferring citizenship to all former residents of geographical Palestine -- except Jewish ones. Israel's population contains Jews who are white, black, brown, and yellow. It is not an apartheid state based on racial differences or concepts of racial purity and impurity. Under apartheid South Africa, blacks were not citizens of the country and were not permitted to vote. Yet the loony Left, allied with the hate-filled Islamic world, continues to accuse Israel of a mythical apartheid system while ignoring the Arab and Muslim perpetrators of the actual apartheid that so clearly exists in the Kingdom of Jordan, in the Palestinian Authority, and within the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The tsunami of anti-Jewish bigotry and malice sweeping the universities in America and Europe is desolating. The boycotts of Israel generated from within academia are built upon a fraudulent ethos of Arab distortions and outright lies, yet thy are willingly accepted by gullible students and faculty alike. It seems that the intellectuals who utter their elitist drivel within the corridors of academe are all too often seduced by novelties. But what it sadly, and so often, reveals is an undeniable truth that intellectualism does not automatically confer intelligence or intelligent behavior.

It would be refreshing if the same students, professors, and assorted Israel-bashers could learn how the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have created for themselves what can be described as anti-history. So insanely set are they upon a destructive denial of Jewish patrimony that these same Palestinian Arabs have created for themselves a fraudulent narrative denying even the existence of the Jewish Temples on Jerusalem's Temple Mount -- despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence of Jewish civilization and history in the land spanning millennia. This is why Palestinian Prime Minister Fayad called out the Palestinian rent-a-mob to riot in the streets of Hebron and Jerusalem after Israel declared the ancient Jewish holy sites of the Machpela Cave in Hebron and the tomb of the biblical matriarch, Rachel, as national heritage sites.

In Genesis 23:13, we read about the first Jew, Abraham, purchasing land in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite as a burial plot for his wife, Sarah. His son Isaac and grandson Jacob are also buried there along with their wives -- the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs. But this upsets the Palestinian Arabs because the Jewish tombs are within the territory they demand for a state -- for them, these Jewish sites are an inconvenient truth. Another Jewish holy place in what the world likes to call the West Bank is Joseph's tomb in Nablus, or what was once biblical Jewish Shechem. The good Palestinian Arabs recently desecrated the ancient tomb, filling it with rubbish and excrement, to prevent Jewish prayers and pilgrimage at the site. These are manifestations of apartheid -- Arab style.

With breathtaking absurdity, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make claims of historical and lineal descent from the extinct Canaanites and Philistines. They have bred several generations of children in kindergartens imbued with such frightening nonsense, attended by a love of barbarism and a culture of death. They have been encouraged in this by the corrupt neighboring Arab leaders, who for some sixty years have stigmatized them as refugees yet at the same time have barred them from living within their own basket-case countries.

From this horrific Palestinian-Arab sectarianism, the culture of death has developed along with an Islamic refusal to ever make a true and lasting peace with the non-Muslim state known as Israel. Indeed, for the Jewish population and for the subsequent State of Israel, there has been relentless Arab terror since the 1920s.

Consider the massacre of Jewish civilians by their Arab neighbors in Judaism's second-holiest city, Hebron -- the city that not only houses the Jewish burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but which King David first made his capital. That Arab atrocity took place in 1929 during the British Mandate occupation. For all those anti-Israel bigots who scream against Israeli occupation, they should know that the so-called West Bank and the Gaza Strip were not occupied at that time. Indeed, the Jewish state was not reborn until nineteen years later, in 1948 -- yet Arabs were murdering and terrorizing Jews all those years before. They should ask themselves why, after the Israel-Arab war of 1948, when the Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and the Jordanians occupied the so-called West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan felt the need to create a new Arab state to be called Palestine. Neither did the Arab residents demand it. Only after Israel defeated Arab aggression in 1967 and liberated the territories did the Arab world begin to demand the creation of a 23rd Arab state. They should also know that today, some 98% of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians live in both the Arab Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and the rival Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. There is, in reality, no occupation. So what do they mean when they rant and rave about Israeli occupation, unless it is a call for the very extinction of Israel itself?

There is no such thing as Israeli apartheid against the Arabs. But there most certainly is Arab Apartheid imposed upon Jews, who are denied the right to live amongst Arabs even in the ancestral and biblical Jewish heartland, which is occupied and controlled today by the Palestinian Authority and the Islamist Hamas.

It truly is an upside-down world, viewed now through a window so terribly distorted as to bewilder and confuse untold millions. It is much more than an Arab-Israel conflict over territory; it is much deeper than that. It is an Islamic refusal to accept a reconstituted Jewish homeland where once the Muslim foot trod triumphal. The very fact that the Palestinian Arabs, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, will never accept a tiny Jewish state within the enormous Arab landmass that stretches from Mauritania in the west to Iraq in the east is clear and present evidence of Muslim and Arab Apartheid. This empirical fact must be understood.

In that context, I am reminded that it was the Indian leader Mahatma Ghandi who said, "While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees, and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam."

It would be an enlightening and seminal moment in these first years of the 21st century if the eyes and ears of the Israel-bashers could be opened with the realization that they have targeted the wrong nation, and that apartheid is alive and well within the Arab world.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/apartheid_is_alive_and_well_in.html

The case for Israel - Page 157 Alan M. Dershowitz - 2003 - 264 pages
The most primitive apartheid against non-Muslims is still openly practiced in some Arab countries. Moreover, Jordan has a law of return that explicitly denies citizenship to all Jews, even those who lived there for generations...
http://books.google.com/books?id=gH9hRRmYCCoC&pg=PA157

For Zion's sake - Page 106 Yehuda Zvi Blum - 1987 - 242 pages
Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is no better than an advocate of apartheid. However, discrimination on the part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has not been...
http://books.google.com/books?id=tlCHQ6LU988C&pg=PA106

Progressives Copy Arab Muslim Playbook of Lies
[January 11, 2011]
One of the ironclad laws of the Muslim world in relation to Israel/Jews is this simple formulation:
Whatever atrocity the Muslims accuse Israel of committing, is, in fact, being perpetrated by Muslims.
Item: The Muslim world and its enablers on the left accuse Israel of being an apartheid state. Of course over a million Arab Muslim, Christian and Druze are citizens of Israel. There are Arab members of the Knesset and an Arab on the Israeli supreme court. There are Arab officers in the IDF. Israeli society, open and democratic, bears zero relationship to the South African apartheid state to which it is being compared.
In contrast, the Arab Muslim world is effectively an apartheid system. Jews are all but gone from the Arab Muslim world, expelled over the past sixty years, the wealth and property of the 800,000 Arab Jewish refugees stolen or taken in, er, taxes. And now Christians have been targeted for elimination from all Arab Muslim states.
The Palestinian Authority has publicly announced that any future Palestinian State will be judenrein, an apartheid state.
Item: The Arab Muslim world, like clockwork, accuses Israel of perpetrating a holocaust against the Palestinians.
If such a charge were true, the Israelis must be the most inept genociders in the history of the universe. For how is it that Gaza, a terrorist state, and an easy target, has not been flattened by the IAF and turned into a nice big parking lot.
Of course, the Arab Muslims were allies of Hitler in World War II. There were even Muslim SS soldiers. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was led, by Heinrich Himmler, on a guided tour of Auschwitz for a first-hand lesson on how to murder Jews on an industrial scale.
The Hamas covenant calls for the annihilation of the Jewish State and the murder of every Jew on the face of the earth.
Which brings us to liberal progressives and their ghoulish charge that a conservative climate of hate is responsible for the Tucson massacre.
The above formulation—in effect, blood libels—applies to liberal progressives, for they have adopted the Arab Muslim tactic of committing acts which they attribute to others.http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2011/01/post_198.php

Middle East Where’s the international outcry against Arab Apartheid?
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
03/17/2011 03:40

Comment: As Israel Apartheid Week continues, a Palestinian boy was left to die at Lebanese hospital because father couldn’t afford treatment.

As Israel Apartheid Week continues, a Palestinian boy was left to die at Lebanese hospital because father couldn’t afford treatment.

Mohammed Nabil Taha, an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, died this week at the entrance to a Lebanese hospital after doctors refused to help him because his family could not afford to pay for medical treatment.

Taha’s tragic case highlights the plight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in squalid refugee camps in Lebanon and who are the victims of an apartheid system that denies them access to work, education and medical care.

Ironically, the boy’s death at the entrance to the hospital coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week, a festival of hatred and incitement organized by anti-Israel activists on university campuses in the US, Canada and other countries.

It is highly unlikely that the folks behind the festival have heard about Taha. Judging from past experiences, it is also highly unlikely that they would publicize the case even if they would hear about it.

Why should anyone care about a Palestinian boy who is denied medical treatment by an Arab hospital? The story has no anti-Israel angle to it.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened if an Israeli hospital had abandoned a boy to die in its parking lot because his father did not have $1,500 to pay for his treatment? The UN Security Council would hold an emergency session and Israel would be strongly condemned and held responsible for the boy’s death.

All this is happening at a time when tens of thousands of Palestinian patients continue to benefit from treatment in Israeli hospitals.

Last year alone, some 180,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip entered Israel to receive medical treatment. Many were treated despite the fact that they did not have enough money to cover the bill.

In Israel, even a suicide bomber who is only (!) wounded while trying to kill Jews is entitled to the finest medical treatment. And there have been many instances where Palestinians who were wounded in attacks on Israel later ended up in some of Israel’s best hospitals.

Lebanon, by the way, is not the only Arab country that officially applies apartheid laws against Palestinians, denying them proper medical treatment and the right to own property.

Just last week it was announced that a medical center in Jordan has decided to stop treating Palestinian cancer patients because the Palestinian Authority has failed to pay its debts to the center.

Other Arab countries have also been giving the Palestinians a very hard time when it comes to receiving medical treatment.

It is disgraceful that while Israel admits Palestinian patients to its hospitals, Arab hospitals are denying them medical treatment for various reasons, including money. But then one is reminded that Arab dictators do not care about their own people, so why should they pay attention to an 11-year-old boy who is dying at the entrance to a hospital because his father didn’t have $1,500 handy? But as the death took place in an Arab country – and as the victim is an Arab – why should anyone care about him? Where is the outcry against Arab Apartheid?
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212512

A few scattered thoughts about Bahrain, on a day on which huge protests are unfolding.

Members of the ruling family, the Khalifas, are rightly proud of what they’ve built here. Bahrain is modern, moderate and well-educated, and by Gulf standards it has more of the forms of democracy than some others. But here’s my question to King Hamad: Why is it any more appropriate for a minority Sunni population to rule over majority Shia than it was in South Africa for a minority white population to rule over a majority black population? What exactly is the difference?

Indeed, the language of the ruling party sounds a lot to me like the language of white South Africans — or even like the language of white southerners in Jim Crow America, or the language of militant Israeli settlers in the West Bank. There’s a fear of the rabble, a distrust of full democracy, a sense of entitlement. Apartheid isn’t exactly the right metaphor, because there isn’t formal separation (although neighborhoods are often either Sunni or Shia), and people routinely have very close friends of the other sect. But how can a system that bars 70 percent of the population from serving in the army be considered fair? How can a system in which the leading cabinet positions are filled by one family be considered fair?

The government talks about “unity” and complains that the opposition is encouraging sectarianism. Please! An American friend was on the roundabout Thursday morning when police attacked. They caught him but when they saw he was American they were friendly and said they were hunting Shia only. My friend said the experience left him feeling icy, as if they were hunting rats. And several people I talked to who were there said that the police used anti-Shia epithets and curses as they were beating prisoners. If the government wants to ease sectarianism, it might start by bringing Shia into the police and armed forces and fire anybody caught making derogatory comments about Shiites.

The two sides are very, very far apart right now, and it’s hard to imagine them hammering out a compromise that both can agree on. The opposition would accept King Hamad continuing as king – perhaps more like a Moroccan or Jordanian king than a British one, but still much less powerful than today – but the Khalifa family would have to give up the way it dominates Bahrain. Right now, government is pretty much a family affair, and that would have to end. I worry that the result will be more strikes and protests and a stalemate, and then harder-line elements in the family will again use force. The big worry in the roundabout isn’t so much that the army goes in again, but that the government sends in thugs (perhaps Wahabis from Saudi Arabia, by opening the causeway to them) to provoke fighting and intimidate the protesters. That’s similar to what I saw Mubarak do in Cairo, and it was terrifying.

Two things bother me about the protests. One is that the participants are overwhelmingly Shia. I’ve met a few Sunni on the roundabout, but very, very few – and that makes it less authentic and broad-based an opposition movement than it should be. There are lots of disgruntled Sunni, but they don’t go out on the streets, either because they don’t feel comfortable in a Shia-dominated movement or because their families work in the army or police (as many poor Sunnis do) and would get in severe trouble for doing so. Nonetheless, the protest organizers could try harder to reach out to the Sunni community, and a first step would be to stop the “Death to al-Khalifa” chants and similar slogans. The other day I saw a sign reading “Imagine Bahrain without the al-Khalifas.” That kind of thing is utterly inappropriate. The opposition has to do what Nelson Mandela did so brilliantly in South Africa – make clear that majority rule will not lead to persecution of the minority. Every time the democracy movement scrawls “Death to Al-Khalifa” on a sign, it erodes its own legitimacy before the world.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/is-this-apartheid-in-bahrain/?scp=3&sq=bahrain&st=cse

Barham Salih - Washington Kurdish Institute
IRAQI KURDISTAN: Conflicts and Prospects for Peace
Conference on Kurdish Conflict Resolution Washington Kurdish Institute July 28-29, þ 1998
By Barham A Salih
Director of PUK Bureau for International Relations ... Therefore, if Iraq is to survive, a fundamental restructuring must take place and the ethnic and sectarian apartheid overcome. ...
http://www.kurd.org/kcrf/SalihKCRF.html

Federal Iraq Constitution - KurdishMedia.com: News about Kurds and ... - [08/12/2002 ]
The ruling class of this Iraqi minority, Sunni Arabs, has always behaved like Apartheid of South Africa, against the rest of Iraqi diversity.
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=8805

News about Kurds and Kurdistan - [25/01/2001]
The Kurdish people live in an apartheid state riddled with conflict, which has created hundreds of thousands of victims and left an indelible stain on Iraqi ...
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=7915

...what is Mr Blair’s Mission? - By Dr Kamal Mirawdeli 01/11/2001 00:00:00

[...] It seems that Mr Blair has not even known or even discreetly mentioned to his hosts that Syria is occupying a part of Kurdistan in which one million Kurds are living who are subject to the most appalling racist apartheid policies of oppression and assimilation. 150,000 of them are even deprived of having passports, being considered as ‘foreigners’ with no right, legally, to enter into employment or marriage. Syria does not allow the Kurds or to call their children Kurdish names.

Syria does not allow the Kurds to use their language for education and promote their art and culture, or to have their own legal political organisations. That is despite the fact that the Kurds are Muslims! But being Muslim for Arab racist regimes that use Islam as an Arabising racist ideology, is equivalent to being an Arab - full stop.
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=8259

What happens when your oppressors are next-door neighbors ... - 14 Jun 2006...
I raise my palm for Turkey, Syria, Iran and even Iraq to be on that .... Africa and that Apartheid didn¹t just melt away on its own, ...
http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=12624

Our World: The Syrian spring
Jerusalem Post - Caroline B. Glick - Mar 28, 2011
[...]
Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces and Hezbollah operatives have reportedly been deeply involved in the violent repression of protesters in Syria. Their involvement is apparently so widespread that among the various chants adopted by the protesters is a call for the eradication of Hezbollah.
[...] The first place the fire spread from there was Syria. Inspired by the establishment of autonomous Kurdistan in Iraq, in May 2004 Syria’s harshly repressed Kurdish minority staged mass protests that quickly spread throughout the country from the Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria. Assad was quick to violently quell the protests.

Like Gaddafi today, seven years ago Assad deployed his air force against the Kurds.
Scores were killed and thousands were arrested. Many of those arrested were tortured by Assad’s forces.

The discrimination that Kurds have faced under Assad and his father is appalling. Since the 1970s, more than 300,000 Kurds have been stripped of their Syrian citizenship. They have been forcibly ejected from their homes and villages in the north and resettled in squalid refugee camps in the south. The expressed purpose of these racist policies has been to prevent territorial contiguity between Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds and to “Arabize” Syrian Kurdistan where most of Syria’s oil deposits are located.

The Kurds make up around 10 percent of Syria’s population. They oppose not only the Baathist regime, but also the Muslim Brotherhood. Represented in exile by the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, since 2004 they have sought the overthrow of the Assad regime and its replacement by democratic, decentralized federal government. Decentralizing authority, they believe, is the best way to check tyranny of both the Baathist and the Muslim Brotherhood variety. The Kurdish demand for a federal government has been endorsed by the Sunni-led exile Syrian Reform Party.”
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=214197

Halabja Centre - C.H.A.K - Chak Representative and members at Chak Representative and members at Switzerland participated in the UN Conference on March 20, 2010
[...]

The case of the Kurds in Syria is an example of a harsh ethnic state policy. This policy in Syria is rather an apartheid policy because there are still more than 300.000 Kurds in Syria who are deprived of citizenship and all rights that citizenship implies.In Iran there is a suppression expressing itself in many ways. In the last months there has been a pattern of state terrorism in Iran. One face of this terrorism is the hanging of Kurdish activists, almost all of them being youth and sometimes even people under guardianship.
http://www.chak.info/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=162&Itemid=2

Op-ed: Palestinian leader Abbas seeks to adopt racist policy based on ethnic cleansing of Jews

The Palestinian Authority is under heavy international pressure, mostly American, aimed at facilitating the transition from proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel.

The written message recently sent by President Obama to Palestinian Chairman Mahmud Abbas indicated that the American administration is not content, to say the least, with the Palestinian foot-dragging in the peace process, or with what is perceived to be a lack of appreciation for American pressure on Israel (which led PM Netanyahu to accept the two-state solution and to temporarily freeze settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.)

However, there is no obvious fundamental change in the Palestinian stance. The PA hesitates and refrains from explicit commitment to direct negotiations without any pre-conditions. Instead, it tries to weather the American demands by raising a new proposal to convene a three-way meeting of Palestine, Israel, and America to discuss the agenda of the negotiations, its legitimacy, and the settlement cessation.

While briefing the Egyptian media in Cairo, Abbas divulged last week his version of the failure of the peace talks with former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his positions regarding the political settlement of the conflict. Abbas noted that he almost reached an agreement with Olmert, but the negotiations failed at the final stretch because of disagreement on the discussed land swap.

Olmert proposed 6.5% but Abbas accepted to no more than 1.9%. Abbas said that he demanded to divide Jerusalem, with the city’s eastern section handed over to the Palestinians and the western part remaining in Israeli hands, and insisted that the refugee problem must be settled in accordance with an Arab peace initiative from March 2002, and UN resolution 194. He also stressed that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

The Palestinians intend to demand the implementation of the UN resolution regarding refugees, from a Palestinian perspective, which gives the 5.5 million refugees and their descendants the right of return and to settle in the State of Israel. In his briefing to the Egyptian media, Abbas presented this strategy and denied the Jewish character of Israel. He maintains that Israel should, in fact, become a bi-national state, but on the other hand that Palestine must become a state “clean” of Jews.

The term “Israeli” used by Abbas means “Jew,” as the PA sees Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The future State of Palestine, according Abbas, must resist any Jewish presence in its territory. In other words, the PA embraces a racist policy – Palestinian apartheid – directed at Jews, based on denial of Jewish history and the cultural and religious linkage of the Jewish people to the land.

The anti-Semitism embodied in Abbas’ words refers also to his position towards the NATO observers’ force that may be deployed in the West Bank to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement with Israel. He is opposed to Jews being included in this force; meaning, he will ask Germany and all other partner countries in NATO to use their own forces in the West Bank, in an effort to the exclude any Jewish soldiers.

He didn’t explain how these countries would determine who is a Jew, whether according to orthodox Jewish laws or just if one of the parents or grandparents was a Jew. But even Saudi Arabia didn’t dare oppose the deployment of American Jewish soldiers on its land during operation Desert Storm (1990-1), and no one in Israel ever demanded to disqualify Muslim soldiers from serving in the international observers’ forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Sinai.

The racist language used by Abbas is particularly despicable as it doubts the loyalty of the Jews to their country. It is for this reason that his comments call for a firm Israeli and European response.

Note: Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency published on July 28 its version of Abbas’ briefing to the Egyptian media, quoting him as saying: “I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land”. This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929819,00.html

Aharon Barak, Israeli Supreme Court president, in a speech on June 25 before a meeting of the New Israel Fund touched an exposed nerve regarding the identity and existence of Israel as a Jewish state and a democracy. He burned his candle at both ends when he unequivocally expressed his support for a democratic Jewish state on the one hand and complete fealty to the idea of a country for all its citizens on the other.

His notions were amazing. If Israel is supposed to be a country for all its citizens, why discriminate against non-Jews and give Jews priority in immigration? If he were really faithful to the principle of equality, why did he find it necessary to insist that Israel was a Jewish state and not one determined democratically by “all its citizens?” In a situation of equality, why should the Law of Return not apply to Israel’s Arab population, since “the rights (of the Jews) must be equal those of the Arabs?”

The State of Israel is undergoing a serious identity crisis. The schism between Jews and Arabs grows worse and the Arabs regard themselves as Palestinians rather than Israelis. It also grows worse between those who are faithful to the Zionist idea of a democratic Jewish state and the post-Zionists who want to eradicate the Jewish nature of the state and establish one for all the citizens living within the borders of the State of Israel as it is today, or within the land of Israel-Palestine.

Both solutions are problematic. A democratic Jewish state can provide equality for all its citizens as long as it does not endanger its Jewish nature, and in effect it negates the right of groups which are not Jewish (or Jews who do not agree with its mindset) to change the face of the state in a democratic majority process.

On the other hand, the implication of a state for all its citizens includes within it destroying the unique Jewishness of the state, which was founded as a sanctuary for the Jewish people returning to its historical homeland, as well as including the demand to deny the right of the Jewish people and the Jews living in Israel to their own land.

There is an inherent imbalance in the proposed political arrangement. The Palestinians have won international recognition for their demand to establish a Palestinian state from which all Jews will be expelled. The basic law of the Palestinian Authority, which is the state in the making, expressly states that “Islam is the official religion of Palestine” and that “the principles of Islamic law (Sharia) are the primary source of lawmaking.”

Palestinians demand ‘just agreement’
The international community has permitted the Palestinians what it tries to keep from Israel, that is, the Palestinians are within their rights to establish a country based on the religion of the majority of its citizens, and a Christian minority, even if it should become the majority, will not be entitled to change the nature of the state but at most to be allowed freedom of worship.

Human rights champions in shining armor endlessly preach morality to Israel and demand a country for all its citizens while accepting the morality of establishing an apartheid, racist, Palestinian state which openly and proudly states its intention of being Judenrein.

The foundations of the peace process of the Oslo Accords of 1993 (rapprochement between the sides through interim agreements) crumbled during the al-Aqsa intifada and the united Palestinian front, from Fatah to Hamas, which unequivocally rejects a compromise with Israel and demands a “just arrangement,” based on demands for the right to return of millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendents to what is currently the State of Israel. Those ideas were mentioned again and again in speeches given by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.

No one contests the right of the Palestinians to a national state even if it is based on racism and it is liable to be an extremist theocracy like Iran, a foretaste of which can be seen in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas takeover. Even the government of Israel headed by Benjamin Netanyahu recognizes that right and demands that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, among other things.

The Palestinian problem, it is assumed, will be solved when the Palestinian state comes into being. The arrangement, lacking in political symmetry based on a genuine compromise, will leave the gates of conflict wide open and the demand for the “return” of millions of Palestinians, which would mean the expulsion of Jews to make room for the refugees, would raise again the wish for self determination of the Jews of Israel.

Creating a Palestinian Apartheid State? by Ariel Natan Pasko
22 December 2004
Why does the Palestinian "Peace Plan" call for the expulsion of so many Jews from their homes?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4043.html

The Real Apartheid State

by David Bedein

The "Palestine" envisaged by the UN is an apartheid state in the making. Israel Apartheid Week is the time to publicize that fact.

During Israel Apartheid Week, orchestrated on campuses around the globe, the time has come to go on the attack, and to put the shoe on the other foot.

In 1948, Apartheid laws institutionalized racial discrimination in South Africa & denied human rights to 25 million The time has come to go on the attack, and to put the shoe on the other foot.

Black citizens of South Africa.

In 1948, the Arab League of Nations applied the Apartheid model to Palestine, and declared that Jews must be denied rights as citizens of Israel, while declaring a total state of war to eradicate the new Jewish entity, a war that continues today.

In 1948, at the directive of the Arab League of Nations, Jordan devastated the vestiges of Jewish life from Judea and Samaria, and burned all schules in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. In 1948, member states of the Arab League of Nations began to strip the human rights of Jews and to expel entire Jewish communities who had resided in their midst for centuries

In the mid 1960's, The Arab League of Nations spawned the PLO to organize local residents to continue the war to deny Jewish rights the right to live as free citizens in the land of Israel - well before Israel took over Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem in the defensive war waged by Israel in 1967.

And since its inception in 1994, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority, created by the PLO, has prepared the rudiments of a Palestinian State, modeled on the rules of Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination:

1. The right of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents to return to Arab villages lost in 1948 will be protected by the new Palestinian state.

2. While 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, not one Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian State

3. Anyone who sells land to a Jew will be liable to the death penalty in the Palestinian State

4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official Palestinian media outlets.

5. Palestinian Authority maps prepared for the Palestinian State depict all of Palestine under Palestinian rule

6. PA maps of Jerusalem for the Palestinian State once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem

7. Recent PA documents claim all of Jerusalem for the future Palestinian State.

8. The right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places is to be denied in the new Palestinian State.

9. The Draft Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion except for Islam.

10. No system which protects human rights or civil liberties will exist in a Palestinian State

If that is not a formula for a totalitarian apartheid state of Palestine, then what is?
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3918&q=1
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9335

In Islamic doctrine the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to the holy sites of Mecca and Medinah, represents the highest point of Islamic liturgy. It is believed to be an obligatory experience when men and women of every race, colour and creed stands before God as equals, stripped of their wealth, their worldly possessions and their social status, just as in death.

This is how Ahmad al-Akhras describes the Hajj:

This great annual convention of faith demonstrates the concept of equality of mankind, the most profound message of Islam, which allows no superiority on the basis of race, gender or social status. The only preference in the eyes of God is piety as stated in the Quran: “The best amongst you in the eyes of God is most righteous.”

The key phrase here ‘equality of mankind’ is fundamental to the Hajj. At least it is in theory. In reality, racial discrimination by Arabs sanctioned by state policy against non-Arabs is pervasive at every instance of the pilgrimage and makes a mockery of this spiritual ideal. A case in point is the ‘Hajj Train’ service, which, in the spirit of Arabic racial apartheid, is reserved for Arabs only, as Ziyad Motala explains:

The experiences of the Hajj are very different depending on which part of the world you originate from. If you hail from Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states, you will perform the hajj in relative luxury and privilege, which is denied to Muslims from the sub-continent, Africa or the rest of the world. Those from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have a different Hajj based on luxurious accommodations, and preferential treatment in performing the rituals. The latest egregious practice is the high-speed rail service, which transports the pilgrims from Mecca to the sacred sites where the rituals of the Hajj are performed. The train is reserved only for Saudis and citizens from the Gulf countries. Citizens from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries can be transported to the holy sites within a few minutes. For others, they will have to take the bus or walk which could take many hours each day. I cannot think of any other place in the world today that practices such crass racism. Imagine a train in the United States that states no Arabs — just people from the west — can ride in. The real tragedy is the lack of outrage from Muslims.
The Hajj as a gathering of Muslims, based on equality, simplicity and brotherhood is a fiction. The Hajj is a gigantic money making endeavor. All visits to the holy place have to take place under the auspices of a Saudi institution or company, which is totally Saudi-owned. Every opportunity is geared towards profit maximization. The Saudi companies in turn enter into agreements with parties in the local country where the pilgrim resides. The Saudi company takes care of the negotiation with the local hotels and other parties to organize and pay for the accommodations and internal transportation and the like. Saudis have profited greatly from the pilgrims who have been exploited on a scale that is beyond imagination. A two week visit to Saudi Arabia during the Hajj period (if you are not sponsored) in modest accommodations costs more than a month-long world tour (not counting the fact that for five days during the two week period, the pilgrim is staying in a tent). Imagine the outrage if a Saudi was told that he could not do business in the United States (including booking a hotel) except though a United States entity?

Exactly. Where are the protests and the furious write-ups by the Islamic “anti-racist” advocacy groups which have been set up to campaign against Islamophobia? Why the silence on this topic by the usually vocal “anti-racists”: iEngage, the Cordoba Foundation, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and other “long-time campaigners for community cohesion in Britain”? Why aren’t student groups such as FOSIS concerned about this kind of racism?

One of the biggest contributing factors to their stupid silence on these matters is this: The liberal left has managed to pervert the principle of “anti-racism” to be applicable exclusively to the white race as if to say that only white people can be racist simply by association with the “unspeakable crimes of colonialism”. This has been seized enthusiastically by actors of Islamism, particularly in the West.

The problem with this kind of selective thinking leaves a few inconvenient questions unanswered. Why is it that when Arabs practice blatant racist segregation against non-Arab peoples, Muslims, even those who should know better, choose to ignore this ancient spiritual/racial ‘superiority’? Even when it takes place in the midst of the mosques and shrines of the Hajj, Arab racism is rendered perfectly acceptable, at worst a minor inconvenience, and our friends in the so-called anti-Islamophobia organisations in Britain play deaf, dumb and blind.
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/8352

ISLAMIC APARTHEID

Dhimmis - DHIMMI :: Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari'a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya. No legal rights.
http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm
Petition to the United Nations Against Religious Apartheid ...We call upon the United Nations to condemn the ideology of Jihad-Islamism as ...
http://www.dhimmi.com/petition.htm

A Clash of Values: The Struggle for Universal Freedom - Page 15 Tal Ben-Shahar - 2002 - 160 pages - Preview
The spirit of dhimmitude is pervasive in the Muslim world, regardless of how religious a country is. Even the more secular Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, discriminate against non-Muslims. There are exceptions, Turkey being one of them, but even in those places Islamic fundamentalism is gaining support. Dhimmitude is institutionalized apartheid in its most blatant form, part of the official law in the dar al-Islam..
http://books.google.com/books?id=UDJvk_bv3YcC&pg=PA15

Islam's Apartheid

Amil Imani
[May 19, 2011]

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

"Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them."[Italics are mine]

The declaration prohibits,

“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’"

Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration.

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

There are many many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.

Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.

But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”

Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad-stipulated place.

· If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh—blood money, or compensation—as that of a murdered Muslim male.

· A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.

· A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.

· A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.

· A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.

· Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.

· Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.

· Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.

· Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much much more.

· Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtune of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.

· Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.

Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid.

Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.

Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

· On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.

· In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.

· The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.

Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice.

Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others.

It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.

Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9552/pub_detail.asp

The Brownshirts of Our Time - Phyllis Chesler The largest practitioner of apartheid in the world is Islam, which practices both gender and religious apartheid. In terms of gender apartheid, Palestinian women - and all women who live under Islam - are oppressed by “honor” killings, forced veiling, segregation, stonings to death for alleged adultery, seclusion/sequestration, female genital mutilation, polygamy, outright slavery, and sexual slavery. Women have few civil, legal, or human rights under Islam. Today, the entire Middle East is judenrein. Jews cannot become citizens of Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, yet no one accuses those nations of apartheid.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10882 http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2003-11/2003-11-21.html

Israel: And the Palestinian Nightmare - Page 158 Ze'ev Shemer - 2010 - 244 pages
Because we live at a time when objective truth does not matter anymore, when only Big Lies matter. For example, Islam is the world's largest practitioner of both religious and gender apartheid. ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=lhpSsirAcLUC&pg=PA158

From Salman Rushdie to WTC
FROM SALMAN RUSHDIE TO WTC

The crimes against humanity of supporters of Islamic Apartheid and their attacks on progress and human rights has not started with their brutal terrorist attack on World Trade Center in New York. It has been going on for a long time and the West had heard it loud and clear the first time, with the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini to kill the author Salman Rushdie because of Salman Rushdie’s ideas opposing Islam. Islamic Apartheid has been trying to lynch Salman Rushdie for over a decade . Even though Iranian government distanced itself from the fatwa, but the terrorists in Iran openly collected bounty money to kill Salman Rushdie.

The Islamic Apartheid has slaughtered many of their opponents such as Shahpour Bakhtiar, in cold blood, in Paris, while basically the West stayed silent and did not want take any drastic action, risking a change in the status quo of the Middle East, where only the safe flow of oil from that region, is all that the Western states cared for. The atrocities of another state of Islamic Apartheid, the Islamic Fundamentalist regime of Taleban in Afghanestan, has been known for a long time. For example see the following website about their crimes against humanity:

http://www.rawa.org/handcut3.htm

The atrocities of Islamic Apartheid has been around long before they took power in Iran in 1979 Revolution. The fatwa to kill Ahmad Kasravi, by the mullahs in 1950’s was the best example of their resorting to murder to silence their opponents, the opponents who called for progressive society in the Middle East. Ahmad Kasravi, progressive author in Iran, not having much security, before Islamic Republic, was easily murdered by the Islamic Apartheid terrorists. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the Islamic Apartheid is not particular to Iran. The main supporter of the U.S. government in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, is a fundamentalist Islamic state, which openly discriminates against followers of other religions, such as the Jews, and justifies the stone-age Islamic punishments of beheading and stoning and discriminates against women . In fact, many of these countries have religious authorities, who supported the murder fatwa against Salman Rushdie, but one seldom hears about it, because they are supporters of the U.S.

Regardless of what various governments do in response to the WTC bombing, I think one thing is certain that the Islamic Apartheid lost its legitimacy with the heinous atrocity of World Trade Center in New York. Islamic fanatics cannot pretend as victims anymore. The victim game that the Islamic Republic and its agents had played for so long, while committing the crimes against humanity, will not work anymore, to get the support of some pseudo-intellectuals in the West. Their terrors against the dissidents such as Bakhtiar and Ghasemloo in the West, cannot be written off, as actions against imperialism anymore.

Iranian government allowing terrorists to freely collect money and plan for the murder of Salman Rushdie cannot be acceptable anymore. When committing stoning of a porn movie star in Iran or killing Foruhars and writers for their ideas inside Iran, one would ask about what Islamic Apartheid is doing to humanity. Yes, their gesturing of defending themselves against the imperialists, and showing themselves as victims, does not cut it anymore. The bombing of WTC by supporters of Islamic Apartheid was equivalent to the burning of Jews in concentration camps by the Fascists, when after the publicity of their atrocities, they lost their legitimacy, and could no longer justify their murderous ideology, with the cloak of combating decadence.

Finally it is very sad that the Middle Eastern people are being attacked as Islamic fanatics in the West. In fact, the majority of the people of Middle East, both in countries like Iran, Afghanestan, and other Middle Eastern countries, and Middle Easterners abroad, are the ones who have opposed the Islamic Apartheid more than all the Western people and states, and they have given many martyrs in their challenge of Islamic Apartheid. Among them, dissidents like Dr. Shahpour Bakhtiar in Paris and Foruhars in Tehran. The reality is that the real force of retrogression in the Middle East is Islamic Apartheid, whether in the form of retrogressive Islamic ideologies of Islamic fanatics in Iran, or the Islamic Fundamentalism of Taleban and Saudi Arabia, and it should be challenged by all progressive-minded people all over the world.
http://www.ghandchi.com/87-aboutWTC.htm

Rants about Islamic extremists and cruel policies in Arab states are valid ... East — a region where Islamic apartheid is the actual order of the day. ...
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/1/31/opedFreedomAndRightToProtestNoNationShouldBeImmuneFromCr iticism

Christians in the Middle East Christian Arab existence in Jerusalem is being threatened because its Arab population ... Islam operates a system of racial and religious apartheid
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index3.htm

---

MAURITANIA

Africa, 1990
Pierre Etienne Dostert - [Stryker-Post Publications.,] 1990 - 207 pages - Page 195
Internal dissention occurred with the tightening of Islamic sharia laws within Mauritania. A ban on alcohol was particularly been resented by the non-Islamic people who constitute about 20% of the population, most of whom are seasonal workers from Senegal.
Interestingly, they published pamphlets accusing the Moslem majority of “Islamic apartheid.”
http://books.google.com/books?&id=mu7_3eZTao0C&dq=pamphlets

---

PAKISTAN

Pakistan, the land of religious apartheid and jackboot justice: a report to the UN committee against racial discrimination - Asian Centre for Human Rights, 2007 - History - 62 pages - Page 18
CHAPTER 4 The practice and patterns of discrimination against “non-Muslims’* Pakistan is all about appeasing the majority Muslims at the costs of the religious minorities. The religious minorities like the Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus ...
http://books.google.com/books?&id=4mvaAAAAMAAJ&dq=apartheid+non-muslims&q=non-muslims
http://ideas.repec.org/a/ess/journl/id1139.html

‘Apartheid’ in Pakistan
By N. Mahmood Ahmad and Amjad Mahmood Khan
[WashingtonPost.com]
January 19, 2011; 1:30 PM ET

More than seven months have passed since the Pakistani Taliban attacked two Ahmadiyya Muslim mosques in Lahore massacring 86 Ahmadi Muslims and injuring more than a hundred more. In November, in connection with the release of the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton specially noted the carnage against Ahmadiyya holy sites. The Secretary also observed that such “infringements on religious freedom strain the bonds that sustain democratic societies” - a statement that is more profound than it may appear to be at first glance, for it draws a direct linkage between the protection of religious freedom and the very survival of democracy.
Indeed, the systematic persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan is Exhibit A in the case that religious intolerance can fatally weaken liberal democracy. The State Department’s annual report concerning Pakistan, which makes mention of Ahmadi Muslims on 101 occasions, details what can only be described as religio-political apartheid directed at Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Not only are members of the community expressly declared non-Muslims under the constitution and the subject of specific anti-Ahmadi provisions in Pakistan’s penal code (commonly referred to as the “blasphemy laws”), but they are also denied the most basic right in a democracy - the right to vote - through a series of extraordinary legal provisions.

From 1947 until 1978, all Pakistanis had an equal vote irrespective of creed. But in 1977, the military dictator Zia ul Haq took power, and the following year, he decreed that non-Muslims would have to register on separate “non-Muslim” electoral rolls. Apart from disenfranchising non-Muslims who did not want to be segregated in that manner, the decree was specifically targeted against Ahmadi Muslims because it would force them to disavow their Muslim identity by registering as “non-Muslims” on the electoral rolls. Naturally, Ahmadi Muslims, forced into a Hobson’s choice that would require them to declare themselves non-Muslims regardless of which option they chose, have had to sit out national, state and local elections.

The separate electorate system for Muslims and non-Muslims remained in place even after Pakistan returned to a democratic form of government. Ironically, Pervez Musharraf, yet another military dictator of a more liberal bent than Zia, issued an executive order calling for its elimination in 2002. President Musharraf was duly hailed as a benevolent despot for restoring the rights of non-Muslims and Ahmadis, but the true extent of the power of Pakistan’s religious extremist element became apparent when, within a matter of months, he was forced to reverse course.

While continuing to allow non-Muslims to cast their votes alongside Muslims in a joint electorate, subsequent amendments to Musharraf’s original Order specifically stated that the “status of Ahmadis [was] . . . to remain unchanged.” As a result, Ahmadi Muslims presently are the only religious community in Pakistan who cannot freely vote.
This system of religious segregation at the voting booths is enforced through national identity cards that require each individual to list their confessional creed, and anyone wishing to be listed as a Muslim must denounce the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community’s founder - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - as a false prophet and his followers as non-Muslim.

Pakistan’s apartheid regime is not only a human rights travesty, but also a national tragedy since Ahmadi Muslims are considered to be among Pakistan’s most literate and educated citizenry (notably, the country’s only Nobel Laureate, Dr. Abdus Salam, was an Ahmadi Muslim - having ignored his achievements during his life, the Pakistani state ordered that the word “Muslim” be effaced from his gravestone).
Since Musharraf backtracked on the issue of voting rights for Ahmadis in 2002, Pakistan has been graced with yet another democratic government, this time led by Asif Zardari. And yet, there has been no public discussion regarding the re-enfranchisement of Ahmadis, and the religious parties have consistently blocked any attempts to amend the constitution to remove the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims. It bears noting that Mr. Zardari’s father-in-law, the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was responsible for the enactment of that declaration into the constitution.

There can be no doubt that something is rotten in the state of Pakistan. Secretary Clinton’s remarks provide an astute diagnosis: state-sanctioned religious intolerance lies at the very heart of Pakistan’s problems, and there is nothing that the extremists are more willing to fight to preserve than the apartheid regime enforced upon Ahmadi Muslims by the Pakistani state. These extremists include not only the terrorists but also their fellow travelers, such as the Jamat-e-Islami, a political party which has made the anti-Ahmadi cause its raison d’etre.
Thus, the true test of Pakistan’s mettle will be if it can stand up and finally rid itself of the ugly stain of religious persecution and once again be counted among the community of free and democratic nations. And President Zardari can demonstrate that he is committed to that goal by signing an executive order re-enfranchising Ahmadis. And it is incumbent upon the United States, along with the wider international community, to match its rhetoric with action in pressing for equal voting rights for Ahmadis.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/01/apartheid_in_pakistan.html

UN body accuses Pakistani govt of 'religious apartheid - Daily Times Aug 9, 2007... accused the Pakistani government of committing “religious apartheid” and practising “rampant discrimination based on the ethnic, ...
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C09%5Cstory_9-8-2007_pg7_60

---

BANGLADESH

India-Bangladesh cooperation broadening measures
Burhanuddin Khan Jahangir, Jayanta Kumar Ray, University of Calcutta. Dept. of History - [K.P. Bagchi & Co.,] 1997 - 129 pages - Page 104
There is no reason why India should continue to abet Islamic apartheid in Bangladesh. The emergence of a small section of enlightened people in Bangladesh is a matter of great hope. But they might lose heart in their campaign against ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=hDE-AAAAMAAJ&q=%22islamic+apartheid%22

Organiser: Volume 40 - [Bharat Prakashan.,] 1988 - Page xvii
FRANKLY SPEAKING JULY 3, 198* ORGANISER Islamic apartheid in Pakistan and Bangladesh BANGLADESH has been declared as an Islamic State. The resistance movement in Bangladesh is catching on.
http://books.google.com/books?id=t0w_AQAAIAAJ&q=%22islamic+apartheid%22

----

IRAN

Hoover digest, Issues 3-4 - Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, 2003 - Political Science - Page 48
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace - 2003 - Snippet view
As soon as Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and realized the organizational weakness of the middle class, he began to renege on his promises. The new democratic constitution that was drafted during the months leading to the revolution was scuttled, and in its place a draconian set of laws was rammed through the mullah-dominated Constitutional Assembly. Instead of the promised democracy, a veritable apartheid was created, where a small band of mullahs gave themselves an exclusive monopoly on power, privilege, and wealth...
Saddam Husseins attack on Iran in 1980 delayed, for the duration of the eight- year war, an open confrontation between the advocates of democracy and the supporters of the new Islamic apartheid.
http://books.google.com/books?&id=XYx-AAAAIAAJ&dq=apartheid

---

IDNODESIA

Human rights and the Chinese in Indonesia [Gender for Minority, Gender and Human Rights]
Aimee Dawis | August 13th, 2009
by Aimee Dawis
[...]
The SBKRI (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia) or the Proof of Indonesian Citizenship is a form of apartheid ( segregation) or state racial discrimination.
http://centerforminoritygenderandhumanrights.org/archives/2009/08/13/human-rights-and-the-chinese-in-indonesia/

Learning from Malaysia’s mistakes
Chinese Indonesians must re-enter politics in order to fully exercise their citizenship
Christianto Wibisono
Global Nexus Institute
[Inside Indonesia 95: Jan-Mar 2009]
Chinese Indonesians today enjoy social and political freedoms that can be compared with the earliest period of Indonesian independence...This statement may have just been a cynical ploy to attract the support of Chinese and Indian Malaysians – when Anwar was deputy prime minister he was a strong promoter of pro-Malay policy. But his comments were quite remarkable as they took aim at the very roots of the NEP. However, it will take more than statements if Malaysia is to deal with the challenges of integration after 50 years of ethnic apartheid. In the meantime, Malaysia risks a return to ethnic violence.
http://www.insideindonesia.org/edition-95/learning-from-malaysias-mistakes

---

SUDAN

Burden of Nationality: memoirs of an African aidworker/journalist, 1970s-1990s - Jacob J. Akol [Paulines Publications Africa,] - 2006 - 288 pages - Page 65
Except for the period between 1972 and 1982, during which the South exercised limited autonomy, the close to four decades of independence had been mostly bloody, with the North reverting to the 19th century policy aimed at forcing Islam, the Arabic language and Arab culture on the African peoples of the South.
[...]

Both the Government of Sudan and the rebel Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/ Army, SPLM/A, stand accused of human rights abuses by human rights bodies such as “Human Rights Watch Africa.” In its latest report, “In the Name of God,” the human rights body accused the government of, among a long list of abuses, belligerent discrimination against non-Muslims... Christian leaders in Sudan feel the persecution of non-Muslims even more keenly. In his 1994 Christmas message, Bishop Paride Taban of the Catholic Diocese of Torit in Southern Sudan, likened the Sudan’s situation to the former apartheid system in South Africa : It was very sad to hear that the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) disbanded its Committee Against Apartheid at its last meeting in Tunis, telling the world that it has no longer an objective now that there is no more apartheid in Africa, while in reality the Islamic Fundamentalism in Sudan is worse than apartheid. The policy of all the successive governments of Khartoum has been one of conquest, exploitation, slavery, Islamisation and war.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EhAarggJTjIC&pg=PA65

Racial, and Islamic apartheid in Sudan..
http://www.southsudan.net/Professor.htm

---

JORDAN, ARAB-PALESTINE

For Zion’s sake - Page 106
Yehuda Zvi Blum - 1987 - 242 pages
Anyone who asserts that it is illegal for a Jew to live in Judea and Samaria just because he is a Jew, is no better than an advocate of apartheid... Article 6, paragraph 3, of the Jordanian Nationality Law of 4 February 1954 expressly prohibits Jews from holding Jordanian citizenship. Another Jordanian enactment stipulates that the sale of land to a Jew is punishable by death, ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=tlCHQ6LU988C&pg=PA106

---

SAUDI ARABIA

Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women ... Islam is religious apartheid
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/islams_apartheid.html

Aparthied Saudi Style
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/386

Islam and the State of the Union - Andrew C. McCarthy - National ...24 Jan 2011 ... The latter, in fact, explains not only Saudi Arabia's official policy of apartheid in Islam's major cities...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257839/islam-and-state-union-andrew-c-mccarthy

---

APARTHEID IN BAHRAIN

Is this Apartheid in Bahrain? - NYTimes.com Feb 22, 2011 ... Some scattered thoughts -- and fears -- about Bahrain and the dangers it faces.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/is-this-apartheid-in-bahrain/

How About a Bahraini Apartheid Week?
February 22, 2011 12:36 by Pesach Benson
[...]
Can you imagine the outrage if Israel treated Israeli Arabs and Palestinians the same way Kristof describes Bahrain’s Sunni elite treating Shias?
There’s a fear of the rabble, a distrust of full democracy, a sense of entitlement. Apartheid isn’t exactly the right metaphor, because there isn’t formal separation (although neighborhoods are often either Sunni or Shia), and people routinely have very close friends of the other sect. But how can a system when 70 percent of the population is not eligible for the army be considered fair? How can a system in which the leading cabinet positions are filled by one family be considered fair?
The government talks about “unity” and complains that the opposition is encouraging sectarianism. Please! An American friend was on the roundabout Thursday morning when police attacked. They caught him but when they saw he was American they were friendly and said they were hunting Shia only. My friend said the experience left him feeling icy, as if they were hunting rats. And several people I talked to who were there said that the police used anti-Shia epithets and curses as they were beating prisoners.
http://honestreporting.com/how-about-a-bahrain-apartheid-week/

Bahrain: The Missing 'A' Word
In all the coverage of the freedom protests in Bahrain, a certain word beginning with the letter 'A' has been strikingly absent.
I don't mean 'autocratic.' Nor 'authoritarian.' Both of those have been invoked, and rightly so.
I refer to the word 'apartheid.' The Afrikaner term for 'separateness,' apartheid prevailed in South Africa from 1948 until 1993, when that country was under white minority rule.
While apartheid as a system was snuffed out in South Africa, it has survived as a descriptor that is deployed, in the main, by the bitterest detractors of Israel, but is arguably more relevant in the case of another Middle Eastern country: Bahrain.
It's always worth recalling what the original model of apartheid involved. In South Africa, 90 percent of the population was composed of non-whites (blacks in the main, but also mixed race and Indian communities) who were disenfranchised and deprived of fundamental human and civil rights.
Through such measures as the Group Areas Act (1950), the Bantu Education Act (1953), the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953), the Suppression of Communism Act (1950), and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949), the apartheid regime micromanaged the lives of its subjects on the basis of their skin color. Under apartheid, it was the law that determined where blacks could live, what they could study, which seats they could occupy on public transport, what they could say or write publicly, with whom they could share a bed or marry.
It was this reliance on law that made apartheid South Africa peculiar. Discrimination is a feature of most countries, but very few enshrine it within a legal framework.
In Bahrain, where 70 per cent of the population is Shi'a, and power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of the Sunni minority, the constitution speaks of equality -- formally, then, it's very different to apartheid South Africa. Yet when it comes to actual practice, the similarities are striking, as this report from the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) makes painfully clear.
Residency rights, for example, are at least partly determined by ethnic origin. The report discusses "one of Bahrain's largest district, Riffa," which occupies "more than 40 percent of Bahrain land, in which a majority of the members of ruling family reside." Shi'a and some Persian origin Sunnis, the report continues, are prohibited from living there. A Reuters report last October highlighted a related problem: the 53,000 Shi'a who have been denied government housing because of their origin, some for as long as 20 years.
It's a similar story in the labor market. "Employment in government bureaus does not follow a clear and specific standard, but is governed by family and sectarian connections," the BCHR report says, pointing out that the Shi'a majority occupies, at most, 18 percent of the top jobs in government. When it comes to unemployment, 95 percent of those without jobs are Shi'a.
Do these facts about discrimination in Bahrain add up to apartheid? A sober analysis based on the understanding of apartheid as a system, rather than a pejorative term to be thrown at those you don't like, would conclude that the overlap is hardly precise. At the same time, there is no arguing against the claim that Bahrain is a society where inequality is ethnically rooted, and then buttressed by the denial of civic and political freedoms.
Bahrain is not the only Arab country where minorities rule over majorities: Syria is another, as was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In none of these cases has the word "apartheid" ever been uttered. Those South Africans, such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, who have eagerly franchised the word in the case of Israel have been absolutely silent when it comes to Arab parallels. And believe me, it's not because they are worried about social scientific rigor.
This lack of a consistent, trained spotlight on countries like Bahrain, and the absence of a chorus of luminaries ready to denounce each of its repressive actions in colorful, emotive language, is one reason why the rest of the world has only now discovered that there has long been a thirst for freedom in the Middle East. If that heralds a final break with the platitudes and double standards that characterize the voguish, "anti-imperialist" discourse about the region, so much the better.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-s-cohen/bahrain-the-missing-a-wor_b_824309.html

---

APARTHEID IN TURKEY

Op-Ed on “Turkey’s Aggression, War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Apartheid Policy in Cyprus..."
Washington, DC—The following Op-Ed appeared in the National Herald, the Hellenic Voice, the Greek News and the Hellenic News of America.
http://www.ahiworld.com/media-center/press-releases/2007/959-op-ed-on-turkeys-aggression-war-crimes-ethnic-cleansing-and-apartheid-policy-in-cyprus-with-kissingers-complicity.html

End the illegal Turkish occupation

The 3Rs: 1 Remove all Turkish troops from Cyprus 2 Repatriate all colonists 3 Return all refugees to their homes without preconditions, restrictions or discrimination

In 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus, illegally dividing the country and committing war crimes and mass human rights abuses. Hundreds of thousands of Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed by the Turkish army.

Turkey continues to violate international law and United Nations resolutions that demand the withdrawal of the Turkish army and the right to return for Greek Cypriot refugees.

We are protesting because Turkey still maintains its illegal apartheid regime that racially discrimates against Greek Cypriots by preventing them from returning to their homes and lands.

The Greek Cypriots are the legal owners of 82 percent of land in the occupied north and we want to return. We will never give up our properties to those who seek to profit from their theft and illegal purchase.

Is it right that Turkey, which aspires to join the European Union still maintains military occupation of one third of the Republic of Cyprus, a country which is a full member of the EU?

The human rights of the Cypriots must be restored, so that we may live in a truly reunited Cyprus with the full rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens.

While Turkey continues violating the human rights of EU citizens and destroying the European culture of occupied Cyprus, it is unacceptable that it is allowed to proceed with EU accession negotiations.

We call on your support to put pressure on EU governments to help end the illegal occupation of Cyprus and to end Turkish apartheid in Cyprus.

The 3Rs: 1 Removal of all Turkish troops from Cyprus 2 Repatriation of all colonists 3 Return of all refugees to their homes without preconditions, restrictions or discrimination

http://www.hellenesonline.com/go/2009/11/end-the-illegal-turkish-occupation/

The Cyprus Problem Cyprus maintained that Turkey's policy was aimed at dividing Cyprus along racial lines. Subsequently, 200,000 Greek-Cypriot swere displaced. [...] In addition, in August and September 2001, the international community had a meeting for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, declared its universal recognition of “the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge[d] all States to facilitate such return.”
http://www.aunitedcyprus.com/

Official report of debates: Part 4 - Page 743 Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly - 1990 - Preview A viable and just Cyprus settlement cannot be based on a situation of apartheid, under which Cypriots are forcibly segregated on the grounds that Muslims and Christians, people of Turkish origin and people of Greek origin, cannot live together. Such segregation not only contradicts fundamentally Turkey's own policy of integration with the European Community, but also constitutes a recipe for suspicion, resentment and conflict.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-zVt4bluYSgC&pg=PA743

The Middle East, abstracts and index: Part 4 Library Information and Research Service - Northumberland Press, 2005 - Page 623 The plan would allow settlement of Greeks in the Turkish zone, but creates an apartheid system of careful quotas of Greek resettlement to maintain a Turkish Muslim majority in the north and links the desire of Greek Cypriots to Btum to their home with Turkey accession into EU: up to 18% of the population could be Greek under the plan.. ... Therefore it is no surprise either that the leaders in the Uthmani Khilafah like Sultan Abdul Hameed valued Islam,
http://books.google.com/books?&id=aLptAAAAMAAJ&dq=btum

Turkish human rights violations in Turkey and Cyprus (2007)

Ismail Cem, Turkey's Foreign Minister recently complained that the European Union had offered Turkey only a "third class ticket" on the train of accession to the European Union. Others would say that Turkey was extremely fortunate to have even been considered for membership given its appalling tradition of human rights abuses.

For the past two hundred years, Turkey has achieved what is undoubtedly one of the worst human rights records in the world. The Turks have ethnically cleansed or otherwise mistreated ethnic minorities within Turkey and the peoples of neighbouring countries.

These include the Armenians, Bulgarians, Cypriots, Greeks, Kurds, Romanians and the Serbs. Turkey has the unenviable record of having conducted the first genocide of the 20th century when from 1915 to 1918 one and a half million indigenous Armenians were annihilated.

Lately, the Turks have turned their attention to those of their own people who have the courage to speak out against human rights abuses in Turkey.

Killings, disappearances and torture of lawyers, journalists, trade unionists, intellectuals and others remain well documented and are frighteningly commonplace in modern day Turkey.

Amnesty international recently reported that Turkey is the 5th worst country in the world for torture in jails, whilst the US State Department reports that the human rights situation in Turkey continues to deteriorate despite the promises of the Turkish government. In its annual report to Congress on human rights the Clinton administration stated that Turkish security forces committed "serious human rights abuses" during 1997.

Today, Turkey wages a dirty war against the Kurds who are fighting for recognition of their identity, and the right to express their language and culture. Almost 30,000 Kurds, government forces and civilians have been sacrificed. Three million Kurds are now refugees, and 3,000 Kurdish villages have been razed to the ground by Turkish troops.

This policy of human rights violations and ethnic cleansing is just as evident in the occupied north of Cyprus.

Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus in 1974 under the most spurious circumstances, causing death, rape, torture and forced displacement of persons, acts which are well documented by the European Court of Human Rights.

Turkey has created an illegal apartheid regime in the occupied area forcibly separating the Greek Cypriots from the Turkish Cypriots, violating a fundamental tenet of the European Union - the principle of free movement.

The few remaining Greek Cypriots enclaved in the occupied north are subject to continuous attack, harassment and intimidation, relying on United Nations protection and hand-outs in order to survive. They are also denied the right to secondary education, in violation of international law and the UN Charter on Human Rights.

No one can treat the hapless Mr Cem or Turkey itself with any credibility for so long as Turkey persists with her atrocious tradition of human rights violations. Sadly history teaches us that Turkey's policy on human rights has not and is unlikely to change.

Lobby for Cyprus urges the European Union leaders not to pursue a policy of appeasement with Turkey.

Human rights violations in Turkey 1994 1995 1996 1997 (Jan-Nov) Assassinations 292 89 78 103 Civilians killed by military 458 230 119 133 Disappearances 328 220 194 62 Deaths in custody 298 122 190 97 Killed in clashes 5,000 3,894 2,859 2,323 Torture cases 1,000 1,412 348 343 Number arrested 14,473 14,473 20,434 24,999 Number imprisoned 1,209 2,101 2,071 1,197 Journalists arrested ? 461 421 284 Bombed villages 191 184 109 119 Villages burnt down/evacuated 1,500 243 63 15

Human rights violations by Turkey following its invasion of the Republic of Cyprus In 1974 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forcibly removed from their homes 6,000 civilians and non combatants were murdered or tortured to death 1,000 women and girls were raped 1,619 missing persons are still unaccounted for by Turkey. The Red Cross documented that many were sent as prisoners of war to Turkey 100,000 colonists were transplanted to the occupied area to alter the demographic composition of the island more than 40,000 Turkish Cypriots have fled the occupied area unable to coexist with the colonists over 800 churches have been looted, destroyed or turned into stables Turkey continues to ignore more than 90 United Nations and Security Council resolutions calling for the respect of human rights in Cyprus and the restoration of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus.
http://replay.web.archive.org/20081223103724/http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/statements/fact_files/humanrights_in_turkey/Cyprus_45.htm

In Turkey non Muslims are listed as Foreigners

http://www.bianet.org/english/politics/83696-state-regards-own-citizens-as-foreigners
http://www.christiansofiraq.com/turkeychris.html

Islam Today: Alevis in Turkey - Victims of Islamist Discrimination ...May 22, 2009 ... Alevis are a religious, sub-ethnic and cultural community in Turkey, numbering in the tens of millions. Alevism is considered one of the ...
http://www.hudson-ny.org/521/islam-today-alevis-in-turkey---victims-of-islamist-discrimination

11/2/10
Alevi Apartheid in Turkey (Academic Research Results)
Today Vatan Daily one of the most popular newspapers of Turkey published a summary of an academic research about Alevi Apartheid.
http://haber.gazetevatan.com/etkin-bir-yere-gelmedikce-alevilere-tahammul-ediliyor/337990/1/Gundem
http://eastanbultimes.blogspot.com/2010/11/alevi-apartheid-in-turkey-academic.html

---

PENETRATING THE WEST

BBC News | EDUCATION | ‘Apartheid’ row over Islamic school
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1162708.stm

Muslim apartheid: Getting behind the veil By Peter C. Glover ... by The British Islamic Human Rights Commission
http://catholicinsight.com/online/culture/printer_691.shtml

Anger in Holland over ‘apartheid’ Islamic hospital | International ...It has also been dubbed “apartheid” by a prominent nationalist MP, Geert Wilders. But construction work on the clinic is about to start and it aims to open ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims105.xml

the facts that the Palestinians have adopted Islamic law into their constitution, or that they are governed currently by an Islamic party. Why aren’t they labeled as an “Islamic apartheid state”?
http://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070506francis.html

World Politics Watch | Muslim Apartheid in Britain: A Veiled Threat? The issue of Muslim women wearing veils in public has ignited an unprecedented national debate on the subject and on multiculturalism generally across ...
http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/Article.aspx?id=275

American Thinker: Islam’s Apartheid
It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their ... Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/islams_apartheid.html

Catholic Insight : Culture : Muslim apartheid: Getting behind the veil1 Jan 2007 ... Peter C. Glover discusses the issue of the wearing of the veil by Muslim women and explains how various European nations are tackling it.
http://catholicinsight.com/online/culture/article_691.shtml

From Salman Rushdie to WTC The crimes against humanity of supporters of Islamic Apartheid and their attacks on progress and human rights has not started with their brutal terrorist ...
http://www.ghandchi.com/87-aboutWTC.htm

An Unveiling - NRO Symposium - National Review Online 25 Oct 2006 ... It is a way of rejecting sexual promiscuity, sexual availability in the West and paradoxically, embracing Islamic gender apartheid (arranged ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219046/unveiling/nro-symposium

top

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

RACIST APARTHEID ARABIA