Israel promotes apartheid. It denies free elections to Palestinians. Israel is undemocratic. Palestinians are not free people in their own country. There is no democratic freedom in Israel for non-Jews.
In addition, there is widespread and institutional racial and religious discrimination in Israel. This is encouraged by the government. There is abuse of human rights. Jews serve short sentences for murder of non-Jews – a few months for racially motivated murder. There are no hate crimes legislation protecting non-Jews.
Government officials incite racial hatred and call for murder of non-Jews.
Download the UN Israel Apartheid report of March 15, 2017: UN_Apartheid_Report_15_March_English_final that has been removed from the UN website. The Secretary General of the UN has forced the author to resign.
VIDEO: “David Sheen, a Jew, tells how nasty Jews are”
In Israel, many Jews discriminate against non-Jews, for example, refusing to rent to them, as well as using “hate speech” on SNS, and calling for the death of certain racial groups. Many Jews wander around targeting non-Jews for physical attacks.
The Israeli Government seems to have a policy that says it’s fine not to rent to non-Jews; it’s OK to assault or kill non-Jews (Jews go to jail for a few months for murder of non-Jews). It’s fine to be racist and it’s OK to incite racial hatred and discriminate and make racist statements that vilify people of other ethnicities and races, and to generally incite violence, including murder, and hate against targeted non-Jewish groups.
From this video, it seems there is a lack of human rights for non-Jews. There is no democracy for non-Jews, including no free elections for Palestinians. Israel is an undemocratic nation and its people are not free. Voting rights and in general human rights are denied on the grounds of one’s ethnicity and race to non-Jews.
Speech about one Jewish person’s experience in Israel
VIDEO: “David Sheen a jew tells you how nasty jews are” Youtube
From Daily Mail
US demands UN pull report accusing Israel of apartheid
By AFP, PUBLISHED: 20:03 GMT, 15 March 2017 | UPDATED: 20:03 GMT, 15 March 2017
Israel’s separation barrier dividing east Jerusalem (L) from the West Bank village of Anata
The United States on Wednesday demanded that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres withdraw a report by a UN body accusing Israel of imposing apartheid on the Palestinians.
Guterres distanced himself from the report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) but US Ambassador Nikki Haley said it should be scrapped altogether.
“The United States is outraged by the report,” said Haley in a statement.
“The United Nations secretariat was right to distance itself from this report, but it must go further and withdraw the report altogether.”
The study concluded that “available evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid.”
Based in Beirut, ESCWA is comprised of 18 Arab countries, according to its website, which lists the state of Palestine as a full member, and works to strengthen cooperation and promote development.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said “the report as it stands does not reflect the views of the secretary-general” and was done without consultations with the UN secretariat.
One of the authors is Richard Falk, a former special UN rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
“That such anti-Israel propaganda would come from a body whose membership nearly universally does not recognize Israel is unsurprising,” said Haley.
She described Falk as “a man who has repeatedly made biased and deeply offensive comments about Israel and espoused ridiculous conspiracy theories”.
Haley has accused the United Nations of being biased against Israel and has vowed as President Donald Trump’s envoy to staunchly defend Israel at the world body.
Israel’s ambassador Danny Danon condemned the report, describing it as an “attempt to smear and falsely label the only true democracy in the Middle East by creating a false analogy.”
Danon said to label Israel as an apartheid regime was “despicable” and “a blatant lie.”
The report found that Palestinians were subjected to a “strategic fragmentation” that allowed Israel to impose “racial domination” with different sets of laws by geographic regions.
The analysis showed “beyond a reasonable doubt” that “Israel is guilty of imposing an apartheid regime on the Palestinian people, which amounts to the commission of a crime against humanity.”
The furor came ahead of a Security Council meeting next week to hear the first report from the United Nations on implementing a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building.
Israel imposes ‘apartheid regime’ on Palestinians: U.N. report
PUBLISHED: 1:00 AM, MARCH 16, 2017UPDATED: 6:10 AM, MARCH 16, 2017
BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS – A U.N. agency published a report on Wednesday accusing Israel of imposing an “apartheid regime” of racial discrimination on the Palestinian people, and said it was the first time a U.N. body had clearly made the charge.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman likened the report, which was published by the U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), to Der Sturmer – a Nazi propaganda publication that was strongly anti-Semitic.
The report concluded “Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole.” The accusation – often directed at Israel by its critics – is fiercely rejected by Israel. (http://bit.ly/2mJh0eN)
U.N. Under-Secretary General and ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf said the report was the “first of its type” from a U.N. body that “clearly and frankly concludes that Israel is a racist state that has established an apartheid system that persecutes the Palestinian people”.
ESCWA comprises 18 Arab states in Western Asia and aims to support economic and social development in member states, according to its website. The report was prepared at the request of member states, Khalaf said.
U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York that the report was published without any prior consultation with the U.N. secretariat.
“The report as it stands does not reflect the views of the secretary-general (Antonio Guterres),” said Dujarric, adding that the report itself notes that it reflects the views of the authors.
The United States, an ally of Israel, said it was outraged by the report.
“The United Nations secretariat was right to distance itself from this report, but it must go further and withdraw the report altogether,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said in a statement.
The Israeli ministry spokesman, Emmanuel Nahshon, commenting on Twitter, also noted the report had not been endorsed by the U.N. secretary-general.
“The attempt to smear and falsely label the only true democracy in the Middle East by creating a false analogy is despicable and constitutes a blatant lie,” Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement.
The report said it had established on the “basis of scholarly inquiry and overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid.”
“However, only a ruling by an international tribunal in that sense would make such an assessment truly authoritative,” it added.
The report said the “strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people” was the main method through which Israel imposes apartheid, with Palestinians divided into four groups oppressed through “distinct laws, policies and practices.”
It identified the four sets of Palestinians as: Palestinian citizens of Israel; Palestinians in East Jerusalem; Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and Palestinians living as refugees or in exile.
ESCWA hoped the report would inform further deliberations on the root causes of the problem in the United Nations, among member states, and in society, Khalaf said at an event to launch the report at ESCWA’s Beirut headquarters.
It was authored by Richard Falk, a former U.N. human rights investigator for the Palestinian territories, and Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University.
Before leaving his post as U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in 2014, Falk said Israeli policies bore unacceptable characteristics of colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.
The United States accused him of being biased against Israel. REUTERS
US to Israel: Not so fast on the one-state solution
POSTED AT 8:01 PM ON MARCH 6, 2017 BY ED MORRISSEY
In his first meeting as president with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump stated publicly that he had no particular connection to the long-standing American “two-state solution” policy in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman now says that the Trump administration has rediscovered the wisdom of tradition. Responding to calls on the Israeli Right to annex the West Bank after Trump’s earlier comments, Lieberman announced that the White House has told him explicitly and directly that any such move would precipitate an “immediate” diplomatic crisis with the US:
Israel’s defense minister said Monday the U.S. has notified Israel that imposing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank would lead to an “immediate crisis” with the Trump administration.
“We received a direct message — not an indirect message and not a hint — from the United States. Imposing Israeli sovereignty on Judea and Samaria would mean an immediate crisis with the new administration,” Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said at the start of parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee meeting. Judea and Samaria is the biblical term for the West Bank, land Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war and continues to occupy.
The defense minister was responding to a media interview with lawmaker Miki Zohar, of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, in which he rejected the idea of a Palestinian state and advocated for a “one-state solution” in which Palestinians would have Israeli citizenship.
Zohar’s comments on annexation included a proposal that would exclude Palestinians from voting in national elections. Only if they agreed to serve in the Israeli army would they get trusted with the right to elect members to the Knesset, under Zohar’s informal proposal:
Israeli lawmaker Miki Zohar of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party told i24NEWS on Sunday that “the two-state solution is dead”, leaving a one-state solution with the West Bank’s Palestinians receiving citizens’ rights with the exception of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. …
Zohar, who was speaking with i24NEWS‘s Ami Kaufman on The Spin Room, proposed that after annexing the West Bank, Israel could permit its 2.5 million Palestinian residents to vote if they agree to serve in the military or civil service, as Israeli citizens are required to do by law.
When fellow guest Tami Molad, a journalist, expressed skepticism over the prospect of millions of Palestinians enlisting in the army, Zohar said they would not agree to serve and therefore “let go” of the right to vote.
If not, then they could only vote in municipal elections in areas reserved for Palestinian autonomy:
“The Palestinians will have to choose if they want to be citizens with equal rights or not,” said Zohar. “They will be able to vote and be elected in their city under administrative autonomy and under Israeli sovereignty and with complete security control.”
This is the problem with annexation. Israel gets accused of imposing a system of apartheid on the West Bank and Gaza, but that’s not the case in either place. They have conducted a military occupation of both ever since the 1967 war, in large part because the Palestinians remain convinced that they will eventually take back all of Israel and refuse to accept a two-state solution as a permanent outcome. They’ve had opportunities to do so, especially at Wye River, when Bill Clinton got burned by Yasser Arafat. Thanks to generations of propaganda, it’s almost impossible for the Palestinian Authority to agree to a real two-state solution without getting murdered by their own people or taken over by Hamas.
Annexation, however, would bring the Israelis one step closer to apartheid, especially as Zohar explains it. It would reverse the settlement system and create Palestinian “Bantustans” instead, with few if any national rights or suffrage. That would end up being just as unsustainable as the present status quo, but more fraught with potential foreign-policy consequences. As I noted last month, the one-state solution either means denying the Palestinians the vote, or losing the essential Jewish nature of the state and its safe harbor for Jews around the world. Both would be disasters.
It seems that the White House has rediscovered the wheel on this issue, a little belatedly. Fortunately or unfortunately, it’s all academic anyway. The one-state solution would be a disaster, while the two-state solution would require Palestinians to accept the permanence of Israel as a Jewish state. Neither has much chance of happening in the near, mid-term, or even long-term future, so the status quo may wind up being more sustainable than any other option.