Bigoted BDS Omar Shakir used “apartheid slur”

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Bigoted BDS Omar Shakir used “apartheid slur”

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #1969073

    With all the real human rights violations all over, especially when by a bigot BDS-er Omar Shakir (or the other racist Omar, the Ilhan one) who was deleted from Uararl in 2019 for his radical “activism” has just used that dreadful “apartheid slur” on Usrael’s legitimate security concerns against racist Arab attacks, which is not related to a “race” but to where vulnerability is at. Nevermind about Arabs in Israel in prominent positions and often Usraeli Arabs enjoy more favoritism in courts and the vast real Arab Islamic apartheid against minorities, not to mention against Jews.

    These labels have become a bitter joke inside Israel. The only aim us to put dirt on Israel’s image. It is never about “human rights.”

    Too bad NPR/Nytimes don’t know, or don’t want to know.


    NGO Monitor is an organisation set up to hold non-governmental organisations to account, and it quickly published a rebuttal of this latest HRW report. A few key points are listed here:

    -The document adds to decades of HRW’s obsessively singling out of Jews and Israel, and rejection of the legitimacy of a Jewish nation state …

    -HRW’s report is part of a concerted NGO campaign over the past 18-months to interject the term “apartheid” into discourse about Israel …

    -The claims made regarding Israel and the definition of apartheid under the Rome Statute are fundamentally political and rejected by many legal experts as distortion and slander.

    -To exploit the apartheid claim, HRW and the other NGOs erase the basic nature of the South African regime, which was characterized by systematic, institutionalized oppression …

    -HRW denies Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state and reduces all security policies to “demographic objectives.”

    -HRW dismisses Israel’s concerns and policies on security in the context of ongoing terror, falsely asserting that security is used “as a justification to advance demographic objectives.”

    As usual, international media organisations have written at length about the HRW report. The BBC’s news article covers some of the main accusations at length before quoting international human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands, as saying the report ‘was a balanced and rigorous wake-up call by a serious and authoritative organisation.’

    Thankfully, they also quoted Gerald Steinberg, founder of NGO Monitor, right at the end of their article as saying the HRW report was part of a “vindictive vendetta … against Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

    He highlighted the fact that HRW had chosen to “completely ignore and erase deliberately decades of terrorism and the need for counter-terror measures.”

    President of the British Board of Deputies, Marie van der Zyl, said the HRW report was a “sham which puts rhetoric above fact.”

    “They consistently ignore or downplay the fact that Israel’s security measures in the West Bank and around Gaza are the response to well-documented terror activities. The ridiculous ‘apartheid‘ slur in this report is belied by the fact that, as it stands, Israel’s next government may well rely on the support of Arab parties, voted for by the country’s fully-enfranchised Arab citizens.”

    Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Seth J. Frantzman notes that Israel’s human rights record regarding treatment of the Palestinians has improved in recent decades. ‘Clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians rarely result in the death of civilians, a major change from how events unfolded during the First and Second Intifadas.’

    He also emphasises the fact that an entire generation of Palestinians has grown up educated in Palestinian Authority schools in the West Bank and under Hamas rule in Gaza. Someone born when the Palestinians first began to administer their own affairs in a new authority under the Oslo Accords is now 25 years old.

    If anyone doubts the claims of bias in the accusations levelled against Israel, one only has to look at the way the country is singled-out for criticism at the United Nations to realise that there is a significant international problem.


    Well yeah, there is a ‘significant international problem.’ But you did not point at anything. I read the N.Y.T. article. It assumes that the reader knows the difference between a criminal, racist segregation, and an ethnic, and security driven one. The paper is mostly reporting that Israel’s critics are prepared to use the slur, while it was uncomfortable – even for them, twenty years ago. It is true that many readers will miss this, but the Times likes to view it’s readership as much more literate than the average paper. Except for when they insert some shoddy journalism so they can control ‘open discourse’.




    Facts of racism in the area and the intolerance of casting fear as “racist”

    A Jew cannot buy or rent in an Arab settlement. And even in those mixed communities where there was a Jewish minority, Peki’in village is an example where Jews fled the terror of Arab racism.

    That Jews fear going through certain Arab villages, is practical fear.

    Denying genuine worry of Israelis and casting it as just intolerance, is in and of itself intolerance. No matter if its Arab racism by Arab “activists” casted in “human rights” or anti-Jewish Haaretz/Btselem’s Avi-ad who by focusing its denouncements in the international arena and ignoring real human rights abuses on the Arab side
    (whether Arab leadership inside Israel or “palestinian”) and Arab racism against Jews, proves the real agenda.

    The Palestinian Authority’s death sentence for anyone who sells real estate to a Jew. And moderate (relatively to genocidal Hamas) Mahmoud Abass’ 2013 open dekaration of no Jew to be in future [judenrein, ethnic cleansed] “palestine” state, now that is raw racism.

    Is is not “apartheid” when calculations is risk assessment.

    Nor is there a difference between the “race” of Israeli-Arabs and “palestinian”-Arabs.

    Nor is it “apartheid” when Arab representation is very powerful in all areas, including in Knesset.

    Now, this particular “activist” Omar Shakir was deported (2018/19) for his bigoted BDS activity. That is more than enough. It is only worse when abusing HRW. This hypocrite makes it also sound as if this is some “new” and “original” so called “research”, in fact, he tweeted support for Btselem’s Avi-Ad in 2020 about it…


    Instead of calling people names , you might read what Naomi Chazan (professor (emerita) of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a former Member of the Knesset and Deputy Speaker of the Knesset) wrote.
    She summarizes at the end of her piece, “The Human Rights Watch report has caused considerable discomfort in large segments of Israeli society and the Jewish world. But instead of viewing this document, with its compendium of violations increasingly conforming to legal definitions of apartheid, as an unmitigated threat to Israel’s very existence, Israelis who care about the country, its moral fabric, its guiding principles and its future viability might do well to view its publication as a warning signal that compels a much-needed reassessment of their normative foundations and their future course.”

    I paraphrase – the ultimate test of the current situation is, if the roles were reversed, would any Jewish Israeli be willing to live under such conditions ?



    I Just read your other “posts” and radical PRE JUDICIAL “opinions” here in the forum. Thanks but no thanks.

    I do respect you, as a person, though.

    But to others in the forum I say:

    I do remember how and who (among highlighted) used this slur especially since 2006 by Jimmy Carter. Though it was invented before the so called “occupation” (of ’67), by pro Eichmann Ahmad Shukeiri (who helped the nazis in 1941 and in 1946 rationalized the Holocaust) in 1961 who also protested Eichmann trial in Israel. (See Yitzchak Oron, 1961, p.188).

    Now since we mentioned chronologically Jimmy Carter, let’s quote straight from the horse’s mouth (LATimes, Dec.08.08):

    “The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.” 


    Re Jimmy Carter’s 2006 “book”:
    (Foxnews, 2006):

    Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned Tuesday as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, stating in his resignation letter that “President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.”

    “The purpose of the book should be to try to bring people together, to try and reconcile them. He published in the LA Times because his book tour is going in that direction,” Stein said. “I’m a historian, I believe in the integrity of my profession, I believe that things should be written accurately, even if you disagree with them.”

    … “I think the point of the book is to be hostile to Israel,” Hier said. “I think he deliberately did it.”

    Hier said the book sides with the Palestinian cause and blames Israel for troubles in the Middle East.

    “The reason he wrote this book is because he has become a spokesman for the Palestinian cause,” Hier said. “Having read the book, I can tell you these are not the words of a person who is objective, who is trying to see a way out of this. He has come down 100 percent on the Palestinian side..”


    Now make the simple math, since Anti Israel Carter admitted about the great Israel equal democracy and nothing about the situation which he chose to terms as “apartheid” is related in any way to any “racism” but his entire book with that term is exclusiveky about the “territories”, so what “apartheid” was the apartheid slur” inventor Shukeiri referred to in 1961? Answer: of course it’s about defamation , not about facts. Always was.
    Again, fear of Arab racist attacks, especially from those innterrotories is genuine.



    I tried to help you out since 4 out of the 5 posts are from you.
    Do you enjoy debating yourself?


    @jackk, I’m afraid you have been lied to. Many Israeli arabs have better lives than Israeli jews.

    They have cheaper and larger homes, don’t serve in the army, and can get away with almost anything without being caught.

    In fact Israeli arabs have more rights than arabs of any other country in the Middle East. (Read that line again)

    About your question would any Jewish Israeli be willing to live under such conditions? here’s a better question: if the roles were reversed, would any Jewish Israeli act like the Israeli arabs do?


    Thanks MadeAIiyah!
    The situation isn’t ideal. The other real question is: Would Israelis prefer not to inact security measures or shall we spell it out : SUICIDE?


    Jackk quoted Naomi Chazan, I just looked her up, she is:

    [1] from Meretz…

    ..and Chazan is a past president of anti-Israel George SOROS linked ‘New Israel Fund…’

    ’nuff said.


    Time and time again the slur promoters prove they do not want real change. On the contrary, their goal is making Israel look bad.

    This explains, as soon as Arab countries made officially peaceful recognition with Israel and the lie of “racism” was exposed even further, desperate Hagai of betselem had to use the slur, which Omar did after him.

    Interesting though, now two rather very, very liberals, Daniel Kurtzer and Aaron David Miller just wrote in Newsweek against this HRW-Shakir thing, and against use of this term and that it really is counter productive.
    First they denounce the language of so called “crimes” compared to real crimes against humanity. They add that Shakir makes it sound as if conditions are in a vacuum. Of course the constant anti Israel violence and real threats are real.


    The vicious lies doesn’t seem to stop even as Israeli government in June, 2021 includes: ‘An Islamic party in the coalition, a minister, 2 deputy chairmen, and 3 committee chairmen”, and ”Apartheid in Israel” has never looked more ridiculous.’

    Because it was never about facts or reality.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.