There are only three cases where people can use "apartheid" linked to Israel:

1. Where they are totally ignorant about South Africa and what apartheid meant and means.
2. Where they are ignorant about Israel, from the foundation of the state and till today.
3. Where they are themselves racist anti-Semites (very often, but not always, self-hating guilt-ridden Jewish people) who have a pathological need or desire to delegitimize Israel.

It seems that many former South Africans were so well trained by their racist masters in South Africa that they cannot but remain slaves to the racist ideology inherent in anti-Semitism.

It appears now that the pro-active (and rightly so) Jerusalem Van Leer Institute has given itself over to this racist anti-Semitic ideology by allowing a conference linking Israel to apartheid to take place there soon.

A conference on "Discrimination in Israel" would be welcome, just as would a conference on, say, gun-control in the USA or paedophiles in Belgium or Islamophobia in Holland. The problems exist and must be discussed openly.

But titling the upcoming Van Leer Institute conference "apartheid" in Israel is comparable to smearing all Dutch people as Islamophobes. By giving their imprimatur to the racist title...More >>

When the President of Egypt called Jews the descendants of apes and pigs, he really should have anticipated that the Jews controlling American media would kick up an inconvenient fuss, he says with a shoulder-shrugging whadayagannado look, as an American diplomatic mission's jaws collectively drop.

“[Morsi] did not say the Jewish community was making a big deal of this, but he said something [to the effect] that the only conclusion you could read was that he was implying it,” Coons said. “The conversation got so heated that eventually Senator McCain said to the group, ‘OK, we’ve pressed him as hard as we can while being in the boundaries of diplomacy,’” Coons said. “We then went on to discuss a whole range of other topics.”

Come on, Morsi. Tell us what you really mean. Obviously, we must have missed the context while you were telling us about the context. H/T BCF

For the record, here are just some of the comments we've seen:

...More >>

Good question. It is an urgent one, considering the facts in found in Oxfam and Friends, a new report by Stand For Peace:

This report reveals that Oxfam has partnered with groups that support terrorism, religious extremism, anti-Semitism and advocate violence against Jews, women and homosexuals.

But what exactly defines a partnership? Oxfam has sponsored events, issued joint press releases, and run campaigns with all these groups. Certainly, if these were far-Right groups, the criticism of Oxfam’s associations would be much more loud and severe. And yet some of these groups listed advocate ideas that are even more extreme than the evil politics peddled by far-Right.

More >>

There is no unanimity among historians - and, in particular, among those who can claim to be experts about the origins of the First World War - about why and how the initial limited conflict, for which the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand served as a pretext, escalated into a war which drew in combatants from more than one continent and led to the deaths and maiming of millions of human beings.  There is however a broad consensus about the factors which led to the creation of the League of Nations and which included not only the widespread suffering and devastation brought about by this “war to end war”  but also the impossibility of re-establishing the old diplomatic order, which partly resulted from the destruction of many of the old empires.