The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa (Book Review)

“The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa” written by Sasha Polakow-Suransky
Hardcover: 336 pages, Pantheon; 1 edition (May 25, 2010)

By Yousef Munayyer

Apartheid. It is a word — an idea — which stirs up strong and angry reactions. Indeed, this dark period in South African history was a stain on the collective conscience of the world during the twentieth century. When the word “apartheid” was introduced into the discussion on Palestine, it was even more controversial. President Jimmy Carter, who first brought the analogy to the forefront in his 2006 book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, was lambasted, even called an anti-Semite, before anyone had read the book. Nearly four years later, Israeli prime ministers were using the word apartheid to describe the absence of a negotiated peace (what we actually have now).

The discussion on Israel and South Africa is fostered by the recently published work by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Aparthied South Africa. If the readers are looking for an in-depth discussion on the similarities and difference between Israel’s and South Africa’s treatment of their oppressed, they will not find it in this book. Rather, The Unspoken Alliance is an important work on international relations which uses extensive archival documents and interviews with key players to discuss in detail the development of a strategic military and diplomatic relationship between Israel and South Africa.

Polakow-Suransky argues that the relationship between the two nations was not always very strong. In the early years after the creation of the state of Israel, the author argues that Israel valued relationships it had with other African nations which were opposed to the apartheid regime. The votes of these African nations would be coveted in the UN General Assembly to counter-balance the Arab/Muslim bloc. But over time, African nations gravitated away from Israel and, as Israel became more isolated regionally, interests began to mount for Israel to strengthen its relationship with another isolated state like apartheid South Africa.

The height of this cooperation probably came in the mid-1970s when then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres sought to secure nuclear cooperation between Israel and South Africa. While Israel already had an operating nuclear facility capable of producing nuclear weapons, South Africa had enough nuclear fuel like uranium to ensure that the Israeli reactor could continue to operate should it face further international isolation. Israel would provide not only weapons, but military advisers and clandestine support for nuclear tests.

The author details the development of the relationship in an engaging fashion. The writing style allows the reader to attentively follow the story without the normal drag of academic books that are extensively footnoted. Polakow-Suransky writes:

“Nuclear missiles notwithstanding, the Israelis were extremely eager to sell anything and everything to Pretoria, including weapons from their parties. South Africa conveniently used Israel as an intermediary to buy arms from countries off limits to them because of embargoes. This much was clear from a 1975 Israeli Defense Ministry letter informing the South Africans that one of their orders could not be fulfilled because the item ‘is at present not available and we have instructed our Purchasing Missions abroad to scan every available source’.”
The Unspoken Alliance is an important work that uses declassified government documents to confirm what many had always suspected. There is little in this book which comes as a shock to those who had long presumed deep ties between Israel and South Africa, but the level of detail, precision and documentation is first-class and unique.

It must be noted that the author avoids drawing ideological connections between Zionism and Afrikaaner Nationalism in South Africa. Polakow-Suransky sees this relationship as one based in interests and not in values. Surely, drawing ideological connections between the two ideologies may have made this a far more controversial book and left more of the conclusions up to the author’s interpretation as opposed to primary source documents. But given the circumstances and the similarities between both governments and their colonial nature, one must ask these questions.

For example, Polakow-Suransky glosses over the relationship between Chiam Wiezmann and South African Prime Minister General Jan Smuts. Despite citing Richard Stevens and Abdelwahab El Messiri’s book Israel and South Africa: The Progression of a Relationship in his section on this relationship, he understates its importance and misses the ideological connection between the two. Weizmann, who had first met Smuts in 1917 in England, cabled him on 15 May 1948:

“Now that the Balfour declaration has been consummated by the establishment of the State of Israel, I take opportunity of expressing to you as one of the architects of Declaration and most constant supporter of Jewish cause my deepest appreciation and gratitude for manifold kindness which you have shown to the Zionist movement and to me personally during intervening years stop. I understand that new state has approached you for recognition and I venture express hope it will be possible for you to crown your lifelong encouragement of our national aspirations by giving speedy recognition stop.”

Within days, Smuts’ government extended recognition to Israel. It was these elements of the relationship that led Stevens to write:

“It must be noted that during the entire thirty-three years of this relationship, extending from 1917 to 1950, both men took for granted the moral legitimacy of each other’s respective position. Thus, not a word is to be found in Weizmann’s correspondence or writing questioning the racial basis of the South African state on which Zionism was so dependent or Smuts’ own role in upholding its racist system. Similarly, Smuts assumed without question ‘the right’” of Jewish settlers to occupy Palestine without regard to the rights of the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. In both cases, Smuts and Weizmann projected at the highest level the capacity of western civilization to rationalize domination and exploitation, conquest and control as Christian civilizing mission or ethnocentric Judeo-Christian fulfillment.”
A more extensive account of the ideological connections would have made The Unspoken Alliance an even more powerful book. Nonetheless it remains an important read on a discrete relationship between two of the most controversial regimes in the twentieth century.
http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/07/the-unspoken-alliance-israels-secret-relationship-with-apartheid-south-africa-book-review/

United we stand, together they shall fall: The United States of Apartheid Israel

Moscow, June 26, 2010 (Pal Telegraph—Rachael Rudolph): For those of us who have grown up, lived in or gone to a US school in America, the pledge of allegiance recited every morning before the start of our elementary school days still rings in the memory of most, if not all. The opening, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which is stands…”, lingers irrespective of how old one gets, how many years past, or the number of places lived and visited. Nowhere do the stanzas read “I pledge allegiance to the flag of “Israel” and definitely not “for which it stands.” Yet, for some reason, our policymakers pledge their allegiance through their unwavering monetary and verbal support of and policies toward the Apartheid State of Israel, where freedom and democracy definitely do not ring true. One ponders, with the current US Supreme court decision, how much longer shall there be vestiges of democracy and freedom in the United States of America?

This past week the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that bans providing support to groups or individuals designated by the government as engaging in acts of terrorism. A quick sweep of newspaper headlines, news tickers at the bottom of the television screen, or twitter posts would not have many Americans batting an eyelid. I can hear some of my students or those walking across the college campus in rural Virginia, and even my grandfather and brother in mountains of western Maryland, making reference to the US government having a right to ban those who want to aid so-called known “terrorists.”

To diverge just a bit, one should recall the designation of a movement as a terrorist organization or an individual as a terrorist is political. Some non-state actors, engaged in acts of resistance, despite them having a right under international law, are defined as engaging in acts of “terrorism.” State policies intentionally targeting civilians are defined by some as acts of terrorism, and others as necessary in the name of state security. History has demonstrated that states and the international community use this classification as a political tool to designate those they are opposed to as “terrorists” and those they support as “freedom fighters” or “liberation movements.” As the saying goes, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist best sums up US policy of supporting and opposing non-state actors that cross its path in the pursuit of its foreign policy goals.

One need only look at US foreign policy toward Apartheid Israel as one of the more recent examples, or even the US Supreme Court’s decision upholding the lower court’s decision. What happened to the days where the US pursued a foreign policy not designed to interfere in the domestic politics of another state or region? Where are the days when foreign economic aid was provided to help feed a starving population and fund schools for those who lacked an education? When precisely did the tide turn to playing politics, interfering in the domestic affairs of others, and funding states to systematically starve, target and exterminate an entire population?

The problem with the quick sweep of the headlines regarding the US Supreme Court’s decision is that they lay a security blanket over the overworked, average working person. What is being covered up and protected is that the US Supreme Court Decision, which divided the court, is the type of aid being banned. Deemed a criminal act and aiding terrorism are providing advice, counseling or teaching others how to work within the confines of international law, to abide by human rights, and to engage in acts of nonviolent resistance. This decision also bans providing humanitarian aid to an entire population because the government has designated one of the political parties as a terrorist organization. It is only a matter of time before the US government, in its so called “War on Terrorism” begins to target humanitarian and human rights groups that provide aid to the besieged Palestinians.

According to former President Jimmy Carter, the upholding of this law inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The law seeks to criminalize those who want to work within the confines of international law, to promote human rights, and to reduce armed conflict. Where have the values of and respect for that which democracy is supposed to stand for gone? Where is the outrage over the upholding of this injustice?

The defining, promotion and protection of human rights has become a political game waged by states. They have been able to do so because for far too long American citizens, participants in the International Community and concerned humanitarians worldwide have failed to demand accountability of those representing them in the International community. Today, the voices of Americans are heard unequally; the privileged participate more than any other group or segment in society; and, public officials are more responsive to them than to the average and less affluent.

From the many students to the overworked average citizen, the voices complaining about US politics, politicians and government are similar. What does it matter, as our voices are not heard, our votes irrelevant, and our system corrupt. These voices are actually not too different from a study conducted by the Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. It found that more than 50% of Americans distrust, lack faith in, and feel the US government, its policies and the politicians elected do not represent them. The thesis put forward in that study is the ideal of equal citizenship and responsive government are undergoing threat in the United States due to an era of persistent and rising inequalities. Disparities of income, wealth and access to opportunity are growing more sharply in the US then in many other countries.

It is time for the people of the United States to demand of their representatives to stand for the values enshrined in, and that form the basis of, the US constitution rather than acting as the voice of and representatives for the people of Apartheid Israel. We are two separate entities, and the duty of our elected representatives is to those living in and who are citizens of the United States. Is it not time for the United States to care for its own, the hungry, unemployed and sick that are alive within the borders of the United States? Will we, the people of the United States, continue to allow our representatives to bankrupt our country, thereby depriving our young and future children and grandchildren with a future that our forefathers promised?

An end to military aid to Apartheid Israel will force it to engage in real dialogue, with all Palestinian parties and not just those actors that will acts as its servants, and to find a solution whereby a Palestinian state is possible. Apartheid Israel will remain acting with impunity so long as it continues to receive military and financial support from the United States. While the government of the United States provides financial support and protection to Apartheid Israel, US citizens will continue to go bankrupt. Nonethe lss, as participants in the international community, the United States does have an international duty. Its duty should be the implementation and protection of human rights and not criminalizing the behavior of those seeking to work within international law, uphold human rights and reduce conflict. The US Supreme Court decision and the policies of the US government run contrary to the values upon which American was founded and the principles embodied in international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When shall the act of systematically starving and killing civilians, including women, children and the elderly become an act of terrorism, one engaged in by the state? When shall aid to a state that carries out such policies be considered providing material support to those known or suspected of engaging in acts of terrorism? Those silent over the many Palestinians that have been injured, harmed and lost their life as a result of the sanctions and siege imposed are just as guilty as those states in the international community that are committing human rights abuses by their enforcement or military aid.

Where is our leadership? Where are our states? The time has come for concerned humanitarians worldwide and states claiming to be our representatives in the international community to stand steadfast and in solidarity with human rights and international law, to join forces, take a stand, and speak out against the unjust, inhumane, and degrading treatment of all, including Palestinians. It is time to end the unjust and criminal siege imposed on the Gaza Strip and aid to Apartheid Israel.

The street or public sentiment are often demonized by others, particularly politicians, who deem them and their voices as being irrational and emotional, unorganized and leaderless, thus hostile for a time being and within a particular context or around salient issues within a given time and space. Some would argue that the voices that speak out do not reflect public sentiment or express public discontent, as the majority is merely submissive and unconcerned. Others argue that the power of the people is nothing more than a myth, a fiction that those living in a fantasy world would like to see be reality. The street or public, however, are part of and form public opinion within a country, region and in the international community.

They may dismiss us as being irrelevant, irrational and governed by emotion, but the louder we speak, the more we act, the larger the crowds that take to the streets demanding action, the more we shall become a reality to be reckoned with. Then, the voice of the voiceless will be formulated into policy and policies that actually reflect reality on the ground and the preference of the people.

Gone are the days when politicians can dictate what we are to believe and an old political order governed by neo-imperialist political elites seeking to control, dominate and subordinate others for their own self-interests. Our politicians and governments are there to represent us and not the interests of other countries. Is it to be the United States of America or the United States of Apartheid Israel? Shall we continue to support our politicians and governments who send funds so that others can exploit, slaughter, starve and enslave a population? While of course at home, the homeless will continue to increase, the unemployment lines will get longer, healthcare will bankrupt the system, and our loved ones will continue suffer.

Governments and those in power may be able to imprison an entire people such as what the Apartheid Entity has done to Gaza; beat and torture protesters; take passports to prevent us from traveling; and, accuse or charge us with aiding terrorism because we choose to work within the confines of international law or send aid to those being systematically subjugated and strangled because of the policies of our government. They, however, cannot stop us from globally mobilizing against injustice, oppression, repression and subjugation. Apartheid, occupation, systematic killing, and targeted extermination must be brought to an end. Let there be no more wars led by (neo)imperialist elites; no more sanctions, blockades and embargoes designed to starve a population into submissiveness; and, no more silence from the street. The days of apathy have ended, and the voice of the voiceless has risen.
http://www.paltelegraph.com/

Cartoon of the day

World Cup 2010 by Amer Shomali

Israel’s Most Illicit Affair

A new book reveals that Israel’s secret relationship with apartheid South Africa went far deeper than previously understood.

BY GLENN FRANKEL

History is a great teacher, but sometimes it packs a nasty sense of irony. A case in point: South African Prime Minister John Vorster’s visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem in April 1976, where he laid a wreath to the victims of the German Reich he once extolled.

It’s bad enough that a former Nazi sympathizer was treated like an honored guest by the Jewish state. Even worse was the purpose behind Vorster’s trip to Israel: to cement the extensive military relationship between Israel and the apartheid regime, a partnership that violated international law and illicitly provided the white-minority government with the weaponry and technology to help sustain its grip on power and its oppression of the black majority over two decades.

Like many illicit love affairs, the back-door relationship between Israel and the apartheid regime was secret, duplicitous, thrilling for the parties involved — and ultimately damaging to both. Each insisted at the time that theirs was just a minor flirtation, with few regrets or expressions of remorse. Inevitably it ended badly, tainting everyone it touched, including leaders of American Jewish organizations who shredded their credibility by endorsing and parroting the blatant falsehoods they were fed by Israeli officials. And it still hovers like a toxic cloud over Israel’s international reputation, providing ammunition to those who use the comparison between Israel’s 43-year military rule over Palestinians and the now-defunct system of white domination known as apartheid to seek to delegitimize the Jewish state.

As bureau chief for the Washington Post in Southern Africa and Jerusalem in the 1980s, I squandered a lot of hours trying to pierce the iron curtain that the two countries carefully drew around their strategic partnership. I reported the various estimates that the arms trade between the two amounted to anywhere from $125 million to $400 million annually — far beyond the $100 million that the International Monetary Fund reported as total imports and exports in the mid 1980s. Soon after arriving in Jerusalem in 1986, I asked Ezer Weizman, a former Israeli defense minister and champion of the secret partnership, about the uncanny resemblance between Israel’s Kfir fighter jet — itself patterned on the French Mirage — and South Africa’s newly minted Cheetah. He just smiled at me and replied, “I’ve noticed that as well.”

Now comes Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, a Rhodes scholar, and an American Jew whose parents emigrated to the United States from South Africa. His singular achievement in his new book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa scheduled for publication on May 25, is to have unearthed more than 7,000 pages of heretofore secret documents from the bowels of South Africa’s Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and Armscor, the state defense contractor, including the secret 1975 military cooperation agreement signed by defense ministers Shimon Peres and P.W. Botha.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/24/israels_most_illicit_affair

http://palestinethinktank.com/

ISRAELI APARTHEID: Closure order against school for Ashkenazi girls only

Ministry of Education Director-General Shimshon Shoshani issued a closure order Sunday against a temporary institution used as a school for Ashkenazi girls who have refused to study together with Sephardi girls.

The Beit Yaacov school in the West Bank settlement of Emmanuel had separated Sephardi girls from 74 Ashkenazi girls, and the High Court ruled that the Sephardi girls should be incorporated in an equal fashion and without discrimination. However, parents of the Ashkenazi girls opposed the court’s decision.

The parents announced they would refuse to allow their daughters to continue to study at the school. The Education Ministry then instructed the local authority to submit claims against the parents with the police, indicating that they had broken the mandatory education law.

However, the local authority chose to defend the parents and left the Ministry to submit the claim itself. It was also discovered that the 74 Ashkenazi girls were studying in a temporary “school”. The police are responsible for enforcing the closure order.

The decision to act against the temporary “school” was welcomed by Yoav Laloum, chairman of Noar C’Halacha, an organization fighting discrimination against Mizrahim in haredi institutions. “I am happy that the Education Ministry is acting against those who do not respect the law,” he said.

Stigma

Last week the state comptroller announced that a special committee would be established to investigate the issue of discrimination in state-recognized independent educational institutions, with particular emphasis on Ashkenazi institutions which refuse to take on Sephardi students. The move comes following a recent increase in the number of discrimination claims.

“It’s hard to grasp that independent education is a separate autonomous body,” said Rabbi Avraham Laiserson, chairman of the independent school system and representative of the institutions being accused of discrimination. “There is no basis for the things being claimed. I want to deny this false stigma that has stuck to independent education.”

“I won’t say there are no problems, but this system was established decades ago for the sole purpose of taking in olim from North Africa, Tunis and Iraq, and offering them an education,” he continued. “I blame the press for the headlines. We even organized plastic rooms just for Sephardi girls in one school. I want you to see with your own eyes, and you’ll understand that your facts are mistaken. See how happy the Mizrahi students are with us.”

“There are problems here and there, but parent committees sort out such problems,” he added. “There is discrimination in many places, but we’re the last ones you can blame. Out of all the cases and claims, there isn’t a single example of a court ruling that there is discrimination. After you’ve investigated, come and apologize, then celebrate.”
http://antiisgood.wordpress.com/

Israel and Apartheid

As you’ve probably heard, a number of pro-Palestinian groups have dubbed the first week of March Israeli Apartheid Week. By holding numerous events, mostly on college campuses, these groups hope “to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”

Predictably, these events have elicited an angry response from many neoconservatives, who have vehemently argued that Israel is not an apartheid state. Most notably, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen has written:

“The Israel of today and the South Africa of yesterday have almost nothing in common. In South Africa, the minority white population harshly ruled the majority black population. Nonwhites were denied civil rights, and in 1958, they were even deprived of citizenship. In contrast, Israeli Arabs, about one-fifth of the country, have the same civil and political rights as do Israeli Jews. Arabs sit in the Knesset and serve in the military, although most are exempt from the draft. Whatever this is—and it looks suspiciously like a liberal democracy—it cannot be apartheid.

“The West Bank, more or less under Israeli military rule, is a different matter. But it is not part of Israel proper, and under every conceivable peace plan—including those proposed by Israeli governments—almost all of it will revert to the Palestinian Authority and become the heartland of a Palestinian state.”

Cohen’s first point—that Israeli Arabs are not subject to apartheid—is undoubtedly correct. Although Israeli Arabs face extraordinary discrimination, discrimination that is tantamount to that faced by African-Americans in the Jim Crow South, I wouldn’t say that they are victims of apartheid.

My problem with Cohen’s article lies in his second point. Ever the Israel-defender, he doesn’t say a word about the situation faced by Arabs in the West Bank but simply asserts that most of the West Bank will eventually become part of a Palestinian state and then goes on to accuse Israel’s critics of being racist and dishonest. Needless to say, claiming that the West Bank will eventually become part of a Palestinian state does not prove Cohen’s main point, which is that “[t]he Israel of today and the South Africa of yesterday have almost nothing in common.” Even if we grant that Palestinians will eventually control most of the West Bank (and I honestly don’t see how this is possible), this doesn’t change the fact that Israel has been occupying the West Bank for forty-three years now and that its current treatment of Palestinians there undoubtedly resembles South Africa’s former treatment of its black citizens.

First of all, Israel accords Palestinians and Jewish settlers in the West Bank different legal rights. Only Jewish settlers can vote. Moreover, while Jewish settlers are subject to the Israeli legal system, Palestinians live under military rule. Consequently, “settlers enjoy liberties and legal guarantees that are denied Palestinian defendants…charged with a similar offense. The authority to arrest an individual, the maximum detention before being brought before a judge, the right to meet with an attorney, the protections available to defendants at the trial, the maximum punishment allowed by law, and the release of prisoners before completion of sentence— all of these differ greatly in the two systems of law, with the Israeli system providing the suspect and defendant with more protections.”

Palestinians face discrimination in numerous other ways. For instance, although Palestinians make up 83% of the West Bank’s population, Israel prevents [.pdf] them from accessing the Jordan River and allows them to use just 20% of the Mountain Aquifer, the area’s other main water source. Additionally, Israel excludes the Palestinians from more than 60% of the land in the West Bank. Through a network of walls, checkpoints, and roads, it has splintered the remaining Palestinian land into an archipelago of sixty-four enclaves. While Israel allows its own citizens to travel between Jewish settlements and Israel proper, it often restricts Palestinian movement between these different enclaves, sometimes shutting down roads for several days at a time. It seems clear that Israel often imposes these travel restrictions as collective punishment, something it never does to its own citizens. Other forms of collective punishment Israel has employed include imposing curfews in Palestinian areas and even demolishing Palestinian homes.

And the discrimination does not end there. Israel is far more likely to approve construction permits for Jews than Palestinians. According to the Israeli government’s own numbers, from 2000 to 2007 the government approved just 91 of 1,624 Palestinian building permit requests. During the same time, Jewish settlers built 18,472 homes and apartments. This inequality has forced many Palestinians to build homes without permits. From 2000 to 2007, Israel issued demolition orders against 4,993 Palestinian homes, eventually demolishing 33% of these homes. During the same period, it issued demolition orders against 2,900 settler homes built without permits but only ended up demolishing 7% of them.

One of the ugliest examples of Jewish-Palestinian disparity can be found in the West Bank city of Hebron. As B’Tselem noted [.pdf] in its 2008 Annual Report, “In 2008, Israel continued to carry out its ‘separation policy’ in the center of Hebron. As part of this policy, Israel imposes a long list of prohibitions and restrictions on Palestinian movement on major thoroughfares, along which settlers are allowed to move freely. Israeli security forces routinely delay Palestinian passersby for repeated checks, in which they harass and humiliate them. Palestinian residents of the city center are also exposed to extensive violence by Israeli settlers, much greater than elsewhere in the West Bank. Therefore, the restraint shown by the authorities on enforcing the law against settlers in this city is especially blatant.”

There are certainly differences between the modern West Bank and South Africa from 1948 to 1994, but, as I’ve briefly described, there are also many similarities, and these similarities are striking. Like the South African National Party, the State of Israel has imposed what can only be described as an apartheid system. Given that the American government, and thus our tax dollars, make this system possible, I think it follows that each of us has an obligation to feel outraged by this injustice and to do our part to bring it to an end.
http://donemmerich.blogspot.com/

RACIST POLICIES OF ISRAEL EXPOSED AGAIN

We see yet more examples of the racist policies of Israel. Apartheid anyone? More examples after this:

Tue, 08 Dec 2009, Press TV
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to build a wall on the border with Egypt to prevent African migrants from changing Israel’s racial balance.

Netanyahu believes building a wall along the southern borders with Egypt is an “unavoidable and strategic” measure, which Tel Aviv must take to ensure that thousands of migrants do not cross over from Africa, Israel’s Maariv daily reported Tuesday.

According to Maariv, the prime minister sees the migration of Africans as a problem that may escalate in the coming years and disrupt the demographic balance of southern Israel.

There can be no other words or description for this. It is pure racism in it's most vile form. Sadly for the State of Israel, this is nothing new as reported in Haaretz more examples of racism and bigotry. Blacks, Arabs, Gays, Russians, Ethiopians, Single Parent families, the Disabled, all discriminated against:

linkBasic rights in Israel are increasingly conditioned on the identity and gender of those who seek to realize them, according to the annual report which the Association for Civil Rights in Israel is releasing Sunday. The report describes a reality in which Arabs receive education, work and maybe citizenship only if they serve in the army or perform national service.

Similarly, those who seek to live in some communities will be allowed their right to housing only if they fit a description which excludes Arabs, Sephardim, Russians, Ethiopians, religious or disabled people, as well as single-sex and single-parent families, according to the report.

Crackdowns on protest against Operation Cast Lead earlier this year was described in the report as "a trend of infringement on the freedom of speech of individuals and organizations which passed criticism on the government and the authorities." The report says that during Operation Cast Lead, the police "limited freedom of expression with the backing of the attorney general, dispersed many legal demonstrations and withheld permits from others for illegitimate reasons that pertain to the political content of the demonstrations."

The clause on anti-war protests also said that hundreds of demonstrators were arrested and called to be investigated. In some instances, attorneys from the State Prosecutor's Office warned in requests for arrest extensions that if defendants are released, they "might continue to express their opinions and demoralize the public."

In addressing treatment of foreign workers and asylum-seekers, the report listed what it defined as "racist" statements by Interior Ministry workers in connection with the activity of the Oz immigration unit. This included Interior Minister Eli Yishai's warning that foreign workers will "bring a multitude of diseases with them," and statements by a senior ministry officials who, in wishing the Oz officers good luck, quoted a saying which urges for the "eradication of evil from our midst."

You cannot defend the indefensible; Israel is a racist Apartheid state.
http://irish4palestine.blogspot.com