Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Face of Mideast Feminism

The Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy is being smeared as an imperialist for calling out gender apartheid in the Mideast. She’s dead right.

Print Email
In November 2011, Mona Eltahawy was assaulted by Egyptian security officials, who fractured her wrists. She told her story in a series of tweets at the time of her arrest and after her release. (Dan Callister/Rex Features via AP Images)

Egyptian-American pundit Mona Eltahawy and I share the same coordinates—liberal and secular—on the ideological map of the Middle East. We also share numerous friends among Arab and Iranian journalists. When I first began publishing pieces about the region, Eltahawy kindly shared my writing with her legions of followers on Facebook and Twitter, garnering me hundreds of new readers with every click of her mouse. We’ve had a few meals together, and those encounters have been nothing but friendly.

More recently, Eltahawy and I have parted ways. This process has mostly played itself out on Twitter, with the two of us trading barbs over the latest #MENA, #Egypt, and #Israel controversies. Eltahawy’s vociferous championing of Khader Adnan, a spokesman for the vicious Palestinian terror group Islamic Jihad who went on hunger strike last February while detained by Israeli authorities, outraged me. Our breach is typical of a broader polarization among Mideast liberals in the aftermath of a chilly and disappointing Arab Spring. My own disillusionment with these movements has been painful: Above all, I’ve been dismayed by young people in newly liberated North Africa reveling in anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric rather than rolling up their sleeves to build genuinely liberal states.

Such expressions could be dismissed as the birth pangs of democracy, but that’s no excuse for Western-educated Arab writers to fan the demagogic flames emanating from the region. Unfortunately, many Arab intellectuals have spent the past year advancing an Arab liberalism that betrays fundamental liberal principles. And Eltahawy’s writing has cast doubt on the moral vigor of her liberalism: Last August, she compared riots in Britain over the accidental shooting death of a suspected criminal by London police with the Arab Spring; she also scolded her fellow New Yorkers for celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

At the same time, Eltahawy has taken courageous, politically incorrect stands, like condemning the burqa. When Egyptian security forces detained and assaulted her last November, Eltahawy would not remain silent. Eltahawy’s courage is prominently displayed in her blockbuster cover story in the latest issue of Foreign Policy on the hatred of women in the Muslim Mideast. “Yes: They hate us,” Eltahawy writes of the region’s Islamist ideologues and the Arab men who perpetuate gender inequity on a day-to-day basis. “It must be said.”

“Name me an Arab country, and I’ll recite a litany of abuses fueled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend,” she writes. “When more than 90 percent of ever-married women in Egypt—including my mother and all but one of her six sisters—have had their genitals cut in the name of modesty, then surely we must all blaspheme.” Amen.

With this defiant declaration, Eltahawy hit a very raw nerve. Salafi types immediately decreed she was a kuffar, or infidel. “Zionist” and “imperialist” were some of the other accusations hurled her way from the Muslim Twittersphere’s fever swamps. Soon, more sophisticated-sounding counterarguments emerged. Eltahawy, they claimed, was echoing an Orientalist discourse that wrongly blames Islam and Arab cultures for the abhorrent state of women’s rights in the Middle East and North Africa.

Nonsense. When it comes to Mideast’s endemic misogyny, Eltahawy is dead right.


For starters, her timing was impeccable. Why bring up women’s rights now, she asked, “when the region has risen up, fueled not by the usual hatred of America and Israel but by a common demand for freedom?” As the entire Mideast struggles to throw off the shackles of Arab authoritarianism, “shouldn’t everyone get basic rights first, before women demand special treatment?” This was, in fact, one of the more common refrains among Eltahawy’s critics. “Women in the Middle East are not oppressed by men out of male dominance,” insisted the Egyptian blogger Gigi Ebrahim. “They are oppressed by regimes (who happened to be men in power) and systems of exploitation (which exploit based on class not gender).”

This is an attractive argument at first glance: Change the regime and repression will fade away. Yet experience shows that switching governments does not put an end to discrimination against women in the Middle East, which transcends political systems. In my native Iran, feminists rose up to demand gender equity in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution but were told, including by their fellow leftists and liberals, to set aside their “secondary” concerns until the new political order could be secured. Today, Iranian women are subjected to one of the most entrenched systems of gender discrimination in the region.

Eltahawy got at this problem in her central claim that “an entire political and economic system—one that treats half of humanity like animals—must be destroyed along with the other more obvious tyrannies choking off the region from its future.” To anyone familiar with the daily humiliations meted out to women from the Maghreb to the Gulf—including the entire patchwork of laws and cultural mores limiting women’s travel, dress, and sexuality—Eltahawy’s claim is self-evident.

True, there are country-by-country variations in the forms of and degrees to which one half of Mideast society subordinates the other. And gender inequity tragically persists in other non-Western regions. But the fact remains that, as a whole, the Muslim Mideast lags far behind the rest of the world when it comes to women’s rights. Female genital mutilation occurs in some non-Muslim nations, but only in countries like Egypt does it reach epidemic proportions—or find such zealous religious justification. Modesty norms have been enforced by most cultures from time immemorial, but nothing quite compares to the monstrosities of the burqa and niqab, which completely negate women’s dignity and personhood.

To these impassioned arguments, many of Eltahawy’s critics responded with so much denial and blame-shifting. “Arab society is not as barbaric as you present it in the article, which enhances the stereotype of us in the reader’s mind,” the Palestinian journalist Dima Khatib lectured Eltahawy. That “stereotype,” Khatib went on, “is frighteningly widespread, and contributes to the widening cultural rift between our society and other societies, and the increase of racism towards us.” If only gender apartheid in the Middle East was a figment of the racist, patronizing Western mind—and not a lived reality for millions of women.

The Kuwaiti activist Mona Kareem echoed Khatib. She targeted Eltahawy’s support for the French ban on the burqa, which, she worried, was motivated by “Islamophobia.” Ah yes, Islamophobia, that imperishable co-creation of Islamists and P.C. multiculturalists that alchemically transforms an ideology into an immutable identity, too sacred to withstand reason. More broadly, Kareem claimed, “freedom as such differs in definition from one culture to another and surely from one individual to another.”

This line of reasoning—freedom for some is found under the thumb of a dictator—is a classic trope among cultural relativists. It is also expertly deployed by the world’s most repressive regimes to deflect international scrutiny. In 1990, for example, the Organization of the Islamic Conference solemnly committed itself to upholding basic human rights, provided they do not conflict with the precepts of Shari’a, or Islamic law, and other cultural limitations. In other words: Human rights are universal—except when they’re not.

“The definition of freedom for women cannot be decided based on appearance,” Kareem piled on, “whether it is the niqab or nudity.” This, too, is a seemingly thoughtful position. True freedom is so much more than the right to control one’s physical appearance. Except that, in practice, it is always superficial liberties, like the right to wear bikinis, that actuate and undergird other, deeper freedoms. An Iranian woman flying back to Iran does not put her headscarf back on, as frequently happens once the flight attendant announces the plane’s entry into Islamic Republic airspace, thinking: “I may be losing control over my appearance, but thank God I’m retaining my autonomy in other spheres!”


The question of what precisely to do about the problem of gender apartheid brings me back to my initial contention with Eltahawy. As the Arab Spring’s dangerous trajectory toward majoritarian tyranny demonstrates, the region’s women, minorities, and liberals don’t stand a chance without massive outside support, military and otherwise. Yet a reflexive hatred of that role is a part of the air that Eltahawy and many other self-proclaimed Arab democrats breathe.

Mona: Your righteous anger and clarity about the plight of Middle Eastern women is admirable. But can you bring the same courage to bear when it comes to the entire region?


Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

As a woman I applaud her courage for standing up to this evil form of women hatred. Additionally It is disheartening to read how many other leading Arab activists refuse still to blame their own culture of oppression on their societies instead of taking responsible for gender apartheid. The first step to freedom is understanding that YOU and YOU alone are responsible for your actions and noone can force you to hate, oppress or destroy another human being without your consent. We all are our choices are we not? Cultural relativism, the charge of imperialism, and the false flag of islamaphobia,  is simply another name for soft racism and an excuse for nonintervention on behalf of those fighting for their freedom.

Lastly,  as  a Jew, I also know that Etalhawry, herself a purveyor of leftist demagoguery,  is  a known antisemite and  a hater of Israel. (When you support BDS, singling out Israel for boycott, you are an antisemite.) Sadly this continued oldest hatred is what will hinder any real peace whether she gets her Arab world of equality or not.

     I trust you live in Israel, and protest daily the bigoted antics of your fellow orthodox loonies? so independent, mind boggles.

      Are you actually comparing state sanctioned gender apartheid, fgm, forced marriage and honor killings found in moslem societies to the ignorant actions of a small percentage of Jews who by the way are marginalized in their own society, both religious and secular, for their actions?  Or was this your atempt to try to insinuate that democratic Israel is akin to an Islamic theocracy? If you were trying to come off as adept or intellectual you missed the mark greatly on all accounts.

      It is always the way of the leftist-apologists for cultural relativists to try to bring everything back to someone else. The realities of the Moslem world are the fault of the Moslem world and noone else. It is not comparable to any other society nor any other nation. Case in point India…India understands that they have a huge gendercide issue (possibly 50 million assumed missing women and girls) and are taking efforts to combat this atrocity. However, activists do not go around blaming anyone else for their society’s ills accept their own societal priorities.

      The reality is, as was written in this article, that these female Arab activists blame everyone but their own societies for their society’s ills. It is not the fault of the USA nor  Israel that oppression in these nations exist. It is their own fault that they allowed themselves to be led by venal and evil men for generations.

        I’ve read better than Arab feminists to be familiar with the subject. more to the point, your comment only received my attention for that tired cliché of victim syndrome, so boycotting ‘democratic Israel’ to change its policies, recognised as illegal under international law, is automatically antisemitism? it’s also interesting that majority of illegal settlements are populated by that bigoted violent ‘small percentage’, which all of ‘democratic Israel’ can do nothing about.  and pray do tell, does your patriotism extend to actually living in that fortress of democracy that Israel is?

          Actually your response still did not answer my question. While the entire article dealt with the horrors that women in the Arab world face on a daily basis the only thing you seem to glomb onto is my pointing out that Eltahawry is an antisemite. That even if the Arab world becomes a utopian society of gender equality with attitudes as her’s  towards Israel there is still no hope for peace. That societies to grow and develop need to take responsibility for their own actions and accept their own failings as just that their failings.

          Somehow you turned a discussion of Islamic societal oppression into a diatribe against orthodox Jewish settlers who have nothing to do with the violence and evil described in this article. Your cliched discussion of these individuals and pejorative terms used to describe Israel itself shows that you cannot, and are not capable, of discussing any of these issues anymore than any of the apologists for Arab crimes against humanity. In fact your obsession about orthodox Jews and the settler movement seems rather misplaced in this article.

          Second if you wish to discuss illegality under international law I suggest you begin by reading Eugene Rostow, Arthur Goldberg, Ephraim Kirsch, Martin Gilbert, Barry Rubin, Alan Dershowitz, Peter Berkowitz, Richard Landes and Dore Gold.Unless of course you think Jews are not capable of telling the truth and have no understanding of law. You will find that “illegal settlements” are not necessarily so illegal under international law as you think.

          You might want to also take a good look at UN Watch as far as human rights, international law and the middle east.

          For history you might want to try Paul Johnson, Martin Kramer and even Bernard Lewis.

          Happy reading.

          oh good lord, do refer me to pejorative terms I used to describe Israel, please do you whiner, calling its policies illegal under international law is pejorative? well sorry but I’m just stating facts, all in public domain, what else now, ‘Arab crimes against humanity’, I must cofess I just checked your twitter feed, and it’s a travesty, another Israel fiend preaching history from that ahistorical hellhole of united states. alas, I have no time for your fickle “‘illegal’ is not illegal” delusion.

          yevka says:

          Independent Patriotism Is The Last Resort of a Scoundrel is not a whiner first timer. He can’t see past his elbow.

          yevka says:


          Uh-huh.  Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention:  “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”  Given that Israel is the belligerent occupier of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the settlements are illegal under this provision.

          The two main counterarguments are totally disingenuous and one is especially risible:  That the settlements don’t violate art. 49 because the settlers move there voluntarily.  They may not be ‘deported’, but ‘transfer’ can imply a two-way process of facilitating the movement of willing migrants.  Either way, the whole article, which also forbids forced transfer from the occupied territory itself, was obviously intended to prevent the occupier from changing the demographic composition of the territory.

          Israel is not occupying sovereign territory because the Ottoman and British administrations are defunct and Jordan gave up its claim to the West Bank.  The UN Partition Plan created an ‘Arab’ state in Palestine as well as a ‘Jewish’ state, so it can be argued that the ‘Jewish’ state is in belligerent occupation of the whole ‘Arab’ state, including territory taken in 1948 and 67. 

          The Dershes, Karshes and Landes of the world need to keep in mind that during 1947-48, even accepting Israel in the partition boundary, the Zionist paramilitaries treated civilian targets as hostile.  It’s a question of whether the Geneva Convention can be interpreted to include territory within the occupying state itself given that the government clearly views itself in a state of war with certain segments of the civilian population.  That could apply to Syria today and Israel after 15 May 1948.In that case, it would certainly apply to the aborted ‘Arab’ state seized by Israel and the 1967 lands.

    hypnosifl says:

    When you support BDS, singling out Israel for boycott, you are an antisemite

    Uh, no, the boycott is conditioned on specific policies by the Israeli government that most liberals, including liberal Jews, would agree are wrong. I don’t think a boycott is the best response, but it’s absurd to say that favoring a normal political strategy for pressuring governments to change policies that are dangerous or morally wrong is proof of anti-semitism. Do you also think Peter Beinart and various leftist Israeli groups who propose a more focused boycott of goods from settlements in the occupied territories are just acting out of self-hatred?

      yevka says:

       No I think Beinart is motivated by realism.

       Antisemitism as defined by the Jewish Agency and accepted by the US State Department in reference to criticism of Israel.. delegitimization, demonization and double standard

      Antisemitism as defined by the working group of the EU on antisemitism and accepted by the EU

      As you may notice the main ingredient is holding Israel to a double standard and singling her out for criticism. The BDS movement if it was truly interested in human rights would boycott every nation that practices the evils as described in this article. it does not. It would also boycott China as they occupy Tibet. They would also boycott anything from Vietnam, Burma, many South and Latin American countries, China also comes to mind as a human rights abuser and lets not forget Iran, Syria and of course the nation of Turkey which denies the Armenian genocide. Unless and until the BDS movement equally calls for a boycott of every nation held to be a human rights abuser as defined by the US State Dept and Freedom house then yes they are antisemitic as defined by the US State Department, and the EU. That is of course unless you just take the Jewish Agency and even the ADL as arbiters of what is or is not antisemitism. But then again that would mean allowing Jews to define themselves and who is and is not an enemy.

      Next Peter Beinart is many things but some glorious reformer and carer fo the people of Israel is not one of them. Watch this video of Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch from the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in NY when he discusses Beinart. You do not get more liberal progressive than Stephen Wise Synagogue.

      You may also want to link to this blog which has a rather extensive list of what people think about Beinart. None of it, by the way even from the most liberal Zionist (Jeffrey Goldberg) is complimentary

      And in answer to your question do I think myself that Beianrt is a Jewish- antisemite. Yes quite frankly I do. But more so I think that Beinart is disingenuous charlatan looking to make money and he has found a way to make a quick buck off of Jew-hatred. I also think he is a self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac self righteous dilettante who happily plays with the lives of other people’s children. He has decided when and how Israel can or cannot respond to the issues that they face without placing his own children in the line of fire. When Beinart and others move themselves to Israel then they get a vote how Israel can and cannot defend herself and what she can and cannot do in response to Arab calls for genocide.

        “The BDS movement if it was truly interested in human rights would
        boycott every nation that practices the evils as described in this

        What proponents of this argument need to understand is that BDS is called for by the targets of the regime in question.  There wouldn’t be a BDS movement if the Zionist armed groups in 1948 hadn’t created a Palestinian diaspora.  Likewise, South Africans called for BDS against the apartheid regime, and international activists responded in kind (So much for ‘singling Israel out’).

        A boycott against China, Saudi Arabia, etc. could do nothing except harm regular people who labor under the dictatorship. It’s not just anybody’s call to make.

        hypnosifl says:

        The Jewish Political Review Studies page you link to doesn’t appear to be an official policy page of the whole organization, just an essay by an individual author. And I don’t see how calling for a boycott would in itself involve “demonization” or “delegitimization” (in the sense of denying Israel’s fundamental right to exist). “Double standard” is a vague charge, there’s an obvious reason for holding democracies shaped by enlightenment values to different standards than totalitarian states–there’s a much better chance of influencing them and playing on the conscience of their citizens. Why do you think western liberals put so much focus on South Africa in the 80s while not paying the same attention to the evils of other non-democratic states? Note that in the European forum on antisemitism page you linked to, the only mention of “double standard” is in the sentence “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; the authors of this page seem to understand that there is no double standard in holding Israel to different standards than non-democratic nations.

        You are free to hold a low opinion of Beinart’s proposed strategy for change, but calling him a “Jewish anti-semite” is pretty scurrilous charge. And your suggestion that Beinart should only be able to criticize Israeli policy when he moves to Israel himself is ridiculous anti-intellectual jingoism (belief in universal moral standards should give anyone the right to criticize the behavior of anyone else). Anyway, the article I linked to pointed to plenty of examples of leftist Israeli Jews calling for a boycott of the settlements, do you therefore exempt them from the Jewish anti-semitism charge?

gemel says:

Here is another recent example:
Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood MP Seeks to Abolish Female Rights and Enforce Female Genital Mutilation
by Raymond IbrahimApril 26, 2012

julis123 says:

I honestly don’t understand people who are surprised at how the Arab Spring is turning out, The biggest opponents of the Arab Israeli peace agreements in both Egypt and Jordan are the “intellectuals”. As for women’s rights in Arab countries; it is the elephant in the room that people on the left are unwilling to acknowledge or discuss.

This is a wonderful, brave article and I applaud your courage in speaking out.
Diana Bletter

“At the same time, Eltahawy has taken courageous, politically incorrect stands, like condemning the burqa.”

Now let’s take the courageous, politically incorrect stand of condemning the totalitarian Jewish religion that forces women to cover their hair and men to wear those stupid locks.  Look at me, I’m so courageous and politically incorrect.

(I actually don’t have a problem with the locks.)

    yevka says:

     Yeah, I’m really enjoying the irony of the double standard implicit here too.

    Rebecca Klempner says:

    If an Israeli man doesn’t where sideburns, a beard or sidelocks, he is not thrown in prison. If a married women chooses not to cover her hair, she’s not imprisoned. Most Israelis are not religious. 

      If someone is thrown in prison for not covering their hair, you condemn throwing them in prison.  You don’t condemn the practice of covering their hair.  Religious tradition, whether it’s enforced by the state or not, is still religious tradition, and it’s a bit of a stretch to assume half of all Muslims cover their hair only because they’re legally coerced.

 “Today, Iranian women are subjected to one of the most entrenched systems of gender discrimination in the region.”But… but but but… Iranian women serve in parliament.  This argument is good enough to prove Israel doesn’t discriminate against citizens who aren’t Jewish.

    IsraelDads says:

     Not exactly true.  Here’s the sentence rephrased:  “Today, Israeli men are subjected to one of the most entrenched systems of gender
    discrimination [pro-females] in the region.  But… but but but… Israeli men serve
    in the army”. 

    So Israel gives men the pleasure of dying for the country, but in civilian life those men are treated as the most violence men on earth.  According to Israeli feminist voices, the Israeli men are the most violent in the world, and that’s why no parental equality is allowed in Israel.  At Knesset prominent militant feminists such as Ruth Halperin Kaddari (a CEDAW “expert”) and Zipy Hotovely expressed visibly ecstatic joy, when confronted with statistics of divorced men who commit suicide (50% of all annual suicides). 

      Geoffrey Dennis says:

      Now I get it. Sorry you lost the custody fight. I imagine this attitude was a factor. 

      mouskatel says:

      Wouldn’t finding a good therapist go a longer way to getting reconnected with your kids than whining insane rants in the Tablet comment section?

Maybe your best piece, Sohrab.  Friction definitely produces sparks. 

jmm64 says:

  Where are the liberal, left-wing Jews protesting the gender apartheid in the Arab countries??!! My ears ,unfortunately, ofter hear silence from them….

yevka says:

Mona Eltahawry is more of a media personality and brand name much in the mold of Oprah Winfrey. I wonder if people remember real activist intellectuals like Nawal El-Sadawi who is still living and at her advanced age took part in the Tahrir protests last year?

IsraelDads says:

Radical Feminism in its Israeli militant form, which turns Israeli women into vampires hungry for the blood of men, (eg:  Ruth Halperin Kaddari, Daphna Hacker, Hanna Bet Halachmi, Gali Etzyon, Irit Gazit) is more dangerous to Israeli society than Hamas, Jihad and the Jammaa Islamiya combined.  Men lose their will to defend the country, they are impoverished, lose their children, put behind bars, all the name of the holy vagina, and whoever can escape will fight Israel till the end of their lives.

 To all the Palestinians,if you want to see Israel fall, pump money to WIZO, NAAMAT, Shdulat Hanashim, and Zvulun Orlev.  The feminist Jihad will make Israel crumble from the inside. 

    Geoffrey Dennis says:

    Oh, you poor, put-upon creature. Next thing you know, Israel will be one big penial colony. Get it? Get over yourself. 

mouskatel says:

A whole article about Islamic/Arab oppression of women and not one word about honor killings? 

Daysis says:

Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid are the largest ‘apartheid systems’, that exist today.

Virtually all non-Arabs and/or non-Muslims are second class citizens. Among minorities that feel the wrath of the bigoted Arab-Muslim world are:

* Berbers (native N. Africans, before Arab invasion: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco).

* Copts (indigenous Egyptians suffer from both: Arab racism and Islamic bigotry).

* Kurds (Examples include: [Saddam’s] Iraq and Syria.

* Blacks, in Arab lands or in Arab ruled Africa like the genocide in the Sudan and slavery in both Sudan and in Mauritania.

* Asians, particularly in the Gulf Arab states. [Sex slaves or “plain” slaves).

* Maronites-Christians [Native Lebanese] suffer from both Arab ethnic racism and religious bigotry, like the massacres in the 1970s by local Muslims and by Palestinian/Syrian forces.

* Assyrians, are/have been persecuted both racially and religiously. Still very much marginalized in Iraq, for example.

* Iran is not an Arab country but racism is huge against Kurds, Jews, Turkmens, etc. So is anti-non-Muslim bigotry against Christians, Bahai, Zoroastrians and other in the Islamic republic.

* Turkey is also a Muslim non-Arab country and Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and other ethnicities have been through much suffering, genocide. Still there’s great wide racism against non-Turkish ethnic groups including racism against Alevis and against Kurds. Turkey’s policy in Cyprus has also been recognized as a real Apartheid by many. All non-Muslims are automatically branded as “foreigners” at the “moderate” Islamic supremacy of Turkey.

* Chinese, Indians, Christians and other non-Malay, in Malaysia; Chinese, Christians in Indonesia, have long been subject to persecution, race-riots, discrimination, racism and bloodshed.

* Non-Muslims or the ‘wrong kind of Muslims,’ in Pakistan; Iraq; Afghanistan, are oppressed and targeted in deadly attacks.

* All non-Muslims in ‘Islamic Apartheid state’ of S. Arabia.

* Asians [slaves!] in the Gulf Arab states.

* Bedoons in Kuwait.

* Al-Akhdam in Yemen.

* Gypsies in Jordan.

Islamic-Arab “Palestine” apartheid:

* Ahmadiyya Muslims are harshly persecuted in (Pakistan and in) the “Palestinian” Apartheid authority and/or by Hamas.

* Descendants of slaves of the Bedouins are still stigmatized by racist “Palestinians”.

* Christians are discriminated, persecuted against [especially since Y. Arafat’s Islamization of Bethlehem], by Palestine authority and Hamas regime.

From anti-Jewish Apartheid:

– The Arab racist apartheid against the Jews attempted genocide ever since the 1920s, (Like Mufti of “Palestine” at his incited massacres, and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood who called simply ‘to kill Jews’).
– Chased out a Million Jews in the late 1940.
– Has boycotted and demonized [every logical defensive action is branded “racist”] the Jewish democratic-free-equal-to-all state only because it’s the “other”. It is neither Muslim nor purely Arab.
– The Arab racist world continues to play with Arab-Palestinians (grandchildren of Arab immigrants) like ping-pong against Israel.



As if we don’t know the ‘Arab oil lobby’s power’ over the UN and other major international organizations and some African officials to go along with the Arab propaganda.

Despite some non-Arabs who jump on this wagon out of: ignorance, of confusion complex, or of sheer bigotry, never forget, that this entire “apartheid, racism” label was pushed by Arab racists, ganging up in the UN since 1975.

Even promoter of the apartheid-slur [which was actually invented in 1961 by A. Shukairy, who was the henchman and spokesman for the infamous Mufti al-Husseini the Mufti, notorious for being A. Hitler’s ally and adviser on exterminating the Jews. Shukairy also called to throw the Jews into the sea] J. Carter admitted on CNN: “I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.”

Incidentally, the lying Pallywood machine also created a fake “memorandum” claiming that N. Mandela ever uttered this crappy analogy.

Last but not least:

Isn’t it true that the anti-Jewish “apartheid” slur campaign is: 1) to demonize Jews and 2) to hide the real apartheid practiced by the Arab-Islamic world?

Joseph Vogel says:

In the year 2002 a young boy age 14 was molested in yeshiva Gedola Zichron Moshe of South Fallsburg NY. Be very careful sending your children to this institution. The man’s name is Dovid Goldberg and he has not been reprimanded. For other related inquiries you may contact 646-801-0142.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Face of Mideast Feminism

The Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy is being smeared as an imperialist for calling out gender apartheid in the Mideast. She’s dead right.

More on Tablet:

Why the World Should Test Netanyahu’s Newfound Commitment to Peace

By Yair Rosenberg — Bibi announces support for Arab Peace Initiative. It doesn’t matter if it’s real.