One more illustration of @HRW's propaganda methods

I made another alternate version of a Human Rights Watch graphic. It is worth comparing the two.

HRW:

First of all, HRW regards a great portion of Jerusalem to be "east Jerusalem." Neighborhoods with tens of thousands of Jews are all around the city, and many ignore the artificial armistice line that HRW wants to make into a border dividing a great city in two. 

Calling the Jews who live in Ramat Shlomo or Pisgat Ze'ev "settlers" is absurd. In no universe would those neighborhoods end up in an Arab Palestine. HRW, by using the word "settlement," is saying that many parts of Jerusalem should be Judenrein.

How liberal!

Regarding their first point: As long as an Arab doesn't commit a terrorist attack or move away for years, he or she will remain a permanent resident of the city. The exact same laws apply for any non-Jew who isn't a citizen. 

But Arabs can become citizens if they know Hebrew, renounce foreign citizenship, and take an oath of loyalty to Israel - the same conditions most nations use to become citizens. 

Those "Maybe nots" have a lot of caveats, but in the end, it is the difference between being a citizen of a state or not. Zeid can apply and if he is loyal to Israel, he almost certainly would become a citizen - and there would be no difference between him and "Noa." 

Actually, that's not true. There would be some differences, which I demonstrate in my version of this infographic:

Zeid can visit the entire land from the river to the sea - even when not a citizen of Israel. Noa can't - there are plenty of areas off limits to her. I'm not sure what kind of apartheid Human Rights Watch considers this, but it sure isn't against Arabs! 

Here is how HRW's propaganda works: Emphasize things that support your politics, whether true or not, and ignore or lie about everything that contradicts them (which I freely admit to doing in my graphic as well.) 

HRW and its fans never actually bother to answer the many criticisms of the report. They see the word "apartheid" and lots of footnotes, and that is all they need. Anyone disagreeing is a Zionist, and therefore unfit to say anything. 

---

---