By: Prof. Ervin
Birnbaum
It is surprising and
stunning to observe that some supposedly highly informed people refer to the
State of Israel as an "apartheid" State.
Apartheid is defined
in the Webster New Universal Unabridged Dictionary as "the policy of strict
racist segregation and discrimination". When one considers that Dr. Salman
Zarka, a Druse physician, born in the village of Peki'in in Northern
Galillee,
became this month the Director-General of Safed's Medical Center,
after having served for years as the highest commander of the Israel Defence
Forces' Center for Medical Services, one wonders how in the world he managed to
avoid the punishing
apartheid supposedly imposed by Israel on its minorities.
When I consider Dr.
J. Daka, my wonderful dentist, welcoming his numerous Jewish patients with
a wide smile in his clinic
in the city of
Netanya, although he is an Arab from a neighboring Arab village, I wonder how in
the world he manages to
avoid the punishing
apartheid inflicted by Israel on its Arabs.
When you travel from
Netanya to Afuleh in the direction of Mount Tabor, where the prophetess Deborah
fought a victorious
battle against Yavin
the King of Hazor 3,300 years ago, and you pass near millitant Arab-Muslim
strongholds such as the city
of Umm-El-Fahem, you
can't help but stare mouth agape at the beautiful villas inhabited by the Arabs
in the heart of Israel.
Now if that is
apartheid, believe you me, friend, it pays to live under apartheid.
All one needs to do
is to check reliable statistics from impartial sources to receive revealing
statistics about which State
treats its religious,
ethnic, racial and other minorities as human beings. The only State in the
Middle East where the
Christian minority of any racial, color or
economic background increased in recent
decades is Israel.
Consider the
following figures, easily checked out: In 1948 there were in Syria 27,000 Jews;
today there are 100. In Lebanon
there were 10,000
Jews in the 1950's; today there are less then 100. In Iraq there were 125,000
Jews in 1948; today there
are zero. In Yemen
the number of Jews dropped from 45,000 in 1948, to approximately 200. And so on,
down the roster of
Arab lands. Yet the
Jews who were driven out of Arab lands form no refugee camps because their
sisters and brothers in
Israel were ready to
welcome them and help them. Yet, there are numerous Arab refugee camps, poor
people whom their
brothers were not
ready to embrace and kept them in consistent squalor. Would it be out of line to
consider that this was done
and
continues to be done for a political purpose, though it lacks a sense of
humanness?
To call Israel an
Apartheid state is at best a gross distortion, a lack of understanding of the
meaning of the term. However,
in many cases it is
simply an outright, blasphemous lie. It is exploited for political ends,
taking advantage of well-meaning
individuals of all
ages and all professions from university students to high-level academics
who believe what they see in
print, or what they
are being told by people who are capable without blushing to look straight into
their listeners' eyes and
utter the famous
BIG LIE.
Precisely because of its absurd enormity, it would seem preposterous to be
uttered were it a lie --
and yet, that is
exactly what it is -- a lie. It is a useful tactics, exploiting the
psychological weakness of good people who can't
even begin
to fathom the enormity of such distortion. This tactics was used
in the past, it is used today, and no doubt will be
used in the future,
by all dictators, zealots, insanely ambitious people whether it be a Stalin,
Hitler, Ahmedinejad, Arafat or
others who cannot
attain their goals by truthful and honest means.
Among those who are
forced to resort to highly devious means to attain their ends in destroying the
State of Israel is the so-
called "Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions" group. One of the examples of how they operate was
produced at the University
of Harvard, as
recorded in the daily paper of the University campus, "The Harvard Crimson" in
an article entitled "HUDS
(Harvard University
Dining Services) Suspends Puchases from Israeli Soda Company". It relates that
"some members of the College Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Harvard
Islamic Society" cited "discomfort with...the potential" of
Sodastream
machines produced in
Israel "to offend those affected by the Israel-Palestine conflict". Since
this discomfort "could be offensive to Palestinian students", Rachel J.
Sandalow-Ash, a member of the Harvard College Progressive
Jewish Alliance, agreed that these machines not be used on the
university campus. Miss Sandalow-Ash claims that her stand is neither
anti-Israel nor
anti-Semite. It is
purely a stand against the occupation.
Surely, it would have
been proper for Miss Sandalow-Ash to ask herself several questions before
reaching her decision.
Is Sodastrem really
in occupied territory? Sodastream is relocating its facility to undisputed,
non-controversial land in Israel's Negev. It could be considered "occupied"
land only if you agree with the extreme Palestinian stand that all of Israel,
including Tel Aviv and Haifa, are to
be viewed as occupied land -- in other words, that Israel has no right
to exist. This is indeed, one of the basic
principles of the Boycott group. It goes hand in hand with the group's demand
for the return of all the refugees to Israel.
Is this what Miss Sandalow-Ash desires?
The representative of
the Jewish Alliance could have further taken into account not only the
discomfort of the Palestinian
students, but also
the feelings of the Jewish students, who could wonder why one should introduce a
soda-machine into
the Israel-Palestine
conflict? How far should one go in playing games with those so-called
"microaggressions"? The head
of Hammas, Halled
Masshal, recently sent his daughter for treatment to an Israeli hospital.
Since this could have been a
matter affecting
life, I could see his refusing Israeli medication. However he
evidently didn't. But to wipe the faces of thousands of Jewish students in the dirt by offending them
and causing them potential discomfort in refusing a product just because it
is manufactured in
Israel, that seems to be allright for Miss Sandalow-Ash. Yet, God
forbid, don't call her anti-Israel nor an anti-Semite. After
all, she is Jewish, representing a Progressive Jewish Alliance. How could she be
less sensitive to Jewish feelings and needs
than to her Palestinian cousins?
One can feel
overwhelming pity for good individuals who do not see how they become
instruments of evil, not realizing that a Palestine Solidarity Committee and an
Islamic Society are utilizing them for their own satanic ends of destroying
Israel through boycott. Would it perhaps be
helpful to Rachel J. Sandalow-Ash and to hundreds of dedicated Jewish students
throughout the campuses of American
Universities, and to thousands of well-meaning Jews throughout the United
States, to point out that when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on
January 30, 1933, precisely two months later, on April 1 he came out with
his first manifest anti-Jewish act which
consisted of an ECONOMIC BOYCOTT. Throughout Germany gigantic posters appeared
on billboards informing the German public of a general boycott on Jewish
businesses. The posters read:
Till Saturday
morning,10
o'clock
The jews are given to
reflect
Then
the fight begins!
GERMAN VOLK, DEFEND YOURSELVES
DO NOT BUY FROM
JEWS!
The day, April 1,
1933, marked the beginning of the stage of psychological isolation of the Jews
in Germany.
Let us be aware.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
Ervin
Birnbaum is Professor of Political Science at City University of New York, Haifa
University and Moscow University of Humanities. He published numerous books
including "The Islamic State of Pakistan", "Politics of Compromise" and "In the
Shadow of the Struggle", and most recently "Turning Obstacles into Stepping
Stones". hadnerv1@012.net.il
