CAN A RABBI LIE ABOUT APARTHEID?

Another lying rabbi  (Chief Rabbi of South Africa)

By Khalid Amayreh


The shipyard dogs of Zionism get ferociously mad whenever Israel is described as a racist and apartheid state. They argue rather vehemently that it is unfair and unjust to describe the deformed pariah entity as an apartheid state, citing the fact that non-Jews in Israel are accorded equal political rights and are allowed to vote.

Well, I think we do a great injustice  to language when we call Israel an apartheid state because the Zionist regime is far more nefarious than all the apartheid and discrimination in the world combined.

Theoretically, Israel does give some rights to non-Jewish citizens. However, when these rights are dealt with in practice, they are effectively devoid of  any substance. In fact, non-Jews are accorded citizenship in Israel  only in exchange for coming to terms with Jewish supremacy and inherent discrimination against them. After all, the state is defined as Jewish first and only democratic second, meaning that in any conflict between the “Jewish” and “democratic” aspects of the state, the Jewish component will always come first.

So what is the point of having rights and privileges that are used solely for propaganda purposes and not meant to be implemented in any genuine manner?

Besides,  “democracy” goes for the Jews, while  “Jewish supremacy” is smacked in the face of the native Arab community?

In addition, we all know that democracy can produce criminal and racist  laws. Fascism is often of a populist nature, especially  in the absences  of constitutional  checks and balances which don’t exist in Israel.

Hitler, we must remember,  came to power via the ballot boxes. And many of the anti-Jewish laws  in Germany in  the early and mid 1930s were passed by democratically-elected parliaments just the Israeli Knesset is doing these days.

Today, the “democratic” Israeli Knesset passes inherently racist laws allowing the deportation of non-Jewish citizens, the confiscation of non-Jewish  property, and the systematic persecution of non-Jews.  In other words, the outer form is democracy but the substance is fascism in its ugliest form.

In a recent article published in the Jerusalem Post, a mouthpiece of Gush Emunim, the Nazi-minded settler movement,  Warren Goldstein, a visiting Rabbi from South Africa, claimed that “the accusation that Israel is apartheid is probably one of the most unjust accusations that could be made.”

Well, this is a brazen lie. Israel has separate roads for Palestinians and Jews. Israel has separate laws for Palestinians and Jews in the Wes Bank. The Israeli justice system doesn’t accord equal treatment to  Jews and Palestinians. A Jew convicted of murdering a Palestinian benefits from all  conceivable extenuating circumstances and is always given the benefit of the doubt, while Palestinian suspects are declared guilty even if proven innocent. Indeed, Jewish soldiers and settlers who have murdered innocent Palestinians are routinely set free after a brief symbolic period of  detention or declared unfit to stand trial, or as usual acquitted of any wrong doing.

We are not talking about a few isolated cases. In fact, this is the modus operandi of the Israeli justice system. Ask any human rights observer in occupied Palestine, and they will tell you volumes about the Nazi nature of the Israeli justice system.

In many cases, the burden of proof is the  sole responsibility of the victim’s family. This is not a genuine legal process aimed at establishing the truth, but rather a sinister trick aimed at enabling Jewish murderers to escape with impunity or at least circumvent the due process.

For example, when a Jewish settler or soldier abducts a Palestinian boy and subjects him to torture, including firing at his legs or feet,  away from the eyes of the media, the soldier, if caught,  is not really punished for torturing the victim, but rather for failing to ensure that no cameramen or witnesses were watching the criminal act. So the real crime is not the abduction and shooting of an innocent person, but rather not properly hiding the abominable act.

In case,  the victim’s family is poor, e.g. can’t pay the heavy costs of lengthy litigation, the murderer is set free for lack of sufficient evidence. God knows how many thousands of innocent Palestinians have been  killed in cold blood by Jewish thugs and the thugs are set free.

The Rabbi says that while the South African apartheid regime was evil, it is morally offensive to compare Israel to apartheid in any way.

Again this is an obscene lie by a so-called rabbi who is expected to make a distinction between veracity and mendacity.

In fact, we do a great injustice to apartheid when  we compare it with Israel. Apartheid is segregationalist while Israel is eradicationist. Apartheid, at least in South Africa, wanted to keep the races apart, but Israel’s ultimate goal is to ethnically cleanse and uproot  the native Palestinians, either by way of physical extermination as in Dir Yasin or by way of expulsion and mass deportation. In fact, Israel is more comparable to Nazi Germany than to the defunct South African apartheid regime.

Gerald Kaufman, an ex- British  Jewish  Parliamentarian, noted a few years ago  that Israeli atrocities in Gaza and south Lebanon made the Star of David look like the Swastika of Hitler.

Undoubtedly, the apartheid regime in South Africa, which was Israel’s chief  and close ally in the Black continent, was repulsive in every conceivable aspect. But it was not more evil than Israel. The notorious regime of ill repute  never used White phosphorous against civilians,  never demolished thousands of black homes in order to silence opposition to apartheid. It never deported millions of native Black South  Africans as Israel has done to  the Palestinians.

In fact, Israel committed more crimes per capita than any other country in the world. Israel, one may solemnly and candidly claim, is a huge crime against humanity.

The racist rabbis goes on, trying to make evil look good and ugliness look beautiful.

He claims that the problem in occupied Palestine is actually no more than just a border dispute between the Jewish people and the Muslim world.

“You have a border dispute between the Jewish people, represented by the state of Israel, and the Muslim world, where to draw the 1967 borders. Israel has tried time and again to resolve that dispute and to make successful negotiations around that.”

Again, the so-called rabbi is acting as a public relations officer for Israeli Nazism. He easily forgets that Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip along with East Jerusalem in a war of aggression in 1967. He easily forgets that Israel, instead of responding positively to repeated  Arab and Palestinian peace offers, including the latest Arab Peace Initiative, has been busy  stealing Arab land and building Jewish-only settlements for fanatical Jews indoctrinated in Jewish supremacy.

Does a state that steals its neighbors land, and transfers its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people really want peace?

Finally, the so-called rabbi tries to assure himself that Israel is a just cause.

“We all know that the various governments of Israel have made mistakes in the past, there is a lot of self-criticism and self-analysis in the Israeli press. But what we need to be proud of as Jews is the justice of the cause of the state of Israel.?

What Just cause is this idiot talking about? How can the cause of a state that is based on ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and land theft and lying be just? Or perhaps the Talmudic sage thinks that all the property of non-Jews belongs to Jews because God created the entire universe for the sake and benefit of the Jew?!!!

I really don’t understand how these so-called rabbis have the moral chutzpah to invoke morality whenever they try to justify Israeli Nazism. I don’t know what morality they are talking about.

Well, the Nazis, too, thought their cause was moral.

Also see THIS JP Report

9 Comments

  1. Alf said,

    July 14, 2010 at 21:53

    Typo? “just?”
    […] Warren Goldstein, a visiting Rabbi from South Africa, claimed that “the accusation that Israel is apartheid is probably one of the most just accusations that could be made.”

  2. July 14, 2010 at 21:57

    […] CAN A RABBI LIE ABOUT APARTHEID? « Desertpeace. July 14th, 2010 | Category: Uncategorized | Comments are closed | […]

  3. July 14, 2010 at 22:03

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nadia Sindi, xXKelly82Xx. xXKelly82Xx said: CAN A RABBI LIE ABOUT APARTHEID?: Another lying rabbi  (Chief Rabbi of South Africa) By Khalid Am… http://bit.ly/9ODKzP #flotilla #israel […]

  4. Jacob said,

    July 14, 2010 at 23:12

    The past history of South Africa, particularly 1910-1990, is currently being revised to such an extent that it becomes almost impossible to realize that things were not as bad there as they are currently reported in the State of Israel. Rabbi Goldstein likely does not remember this, he was too young. I do. Both Goldstein and Amayreh are wrong.

  5. desertpeace said,

    July 14, 2010 at 23:17

    Thank you Alf… it was a typo, now corrected.

  6. Lucifer's Taxi said,

    July 15, 2010 at 00:49

    Why not- they lie about everything else. (Come to think of it- when was the last time a rabbi told the truth about anything?)

  7. ArchAngel said,

    July 15, 2010 at 01:20

    “After all, the state is defined as Jewish first and only democratic second,”

    No where in the Israeli Declaration Of Independence or anywhere in Israeli Law is Israel described as Democratic.

    That is a term that pundits have applied that is profoundly untrue.

    Israel has no constitution, has never held a referendum, has no defined borders and does not have equal rights.

    How then could Israel be a Democracy?

    Is it because of elections?

    North Korea has elections so does that make North Korea into a Democracy?

  8. Doug said,

    July 15, 2010 at 05:24

    The real question is, “Can a Rabbi tell the truth about anything?”

    Jesus pegged them as “born liars”, whose father was the devil, “the father of lies”.

    Forbidden to speak the name of their god, they write G-d in a shallow attempt to obey the letter, if not the spirit, of their god’s law. Apparently they believe their god is so dim-witted, he cannot figure out a simple one-letter anagram and thus doesn’t know they are talking about him.

  9. Sam said,

    July 15, 2010 at 16:33

    With impunity!


%d bloggers like this: