Or …. The Protocols of Present Day zionism
I’ve written before about the infamous group in Israel calling themselves the NGO Monitor. As far as they are concerned, any group, specifically NGO’s, that might be to the left of Meyer Kahane should be monitored for the continued ‘safety’ of the State of Israel. That leaves just about everyone ‘suspect’ …
In an OpEd piece at Ynet, their President and founder, Gerald Steinberg, offers his slanderous views on those involved in the anti apartheid struggle in Israel. Normally I wouldn’t give  platform to the likes of a Steinberg, but I feel it is important for my readers to see first hand the dangerous mentalities we are up against here on a daily basis.
Here goes…
Slandering the Jewish state

Op-ed: Instead of criticizing ‘Israeli apartheid,’ rights group should focus on Syria, Saudi Arabia*

Over the past few weeks “Israeli apartheid week” events have occurred at a number of campuses throughout North America and Europe. This year’s timing is especially unfortunate: while this political warfare, accompanied by BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign is happening, the Syrian regime is massacring its own people.
In light of this, it is especially sad that people who call themselves human rights activists waste their time and energy attacking Israel. It is clear that the campaign explicitly targets the existence of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In the words of Professor Irwin Cotler, former Canadian attorney general, “Let there be no mistake about it: to indict Israel as an Apartheid State is prologue and justification for the dismantling of the Jewish State, for the criminalization of its supporters, and for the consequential silencing of their speech.”

This campaign immorally exploits the suffering of the real victims of apartheid and racism, and transforms a complex political dispute between the Palestinians and Israel into a racial conflict. The comparison was categorically rejected and denounced by Judge Richard Goldstone in The New York Times. Goldstone, who is a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, wrote that, “In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute…”

Goldstone added that “while ‘apartheid’ can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.”

Many others who had experienced the real apartheid expressed similar views. Benjamin Pogrund, who was a journalist in South Africa, wrote, “Use of the apartheid label is at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative.”

Infinite hypocrisy

This cynicism is especially prominent now that Assad’s regime is mercilessly massacring its own people. During the past month, hundreds of people were murdered just in the city of Homs. But in Syria, where an Alawite minority has been oppressing the Sunni majority for decades, the regime – like other dictatorships – was immune to criticism until the outbreak of brutal violence in the recent months, especially from groups claiming to promote human rights.

Does a state in which a small minority violently oppresses the majority not deserve a week (in Israel’s case, actually a month) of attention focused on its crimes? And what about Saudi Arabia, which bans members of other religions from entering parts of the country, and where women are not allowed to drive or leave their house without a family member accompanying them? Where is “Saudi discrimination week”? And we haven’t even mentioned the situation of Christians in Israel’s neighbors, in Gaza and in the West bank. The examples are infinite, as is the hypocrisy.

In the face of these blatant double standards, the power of the “apartheid” campaign is derived from resources that are available in both political and financial forms. Politically, as noted, this divisive agenda is supported by the Arab and Islamic blocs in the United Nations and associated institutions, with active support from Russia and China. They firmly reject any attempt to condemn real human rights violations, and use anti-Israel campaigns to divert criticism.

Financially, the availability of significant European government funding allows ostensible human rights organizations to actively promote the “apartheid” libel. At the same time, these organizations are embarrassingly silent when faced with human rights violations in the Muslim-Arab world in general and in Syria specifically. At most, they issue belated and half-hearted condemnations.

Finally, the crude exploitation of the “apartheid” libel and the accompanying BDS campaigns are the antithesis of the mutual acceptance required for peace, and serve the purposes of murderous dictatorships. As Judge Goldstone wrote, “The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.”


  1. Will said,

    March 14, 2012 at 09:23

    It is said that “a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”. I say in this case Zionist Apartheid no matter what PR polish is poured over it or how glossy the magazine print is in which the Zionist controlled newspapers promote their “photoshopped” version of apartheid…. It still smells rancid.

    Before I will believe this drivel I will believe the words of Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu who has first hand knowledge of what apartheid truly is. He says regarding Zionist apartheid, “The Nobel peace laureate said he was “very deeply distressed” by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that “it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa”.

    The Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what?

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu
    In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw “the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about”.

  2. Frank Freeman said,

    March 14, 2012 at 18:17

    As a Jew who grew up in Apartheid South Africa, I strenuously object whenever I hear Zionism equated with Apartheid.
    Apartheid involved the separation of whites and blacks, purportedly as a means for each of them to develop as they wished in the areas assigned to them. In fact, the Nationalist government called apartheid ‘separate development’. And that government built schools and hospitals, roads and bridges and other facilities in black areas.
    But the Zionists don’t build – they bomb. They don’t envisage development for Palestinians – they deny their existence, and wish to exterminate them. And they wish the like for all their neighbors.
    Certainly, Apartheid South Africa was reprehensible: but Zionism is anathema. Calling it apartheid is like calling syphilis a rash.

%d bloggers like this: