Accusations of Israeli Apartheid Are Completely Disconnected from the Ugly Realities of South African History

Jan. 15 2021

This week, the Israeli human-rights group B’tselem issued a statement claiming that the Jewish state as a whole practices “apartheid,” a term it has heretofore avoided. The statement appeared in English, and was duly reported on by CNN, NBC News, and other major American news outlets, suggesting that the group, once well respected in Israel, is now engaged in what Matti Friedman has termed the “moral striptease.” Through careful comparison with the realities of apartheid-era South Africa, Eugene Kotorovich dissects B’tselem’s argument:

Despite massive systematic oppression of racial and ethnic minorities in countries from China to Sri Lanka to Sudan, the apartheid label has never been applied to those countries or any other country by the U.S. or anyone else. Invoking the heinous crime of apartheid [is to accuse] Jews, uniquely among the peoples of the world, of one of the most heinous crimes, while also judging the Jewish state by a metric not applied to any other country. And the clear agenda is to delegitimize Israel entirely: the remedy for apartheid is not reform, it is the abolition of the regime itself and a total reshaping of the government.

Under [South Africa’s] Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953, municipal grounds could be reserved for a particular race, creating, among other things, separate beaches, buses, hospitals, schools, and universities. Inside of Israel there is no separation of this sort. In Judea and Samaria Israelis and Palestinians buy at the same stores, work together, etc. In South Africa public beaches, swimming pools, some pedestrian bridges, drive-in cinema parking spaces, parks, and public toilets were segregated. Restaurants and hotels were required to bar blacks. In Israel and all territories under its jurisdiction, Palestinians patronize the same shops and restaurants as Jews do.

Some policies do resemble apartheid rules—in particular, the Palestinian Authority’s prohibition, with severe penalties, of selling any real estate to Jews. Ironically, the closest thing in the region to an apartheid policy is not mentioned [by B’tselem] at all.

Read more at Kohelet

More about: Anti-Zionism, apartheid, NGO, South Africa

How Senator Schumer Put Short-Sighted Partisan Interest over Jewish Concerns

Last week, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce reported on its investigation into anti-Semitism on college campuses. Among the revelations therein is information about the role played behind the scenes by the Senatate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who often touts his own role as “protector” (in Hebrew, shomer) of his fellow Jews in the halls of power. Seth Mandel comments:

The leaders of Columbia, where the anti-Semitism was and is among the worst in the country, eventually came before Congress in April. Three months earlier, President Minouche Shafik met with Schumer, and the supposed shomer told her that Democrats had no problem with her and that only Republicans cared about the anti-Semitism crisis on campus. His office advised Shafik not to meet with Republicans on the Hill. When the Columbia Trustees co-chair David Greenwald texted the previous co-chair Jonathan Lavine about the situation, Lavine responded by saying, “Let’s hope the Dems win the house back.” Greenwald wrote back: “Absolutely.”

This is the message that Schumer had sent about anti-Semitism on campus and that message came through loud and clear: investigations into Jew-hatred would only occur under a Republican majority. Putting Democrats in charge would put a stop to the government’s efforts to help Jews on campus.

Though the Jewish vote is, as always, unlikely to cost Democrats the election, it is simply undeniable that non-Republicans and non-conservatives are fairly disgusted with the type of behavior displayed by Schumer.

Read more at Commentary

More about: Anti-Semitism, Chuck Schumer, Israel on campus, U.S. Politics