Why is the “Apartheid” accusation not made against dozens of Islamic and Christian states?
Anti-Israel activists regularly, and with never-ending repetition, claim that Israel is an “Apartheid state” because if favors Jews over non-Jews. This accusation is a key part of the strategy to delegitimize Israel, and was developed in 2001 as part of the Durban conference boycott call.
That boycott call, based on the accusation of Apartheid, was the foundation of the current Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, as I discussed in my lecture, The REAL history of the BDS movement.
“Israel Apartheid Week” events are held on dozens of campuses annually, and are a critical component of the plan to delegitimize and ultimately destroy Israel.
The Israeli security barrier, built after several hundred Israeli civilians were murdered in suicide bombings and shootings during the Second Intifada, regularly is called “the Apartheid Wall,” such as in this display at Columbia.
The Apartheid accusation routinely is made by anti-Israel activists, like Jewish Voice for Peace/Code Pink activist, Ariel Gold, pictured below wearing a “Boycott Israeli Apartheid” hat while blocking the entrance to an AIPAC conference.
The claim is made that there are some Israeli laws that favor Jews, and that is proof of Apartheid. That claim is made even in the Black Lives Matter platform, which has been hijacked by anti-Israel activists:
Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.
The claim of “50 laws” is used in protests on campuses, such as this one at Vassar:
A basic underlying presumption used to condemn 21 of the 57 laws, is that any enactment defining or promoting Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people discriminates against Arab citizens of Israel (e.g., the flag law and the law to support Yad Ben Zvi, a prominent institution promoting Zionist study and values). But this flawed premise would delegitimize the vast majority of the world’s democracies, which are also nation states – that is, states established by and for a predominant ethnic or religious majority. As I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article explaining the proposed Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, “Most of the more than 60 democracies are built on the ethnic identity of a predominant group, which molds the character of the state while affording minorities full civil and religious rights. In this regard the Jewish state of Israel is a typical democratic country.”
But Adalah goes far beyond this flawed proposition. For example, it lists as one of its 57 discriminatory laws the Trading with the Enemy Act (an Ordinance continued from British Mandatory law designed to fight Nazi Germany).
This law prohibits trade with “enemy nationals.” It is discriminatory against Arab citizens, Adalah claims, because “Thus far, all “enemy states’ all of are Arab and/ or Muslim states” [sic]. Israel could presumably cure this “discrimination” either by allowing free and untrammeled intercourse with Syria and Iran or by adding Great Britain, France and Switzerland to its list of enemies.
Adalah claims that laws designed to protect citizens against terrorism are discriminatory because the predominant majority of terrorists are Arabs. What democratic country would repeal laws defending against terrorist attacks because the suspected terrorists caught and charged were predominantly Muslims or Arabs? Laws that provide equal rights for both majority and minority groups are nevertheless labeled discriminatory by Adalah. The Law and Administration Ordinance (1948) that defines the country’s official rest days, and the Law for Using the Hebrew Date, both explicitly exclude institutions and authorities that serve non-Jewish populations.
All members of minorities are guaranteed a day of rest on the day specified by his/her recognized religious faith or on Saturday, at the employee’s option. Apparently, Israeli law on Saturday is discriminatory, but not Moslem and Arab countries with Friday or Christian countries with Sunday (most of which do not protect minorities’ day of rest). But one thing is for sure, no Jew is discriminated on his day of rest in most of the Arab countries, because the Jews were kicked out in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
So let’s put this to a test. What if Israeli law did favor Jews, and what if Judaism became the official religion of Israel. Would that make it Apartheid? Do similar situations for other religions result in the Apartheid label?
According to a Pew Research report released today, Islam is the most common official state religion, followed by Christianity:
More than 80 countries favor a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world.1
Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries (including most in the Middle East-North Africa region) officially enshrining Islam as their state religion. By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.
But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.
So when is the last time you heard the people claiming that Israel is an Apartheid state claim those 27 Islamic countries also were Apartheid states?
Does anyone seriously dispute that Islam being the official state religion advantages Muslims over non-Muslims?
What about the 13 countries where Christianity is the official state religion? Or the additional 40 where Pew found the laws favored one religion over another?
The world is awash in countries where one religion is favored over another. But only one country is libeled as an “Apartheid” state.
And as throughout history, the one people singled out and held to a different standard are the Jews.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.