There is a need to invent a new word. It is this:
religionism. It is the religious version of the racial word: racism. In the
same way that racism means bias for one race or bias against another race, let
it be known that religionism means bias for one religion or bias against
another religion.
The reason why we need this word is that the Jewish hagglers
are taking advantage of the absence of the word to argue that Israel's
treatment of the Palestinians cannot be compared to the way that apartheid
South Africa used to treat its Black population. Why is that? Because no matter
what Israel
does to the Palestinians, it doesn't do it because of racial bias, say the
hagglers; it does it because of religious bias. This being the case, no matter
how criminal or how depraved Israel 's
actions may be, they cannot be classified as racism, therefore they must be
considered tolerable.
An example of Jewish haggling regarding this subject came in
an article under the title: “Why Israel Is Nothing Like Apartheid South
Africa,” written in occupied Jerusalem by the Israeli/South-African Benjamin
Pogrund, and published on April 1, 2017 in the American publication, The New
York Times.
Pogrund makes no bones about his belief that Israel is a
“Jewish state” and that it should so remain. That a mass return of Palestinians
to their homes “would destroy Israel
as a Jewish state, which is the whole purpose of its existence.” And that the
aim of the movement known as B.D.S. is to “eliminate Israel .” Therefore, his logic tells
him that it is perfectly acceptable to keep the Palestinians out of Palestine and for him and his wife, who are Jews, to “move
here [Israel ]
in 1997 … the country that has become my second home”.
He goes on: “I remain committed to both Israel and South Africa .” And none of this, in
his view, constitutes apartheid because it is religionism and not racism. This
is why his subtle counsel to the Palestinians seems to be that they should drop
their commitment to Palestine
and look for another place where to start a new life.
To be taken seriously, Pogrund and those like him will have
to explain why being kept apart because of religious differences is not the
same as being kept apart because of racial differences. Until they do so, Israel shall
remain classified as an apartheid state. But please note that whatever they do,
South Africa – unlike Israel – never had a policy to invite foreign
Whites to come and settle in South
Africa while banning non-Whites from coming
in. In fact, Whites, Blacks and Colored people could enter the country and
leave it without discrimination.
On second thought, says our esteemed author, there is racism
in Israel ,
not just religionism. And he tells the story of “Netanyahu making a nakedly
anti-Arab appeal, urging his Jewish supporters to vote.” And there was the
story of the rabbis who “called on Jews not to rent or sell real estate to
Arabs”.
What the writer has omitted is the story of an Israeli
government that used to kidnap Yemeni children and give them to East European
couples to raise as Europeans. And there is the fact that Israel continues to rely on the likes of Mike
Huckabee who supply it with planeloads of white evangelicals who go to Israel and
donate blood. They do so because the Israelis flinch at the idea of injecting
into their bodies the blood of Black Jews that happen to be their countrymen.
Having described “Israel
proper” in those terms, and considering the situation to be tolerable, Pogrund
now tackles the West Bank and East Jerusalem .
The first thing he says in this regard is the following: “This is an
occupation,” which means: regardless of what happens in that place, it is to be
expect. He further explains that: “The occupation is an oppression. No rule
over an unwilling and resistant people can be pleasant, and enforcement is
harsh. But there is not the 'intentionality' that underpinned apartheid in South Africa ,”
he hastens to explain.
Aha, it's that word again – intentionality. When it comes to
Jews, no matter how depraved what they do, he says, judge them not by what you
see but by the intent behind what they do. In fact, for half a century the Jews
have been telling the world that good people have good intentions and bad
people have bad intentions no matter what either does in actual fact. And they
explain that the Palestinians are “an unwilling and resistant people,” which
means they have bad intentions. Because of this, the Jews react by “continuing
to build settlements on Palestinian land: Some 600,000 Jews now live in the
West Bank and East Jerusalem .” And this means
the Jews have good intentions. This should settle the argument according to
Pogrund. Case closed.
There is one more thing to consider: Given that Pogrund puts
the Palestinian population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem at 2.7 million,
the 600,000 Jews who invaded them would represent 71 million illegal aliens
invading the United States .
They settle in the land and live under the protection of a foreign army. When
the American people display unwillingness of any kind or when they resist the
occupation, the State Department of some funky banana republic labels them
terrorists.
Pogrund said: “If the accusation is valid, Israel deserves
the censure, boycotts and isolation that the B.D.S. movement demands.” He went
on to explain that “this will lead to the elimination of Israel .” And he
lamented that “this is what's at stake” if the apartheid comparison can be
validated. Well, the comparison has been validated. What now?
The world has an answer to that question. It is this: End
the occupation and live like civilized in a region that was a Garden of Eden
before the advent of the Jews. The region can get back to that state again.