Richard Heideman is an attorney whose firm is active in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Heideman Nudelman & Kalik PC has obtained judgments against "the Islamic Republic of Iran in the amounts of $1.27 billion and $813 million; and against the Syrian Arab Republic in the amounts of $601 million, $51 million and a landmark Judgment of $3.4 billion. The firm has represented numerous victims of terror before the US Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and is counsel to American Victims of terrorism against the Arab Bank, plc, which was pending in the Eastern District of New York." I previously wrote about the efforts of Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and several other attorneys who have obtained court judgments against states that sponsor terrorism.
Heideman is also an author and speaker. Heideman has articulated the hijacking of apartheid in an article that is a must-read for anyone who cares about social justice. Heideman notes that South Africa practiced apartheid based on skin color, and that Saudi Arabia currently practices apartheid based on religion; in contrast, Israel is a democracy in which Arab men and women can vote, Arab media can and does criticize the Israeli government, Arabs have freedom of expression, and Arab politicians campaign for/are elected to public office. Since Israel began building a security fence (which is not a "wall," contrary to false media coverage) in 2001 in response to a massive wave of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks against Israelis, suicide bombings have been reduced 100% and shooting attacks have been reduced by 93.5%. Israel lives in a very dangerous "neighborhood," and she shares borders with totalitarian regimes committed to her destruction, but despite the hatred and violence directed toward Israel she has created an oasis of freedom for both Jews and Arabs in a region where freedom is otherwise non-existent.
Apartheid has a specific legal definition, and it is not only irresponsible to use that term incorrectly, but doing so also hinders justice by providing shelter to the real oppressors while falsely accusing victims of oppression.
Inversion of facts leads to subversion of justice, and that is what we are seeing far too often: self-proclaimed "progressives" marching in the streets chanting anti-Israel/antisemitic slogans that invert facts and subvert justice.
It has become so fashionable and reflexive in some quarters--most notably among self-proclaimed "progressives"--to call falsely label Israel an "apartheid state" that even people who may sense at some level that this accusation is false lack the necessary knowledge and/or courage to push back, particularly when the false accusers are so strident and self-righteous. Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres once foolishly declared that if Israel has good policies then it does not need any public relations and that if Israel has bad policies then public relations will not help, but anyone who possesses the slightest bit of common sense understands that public relations efforts are important for nations, for businesses, and for prominent individuals. Israel's unwillingness to push back against false narratives has emboldened her enemies, and this situation is a threat not only to Israel but to democracy and freedom; if Israel can be slandered, weakened, and possibly destroyed, then any democracy could face a similar fate.
A self-proclaimed "progressive" who sides with Iran, Syria, and other countries who are committed not only to Israel's destruction but to killing Jews around the world is taking a position contrary to everything that "progressive" values are supposed to uphold. It is bizarre that some people simultaneously claim to support freedom and equality while also slandering Israel and Jews, but it is important to make it very clear that anyone who falsely accuses Israel of apartheid is without question not a person who supports freedom and equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment