It's Almost Supernatural

Our low life expectancy

The life expectancy of South Africans is lower than the average in Africa and that of war-ravaged Iraq, a UN Population Fund report has shown.

It seems that with more and more power, the ANC has had less and less effect on improving this important scorecard. AIDS policies from 2000 to 2005, where a blind refusal to properly distribute free ARVs resulted in 330,000 deaths and 35,000 mother to child transmissions, have made a major contribution to this horrific statistic.

Vote opposition.

The role of South African Jewry— past and present

A few months ago, I blogged about a controversial article, ‘The Beloved Country: Minority Politics and South African Jewry’, by Daniel Greenberg, on the response of South African Jewry to the tumultuous experiences, both past and present, that has shaped this country’s history. The article has generated an unprecedented response. The number of hits it has received is in the tens of thousands and Greenberg has been inundated with emails from readers, ranging for the fiercely critical to the admiring. A small taste of the debate it has stirred up can be seem in the letters section of the latest edition of the influential American Jewish student journal, The Current, where Greenberg’s original article was published.

Greenberg has come in for some biting (but expected) criticism from Zev Krengel, the current National Chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD). But interestingly, Russell Gaddin, a former National Chairman of the SAJBD has come to Greenberg’s defense. In his letter he condemned the SAJBD’s 'policy of appeasement' towards the ANC. The third letter was from Sasha Polakow-Suransky, an associate editor at Foreign Affairs, praising Greenberg for taking on the South African Jewish establishment. This type of public disagreement by such prominent members of the community is seriously unheard of. Agree with him or not, Greenberg must be complimented for advancing the debate about the role of this community in South African society.

In the spirit of what Greenberg has achieved, I am not going to write a long critique of each letter (although I do have strong views) but rather encourage readers to give their opinions. While all responses will be viewable in the comments section, we will post some of the more interesting ones as articles on the front page (there is no obligation to leave your name if you feel uncomfortable). It would be appreciated if regular readers could help spread the word so that we can encourage as wide and diverse a debate as possible.

While everyone should read all three letters (and Greenberg’s article of course), here are some snip bits:

Daniel Greenberg : “When the ANC refuses to accept the link between HIV and AIDS and installs a Minister of Health who advocates the eating of beetroots and garlic instead of Antiretroviral medication as a treatment for HIV, should the community not take a stand? When the government refuses to condemn the tyrant Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe because of liberation credentials, should the community not take a stand? When there is widespread poverty and the government spends $5 billion on unneeded armaments, probably traceable to the petty gains of a few corrupt politicians, should the community not take a stand?” “But for now, the omnipresent fear of crime stands above all other considerations. Fear—fear of suffering Sheldon Cohen’s fate—drives many Jews away from the country. Fear causes those remaining to look inwards at the expense of all else. Whether under a racist regime or in the midst of appalling insecurity, the South African Jewish experience has been characterized by fear.”

Zev Krengel:  “Greenberg also does the SAJBD a profound injustice by simplistically caricaturizing its members as knee–jerk “yes men” for the South African government. In reality, the SAJBD has on frequent occasions strenuously criticized government, both publicly and privately…Earlier this year, for example, the SAJBD spoke out strongly against an especially one–sided statement on the Middle East conflict issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs… These, and many other statements regularly issued by the SAJBD since the beginning of the decade, clearly debunk the notion that we indiscriminately seek to “ingratiate” ourselves with the government of the day.” “Finally, concluding that “the South African Jewish experience has been characterized by fear,” apart from being unnecessarily melodramatic, is simply untrue. Jews are certainly not blind to the local and regional problems facing their country, and the unacceptably high crime levels are indeed a matter of deep concern. However, “concern” is not the same thing as “fear.” Taken as a whole, South African Jewry, while reduced in numbers, is better organized, united and Jewishly committed than at any other time in its history. Whatever the future holds—and no Jewish community anywhere can be certain in this regard—the SAJBD will always be there to represent its best interests.”

Russell Gaddin: “The role of the Jewish community during the Apartheid era is usually misrepresented by commentators who do not understand the background and harsh influence of those awful times… The world had stood by while six million Jews perished. There wasn’t the international Jewish support system that exists today, and there was as yet no strong Israel. There was a bullying government that dealt harshly with its critics in South Africa. The SAJBD made a decision, supported by the views of the majority of the community, to remain silent and not confront the government or draw attention to themselves.” “…the SAJBD today has adopted a policy of appeasement, or silent diplomacy. This silence is not supported by the community at large. The ANC Government of Thabo Mbeki has largely failed in its leadership of the country. The silent diplomacy has not influenced the South African Government to take a fair stance in its handling of Israel and Middle Eastern affairs. It has not added to Jewish security, nor to the devastation caused by crime. Emigration is peaking again…” “It will be interesting to see how the Jewish leadership reacts to the new ANC leadership whose numbers include many with tainted and questionable pasts. The political game in South Africa has never been an easy one, and there is no indication that this situation will improve soon.”

Sasha Polakow-Suransky: “The community is notoriously touchy and remains extremely insular. Since the demise of Apartheid, communal leaders who once denounced their fellow Jews in the anti–Apartheid movement now seek to claim that heritage of resistance as their own.” “ When Nelson Mandela’s ANC comrades Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe escaped from prison in 1963, the Jewish Board of Deputies took great pains to denounce them, distance themselves, and assure the pro–government press that, “except at his circumcision, [Goldreich] has never again been in a synagogue.” When American Jewish organizations, outraged by the Apartheid regime’s violence, passed a tame resolution in 1983 calling merely for “the granting of freedom, justice and equal rights,” the Board’s leaders blew up and told their American brethren to stay out of South Africa’s business…Harry Schwarz, a child refugee from Nazi Germany who rose to become an opposition member of parliament during the Apartheid years and then ambassador to the United States, believes that the community behaved like the “Court Jews” of the Middle Ages, currying favor with the country’s leaders.” “Even former Board President Boomie Abramowitz lends support to Greenberg’s argument, claiming “There’s a parallel...Whether you like it or not there are almost echoes of the past. We must not say anything that will upset the status quo.”

The Kasrils Affair Book Launch

Our very own South African Jewish maverick, Joel Pollak, will be launching his controversial book “The Kasrils Affair: Jews and Minority Politics in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” Tuesday 11 November, at 17:30 in the Harry Oppenheimer Institute Building, UCT.

All those in Cape Town, who can make it, should definitely go. There will be a round table discussion with Historian Richard Mendelsohn, President of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies Michael Bagraim and Dr Sally Frankental.

I have previewed the book and think it is a must read for anyone interested the future of the Jewish community in this country. Joel has over the years made a name for himself as one of the most outspoken critics of the SAJBD, in particular of its policy of quiet acquiescence towards the ANC.

In his book, he provides a forthright analysis of the pivotal role the Kasrils affair has played in the evolution of the South African Jewish response towards the Government. After a brief moment of public debate with the ANC over its policy towards Israel in the late 1990s, the community has reverted to its historic strategy of refraining from public condemnation and even supporting the ruling party while voicing its concerns through back door channels. A strategy that, as Pollak points out, can be dangerous not only for the community but also for South African democracy.

What is interesting about the book, is that it is also a comparative study. It becomes clear that Minister Kasrils' public attacks on Israel and the community were not an isolated case. Other minority groups like the Portuguese community and Afrikaners were also placed under tremendous pressure to endorse the ANC line. Whether we realize it or not, our community has become caught up in the ANC's desire to dominate every aspect of South African society and silence all opposition. The morality and pragmatism of such a situation are things that we as a community should be discussing.

As South Africa heads into uncertain political territory, this book comes at a crucial time to understand the mistakes we have made as well as the things we got right in our endeavour to promote a democratic and prosperous Jewish community in South Africa. Hopefully it can serve as a launching pad for a broad debate within our community of what the way forwards should be.

Register to vote!

Next year, South Africans go to the polls for our fourth democratic elections. Can we choose hope over fear and rise above the barbed-wire of racial politics to vote for the change we need? NO WE CAN’T!

Come on, we all know that ANC supporters will once again reward the ANC for past failures. The ANC’s liberation credentials guarantee them an overwhelming landslide victory. The best we can hope for is to temper the ANC’s overwhelming majority by voting for an opposition party. 

Two weeks ago, in the Sunday Times, Chris Barron interviewed Angie Motshekga (President of the ANC Women's League and contender for premier of Gauteng). She said that it is in the best interests of all South Africans to have a de facto one-party state that can't be blocked from doing what it thinks is best. Let's punish the ANC for this profound arrogance. Use this weekend to register to vote if you haven't done so already and next year, make the effort to vote for an opposition party. Say no to a one-party state. Say no to arrogance and corruption. Say no to free-wheeling cadre deployment and a childish disregard for the procedures of parliament. Say no to the ANC.

The first step towards reducing the ANC’s power (and that will ultimately be good for them) is to make sure you are registered to vote in next year’s election.

To check if you are registered SMS your ID number to 32810.

If you are not registered, then make sure you get registered this weekend.

VOTER REGISTRATION WEEKEND 8-9 November 2008 Voting stations open 08:00 to 17:00 For more information call 0800 11 8000 toll free from a landline OR SMS your ID to 32810 if you are already registered to check your details

Remember to take your green bar coded ID book with you. If you don't have the correct ID book then you will need to get one from the Department of Home Affairs. They will also be open this weekend (Saturday and Sunday) so you can apply for an ID book and hopefully then be in a position to register should there be another registration weekend.

To find out where your nearest registration/voting station is located, use this station finder from the IEC website: http://www.elections.org.za/SearchVD.asp

Now is the time to squeeze Iran

For all the things that made Bill Clinton’s presidency memorable, his insightful campaign slogan ‘it’s the economy stupid’ had somewhat faded into insignificance until the recent American sub-mortgage crisis. The economy is now once again front and centre in this year’s US election. If Barak Obama is in fact to win on Tuesday night, as the polls suggest, market crash and liquidity freeze will certainly have a lot to do with it. But financial hard times are not only key to momentous internal political change in democracies; they have also shown themselves to be tenacious in disposing of authoritarian regimes. Over the next few months, the Islamic Republic of Iran will hopefully provide us with our latest case study.

Only a few months ago the strategic situation in the Middle East from an Israeli, Western and moderate Arab perspective looked horrible. Awash with petrodollar as a result of record high oil prices, the Iranian regime looked unstoppable from acquiring nuclear weapon and fomenting chaos through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. With military action seeming politically unfeasible and technically problematic, many had begun to whisper about just having to get use to living with a nuclear Iran. But all of this has now changed. Fears of a global slowdown have caused oil prices to collapse from over $140 a barrel to below $70. If this fall is sustained, it could as much as halve the Iranian regime’s fiscal revenue and places the country at risk for a serious budget crisis. Given the already poor state of the economy with rising inflation and high unemployment, Iran has few benign macro-economic options.

Iran is now showing symptoms of what economists refer to as the Dutch Diseases, the almost counter intuitive situation where countries that experience commodity export booms usually end up in serious financial trouble. Given the Iranian regime’s shaky internal political position and its messianic belief that oil prices would continue to rise until the Twelfth Imam returns, they have spent almost all their additional oil revenue in the form of cash handouts and price subsidies to buy the support of their people. But just throwing money at the people ala Evita Peron, as we saw in Argentina, does not create economic growth. It only fuels inflation.

Moreover their arrogant disdain for Western advice has led them to reject perhaps the most important macro-economic policy of the last few decades, an independent central bank. Under Ahmadinejad’s control the Iranian printing press has been working overtime (with money growth in the region of 40% per annum) to keep interest rates low and consumers and businesses happy. But this temporarily effective political strategy has disastrous economic consequences. Coupled with the excessive government spending, it has unleashed the dragon of stagflation (high inflation and low growth) on the Iranian people. Inflation climbed last month to 27 percent while unemployment continues to remains high at high at 11 percent.

Given the structure of the economy, this is a self perpetuating financial collapse. As inflation rises the government of Iran will be forced to spend more and more money, money they no longer have, to maintain the various price subsidies they offer. With falling oil revenues they will either have to borrow or print more money to fund this additional expenditure. The latter will serve to further boast inflation and cause this downward economic spiral to continue over and over again.

So what should the Iranians do to stop their march towards economic ruin? Conventional economic advice would be to cut spending, stop printing money and give the central bank independence. But Ahmadinejad does not seem prepared to listen. In the last 3 years he has fired 3 central bankers for suggesting just such a policy. Moreover, he faces an election in the near future and cannot afford politically to cut back on handouts to the people. By all accounts he is already in a precarious position in the polls. So in fact, expect government spending to increase, at least in the short term.

Natan Sharansky has for the last few years been talking up an imminent internal Iranian revolution. When he visited South Africa a couple of years ago, he told me that from what he has read and heard the Iranian people remind him of Russians in the late 1980’s just before the fall of the Berlin wall. “Almost everyone is a ‘double-thinker’ there”, he told me emphatically. He was predicting regime change within a year. Of course it did not materialize: not because I believe Sharansky’s analysis was wrong but because he failed to foresee the oil price boom that has allowed Ahmadinejad to maintain stability by buying off political support. This has now come to an end. In fact, the current reality in Iran actually now much more closely mirrors the USSR. The fall of the Soviet too was ultimately sparked by falling oil prices and the resulting economic challenges that this wrought.

Clearly now is the time for those who wish to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb and terrorizing the region to act. Simple measures like limiting the Iranians access to foreign finance would force the regime to fund its expenditure through printing more money, seriously accelerating the economic collapse that is under way. Of course large scale sanction that prevented countries from buying Iranian exports would really cripple them economically but given that 80% of their exports are oil, this is not seen as economically viable for the rest of the world. A public disinvestment campaign would also help.

On a political level, now is not the time for meetings between Western leaders and the Iranian regime. Quite the opposite. We need to make it clear that this government is not legitimate. Financial and moral support for dissident groups should be urgently augmented. The West and moderate Muslim states must publicly declare that they will do whatever they can to stand by the Iranian people against their tyrannical government.

The financial crisis has resulted in the hope that change is possible here in America. But this applies equally to our enemies as well. If Obama would only formulate a foreign policy position on the same basis as he does his domestic political strategy then this could really be the moment when the rise of Islamic fundamentalism begins to slow and our planet begins to heal.

Taking Terror to task

This morning, Talk Radio 702 hosted a round-table discussion with leading South African political parties. Much of the discussion focused on Terror Lekota’s recent criticism of the ANC.

Part of Lekota’s argument has been that the ANC has become intolerant of dissenting opinions and that there is no longer any room to raise opposition voices. He questions why disagreements can’t be raised publicly – why should they only be raised internally within the ANC?

I agree with Terror, but I also need to point out some hypocrisies.

Lekota seems to suggest that the problems with the ANC started at Polokwane, where Jacob Zuma was voted in as the new ANC president. Not so. Intolerance of criticism, stifling control of state institutions (including the public broadcaster, which Lekota mentioned today), cadre redeployment, 'alice in wonderland' style policies, childish name-calling, and tolerance of violence from supporters were some of the undeniable highlights of former President Mbeki’s hellish rule. We cannot listen to Terror Lekota now and pretend that these ANC attributes suddenly appeared overnight at Polokwane.

Lekota needs to position himself as someone who has always felt uncomfortable with the ANC – not as someone irked by ANC post-Polokwane behaviour.

In fact, according to William Gumede, Terror Lekota was himself once on the receiving end of Mbeki’s extreme intolerance of dissenting views.

In his, at times insightful, book, “Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC” Gumede relays an incident relating to Mbeki’s despotic policy on Zimbabwe. As Mbeki’s unflinching support for Mugabe continued to baffle onlookers, Terror Lekota spoke out against Mugabe. He called for a public condemnation of the human rights violations in Zimbabwe and “slammed quiet diplomacy as totally ineffective.”

Mbeki, in typical fashion, saw red. He demanded that Lekota withdraw his comments. Lekota refused, saying that they were his personal opinion. Mebki’s influential legal advisor, Mojanku Gumbi, responded that as ANC Chairman, ‘Lekota had no such thing as a personal view’ and should be disciplined.

How Lekota then transformed into an ardent Mbeki loyalist, I have no idea. But it’s certainly ironic that this man is now attacking the new ANC leadership for preventing diverse opinions.

During this morning’s debate, a question from the press asked Lekota why he had not expressed public criticism over Mbeki’s deranged policies on AIDS. Tellingly, Lekota ignored the question.

Any half-decent analysis of the Mbeki era will indicate that, whilst the ANC is certainly deserving of Lekota’s criticism, the criticism applies also (if not more so) to the ANC under Mbeki’s rule – a man Lekota seems to be protecting and defending.

A website called “Friends of Democracy” was recently setup (presumably by the Lekota movement) in response to the pathetic “Friends of JZ (Jacob Zuma)” website. It resembled somewhat of a shrine to Mbeki – a sober and wise portrait of King Thabo was splashed on the home page. We have since heard that Mbeki will not be backing Lekota’s new movement and to no surprise, Mbeki’s front page splurge has been removed.

Still, listening to Lekota have a full go at the powerful beast that is the ANC, one can’t help but like him - he comes across as genial, yet forthright - despite his inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I won’t vote for him, but I hope that many ANC supporters will.

Update

A comment on this thread has pointed to a quote used on the fatuous "Friends of Democracy" website:

Like Mao Tse-Tung we say: “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

It's a quote that the ANC has used before and was recently mentioned in one of former president Mbeki's ANC Today newsletters. Mike responded to this in a post just over a year ago, and it's well worth reading again: ANC marches in the footsteps of MAO

Mbeki's legacy and why you should vote opposition

A study from the Harvard School of Public Health published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome has asserted that more than 330,000 lives were lost to HIV/AIDS in South Africa from 2000 to 2005. During the same period, a staggering 35,000 babies were born with HIV because a mother-to-child prevention program using Nevirapine was not implemented. (Via HealthNewsTrack)

The authors estimated the benefits that South Africa lost by “restricting or delaying the use of ARV treatment in South Africa”. The study compared South Africa’s situation with neighbouring Botswana and Namibia.

From late 2000 Boehringer Ingelheim offered Nevirapine free of charge for five years for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in developing economies. South Africa restricted the use of Nevaripine whilst Botswana and Namibia took full advantage. By 2005 South Africa had achieved less than 30% prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Botswana and Namibia in comparison had achieved up to 70% prevention.

Mbeki’s drumming of racial nationalism prevented South African from getting serious about AIDS. I am reminded of a particularly grim moment in parliament when the DA’s Ryan Coetzee asked the former president if the high incidence of rape in South Africa is partly responsible for the dramatic prevalence of AIDS. Mbeki, still seething from an article in the press suggesting that tradition and religion play a role in South Africa’s high rape rates, retorted:

"Whatever the circumstances, and regardless of the regularity of catholic incantations about 'playing the race card', I, for my part, will not keep quiet while others whose minds have been corrupted by the disease of racism, accuse us, the black people of South Africa, Africa and the world, as being, by virtue of our Africanness and skin colour, lazy, liars, foul-smelling, diseased, corrupt, violent, amoral, sexually depraved, animalistic, savage and rapist," ... This year, in an article entitled "The Continuing Miseducation of the Negro", an African American Associate Professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, Dr Edward Rhymes, wrote, "We are portrayed as oversexed or lascivious, and yet the porn and adult entertainment industry is dominated by whites.It is African Americans that get accused of being rampant sexual beasts, unable to control our urges, unable to keep our legs crossed, unable to keep it in our pants. Source: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2004/at42.htm

ANC MPs cheered and applauded.

Back to the study - it concludes:

Access to appropriate public health practice is often determined by a small number of political leaders. In the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of a failure to accept the use of available ARVs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner."

In South Africa, a small number of powerful leaders use excessive power to control the course of this country. The disbanding of the Scorpions, an elite crime fighting unit loved by the people and feared by the criminals, is a case in point.

Don’t reward the ANC for past failures. And don’t listen to Bishop Tutu either. Vote next year for an opposition party. Say no to the ANC hegemony.

The Star issues an apology for Jenin lie

In April this year, our benighted former Minister of Totalitarian Affairs Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, unleashed one of his typically rancorous anti-Israel pieces in the Star newspaper. The article was accompanied by 3 images claiming to illustrate the bloody path that Israel has chosen to embark on.

One of the images claimed that there had been a “massacre” in Jenin and another claimed that Israel had perpetrated a bloody massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The third image depicted some of the carnage that resulted in the recent war with Hizballah in Lebanon, a war started by Hizballah.

The media team of the South African Zionist Federation took the incident to the Press Ombudsman and the Star has today, issued an apology, but only for the reference to a massacre in Jenin.

It’s a small victory for us, but it some sections of the ruling should cause us to question the neutrality of the ombudsman.

The image of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre gave the distinct impression that Israel carried out the massacre. That was a lie, so why no correction?

The Ombudsman writes:

A more careful reading of the Kahan report implicates Israel much more deeply than Ms Goldman accepts. For example: “The Chief of Staff, together with the people accompanying him, went to the Phalangists' headquarters, where, according to his testimony (p. 210), he ordered the Phalangist commanders to effect a general mobilization of all their forces, impose a general curfew on all the areas under their control, and be ready to take part in the fighting.” And: “Brigadier-General Yaron spoke with the Phalangists about the places where the terrorists were located in the camps and also warned them not to harm the civilian population. He had mentioned that, he stated, because he knew that the Phalangists' norms of conduct are not like those of the I.D.F. and he had had arguments with the Phalangists over this issue in the past.”

Even though the Ombudsman notes that (1) Israel didn’t actually perpetrate the massacre, and (2) Israel warned the Phalangists not to harm the Palestinian civilians, he still rules against the Zionist Federation’s complaint.

The Ombudsman ends his analysis of the photos with this piece of certain knowledge:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Kasrils on the source of the violence it is true that Israel has been on a bloody path. The intention of the newspaper in using these pictures was to illustrate that path.

It may be correct to say that Israel has been on a bloody path in so far as the Arab nations have forced her hand – but Kasrils uses the phrase to suggest that Israel has single-handedly and unprovokingly caused all of the bloodshed. This is the pig-headed opinion that the Ombudsman has decided to side with.

Today’s edition of the Star published the apology along with the entire ruling by the Ombudsman. The apology reads:

Apology: In an article in The Star on April 7, we carried an analysis by Ronnie Kasrils entitled “A Call to Confront the Past” in which the writer examined what he regarded as terror conducted on the part of Israel to induce the Palestinians from the land of their birth. A complaint was directed to the Press Ombudsman by the Zionist Federation, and a ruling has been made. We apologise for inaccurately describing the events at the Jenin Camp between April 3 and April 18 2002 as a massacre.

You can read the entire Press Ombudsman hearing here: The South African Zionist Federation vs The Star and the Cape Argus

Related

• The Sunday Independent clarifies its stance on Jenin

Response to SA Jewish Board of Deputies

I am extremely pleased that Zev Krengel, National Chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, has taken the time to respond to some of my concerns. Choosing to engage with members of the community on a public forum like IAS shows a commitment to a degree of democratic leadership we have not seen from previous leaders of SA Jewry. One of the major goals of this blog is to provide a space for open debate in the community. I hope that we are making progress in achieving this.

Mr Krengel and I, have a serious difference of opinion on the role of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies in the New South Africa. I see it as a Jewish Human Rights organization with a commitment not only to defend Jewish interests, but South African democracy more generally. He views its role more as a lobby group whose aim is ‘to safeguard the Jewish way of life in South Africa’. But arguing for the triumph of idealism over pragmatism in SAJBD policy towards the government was not the point of my original post.

My major concern was the perception that Mr Krengel’s Above Board column gave about the SAJBD’s efforts to build relationships with the new Motlanthe/Zuma/Malema ANC administration in last week’s Jewish report. At a time of so much political uncertainty in South Africa, particularly within the ruling party, I believed it was risky for the community to be seen to be engaging with only 1 camp in the now split ANC. Thus I am relieved to read Mr Krengel’s commitment to meet with Lekota et al. I am also comforted to learn of the SAJBD’s interaction with opposition political parties.

But why was none of this mentioned in the original Above Board article? If the SAJBD does in fact adhere to its policy of “not taking sides” what was the purpose of highlighting the President’s Shabbas dinner at Mr Krengel’s home over 3 years ago? I believe the column was an attempt to reassure the community that despite the political changes the SAJBD still has influence with those in power. Whether Mr Krengel realizes it or not, stressing the SAJBD’s strong relationship with Motlanthe while not stating the SAJBD’s commitment to “not take sides” or its policy of broad political engagement results in the community being perceived as supporting one side. This does involve South African Jewry in the internal ANC power struggle.

In warning about the risks for the Jewish community of being perceived to support one party in a political conflict, I used the historical example of the SAJBD’s constructive engagement with the Nationalist Party under Apartheid. It was not an attempt to make any moral comparison between Mothlanthe’s ANC and the Apartheid government. I am acutely aware of the ethical difference between the Jewish community building a relationship with an illegitimate regime and now trying to engage with a democratically elected one. I was merely trying to point out the negative consequences in deeply divided societies of being caught clinging to the wrong tree when the winds of political change begin to blow.

I also disagree with Krengel’s analysis of the democratic significance of the recent regime change in South Africa. While I am of course grateful that President Mbeki’s ouster was relatively bloodless, I do not as Krengel put it think this ‘demonstrates democracy in action’. Usually in democratic countries political change comes through the national ballot box. Here the decision of a few ANC apparatchiks is being imposed on the nation. In fact it’s much more reminiscent of the internal politics of the former Soviet Union than a democracy, in particular the ‘recalling’ of Khrushchev as Premier by the communist Party Politburo in 1964.

No matter how positive Mr Krengel may personally feel about the recent political turmoil in the country, I do not believe it is his role as SABJD chairman to advocate such a partisan position on the issue to the community. Adopting the narrative that this is a triumph for democracy in South Africa is endorsing the position of those who have managed to dethrone Mbeki and alienates the Lekota et al camp, who feel they have been unjustly treated. Once again it calls into question the SAJBD’s stated policy of political neutrality.

While in the past I did not support the SAJBD’s approach towards the ruling party, I could understand it. When Thabo Mbeki’s ANC seemed to have hegemonic control of South African society there was some logic to being a part of its sphere of influence. But now with a divided ANC, being seen to associate with or promote the narrative of only one faction of the party can be politically costly. At least until things settle down (probably only after the next general election) Mr Krengel and the SAJBD should be far more circumspect in what they say and how they portray who they have Shabbas dinner with. As much as they may declare otherwise, how and when their political activities are communicated to the community makes them political.

Crossing Swords Part 6- Pollak's Closing entry

For almost 5 weeks now we have been running a debate between Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak centred around the recent controversial SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Herewith is Joel Pollak’s closing entry, in response to Doron's closing entry which we published last week. 

Remember to submit you comments addressed to both Joel and Doron so that we can have one final entry from each answering some of the better questions posed from the floor.

To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 6 - Joel Pollak instalment 3

Dear Doron,

You claim that we disagree because we have "different outlooks on the world." Not so: we disagree because you do not understand human rights law. You believe the weaker party always has a higher moral claim than the stronger. But such prejudice has no meaning in human rights law (or any other law). By putting power before right, you empty human rights of their content.

You resort to personal attacks. I am disappointed--given the vicious comments you have faced, which I condemn--but I am not surprised. In August, you accused UCT student Samantha Beckbessinger of writing "apologia for oppression." [1] She had agreed with you that the occupation "should be ended." [2] But because she criticised your "one-sided approach" to the issue, [3] you accused her of "gutter reporting." [4] Now you question my commitment to human rights because I support John McCain and Sarah Palin. I support them precisely because of their record on human rights. In 2005, McCain opposed the Bush administration on the use of torture in military interrogations. [5] In 2006, it was clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would lead to civil war and genocide. McCain alone called for more troops. He was right.

Sarah Palin has also spoken out for women’s rights in the Islamic world and against Iranian Holocaust denial. [6] I can forgive your ignorance of American politics, but I reject your assumption that human rights belong exclusively to the political left. Equally, I reject the "straw man" you set up by implying that criticising Palestinian human rights abuses amounts to justifying the Israeli occupation.

You evade the question of equal rights for Jews in a Palestinian state by misquoting me, claiming I suggested giving "Israelis equal rights in the West Bank." You then ask, sarcastically: "Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them?"

U.N. Res. 181, the legal basis for both Israeli and Palestinian statehood, requires Arabs to respect Jewish rights in their state (as Arab rights are respected in Israel). [7] Furthermore, the resolution requires each side to declare the equal rights of minorities prior to independence.

Israel fulfilled this condition in its declaration of independence:

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." [8]

If Israel could offer Arabs equal citizenship, even as Arab armies were mobilising to destroy the new Jewish state, why is it too much to ask that Palestinian leaders accept the human rights of Jews, occupation or no? If Palestinian leaders did so, would that not greatly advance their cause? Why, then, do you mock the idea?

You are determined to prove Israel did not face an existential threat in the 1967 war, though this is irrelevant to the actual point--namely, the origin of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. You revert to your single, controversial source. I have met Tom Segev and I respect his work, but his claims about the 1967 war are simply not authoritative. You really ought to read a little more widely.

You claim that you are "not an apologist for Palestine." I agree, because a true friend of the Palestinian cause would have the courage to speak candidly about Palestinian failures without using the Israeli occupation as an excuse. I am proud to stand up for both Palestine and Israel, and I pray that we shall soon see the day when both shall live in peace and freedom.

Chag sameach,

Joel [1] Isaacs, D. 2008. "Misrepresenting the facts." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 8 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/doron-isaacs-israelpalestine.html 
[2] Beckbessinger, S. 2008. "A weak debate." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 4 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/samantha-beckbessinger-israelpalestine.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Isaacs, Ibid.
[5] Miller, G. and Reynolds, M. 2005. "McCain Wins Agreement From Bush on Torture Ban," Los Angeles Times, 16 Dec., A-1. URL: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/16/nation/na-torture16
[6] Palin, S. 2008 "Palin on Ahmadinejad: 'He Must Be Stopped'," New York Sun, 22 Sep. URL: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/
[7] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 29 Nov. 1947. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
[8] Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948. Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Zev Krengel replies to IAS criticism

Herewith, a response by SA Jewish Board of Deputies National Chairman, Zev Krengel, to our earlier criticism of an Above Board column he penned in the Jewish Report.

Your post of 15 October (“SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight”) is critical of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies for allegedly “openly aligning the [Jewish] community with the Motlanthe/Zuma/Malema camp”. Such an interpretation is highly misleading, not to say alarmist.

From the outset, it must be stressed that the SAJBD is not a political party. Its primary mandate is to safeguard the Jewish way of life in South Africa, while at the same time leading the Jewish community in being a role player in the development of South Africa. This aim we pursue through networking and building relationships with the government of the day, and with other political parties, different faith groups and NGOs. We will not, indeed cannot, take sides in political disputes.

The Board’s recent engagement with government and the ruling African National Congress in no way means that it is “taking sides”. In fact, the Board meets with political parties from rights across the political spectrum. This year, for example, we have met with the leadership of the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party. In the event of a new political party being formed by disaffected ANC members, we will certainly seek to meet with them as well.

Yet again, we see the same tired comparisons being made with the Jewish leadership of bygone years and its relationship with the old Nationalist government and that of today. This, too, is incorrect as well as unfair. During the apartheid era, the Board was compelled by the circumstances of the day to deal with a minority government that had no legitimacy, either amongst the great majority of the population or internationally. This is diametrically opposed to the situation as it exists today. We have a democratically elected government, a constitution that safeguards human rights at the highest level, an independent judiciary and an equally independent media, amongst other democratic safeguards.

It is true that any signs of incipient totalitarianism is something we all need to be extremely vigilant about, and certain recent developments are indeed a cause for concern. For all that, however, South African democracy remains vibrant and healthy. The fact that we have seen a regime change take place swiftly, bloodlessly and entirely in accordance with democratic procedures is surely proof of this. So far as criticizing the government of the day goes, our record shows that we have been willing do so, and strenuously, particularly where Israel is concerned.

In conclusion, promoting Jewish civil rights and working to ensure Jewish security, the Board often has to walk a difficult tightrope. Lobbying does not just mean talking to your friends but also trying to influence those who hold different views. On certain occasions, it does become appropriate for the Board to speak out on contentious issues, and our record shows that we have frequently done so. At other times, however, quiet diplomacy is often the preferable course of action. Whichever route we choose to go, it is always taken only after carefully assessing each situation on its merits and deciding which response is the most appropriate.

I would also like to point out that, contrary to what was implied in the above post, Kgalema Motlanthe was not a recent Shabbat guest at my home. This, in fact, took place three years ago.

ZEV KRENGEL
NATIONAL CHAIRMAN
SA Jewish Board of Deputies

The criticism we volleyed can be found here: SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight

Helen Zille: Best Mayor in the World!

Congratulations to Helen Zille and the DA - Zille was recently voted best mayor in the world: Helen Zille named world's best mayor

I would love to hear a response from the two real ANC factions.

Zille was on Talk Radio 702 tonight and she skillfully quipped that Lekota's real ANC is not trying to be an opposition to the real ANC. They are trying to be the real ANC.

Zille also answered a question which many (either racist, arrogant or naive) real ANC supporters have been exhaustively posing, clinging to it as the ultimate proof that the DA are racist. The questioner asked why, if Joe Seremane is not good enough to lead the party, did they nominate him to lead the country when parliament elected Kgalema Motlanthe as state president.

The answer is simple. A person who is not a member of parliament cannot be nominated for president. Helen Zille is not a member of parliament. She was too busy becoming the best mayor in the WORLD! Joe Seremane is party chairman and is therefore the DA's most senior person in parliament and was thus nominated for president.

Remember, don't be an idiot. Don't listen to Bishop Tutu. Vote in next year's elections. There are alternatives to the two real ANC factions.

SA 2010: Israel let it slip 2 minutes from time

Israel's chances of automatic qualification for the world cup in 2010 took a serious knock tonight as they conceded a heart breaking 88th minute equaliser away to Latvia. A victory would have sent Israel top of the log and all but cemented their chances of a top 2 finish.

Liverpool's Yossi Benayoun gave the hosts a a 1-0 lead in the second half but a goal from Kolesnicenko 2 minutes from time left Israel ruing what would have been three consecutive victories on the road.

In the group's other big game, Switzerland managed a great away victory over Greece. The group is thus really tight at the top with Israel a point behind Greece, and Switzerland a point behind Israel.

The next round of games is scheduled for next year March 28, when Israel will face a crunch encounter against Greece.

Crossing Swords Part 5: Doron Isaac's closing remarks

Herewith is Doron Isaac's closing instalment for our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Last week Joel Pollak penned his second entry. To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 5 - Doron Isaacs instalment 3

Dear Joel,

I’ll deal briefly with some of your specific arguments before closing.

I’ll begin on this odd point about Palestinians giving Israelis equal rights in the West Bank. I agree (incidentally, some Palestinian groups do propose this) and the details should be negotiated within the two-state framework. But what do you want now, that the Palestinians accept that the settlers live on their illegally expropriated private land? Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them? Didn't you hear that Palestine is not a state?

I must respond to your questioning my sources. Segev acknowledges the threats of destruction, including threats of “Holocaust” and “death” on Egyptian radio[1]. He explains comparisons of Nasser with Hitler as prompted by “Nasser’s speeches, Radio Cario broadcasts, and the anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press.”[2] In this regard he concludes: “The existential anxiety that gripped Israelis when the crisis erupted was real.”[3]

But there is a crucial difference between the genuinely-felt, yet misplaced, anxiety of the public, and the factual reality. While “concern was growing” that “the Egyptians would try to hit the nuclear reactor” or “initiate a general attack”[4], the overall assessment of both the American and Israeli military and intelligence establishments was that there was no existential threat[5]. Yigal Allon’s own assessment was that “the only crisis was psychological”.[6] One of Israel’s most serious historians cannot so easily be delegitimised.[7]

~*~

I think this debate has shown that people with different outlooks on the world come to different conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You have presented yourself as someone committed to human rights. Interestingly, you support John McCain for President, and have written in the Cape Times supporting Sarah Palin. McCain has an 82% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, the US’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organisation.[8] You seem to identify strongly enough with McCain to have him in your Facebook profile picture. I don’t mean to disparage your support for McCain, but merely to point out that it contradicts your claims to human rights credentials.

You are an apologist for Israel. I am not an apologist for Palestine. I think Palestinian politics is violent, divided, corrupt, and reflects contempt for human rights. But these things – not unique in the world – do not justify the indefinite denial of freedom. The idea that a prolonged occupation is legitimate – and even more so, with settlements – is contrary to my belief system. There are problems within Israeli society and there are problems within Palestinian society. A military occupation is a different category of problem.

It is moreover true that freedom from occupation would improve the chance of dealing with the problems you raise. The fact that I accept your view that internal Palestinian human rights abuses deserve to be condemned is beside the central point: domination of one group by another cannot be justified by saying that the dominated group is bad. The Occupation cannot be justified by recourse to problems within Palestinian society.

The abuse of human rights and the domination of the weak by the powerful are the central problems of our world. Antisemitism – alive and well in some radical anti-Zionist circles – is a classic example, and must be vigorously countered. Violent attacks on Israel – my repeated condemnation of which you’ve been reluctant to accept – are equally barbarous and unjustifiable. These threats to what we know and love are easier to recognise and therefore oppose. It is always hardest to recognise our own faults, but this is a test of one’s commitment to human rights. We therefore cannot go on making excuses for Israel’s increasingly oppressive Occupation.

Regards,

Doron

Notes:

[1] Segev pp 287 & 342.
[2] Ibid p 284.
[3] Ibid p 285.
[4] Ibid p 235.
[5] In 1966 the US assessment was that Israel would win a war “within days or weeks”. (Segev pp 235 & 337). Before the war the US assessment was that Israel had “complete military superiority over every combination of Arab forces”. (May 1966, USNA, Box 19, Memos to the President, cited in Segev p 253). Rabin and the Generals predicted it would take five or six days.
[6] Segev pp 235 & 337.
[7] Curious that while you debate with me about the genesis of the Six-Day War, you campaign for McCain who supports a war in Iraq which was indisputably based on misinformation and falsified intelligence.
[8] ACU 2007 U.S. Senate Votes, http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm. Interestingly, he is far from the least conservative Republican.

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight

One of my all time favorite films is ‘a Man for All Seasons’, that tragic tale of Sir Thomas Moore. In particular I love the contrast between the moral fortitude of Moore and the actions of his obsequious and conniving servant. While Moore’s refusal to deviate from his principles results in his dramatic fall from grace, his cunning servant on the other hands manages to continually improve his standing in society. In the final scene this parallel rises and fall of fortunes is brought to a dramatic climax when it is the servant who is given the responsibility to administer the guillotine that ends Moore’s life.

Despite understanding the risks (as evidenced by the movie) I have always advocated for the Jewish community to adopt a more Moorean approach to dealing with the ANC government. Even in the current context of a split ANC, I would hope that our official representatives speak out in favor of defending the constitution and highlight the very serious risks that many in the new ruling coalition pose to our young democracy. But I know given the position of the powers in this community that sadly this will never happen.

In fact the very opposite is underway. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies seems to be engaging in a charm offensive with the new ANC administration. According to the Above Board column in last week’s Jewish Report, not only have they organized a meeting with the President for select Jewish businessmen, but Motlanthe has in fact been an honored guest at SAJBD chairman Zev Krengel’s Shabbas table.

Values aside, given the current political uncertainty in the country, openly aligning the community with the Motlanthe/Zuma/ Malema camp is an extremely dangerous strategy. There is a very real chance that former defense minister Mosiuoa Lekota and his new ‘movement’ could cause a significant break within the ruling party. What if it happens that in elections next year this new ‘movement’, together with other more established political parties, actually manages to gain enough votes to form a coalition government? How will this new/old government now be disposed towards the Jews given that we did not hesitate to jump in bed with their enemies at our first opportunity? Even if this outcome has even a 10% probability, this is not the sort of gamble that the leadership of this community should be making with our future.

We have already experienced the consequences of this sort of mistake in the past. Would anyone deny that the SAJBD’s relationship with the old Nationalist government did not hurt the communities standing in the new South Africa? I fear our leaders are once again making the same mistakes. I am not asking the SAJBD for grand Moorean moral stands, but at least to be pragmatic in being pragmatists. Now is the time to take a wait-and-see approach. But if you just cannot resist ingratiating yourselves with the new ANC administration, at least keep it quiet!

Israel's World Cup 2010 campaign

Being an, at times crazy, football supporter, I am quite excited about the 2010 World Cup to be staged in South Africa. South Africa as hosts are guaranteed qualification (thankfully, because our failure to qualify for the African Nations Cup would have meant that we would once again not qualify for the next World Cup). The other country that I look out for is, of course, Israel.

The prospect of Israel participating in the 2010 world cup, staged in South Africa, is tantalising. How will the radical element of the Muslim community respond? Will they reveal their extremism and embarrass South Africa on the global stage?

It will also be interesting to see the response of Arab and Muslim countries - will they boycott the tournament? It’s not like they add much in terms of Football ability so I don’t think it will leave the tournament any worse off. But just imagine the prospect of Israel and Iran being drawn in the same World Cup group.

This campaign presents Israel with one of their best chances for qualification since their last appearance almost 40 years ago. Israel is in Group Two of the European sections. The group is bereft of all big European names and the three prime contenders for qualification will be Israel, Switzerland and Greece.

So if world cup qualification occurs regionally, (African groups, European groups, South American groups etc) why does Israel struggle to qualify when they are surrounded by Arab nations not exactly renowned for their footballing (or any sporting) genius?

The answer – Israel’s hostile neighbourhood refuses to allow her to participate in their Middle-Eastern/Asian groups. FIFA really has no choice but to tolerate and appease. I don’t think Israelis would feel very comfortable playing a key qualifier in Teheran!

So, instead of qualifying via the easy route of her regional group, Israel instead has to qualify in the much more difficult European groups. Last time around, Israel narrowly missed out in a daunting group which included France, Ireland and Switzerland.

Israel’s current campaign got off to a bumpy start at home to Switzerland. Switzerland was 2 up with just 20 minutes remaining when Israel managed to pull off a remarkable recovery. It ended 2-2 after a last minute strike from Chelsea (on loan to Portsmouth) striker Ben Sahar. The first goal in the comeback came from Liverpool playmaker Yossi Benayoun.

In their second game of the campaign, Israel beat Moldova 2-1 in Moldova, thanks to strikes from Omer Golan and Klemi Saban.

Last night Israel clinched a critical away victory when they beat Luxembourg 3-1 with goals from Yossi Benayou, Omer Golan and (Israeli Arab) striker Salim Toama. The victory places Israel in a strong position thanks to Luxembourg’s shock earlier victory over Switzerland.

Greece currently tops the group with 9 points and Israel trail by two. The double-header between Israel and Greece could determine who tops the group.

The winner of the group automatically qualifies for the World Cup and the top 8 runners-up will proceed to the play-offs. Finishing second could mean a play-off final against one of the giants of European football. Israel simply must win this group.

Israel's next fixture is Wednesday night away to Latvia. It's another must-win game. The big game that night will be Greece verse Switzerland. A Greek victory will almost rule out Switzerland's chances but will also strengthen their position at the top, so let's hope for a draw.

I am under no illusions of the pressure that Israel’s qualification could bring to the Jews in this country. Accusations of divided loyalties and violent protests will make for an uncomfortable time. But I don’t care. Bring it on . Ya’lla Israel Ya’lla!

Crossing Swords Part 4: Joel Pollak's second response in his debate with Doron Isaacs

Herewith is Joel Pollak's second instalment in our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Earlier this week Doron Isaacs penned his second entry. To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 2

Dear Doron,

I'm glad you admit that your delegation "didn't address Palestinian violations against Palestinians". I don't think 593 murders of Palestinians by other Palestinians can be so easily brushed aside.[1] Political violence, honor killings, illegal detentions, and torture all cast a long shadow over Palestinian society.

The contempt many Palestinian leaders have for Palestinian human rights is exceeded only by their contempt for the human rights of Jews. I often ask pro-Palestinian activists: If you are serious about human rights and the two-state solution, why not offer Jews equal rights within the West Bank?

Think of the advantages. The justification for closures, for restricted roads, for the security barrier's route--for all the things your delegation complained about--would disappear. International opinion would swing even more firmly behind the Palestinians, who would gain a strong advantage at the negotiating table.

Imagine Palestinian leaders were prepared to welcome Jews as citizens and protect them from harm in the West Bank. The once-hated settlements could create jobs, investment and tax revenue for the Palestinian economy. Palestinians would cultivate tolerance--not just towards Jews but also towards each other.

But the Palestinian leaders do not offer equal rights to Jews, nor do they protect Jewish religious sites. Even Christian Palestinians have been fleeing in the face of pogroms carried out by radical Islamic groups.[2] Hamas and Fatah continue their anti-Jewish incitement, and "moderate" leaders shower praise on terrorists

Israel, by contrast, is a beacon of human rights for both Arabs and Jews. You cite contrary claims by ACRI[3], which has become so left-wing that leading human rights scholars in Israel, such as Amnon Rubinstein and Ruth Gavison, have distanced themselves from it. In truth, Israel is a free society, and growing freer.

The Israeli government has implemented affirmative action programmes to benefit Arabs in the civil service. The state has begun to close funding gaps between Jewish and Arab municipalities. Recent decisions by Israel's High Court of Justice have affirmed that discrimination is illegal. And so on. Problems remain, but progress has been real.

You support "moral pressure" on Israel. Fine--we both want Israel to be an exemplary society. But where is your "moral pressure" on Palestinians? Are they less worthy of your agitations? Until Palestinian leaders are properly held to account, they will take few of the steps needed to make peace and build a state.

I must object to your method of arguing historical points. Your sources seem as one-sided as your delegation's itinerary. Are you aware that historian Michael Oren has debunked Tom Segev's claims about the 1967 war? He notes, for example: "Segev's book is all but devoid of Arab calls for Israel's destruction and the slaughter of its citizens".[4]

You also seize upon quotes whose significance is questionable, and rest your entire argument on them. One example is the Weisglass quote, which you keep resurrecting, as if a single interview by a single adviser "confirmed" the claim that Israel only disengaged from Gaza because it hoped to keep the West Bank.

In fact, the Gaza withdrawal was accompanied by the evacuation of several settlements in the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, was elected in 2006 on a "convergence" platform that called for further withdrawals. He has since offered Palestinians near-total control, with land swaps.

Yet you claim that it is "now understood" (by whom?) that Israel was unwilling to cede the West Bank. Amazingly, you refuse to assign any responsibility to the Palestinian leadership for the sad state of the peace process. Both sides need the courage to compromise. The rest of the democratic world recognises that; why can’t you?

G'mar chatmiah tovah,

Joel

[1] For the sake of argument, I am assuming the veracity of your figures, even though they do not go far enough in distinguishing Palestinian civilians and combatants. To exclude Palestinians "killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person" is to ignore those using other weapons, for instance.

[2] See, for example: Abu Toameh, K. 2007. "Gaza's Christians fear for their lives." Jerusalem Post, 18 June. URL: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813061916&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[3] Association for Civil Rights in Israel

[4] Oren, M. 2007. "Who Started It?" Washington Post, 10 June. BW13.

Editors note: I am aware that none of the internal anchor text links are working. The problem is on Typepad's side (the blog provider) and I hope it will be fixed soon.

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

Qwelane: Homosexuality akin to Beastiality

Jon Qwelane is at it again. This time his mean spirit has (again) been directed towards homosexuals. Writing in the nation’s biggest daily, the Sunday Sun, Qwelane equated homosexuality with beastiality.

Professor Pierre de Vos has more at Constitutionally Speaking.

Qwelane has recently been infamous for his inflammatory anti-Jewish statements on Channel Islam International.

Speaking of Jews (not Israelis, though that distinction shouldn't matter) in America, Qwelane recently said:

“Those are the people who control America. Those are the people who control the European Union, control the World Bank. Those are the people who control the IMF.”

Responding to a caller who denied the Holocaust Qwelane replied:

“I always say that if it is true that these people suffered, in the way that is always being portrayed then how come they have not learnt any lessons? You cannot by any stretch of the imagination go and visit the same hardships, the same sufferings on someone else.”

Update: Apologies - this was old news and occured some time in July earlier this year.

UN Human Rights Council: Sewer of scum and villainy

This week the democracy of tyranny that is the UN Human Rights Council set into motion the draft resolution that will soon become the20th condemnatory resolution against Israel in the past 2 years. Since the UN Human Rights Council was reformed 2 years ago, 24 condemnatory resolutions have been passed and an outrageous 20 of them have been directed against Israel.

The resolution was drafted during the agenda item dealing with Israeli vi