It's Almost Supernatural

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

Israel Government Press Office snubbed by Mail & Guardian

Daniel Seaman, director of the Israel Government Press Office, was recently in South Africa. Part of Seaman's job is to assist the foreign press as they endeavour to cover Israel.

I attended a talk he gave at Sydenham shul a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the man. I had first heard about him whilst reading Stephanie Gutmann's 'The Other War' where she describes him as part of a new young guard of press spokesmen who understand the new media rules and the power of the image. Seaman has played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the dismantling of the France-2 Muhammad al-Dura lies.

I heard from a friend that the Mail & Guardian had offered Seaman space for an opinion piece on the South African 'Human Rights' Delegation. That was 2 weeks ago. Yes, I know, what a shocker, the piece has still not been run. I doubt it ever will be so I took the liberty of sourcing the article - it appears in its entirety below.

Israel Government Press Office Spokesperson's response to SA 'Human Rights' delegation The disappointing reality that clouds the vast majority of so-called fact-finding delegations is that so few of them, intentionally or otherwise, pursue their missions with the specific aim of establishing the facts. Generally, these collectives are drawn to the same cause by virtue of the backgrounds, perspectives and philosophies that bind them in the first place. Almost inevitably they arrive at conclusions that comfortably fit the parameters of their mindset, for to go against the existing paradigm would require an enormous leap of will. No region, conflict or issue displays this more succinctly than that which has dominated the Middle East for the past sixty to seventy years - that of Israel/Palestine. One would have hoped that by now the better understanding of the sheer complexity of issues, coupled with the geopolitical realities and other global factors, should have made the airing of simplistic conclusions an anachronism. But, if anything, the passing of time and the increased complexity of the impasse has achieved the opposite. Generally, delegations tour the region in a matter of days, meet some well-chosen spokesmen whose views are generally reflective of their own and come to the "right" conclusions. Sadly, few delegations appear over- endowed with the fortitude, patience or insight to take the next step, that of hearing all sides of the story in a context reflective of reality. And so it was with the South African human rights activists who recently visited our region, predictably focusing on Palestinian areas and largely experiencing the conflict through Palestinian eyes. In order to exhibit some sense of balance a meeting took place with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Other interaction with Israelis (as listed on the itinerary) was reported on selectively, if at all. The more negative the perspective, the greater the exposure. Here, the delegation experienced some extreme Israeli views that have little reflection on the overwhelming mass of Israeli thinking. For example, I single out Baruch Marzel, a local political rabble-rouser who represents no one in Israel but himself, and an insignificant handful of radical settlers who see the world in his extreme terms. He is hardly a spokesman for greater Israel. Similarly, Zackie Achmat, a highly respected AIDS activist focused on Hebron as an example of everything that is wrong about Israel. He failed to acknowledge that Hebron is a highly problematic area that presents its own unique challenges and simply does not reflect the heart of the problem. Therefore, I can only conclude that while the delegation might have been exposed to another perspective this was not their area of focus. From the comments aired upon their return, if was painfully obvious that they had found what they sought and that little more had penetrated their experience beyond the underlying premise of Israel as the brutal oppressor and the Palestinians as the weak, tragic victims of this oppression. Surprisingly, even the inclusion of two SA High Court Judges in the group failed to evoke their interest in the democratic and judicial processes that underpin Israeli society. One would have hoped that a recognition of the fact that Israel has established a successful democracy under extreme stress in a region which has been less hospitable to democracy than any part of the world, was largely ignored amidst obligatory visits to the security barrier - predictably labelled a land-grabbing apartheid wall - visits to roadblocks which were viewed as "worse than anything they had witnessed or seen in South Africa under apartheid", while turning Nelson's eye to the fact that virtually none of this existed until the Palestinians launched a murderous wave of suicide-bombings which redefined the game and changed the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians for the worse. For this, Israel was not to blame. No more so than by pulling out of Gaza is it to blame for the avalanche of rockets that have since landed on its territory. "Pregnant" women were found carrying explosive belts around their waists instead of babies in their bellies while ambulances and clearly designated "media" vehicles were found to be smuggling explosives and weapons. Freedom of movement can only be based on trust and trust is sorely lacking. However, this appears to have by-passed the delegation. Far easier to fall back on the well-accepted but tired rhetoric of Israel's abuse of human rights. Prompted by their exposure to families who lost loved ones as a direct result of the conflict and resultant groups that actively promote peace, dialogue and common sense, the delegation formed the erroneous impression that if only Palestinians and Israelis would listen to one another, a solution to all these problems could be found. While any move towards mutual understanding is commendable it is simplistic and fundamentally erroneous to suggest that it is the only answer. Dialogue is a wondrous thing when you have a willing partner with whom to speak. When faced, however, with one committed to your total destruction it demands a redefinition of the rules. Being a democracy in the true sense of the word, Israel is open to visits by delegates who are serious about contributing towards finding solutions to its complex problems. However, when all too often they are tainted by simplistic pre-conceived conclusions it is more of a hindrance than a help.

Aish Hatorah SA have brought out Itamar Marcus from Palestine Media Watch. I'll be attending Aish's gala dinner tomorrow night and hope to bring some coverage of Marcus' talk.

The obsessive anti-American spin

I don’t know what to make of the Sunday Times lately. Their editor experiences an intellectual miscarriage every time he comments on Israel. On the other hand, his willingness to take on the ANC, almost extends the voice of opposition politics in SA to the masses. They certainly are the guardians of some exceptional local journalism. But unfortunately they also allow space for ideologically bothered bigots.

Bearing the flagpole for this category is none other than Mohau Pheko.

Pheko’s latest column, entitled “Fighting in Georgia provides clarity on US’s true intention” is a wretched reminder of the mental gymnastics people will play in order to create an anti-Western spin on world events. There is simply no discernible logic in this opinionated trash.

Pheko’s vulgar hatred follows the usual obsessive anti-Western approach. Take the latest conflict: cast the US (or Israel) in the starring role as the greedy aggressor. Minimise the roles played by the actual protagonists: set the pro-Western party as a puppet controlled by the evil American forces and then ascribe to the US the deaths caused by the more revolutionary party. Finally, set a greedy love for oil as the prime factor motivating American behaviour. And always maintain that every conspiracy theory you suggest is “obvious”.

Pheko borrows:

“Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House.”

Pheko clumsily mumbles on about Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves. She doesn’t fill the gap in her logic with anything linking the US to this meddling; she simply suggests that the existence of the resources alone is the link she needs.

Of course, no anti-Western conspiracy theory is complete without the inclusion of Israel:

“It gets even murkier according to an AP press report saying that former Israeli generals serve as advisors to the Georgian military.”

This war has now made many things obviously and unquestionably true.

“It has been said that at times wars provide clarity. This is unquestionably true in this case. After the fighting in Georgia this past week, everyone knows that Washington is willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent civilians and plunge the entire region into chaos to achieve its geopolitical objectives and greed for oil.”

Jean Francois Revel once described ideology as a mechanism for rejecting facts when they threaten to force a re-examination of cherished dogma. He continued, “and it invents facts when necessary to the survival of the dogma.”

Pheko is a slave to obsessive ideology. She doesn’t need facts...just similar articles.

I try to play the ball and not the woman, but take a look at the extensive amount of “borrowing” from other articles, like this one by Mike Whitney entitled (and again note how obvious the conspiracy theory is purported to be) "of course its the oil again, stupid".

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of some excerpts

Pheko 16/08/08	Mike Whitney 11/08/08
Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House. Military experts report that an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support especially if it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympic games in Beijing. Saakashvili owes his political career to American power brokers and US intelligence agencies.	Washington's bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he'd be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it's perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance. (sic)
Where natural resources are concerned, Russia’s hand is very strong: it reportedly holds 6.6% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 26% of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it accounts for 12% of world oil and 21% of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.	As far as natural resources are concerned Russia’s hand is very strong: It holds 6.6 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves and 26 percent of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it currently accounts for 12 percent of world oil and 21 of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.

The Sunday Times readers deserve better.

The Lofty Goals of the Human Rights Delegation to Israel

The recent South African ‘human rights delegation’ to Israel continues to attract enormous attention in the South African public space. Talks at private homes and at universities, air-time on the radio, and editorials and opinion pieces in newspapers have ensured maximum exposure of the delegates' opinions. As a propaganda piece, the mission continues to excel. In terms of fomenting a greater understanding of the conflict, apart from a few astute exceptions (most notably Justice Edwin Cameron), the mission was, in my opinion, a miserable failure.

I spoke to a couple of people who attended the address by the delegation at Wits University last week. The address, they said, brought nothing new to the debate; instead it just rehashed the old Israel-bashing rhetoric to which we have become so accustomed.

The view from people who attended a private invite-only address at a residence in Houghton last week was slightly more positive, thanks mainly to Justice Edwin Cameron. It seems that different messages are disseminated depending on the audience – at least in terms of the selection of speakers. Edwin Cameron is selected for a private predominantly Jewish audience; whilst Mondli Makhanya (Israel is evil!) is selected for a far wider public audience.

Yesterday, the Cape Times did well to provide two opposing views regarding the delegation. Nathan Geffen’s article (“we have a duty to speak out”) was overshadowed by a masterful article by Joel Pollak who, whilst volunteering for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel last year, went on many of the tours that the delegation experienced (“South African mission went wearing blinkers and predictably found what it was looking for”).

I found Geffen’s article profoundly absurd. He writes as one of the three primary organisers of the tour and sets about explaining the lofty goals of the mission. Geffen subtly claims that the delegation has been successful in its mission to “create space, in the South African Jewish community, for views critical of the occupation.” He goes on to say that “It has not been easy in the past to express dissent in the community without vilification.”

I disagree. First off, there is lots of “space” in the Jewish community for criticism of the occupation. This year at Limmud, Gershon Gorenberg, author of the seminal book on the occupation, entitled “The occupation, the untold story of Israel’s settlements”, will be speaking. The Jewish community has previously hosted other outspoken critics of the occupation working to bring about its end, most notably former anti-apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid.

I have myself on numerous occasions expressed criticism of the occupation without being subjected to this community vilification:

Just prior to the disengagement from Gaza I penned an article in the quarterly Mizrachi (Orthodox Zionist) magazine. I criticised the occupation and came out in strong support of the withdrawal from Gaza. My views were certainly not supported by the majority of the Mizrachi community, but I was far from crucified. The only notable opprobrium I received was that the editor of the magazine highlighted that the views expressed were my own and not those of the Mizrachi synagogue. Vilification indeed!

But it gets worse. Geffen first claims that there is no space for criticism of the occupation in the Jewish community and then proceeds to describe the positive manner in which the delegation has been received by the community, noting the significant coverage they have obtained from the leading Jewish weekly as well as the rational and civil debate they have had with the Jewish leaders. Geffen escapes from this obvious contradiction by assuming that it’s his delegation that has made this discourse possible!

Just because events A and B both occurred does not imply that A led to B. It’s a really foolish and condescending conclusion. Perhaps Geffen feels that it’s just not possible that community institutions have previously engaged in rational debate on Israel – no, his mission has suddenly and miraculously brought civil debate to the Jewish community. Well bravo! He ignores the debates within the Jewish community where Hussein Solomon, Benjamin Pogrund, Dennis Davis, Bassem Eid etc have argued against the occupation; he ignores the addresses at the Jewish Board's annual conferences by Mosioua Lekota and Andrei Zaaiman who both stridently spoke out against the occupation. I have to conclude that Geffen is either ignorant of communal affairs or just chooses to ignore everything that doesn't fit his conclusion.

I will be the first to agree that a large majority of the community needs to be challenged regarding its positions on Israel and the occupation in particular. But recent visits from Israelis and Palestinians working towards fostering real ties between Arabs and Jews, from Israelis like former apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinians like Bassem Eid are evidence of a creeping enlightenment of views within the community. A delegation where leading members describe Israel as pure evil does not create space for new debate – it stifles it, marginalises the community, and shoves us back to previous defensive positions!

Most absurd, however, is that Geffen also claims that the delegation set out to try and improve the ties between the Jewish and Muslim communities in South Africa. I don’t buy it.

They blame only Israel for the problems; they lecture only the Jewish community about softening their positions; they investigate only Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights. Everyone knows about the importance of the perception of fairness in conflict resolution. Geffen knows this. Yet, without any attempt to appear fair, he has the audacity to claim that they wanted to improve relations between South African Jews and Muslims. Who is he trying to kid?

Currying favour with one community and lecturing the other does not bring the two sides closer. It polarises the communities. It presses only the Jewish community to change its views, - not through debate but through public pressure! He calls on the Jewish community to better understand the suffering of the Palestinians (here I have to agree) but makes no similar demands of the Muslim community!

Furthermore, Geffen’s comparison between the positions adopted by the organs of the Muslim community and the organs of the Jewish community reflects complete naiveté and ignorance. In fact, he describes the failures of the Jewish community as far worse than those of the Muslim community. I challenge Geffen to actually read what the organs of both communities say. (Here Nathan, read this rhetoric from the Muslim Judicial Council and then find me similar utterances from a local Jewish communal institution).

Another telling hypocrisy is in the way Geffen describes the trauma suffered by both sides. The suffering caused by the occupation is described in human terms – it causes tremendous hardships and suffering. His description of the incessant rocket fire on Sderot however, lacks this human aspect – its failure is described in tactical terms; not as causing immense suffering to the Israelis living there, but as undermining the Israeli left and strengthening the Israeli military.

I have to conclude that the Human Rights Delegation has failed in terms of achieving at least two of their three stated objectives. Instead of trying to help the Palestinians by sharing their state-building experience, they have focused on lecturing the South African Jewish Community. If there will be any good to come from this delegation, it will be that they return to the Palestinian territories, for a longer period of time, in an effort to help the Palestinians build the insititutions that will be so vital to a future Palestinian state.

• For a really good take on the Human Rights Delegation make sure you read Joel Pollak’s article which appeared alongside Geffen’s column. You can read the full text of Pollak’s article at his blog Guide to the Perplexed.
• Michael Trapido has also weighed in with his view - read it at his Thought Leader blog: SA human rights delegation needed here.

The branches in this Forrest only grow on one side

Drew Forrest’s puerile column in last week’s Mail & Guardian raises my disappointment with the self styled ‘human rights delegation’ that visited Israel two weeks ago - David and Goliath Revisited.

Forrest has always been one of the leading anti-Israel journalists in South Africa and has always been very forthright in the way he has put his one-sided views across. Judging from the stance he has previously taken, it would have seemed that there is very little left for him to learn. I have to wonder what the organisers of the Delegation hoped to achieve by including him on the team. I very much doubt whether a single one of Forrest’s views was challenged on the tour.

Forrest writes about a visit to watch some Israeli anarchists and a small band of Palestinian demonstrators protest against the construction of the Israeli security barrier. His take is so simplistic - he sheds the conflict of any complexity and reduces it to a simple David versus Goliath battle.

It is a shameful metaphor. His myopic take on the conflict restricted his ability to think further than he could see; and all he could see was outnumbered Palestinian civilians hurling rocks at shielded Israeli soldiers.

It’s quite fitting that Forrest, writing on behalf of the human rights delegation, refers to the ICJ ruling on the legality of the barrier. He describes this ruling as “part of the bigger picture.” Hopefully Forrest can one day join a delegation of human rights activists that will visit the countries that formulated the ruling against Israel. It was delivered by China, a country that would never allow a visiting delegation intent on uncovering its many flaws. Others that helped make the case such as Sudan, Cuba and Saudi Arabia are hardly world champions of human rights themselves.

Make no mistake the security barrier does harm the interests of the Palestinians affected by it. Many dunams of Palestinian land will and have been confiscated. Some Palestinians will end up in a type of twilight “neither-here-nor-there” seam zone, where they will live not in Israel and not on their own farming land – their lives to be controlled by entry and exit permits (in these situations however their compensation is usually pretty substantial).

I absolutely support the Israeli Supreme Courts’ upholding of certain Palestinian petitions which has forced the IDF to redraw the route of the barrier in areas where there hasn’t been a valid security reason for its entrenchment onto Palestinian lands. But I expect better analysis. Surely some weighing up of whether the inconvenience to the Palestinians is proportionate to the security needs of the Israelis. Instead we are given an account which just assumes (without investigation) there is no proportionality – Israel is the Apartheid Goliath and the Palestinians are innocent bystanders always acted upon, never themselves actually acting.

Forrest lends much praise to the young Israeli anarchists who organise the protests against the construction of the barrier. Perhaps Forrest never learned of the many successful petitions that have been brought to the Israeli Supreme Court forcing changes to the route of the barrier. Surely legal counsel trumps raw anarchy? Perhaps not, but this question of tactics is not even remotely investigated. There is no praise for the lawyers who have fought and won many of these petitions – praise is exclusively awarded to the Israeli anarchists who dangerously provoke Israeli soldiers attempting to prevent the construction of the barrier through force rather than the courts.

Forrest, like many other delegates on the human rights tour, downplays the threat posed by the wave of suicide attacks that forced Israel into building the barrier in the first place. (He describes them as a ‘distant event’. Is he mad? He conveniently ignores the Palestinian bulldozer attack that occurred just days before he arrived in Israel.) The suicide blasts did (and still do) pose an existential threat to the Israeli way of life. Israelis were scared of visiting restaurants, of travelling in busses, of visiting nightclubs. The attacks allowed the terrorists to veto any chance there was of a resumption of peace talks.

Nowhere does Forrest explain the last-resort-nature of the barrier – for God’s sake Drew, the barrier isn’t an expression of Israeli choice! In more than 4 years of violence over 1000 Israelis were killed in suicide attacks. During the same period 3,300 Palestinians were killed in retaliatory raids. The barrier has resulted in fewer deaths on both sides. Furthermore, the barrier means that the many illegal Israeli settlements on its Eastern side are effectively being relinquished and will never be part of Israel proper – it signals the withdrawal of territory!

You wouldn’t think it from Forrest’s column, but grown men are crying on both sides of the barrier. Both sides are littered with Davids and Goliaths. It’s a pity that Forrest is unable to convey this, especially after actually visiting the area.

If Bullard, why not Zapiro?

Over the last week South Africans have been embroiled in an acrimonious debate over the firing by the Sunday Times of controversial columnist David Bullard. His latest piece on what an uncolonised Africa would have been like was considered by many to be racist and offensive to black people (Bullard: Uncolonised Africa wouldn't know what it was missing).

Now if this is the criterion that is being applied by the mainstream media to publishing editorial comment, then it must be applied across the board — that includes Jews as well. So in the spirit of this new commitment to ethnic sensitivity and tolerance, cartoonist like Zapiro and guest commentators like Kasrils should also no longer be used.

On immediately reading the Bullard piece, I found it crude and distasteful. There is no doubt that draws on traditional racist stereotypes. The entire premise of the article is based on the notion that without the arrival of the white man, black Africans would have remained perpetually in a stone age state. But the line that I think is particularly offensive is where Bullard writes ‘every so often a child goes missing from the village, eaten either by a hungry lion or a crocodile. The family mourn for a week or so and then have another child.’ Sure the life span of people in pre-colonial Africa was short, but does he honestly believe that that takes away from the personal tragedy that individual families must have experienced. Bullard implies that traditional black people felt nothing for their offspring, seeing them only as an inconsequential consequence of reproduction.

The editor of the Sunday Times, Mondli Makhanya, described these sentiments as having ‘crossed the line’ and noted that his newspaper was ‘NOT in the business of promoting prejudice’. He went further to say that

‘the Sunday Times respects its readers and - while it is our mission to provoke, challenge and entertain - will not insult or abuse them. Bullard did that last Sunday; by publishing him we were complicit in disseminating his Stone Age philosophies. For that we apologise to all our readers, INCLUDING those who saw nothing wrong with the racism spewed last week. Continuing his column would have been an endorsement of those opinions.’

While I think this justification for firing and thereby censoring Bullard’s distasteful views was pretty weak, I do think that it provides us with a benchmark to hold Makhanya and the rest of the SA media to when reporting about Jews and Israel. How many articles and cartoons has his newspaper and others published that insulted and abused Zionist readers? How many times have the mainstream media used material from people who have denied the Holocaust or who have clearly crossed the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? Does publishing an opinion piece from a Hamas leader (as was done by the Independent group), not then amount to an endorsement of the anti-Semitic views enshrined in their charter? We should draw up a list of these people and argue that if Makhanya continues to print their opinions in the future it would be as if he is endorsing their past statements.

It seems to me that there is a double standard in the South African media that needs to be corrected. If we are going to take an authoritarian approach and ban all opinions that are offensive - it’s not something that I support - then at least we must ensure that that ban is carried out evenly across all ethnic, linguist and religious groups.

Update at 17/04/2008

On this note, why not check out this wretched piece of self aggrandising, patronising comment from Jarred Cinman, proud hater of all religions, at the Mail & Guardian's Thought Leader blog: Let's talk about the Jews

The Star Sticks to Old Lies To Support Kasrils

Update

The Kasrils article, with the same photos, was also published today in the Cape Argus.

---

I don't think I made enough of a fuss about the photos that appeared in Ronnie Kasrils' propaganda-piece earlier this week in The Star newspaper.

I have looked at the images again and am appalled. We definitely need to take The Star to task for this. A complaint should be issued with the Press Ombudsman.

The two main issue

• The Sabra and Shatilla photo makes it seem as if Israelis massacred Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla -- killing them like animals -- when in fact no Israelis took part in it.
• The Jenin photo claims there was a massacre in 2002 when in fact everyone today knows that no massacre took place - it was all Palestinian lies. Following numerous terrorist attacks in 2002 Israel led an incursion into the Palestinian town Jenin. The operation was roundly condemned as a ‘massacre’ – Palestinian sources claimed that more than 500 civilians had been killed. It later emerged that in fact 52 Palestinians were killed, 38 of them armed combatants. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting.

It is most ironic, that in 2004 The Sunday Independent - part of the same group that owns The Star newspaper - issued a correction for falsely claiming that there had been a massacre in Jenin. It is on record at this blog from one of my first entries in June 2004: Sunday Independant clarifies their stance on Jenin.

Complaints by readers to the press ombudsman pointed out that claims of a massacre were later refuted by independent investigations by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch and others which established that no massacre took place. Israeli government officials have said that 54 Palestinians died, all but seven of them members of militant groups that had turned the camp into a terrorist haven. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers also died in the fighting. [...] Although the Arab press still refers to a massacre in Jenin, as a result of independent verification by international bodies The Sunday Independent distances itself from this allegation.

It's pathetic to now continue claiming that there was a massacre!!

Below is a letter published in The Star today from Rabbi Yossi Goldman. I have included the photos, with captions, in the relevant spaces. Note, their publishing of this letter is not enough. They should be forced to issue a correction.

Dear Sir, That Ronnie Kasrils continues to betray his own people is something we have, tragically, come to accept with sadness. So I won’t comment on his latest diatribe as I am certain others will. My anger is reserved for The Star sub-editor who writes the captions for your photographs. Each of your three photos bore outrageously misleading and dishonest captions. 1. The Sabra and Shatila massacre was perpetrated by Christians against Moslems. One can argue whether Israel was an innocent or not so innocent bystander. Your caption gives the distinct impression that Israel carried out the actual massacre, which is a blatant lie. Killed like animals: Bodies lie at Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon, in this 1982 file picture. The writer argues that because Israel was allowed to get away with mass killings of Palestinians such as the Deir Yassin slaughter, it simply continued on its bloody path. 2. In 2002, The Star carried a huge front page photo and article about a massacre in Jenin allegedly perpetrated by Israel. Subsequently, it was unequivocally established that there was, in fact, no massacre at all. You are still making false claims. Aftermath: An Israeli tank is seen positioned in the rubble and debris of Jenin Refugee Camp, where a massacre occurred in 2002. [Note: The Cape Argus changed the caption on the Jenin photo, removing the reference to "massacre," instead saying "An Israeli tank positioned in the rubble of Jenin refugee camp, scene of bloody carnage in 2002." - ED] 3. The destroyed building in Lebanon makes a fine picture to suit your prejudiced purposes. Naturally, you make no mention whatsoever that Israel was responding to unprovoked attacks on its own civilians by Hizbolla terrorists firing from residential areas. Smouldering. People gather at the rubble of a destroyed building, minutes after an Israeli missile attack in Tyre, Lebanin in 2006. Never mind Kasrils, your newspaper’s bias is showing. Rabbi Yossy Goldman President, SA Rabbinical Association

If The Star readers should learn anything from Kasrils' piece it is this - in an article about Israeli massacres - he needed to use three blatantly incontrovertible lies as examples. If there have been so many Israeli 'massacres' then why resort to lying?

But Kasrils isn't even the issue. Whilst he has the right to express his opinion, the editors of The Star do not have the right to support his opinion with lies!

Previously at IAS

• For more on the Kasrils article see - Kasrils on the offensive...lies again

Kasrils on the Offensive...Lies...Again

In its most basic form, propaganda is about presenting information in order to influence thought and behaviour. Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa’s Jewish Minister of Intelligence, has become a master at this, selectively cherrypicking facts and quotes in order to encourage his hate filled anti-Israel viewpoints.

The Star yesterday featured a full page article about Deir Yassin written by Kasrils entitled “Remembering the Massacre – A call to confront the past.”

The piece is a perfect example of Kasrilspeak and is highlighted by the huge image, lying above the fold, of a tragic scene at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The disturbing images, crudely displaying the sprawled bodies of dead Palestinians, sets the scene for the tone of Kasrils’ article which relies on Palestinian descriptions of alleged Israeli brutality “...then he cut her stomach open with a butcher’s knife.” The brutal images and loaded descriptions are designed to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the subject matter, in an attempt to manipulate the audience’s cognitive narrative of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

I think the image presents us with a case for an appeal to the Press Ombudsman requesting a correction from the newspaper because no Israelis took part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. The horrifically graphic image, with the dead bodies of Palestinians in the background, lends credence to the hateful arguments made by Kasrils. It adds a reality, a substance, to the argument. It is also totally misleading.

The caption reads, “Killed like animals: Bodies lie at Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon, in this 1982 file picture. The writer argues that because Israel was allowed to get away with mass killings of Palestinians such as the Deir Yassin slaughter, it simply continued on its bloody path.”

Again, no Israeli took part in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The massacres were perpetrated by Christian Phalangists who were but one of the various warring factions in the Lebanese civil war. Israel had sided with the Christian group, and Ariel Sharon was later held indirectly responsible for failing to foresee the potential for a massacre when the Phalangists entered the refugee camps. Israel had allowed the Phalangists to enter the camp as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese. It was thought that Lebanon’s geopolitical situation would compel the Christians to seek good relations with the rest of the Arab world and prevent the potential for any retaliatory massacres. That’s a far cry from the message that the picture sends -- that Israelis slaughtered the Palestinians -- slaughtered them like animals.

I don’t understand why The Star is running a full page feature on Deir Yassin. Would they ever run a full page piece on a Palestinian perpetrated massacre of Jews that occurred more than 50 years ago? The answer is no. Why is it that the slaughter of Jews at Hebron, Kfar Etzion or Maalot (to name a few) is deliberately erased?

The article embodies the standard red-rhetoric that we have come to expect from Kasrils, replete with grotesque descriptions of events that even Arab spokespeople from 1947 have denied took place. For Kasrils, accusations that support his argument magically transform into uncontested facts. An example; Kasrils speaks of rapes, sexual assault and the splitting of stomachs of pregnant women.

The allegation - made by a British official who had an ireful relationship with the Jews - that acts of sexual assault had taken place has been hotly contested, most notably by eye witness Arab survivors.

Mohamed Radwan[1], who fought in the battle on the side of the Arabs says, “There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade.”

Ayish Zeidan[2], a teenage survivor said “There had been no rape. The Arab radio at the time talked of women being raped, but this is not true.”

Hussein Khalidi[3], a Palestinian leader at the time said “We have to say this [about rape], so that Arab armies will come to liberate us from the Jews.”

I could go on and on, but what’s the point? Do we remain stuck in the blood of previous grievances or do we look forward and ask what we can do today that will make tomorrow better?

Later in the article, Kasrils cites a list of Israeli “massacres” (he includes Jenin 2002). Do we need to respond defensively, explaining once again, that the reports of a “massacre” in Jenin were Palestinian lies and that this was corroborated by the UN investigators. Should we need to explain the context of the Israeli operations, detailing the Palestinian provocations that forced Israel to respond? Or do we need to perhaps respond aggressively, providing our own list of Arab massacres where Israelis have been killed? This is the childish level of debate to which Kasrils descends.

Kasrils cites 254 as the number of Arabs killed at Deir Yassin. Anyone versed on the literature however, knows that there is consensus today that the number of dead did not exceed 120 – a fact concluded by Palestinian researchers at the West Bank Bir Zeit University .

I don’t mean to argue over the numbers, but in this case the use of the number 254 is quite revealing. Prior to the research at Bir Zeit university, 254 was generally accepted as the correct number of deaths. Could it be that Kasrils is relying on outdated sources for his facts, instead of doing a thorough research of the new literature on the topic?

Earlier today I watched the controversial film “Fitna” by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The film has been slammed all around the world as inciting hatred against Muslims. But what is the difference between a film like Fitna, which abuses actual facts to make its provocative statement, and this article by Kasrils, which distorts every element of the truth in order to foment hatred of Israelis? Fitna makes it seem as if Muslims view the lives of non-Muslims as worthless. Kasrils claims Israelis regard Arab life as worthless. (“Israelis will continue to regard Arab life as worthless and will continue to live by the sword and deceit...”) This shared message however, will not produce a shared condemnation.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
[3] - BBC report, Israel and the Arabs, cited in The Case for Israel, Dershowitz

Update

• The Star Sticks to Old Lies to Support Kasrils

Qwelane's "Kirsch Shekels" Working Hard in Ramallah

The Muslim lobby, so publicly supporting Jon Qwelane's slur about the "Kirsch shekels", would be interested to know that those "shekels" are working hard, encouraging dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis from their secret hideout in Ramallah.

South African media consultant Raf Gangat operates electronic equipment in the studio of South African-owned radio station Ram FM, in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Monday, March 24, 2008. After a year on the air, the music station with studios in Jerusalem and the West Bank has attracted a diverse audience of tens of thousands, from Israeli soldiers and Palestinian students to West Bank villagers, Anglo immigrants, Filipino maids and foreign diplomats. But now RAM-FM, owned by Jewish businessman Issy Kirsh in South Africa, has greater ambitions. Modeled after a South African station that provided a venue for reconciliation after apartheid, RAM-FM wants to create a safe place for Israelis and Palestinians to talk, and make money in the process. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen

Thanks Soccerdad

Previously at IAS

• 702 style radio station for Ramallah

Zapiro's Cartoon Jihad

The Anti Defamation League (ADL) in the US has sent out a communiqué protesting the recent barrage of anti-Semitic cartoons emanating from the Arab press: Arab Press Responds to Gaza Violence with Holocaust Analogies and Anti-Semitism.

Our own local award-winning cartoonist, Jonathan Shapiro - aka Zapiro, has some cartoons that are strikingly similar to the worst of the worst from the Arab world. I don’t believe Zapiro’s cartoons stem from the same obviously anti-Semitic motives as the ones from the Arab world, but what is the essential difference between the message he sends and the message they send?

It’s disturbing how close the messages are.

• There is the use of cannibal imagery to represent our extreme levels of brutality.
• We are the new Nazis - doing to others what was once done to us.
• We abuse the Holocaust as a tool to justify the persecution of others.
• We smash and kill innocent, defenceless Palestinians who pose no threat to us.

Previously at IAS

• Zaptrash hits rock bottom

IAS Search: Zapiro