It's Almost Supernatural

Zuma Continues Illiberal Foreign Policy

South Africa voted to disband the United Nations Human Rights Council investigation into war crimes in Sudan, last week in Geneva. I really can’t say it’s a surprise. South Africa’s international support for tyrants and their human rights abuses from Zimbabwe to Burma over the last few years are all well documented. But many influential commentators had hoped that Zuma may change course. This is obviously not to be the case.

What is interesting is that not all African countries followed South Africa’s lead. Mauritius and Zambia bravely voted for continued scrutiny of Sudan’s human rights violations, while Angola, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal all abstained.

After the resolution was thankfully passed and the investigator retained, the Ugandan representative in a rare display of disunity chastised fellow African countries that had sided with Sudan. He declared “From the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda, we are always reminded that never again should we allow these events to happen through inaction or political expediency”. He praised the Council’s resolution on Sudan, saying it “reasserted the credibility of the Council” and thanked Council members who “have acted with courage on their convictions.”

Given our own history it seems unbelievable that it would be necessary, but President Zuma and the ANC would do well to listen to these wise words.

(Hat hit UNWATCH)

Dept of Foreign Affairs Funds Apartheid Israel Study

Mike Berger from Solar Plexus has compiled a newsletter on a perfectly orchestrated propaganda campaign by the Palestinian lobby in South Africa. In short, they have abused the mandate of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) to craft a 2 year study answering the insanely partisan and agriculturally selective questions on whether Israel is practicing occupation, colonialism and apartheid.

• You can access the media release, Executive Summary, and full report here

The study has been paid for by South African taxpayers (the HSRC is a Government sponsored and funded organisation) and is being presented to the South African Department of Foreign Affairs in an attempt delete their current support for a two state solution (they don’t say that as such, rather, they claim that the report is available as a ‘scholarly resource’ for the Department). I should note in fact that the 2 year study, rather bizarrely, was actually funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs themselves.

The study sanctimoniously claims that is was forged to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel, that elements of the occupation constitute forms of apartheid and colonialism. The editor of the study is none other than Virginia Tilley, author of “the one state solution” who militantly argued that Israel is an apartheid state way before the sheltered income for this study was ever dreamed of.

Would the HSRC use taxpayer’s money to fund a study on the truth about global warming, only to have it led by a partisan researcher already famous for denying that it is taking place? No. So, why then fund a study on Israel, colonialism and apartheid led by a woman whose support for such views is already well-known and documented? This here is not a study that searches for a conclusion. It starts with a conlusion and searches for an argument.

The purpose of the study is not just to influence our foreign policy. It’s far broader objective is to call on the International Court of Justice to intervene with an advisory opinion on whether the policies and practices of Israel within the Occupied Palestinian Territories violate the norms prohibiting apartheid and colonialism, and if so, what of the legal consequences.

Mike Berger explains this wider objective: “[It aims to ]set the stage for global ostracism and punitive action against Israel with the intention of bringing Ahmadinejad's threat to reality, namely, the elimination of Israel as we know it. This is to be accomplished not through nuclear weapons but by the cumulative impact of isolation, sanctions, boycotts and moral opprobrium.”

Although the study focuses on Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Territories, the goal of this study is not to end the occupation; it is to end Israel. Its goals can be found in Virginia Tilley’s very own polemic, “The One State Solution”.

For a far more in-depth review and analysis of this study and it’s complementary symposium, which takes place this weekend in Cape Town, please be sure to read Mike Berger’s report. I have posted it in its entirety below. Click the "continue reading link" to view Berger's newsletter.

Side note

Tilley was once included on the panel of a debate on the single state solution which took place at Consitution Hill. Mike (our Mike) asked her where is the debate on the single state solution to the India/Pakistan conflict, to which she famously and snottily replied "that one is taking place down the road!". I think she may have even pointed.

It's a small little memory of Tilley's obfuscation that I will always remember.

South Africa’s Illiberal Foreign Policy Continues…

Hot on the heels of the ANC government’s decision to ban his Holiness the Dahlia Lama from attending a peace conference in South Africa, our representative at the United Nation’s Human Rights Council has voted against a resolution on freedom of religion. Let me just say that again in case you think you misread it. South Africa last week voted against a resolution on freedom of religion. In fact we were the only country to vote against. Even serial human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China had the decency to abstain. (Details here: The UN Office at Geneva) 

The resolution looks pretty harmless to me. Certainly something that a country with as liberal a constitution as ours should happily endorse. It emphasizes that

“discrimination based on religion or belief often has an adverse impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly with regard to members of religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations; urges States to ensure that everyone has the right, inter alia, to education, work, an adequate standard of living, the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and to take part in cultural life, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or belief; to ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion or belief, in particular with regard to access to, inter alia, humanitarian assistance, social benefits or the public service in one’s country; to ensure that no one is affected, because of his or her religion or belief, in the enjoyment of his or her economic, social and cultural rights by, inter alia, discriminatory laws on housing or land trust, the abusive use of property confiscation or any other discriminatory practices; to take the necessary measures, in accordance with international human rights law, to combat discrimination based on religion or belief by non-State actors, with particular regard to persons belonging to religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations; to devote particular attention to discriminatory practices against women on the basis of their religion or belief that adversely affect the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights; to ensure that appropriate legal and other remedies, in accordance with international human rights law, are available to individuals in order to allow them to seek redress against discrimination based on religion or belief that affects the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights; to make all appropriate efforts to encourage those engaged in teaching, as well as social workers, to promote mutual understanding, tolerance and respect; and requests the Special Rapporteur to submit her next annual report to the Council at its thirteenth session.”

Now this was no administrative mistake as our representatives at the UN have so often claimed when they have taken similar anti-democratic votes in the past. How do I know this? Well the South African representative Glaudine J. Mtshali even had the audacity to speak out and encourage other states to follow South Africa’s lead. Speaking before the vote, she said

“the resolution presented major challenges in its current form, as it brought in new elements without addressing issues related to freedom of religion or belief. The title should be changed. The approach diminished the suffering of victims of human rights violations, and the Council should take note of the contemporary forms of challenges to this. The right to freedom of expression was entrenched in South African law, and that country understood the challenges with regards to exercise of freedom of religion or belief in the context of the freedom of expression. The slant of the resolution, in particular with regards to incitement to religious hatred, was not helpful. The focus of the resolution on economic, social and cultural rights, combined with the lack of justiciability of these rights, was inconceivable. South Africa did not share the view that only civil and political rights were justiciable. Were the resolution put to a vote, South Africa would vote against it.(sic)”

From the little I can glean from this unintelligible explanation, South Africa seemed to be extremely concerned about the emphasis on incitement to religious hatred. Well perhaps that’s not surprising. Given that our deputy foreign minister is fond of sprouting the odd anti-Semitic canard at pro-Palestinian rallies and the ANC’s major alliance partner COSATU has called for attacks against Jews in South Africa, this resolution and its strong denunciation of religious hatred may pose a serious threat to the agenda of our government.

South African civil society, including the South Africa Jewish Board of Deputies, cannot let this pass without making a fuss. The South African government must be challenged on this illiberal behavior. The election is only weeks away and this resolution and South Africa’s pro-totalitarian foreign policy in general needs to be a major issue. Given its voting record at the UN, can we trust the ANC to maintain its commitment to the constitution and the bill of rights? Denying them a two thirds majority is the only way to effectively guarantee that they will not destroy the foundation of our democratic order.

Whatever you do, VOTE FOR THE OPPOSITION!

Previously at IAS

• Letter to the president
• South Africa take exception to declaration condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation
• On the Holocaust, free speech and singling out Israel, SA stands again in the authoritarian camp
• And, much, much more

Letter to the President

Howard Sackstein, a leading personality in the South African Jewish community, has written a scathing open letter to President Motlanthe over South Africa's increasingly disgraceful foreign policy.

Howard was an important mainstream Jewish activist against Apartheid. As chairman of SAUJS in the 1980's, he regularly clashed with the more conservative leadership within the community over his outspoken opposition to the racist policies of the National Party. He was also a founding member of Jews for Social Justice. He is perhaps most famous for organizing the first official ANC tour to Israel.

He has played an important role in entrenching democracy in the new South Africa. As chief director of delimitation & planning at the Independent Electoral Commission he was instrumental in organizing our country's first few elections.

When people like Howard Sackstein start to question whether this ANC government is leading our country in the right direction, the ruling party should stand up and take note.

---

Dear Mr President

Please forgive me, I was both inexcusably wrong and hopelessly naive. I mistakenly used to believe that South African foreign policy should somehow reflect the moral lessons that we, as a nation, learned during the lengthy period of our dark ages. But Mr President, I now realise that I was utterly puerile and hopelessly callow.

Why should our facade to the world reflect those lofty and wishy-washy ideals contained in our constitution? I have now belatedly realised that, like so many other state assets, we have merely privatised our country’s foreign policy – and why not, I ask?

So what, if we have sold our foreign policy on the occupation of Tibet and the oppression of the people of Burma to China. I am sure we have received good value for this - and those trendy knock-off shoes sown by those industrious little 6 year olds and the thousands of prisoners on death row will no doubt be shipped to us even cheaper. And let’s face it, during these tough economic times who can afford a pair of real Prada shoes when fake ones come at one hundredth of the price.

I now understand that Deputy Minister Hajaig’s racist anti-semitic outburst was probably sponsored by Iran, as was our refusal to co-sponsor the General Assembly resolution on Holocaust denial and our mysterious absence to vote in its favour. I hope we got proper money from those Iranians, I hear they have a glut of Persian carpets, also handily made by entrepreneurial tweens, and they are good hagglers so, I hope we bargained well for the best deal.

I presume our entire Middle East policy has been purchased by Arab petro dollars – I hope they didn’t pay us in oil – you know what’s happened to the price of crude these days. Don’t do anything for Hamas or Hizbollah without pre-payment, I hear from other countries that they are not good payers.

Rumour has it that we bartered our ZIM foreign policy to Bob for some farms. I hope the rumour’s not true that the farms went to politicians rather than to the treasury – foreign policy is a state asset and we all need to benefit from its sale. Did we give him back Captain Morgan because he didn’t pay us in full?

I can’t for the life of me understand what President Lt-Gen Omar el-Bashir of Sudan gave us in return for the protection we have afforded him for his genocide in Darfur – I don’t think those Sudanese have much? But then again I hear that the Chinese are generally willing to underwrite el-Bashir’s debts, maybe we gave his protection as part of a bigger package deal, like one of those Fifa 2010 packages you can buy on the internet. Make sure you get a guarantee from a Chinese Bank, let’s face it, when its time to collect, the last place you want a guarantee from is Citi Bank or Barclays.

It’s quite evident to me that our participation in the much maligned UN Human Rights Council must be a very lucrative enterprise for us, it’s almost like a spot on the International Olympic Committee. I bet Pakistan and the Organisation of Islamic Congress coughed up lots of cash for our vote against freedom of expression on religion and to not support the General Assembly declaration on gay rights – how did those things get into our Constitution anyway?

Trevor Manual must be loving it! Who needs taxes when your entire Budget can be funded by foreign countries and organizations buying your foreign policy. No wonder he came out in support of our decision to deny a visa to the Dalai Lama. From what I understand, His Holiness, the saffron clad monk, earns very little salary and could probably not even have afforded the Visa fees even if we had granted it to him. The Pope, on the other hand, has an entire empire and art works worth billions – when he wants a Visa let’s put the price up – he can afford it. It’s a similar system that the British seem to be using against us when we want to go watch their Queen in concert at Buckingham Palace.

You may have to share a little of the bounty with Minister Hogan – those random outburst of rational principle are enough to frighten away any purchaser.

So now Mr President, this brings me to the real point of my letter. It’s my mother’s birthday in April and I was really not sure what to buy her as a gift – and then I thought, why not buy her one of our country’s foreign policies.

I don’t have that much money, so I doubt I could afford a really important foreign policy like condemning Russia for its invasion of Georgia or its gross human rights violations in Chechnya or for that matter condemning the abuse of women in Arab countries or their lack of democracy and I am convinced I couldn’t afford a policy to criticise Hamas for firing nearly 10 000 rockets at Israel over the last few years. I am sure that would cost a lot because I would have to pay the government, ANC and Cosatu.

I was thinking more on the lines of doing something to an obscure un-important nation. So, how much would it cost to impose sanctions on Micronesia? Or what is the price to lobby to elect the King of Bhutan as Secretary General of the United Nations?

I was also thinking of an international campaign against the banking secrecy or tax evasion status of Belize or the Cayman Islands, but if any of our politicians have stashed their cash there, it may be a little too rich for my budget to buy that particular foreign policy.

I am sure I have not exhausted all the options on the menu so, I kindly ask you or your foreign minister to e-mail me a price list for all of our foreign policy options and I am sure I will be able to find one that will make my mother really happy on her special day, and that I can afford.

I live in hope that one day, the people of this great tapestry which is our nation, will be able to once again look upon our government with respect and pride.

Warm Regards

Howard

Democracy of Hypocrisy denies Dalai Lama entrance visa

The decisions choosing China over the USA forces you to make...

 I’ve just seen the explanation given by Thabo Masebe, spokesperson for our president, for our decision to deny the Dalai Lamai a permit to enter South Africa. It ranks on my list as the most hilarious explanation ever!

Basically we have denied the Dalai Lamai a permit because we have a soccer tournament to host and we don’t want attention on him to distract from all the good news reporting that we should be getting. Masebe said that the Dalai Lama will be invited again in the future, but “not now”, when the whole world is looking at South Afrca. I swear, I am not making this stuff up. No one, except for the quite ridiculous Thabo Masebe, could make it up.

South Africa bars Dalai Lama from peace conference

South Africa barred the Dalai Lama from a peace conference in Johannesburg this week, hoping to keep good relations with trading partner China but instead generating a storm of criticism. Friday's peace conference was organized by South African soccer officials to highlight the first World Cup to be held in Africa, which South Africa will host in 2010. But because the Dalai Lama isn't being allowed to attend, it is now being boycotted by fellow Nobel Peace prize winners retired Cape Town Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former president F.W. de Klerkas well as members of the Nobel Committee. "It is disappointing that South Africa, which has received so much solidarity from the world, doesn't want to give that solidarity to others," Nobel Institute Director Geir Lundestadtold The Associated Press in Oslo, referring to the decades-long fight against apartheid. An eclectic mix of Nobel laureates, Hollywood celebrities and other dignitaries are coming to discuss issues ranging from combating racism to how sports can unite people and nations. But Thabo Masebe, spokesman for President Kgalema Motlanthe, said a high-profile visit by the Tibetan spiritual leader would have distracted from the conference's focus. "South Africa would have been the source of negative publicity about China," he said Monday. "We do value our relationship with China." South Africa is China's largest trading partner on a continent in which China is

What a disgrace. Once again third world solidarity has trumped a foreign policy based on human rights, integrity and morality. It’s quite obvious that China has pressured South Africa into refusing to issue the visa. Again we have displayed our inability to take an independent stance on world affairs. We boast about doing just the opposite, about opposing America and speaking truth to power and all that other crap, but the truth is that in almost every UN vote we have blindly followed the stance of China and Russia.

And onward we march.

"To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others" (Nelson Mandela)

South Africa’s appalling behavior at the UN continues …

Over the years, I have devoted much ink to exposing South Africa’s pro totalitarian behavior at the UN. Although human rights have often been declared by the ANC to be a cornerstone of their foreign policy, their representatives hardly ever miss an opportunity to side with dictators and tyrants against the free world. Sadly last week’s preparatory meeting for the infamous UN Durban 2 review conference on racism was not an exception. This time it was the issue of gay rights.

UN Watch, the best source for information for all things related to the United Nations but in particular the Durban 2 preparatory proceedings, is reporting that discrimination based on sexual orientation has been removed from the upcoming conference daft declaration with the support of South Africa. The original proposal by Western states in the draft text (par. 69) was to condemn ‘all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.’ Not so controversial, one would think, for a conference ostensibly about discrimination and intolerance, as UNWATCH puts it.

The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chili on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support. But they were in the minority. Realising this and seeking a compromise solution the United Kingdom proposed to water down the language as follows: “Recognizes that experiences of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance are aggravated and intersect with discrimination on grounds including sexual orientation and gender identity, and condemns all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on these grounds.”

The inclusion of the words “discrimination on grounds including sexual orientation” however still made the paragraph unadoptable and unacceptable for the majority of member states at the U.N. These included South Africa on behalf of the African Group, China, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Botswana, Iran, Algeria, and Syria.

The South African representative argued: ‘Sexual orientation and discrimination. . . goes beyond the framework of the (2001) Durban Declaration.’ According to our section 9(3) of our much praised constitution grounds for discrimination include ‘ race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth’. How can the South African government support an international process that would seek to limit the scope of our bill of rights? Not only is it a moral disgrace but it is extremely worrying development for our democracy. It calls into question the ANC’s continued commitment to our constitutional order.

That the South African government in the build up to Durban 2 has consistently broken its promise to the Jewish community and gone along with the singling out of Israel and only Israel as part of this global ‘anti-racism’ process does not surprise me. I have come to expect that from a government whose deputy foreign minister engages in classic anti-Jewish libels. But for South Africa one of the most liberal societies in the world on issues of gay rights to side with countries like Iran and Egypt is absurd. Civil society stood by the Jewish community when Fatima Hajaig made her anti-Semitic comments. I think we have an obligation to stand by the gay community in this situation. No matter what our personal positions we should rally with the rest of civil society to force the government to recommit to the values enshrined in our constitution and pull out of this Orwellian circus that is Durban 2.

Cosatu, PSC march against Jewish community

On Friday at 2pm the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) held an illegal demonstration against the Jewish community in the residential heartland of South African Jewry.

The march was illegal. On Thursday, the Johannesburg City Council denied permission for COSATU to hold the rally. But they went ahead anyway. They are a law unto themselves.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to be there, but I did manage to organise a correspondent who will write a guest blog for us detailing the atmosphere.

I was, however, in the area over Shabbos and the reaction from the community has been one of unification, strength, and resoluteness in support for Israel.

Rabbi Perez at the Mizrachi synagogue on Friday night gave a stirring sermon about the rally. He was one of the 250 or so Jews who managed to, at the last minute, rally to Beyachad in support of the community. I don’t think it’s correct to say in support of Israel – this march wasn’t outside the Israeli embassy, it was within our community – it was a march against us.

Just two hours before the march, e-mails, phone calls and text messages stormed through the community like wildfire, calling on Jews to meet at Beyachad in a show of solidarity. Amazingly, around 250 Jews managed to turn up. The communal leadership decided to stage the solidarity rally inside the walls of Beyachad in order to ensure its legality. This unfortunately meant that most people couldn’t get a glimpse of the protest action beyond the walls. The general sentiment from those who managed to attend was one filled with pride, inspiration and love for this community and for Israel.

Rabbi Perez related that during the protest march, a small number of Jews left the Beyachad building and went to stand directly opposite the crowd of protestors, to send a message that we will not be moved and that we are not here in South Africa on their sufferance. He took his young son with him to stare in the faces of those who wish to crush our freedom both as Jewish Zionists in South Africa and in the land of Israel.

Apparently the police closed off the street where the Jewish communal offices stand – so where did the COSATU and PSC demonstrators move to? Down the road, outside Sydenham Highlands North Synagogue. That’s probably a place more representative of their true feelings anyway.

Ronnie Kasrils was there, along with a swastika bearing banner equating the hatred symbol of Nazism to the Magen-David. An Israeli flag was later burned and stomped on by the crowd. Now just imagine for a moment if a group of Jews had to go and burn a Palestinian flag in Lenasia. They would be donnered by the local community and no one would have much pity for them given such a stupidly provocative move. The Jewish community managed to hold back except for one individual who reportedly threw a plastic bottle at the bus which was transporting the protestors. The protesting crowd immediately launched forward at the area where the bottle thrower was standing, but the police quickly intervened.

The Jewish community outside of the Beyachad building was incensed, to the extent that some of the Muslim protest leaders needed escorts through the crowd in order to get to their cars. The police were about to provide the escort when the national chairman of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Zev Krengel, stepped in. He told the officers that their presence wouldn’t be necessary and he would personally escort them to their cars. How embarrassing for them. Here was the leader of the Jewish Board of Deputies, personally providing an escort to the petrified pro-Palestinian protest leaders, who were there to tell us that we no longer belong in South Africa!

The fallout from this action should be severe. It was an illegal protest against the opinion and presence of the Jewish communal leadership and the Jews who feel represented by them. More and more Jews I have spoken to are wondering if there will still be a future for them under the South African sun. It used to be that the question of violent crime was the only factor on the scales when a future in South Africa was considered. This seems to have changed.

One thing is for sure though – our political positions will not be changed through coercion or pressure. The overwhelming majority of South African Jews are proud Zionists and will continue to bravely stand against COSATU and the PSC’s illegal intimidation.

Perhaps the saddest thing about the recent pressure tactics placed on South African Jews is how it has reduced the space for dialogue within the community about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moderate voices that supported the withdrawal from Gaza, and even future withdrawals from the West Bank, have been completely silenced. Whereas last year I found myself arguing with Rabbis about the importance of making compromises, this year I find myself alongside the rest of the community – ostracised and back-to-the-wall in an environment where all energy needs to be directed around supporting Israel’s right to exist. Targeting Jews is one fool-proof way of uniting all Zionists.

View a photo album from the march here: COSATU and PSC march - photo album

Note: Whilst some Jews may argue that the march was not against the entire "Jewish community" but only against those who stand behind the communal leadership's support of Israel, when I refer to the "Jewish community", I am referring to the overwhelming majority of its residents. The 300 odd (plus ten) names we have seen on petitions -  though still members of the community who are welcome to their opinions and political positions - need to appreciate that 70 000 less 310 does indeed consitute an overwhelming majority. 

Update - we got mail

A member of the Muslim community has sent me the following mail in response to the question I posed in this entry:

You posed the question, on your blog, as to if the time is right to leave Non Racist RSA? Well let me answer that for you……… YES and the sooner the better!!! And like you mentioned ,,,, all "70 000 minus the 310" !!!!

Corrections

I was originally told that around 2000 Jewish people turned up at the counter rally. This was a serious over-exaggeration. I think 250 is a closer approximation. Apologies for the error.

On the Holocaust, free speech and singling out Israel, South Africa again in the authoritarian camp

Former head of the Official Opposition in South Africa, Tony Leon, has written a brilliant speech-cum-article warning that the South African government is on a collision course with the new Obama administration over the ANC’s increasingly illiberal foreign policy.

But those in positions of authority in the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs have failed to take heed. Once again, South Africa has shown its pro totalitarian leanings at the United Nations: this time during the Durban II Drafting Committee Meeting. Not only did the South African representative seek to minimize the Jewish aspect of the Holocaust in the text to be presented at the Durban Racism Review Conference but also supported Israel being singled out for unique criticism and tried to help limit the ability of the press to report on the preparatory meeting.

The last United Nations Racism Conference held in Durban in 2001 was marred by an unprecedented outpouring of anti-Semitism. There has been growing concerns that the follow-up session (known as Durban 2) to be held in Geneva this year would be a repeat performance. Thus the South African Jewish Board of Deputies has sought, and it was thought achieved, a commitment by the South African government to do its part to stop the conference from being hijacked. Yet South Africa’s behavior at the preparatory meeting last week would seem to contradict this promise.

Human rights NGO UNWatch, an authority on all things relating to Durban 2, has just issued a report on the nefarious happenings at the latest preparatory meeting. They summarize the meeting as follows:

‘With countries commenting on each proposed article (of the Draft Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference), the session was dominated by a vehemently anti-Western agenda, with Islamic and Third World countries equating counter-terrorism with racism, calling to restrict free speech in the name of Islamic sensitivities—the so-called “defamation of Islam”—and focusing on the practice of slavery in the West but barring mention of the slave trade in the Arab world and elsewhere. Worst of all, Iran and Syria used the forum to engage in Holocaust denial, while many countries demanded new provisions to condemn Israel as a racist and criminal state...’

South Africa sadly featured prominently. When discussing proposed Paragraph 29, which provides that the Holocaust must never be forgotten and mentions that it resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, South Africa, representing the entire African Group, asked that the paragraph be cut down to simply ‘Recalls that the Holocaust never be forgotten’, removing all Jewish references. This proposal was heartily supported by Holocaust denying Iran and Syria. The Syrian representative welcomed the removal by saying that ‘I don't think we should get into a kind of statistical debate. As far as I know that there is no agreement on the consensus on the percentage of those who perished in the Holocaust.’

South Africa too played an important role in ensuring that only Israel would be singled out for condemnation. When the European Union requested that the paragraph on Palestine be deleted, South Africa was one of the countries who objected. Our rationale was amazing. South Africa said that the Palestinian issue was an important issue of the 2001 Durban Racism Conference, and thus should be an important issue of the Review Conference. Following that same logic perhaps, seeing that anti-Semitic cartoons and the notoriously anti-Semitic book the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were handed out at the 2001 Conference, we must make sure the same happens at this year’s conference. Rather than restraining those forces in the non-democratic world who would like to divert attention from their own appalling human rights records but making the sole focus of Durban 2 Israel and Jews, the South African government seems to be cheering them on.

Interestingly, while South Africa was eager to have Israel singled out for criticism, it did not feel the same way about fellow African states. It together with Nigeria advocated the deletion of a paragraph that “deplores militias to oppress ethnic populations” out of concern that this might be seen as condemning some African countries. This same level of hypocrisy was applied to the slave trade. While our representatives sought the deletion of references to the trans-Saharan (Arab) slave-trade, at the same time they urged provisions relating to the trans-Atlantic (Western) slave trade and the need for reparations to be emphasized.

Finally in a shocking display of contempt for press freedom, South Africa together with Pakistan and Egypt, called for two journalists to be expelled from covering the proceeding out of fear they would engage in ‘selective interpretation’ of the discussions. This took place as the debate on defamation of religion was getting underway. In what can only be described as Orwellian, South Africa together with its totalitarian friends are trying to make the case that limiting the right of people to criticize religion, particularly Islam, is somehow not illiberal but actually a position for free speech. They argue that they are fighting against the abuse of free speech. With such a view is it any wonder they kicked the journalists out?

Tony Leon concludes his piece by asking ‘do we want to be remembered for the distance our policies have travelled from Nelson Mandela's 1994 promise that "human rights will be the light that guides our foreign affairs?" Or will we seize the moment to reconnect our own constitutional commitments to equality, human dignity and liberty - to our voice and votes in world forums.’

South Africa has once again made its position clear. We proudly stand not with equality, human dignity and liberty but instead always hand-in-hand with our totalitarian friends at the United Nations.

Palestinian Ambassador to SA Blames Hamas

The Palestinian ambassador to South Africa declared last week before parliament’s portfolio committee on foreign affairs that Hamas was mostly to blame for the recent crisis in Gaza.

In a surprisingly frank admission Ambassador Halimeh accused Hamas of ‘betraying the Palestinian cause by spreading disunity among Palestinians and giving Israel an excuse to go to war’. He cited Hamas’ violent coup in Gaza as the cause of internal Palestinian discord and described Hamas’ refusal to extend the recent truce with Israel as ‘a strategic mistake’ and complained that ‘the Palestinian people in Gaza are paying the price for it’.

Some of the South African Parliamentary committee members were not exactly thrilled by this honest submission. Job Sithole, the committee chairman and an African National Congress lawmaker, retorted that Hamas had won a democratic election to rule the territory. Other members of parliament accused Halimeh of speaking only for the Fatah faction and not for the Palestinian Authority as a whole, which the ambassador denied.

In another statement that can only have irked these anti-Israel parliamentarians even more, the Palestinian ambassador told the committee that the one-state solution to the Middle East crisis, although attractive to Palestinians, is simply not possible. "After 60 years we realise that it is not going to work," Halimeh said.

Israel’s new ambassador to South Africa, Dov Segev-Steinberg, also made a submission. He accused South Africa of having a ‘one-sided’ approach towards the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and argued that if it adopted a ‘more balanced attitude’, the country could help in bringing peace to the Middle East.

But all of this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The committee came out strongly against Israel and called for a review of diplomatic ties between the two countries. ANC MP Mewa Ramgobin expressed the view that ‘South Africa cannot say trade, trade and more trade with Israel while this holocaust goes on in Palestine. We need to review our own stance in continuing to sell arms to Israel. We need to review our diplomatic ties’.

So now it would seem that South Africa’s political representatives see themselves as more Palestinian than the Palestinians. Whose interests do they think they are really representing? Certainly not South Africas.

South Africa Israel Relations Still Holding

Despite intense pressure, the new ANC government has surprisingly remained relatively restrained in its condemnation of Israel over the last 3 days. President Kgalema Motlanthe and his political allies are not exactly renowned for their pro-Israel views. A few month ago he, signed a hate filled declaration accusing the Jewish state of every crime imaginable from Apartheid to genocide. However the ANC has publically remained committed to a 2 state solution and continued relations with Israel. But if the military operation escalates and the death toll rises, one wonders if they will maintain this position. Thus this latest Mid East war will provide the first real test for the durability of Israel South Africa ties under the new ANC administration.

Almost as soon as the first Israeli planes stuck Gaza, South African trade union and ANC coalition partner COSATU called on President Motlanthe to ‘break diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel and institute sanctions against it’ as a result of the Jewish state’s ‘criminal’ behaviour. They also implored South Africans to ‘intensify’ the boycott of Israeli goods.

Cosatu was supported in its condemnation of South Africa's official policy toward Israel, by radical South African Islamic organizations, the Media Review Network (MRN) and the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC). Chairperson of the MRN Iqbal Jassat and the president of the MJC Ighsan Hendricks in a press release made the ridiculous claim that South Africa’s 'balanced approach' to the Arab-Israeli conflict had ‘allowed Israel to intensify its illegal policies of collective punishment’. They too called for a change in approach. Citing the lessons learnt from the struggle against Apartheid they declared rather poetically that ‘It’s untenable to proclaim support for Palestinian rights while the Israeli flag flutters in the capital, Pretoria.’

The usual South African anti-Israel gang also wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon. Former minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils said he stood by his statement that Israeli security forces were 'babykillers'. In addition he claimed that that the attacks and the siege against Gaza were proof of Israel's 'genocidal intentions'. He also condemned in his usual over the top style the 'complicity and silence of the west' throughout the period of the 'slow murder of the people of Gaza'.

Prof Steven Friedman, another one of South Africa’s infamous Israel hating Jews, said the actions of the Israeli army cannot be called 'war crimes'. 'There is no war,' he said, ‘but a brutal massacre. These are crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the fourth largest army in the world.'

Of course UN appointed Gaza massacre PI Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu could not hold back his anger. With his usual simplicity, he declared that the Israeli bombings bore ‘all the hallmarks of war crimes’. His logic is as follows: ‘in the context of total aerial supremacy, in which one side in a conflict deploys lethal aircraft against opponents with no means of defending themselves, the bombardment bears all the hallmarks of war crimes.’ Thus it’s not so much the civilian causalities that worry the Archbishop but the fact that Hamas is getting thoroughly beaten.

But the surprise outburst was from the South African Council of Churches (SACC) General Secretary, Eddie Makue, who called on the South African government to take a strong stand against Israel. On further research it turns out that Mr. Makue has just returned from an 11 city US speaking tour denouncing Israeli Apartheid. I was under the impression that the SACC had been seeking to build good relationships with the Jewish community. This is definitely a matter for the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD to take up. He must understand that South African Jewry will not befriend organizations that seek to harm the Jewish state.

Yet despite all this protest, the South African government has not broken off diplomatic ties. In a rather mute statement on Sunday President Kgalema Motlanthe condemned the escalation of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, saying it is counterproductive to efforts aimed at bringing about lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. He called on both sides to end hostilities and urged the international community to do make every effort to bring about a two - State solution with an independent Palestinian state co-existing side by side with an Israel State, existing within secure borders as a lasting solution to the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Today the South Africa government stepped up its condemnation summoning the Israeli ambassador to express its ‘grave concern’ at ‘the brutal assault’ by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. Deputy foreign minister Fatima Hajaig in a statement said that ‘the South African government called on the Israeli government to stop the military onslaught in Gaza and to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces currently amassing on the border’. She also urged all parties to return to peace negotiation immediately without preconditions.

As the violence escalates and the bodies pile up, we can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to only amplify. While of course we need to be concerned about the developing situation on the ground in the Middle East, South African Jewry should also be strategizing about limiting the impact of this latest conflict on the community. A breakdown in diplomatic ties would be a disaster much more for us than for Israel. Despite my past personal objections, I really hope that the SAJBD’s policy a quiet diplomacy with the ANC government pays off this time.