It's Almost Supernatural

President Mbeki on the parallels between Israel and South Africa

President Mbeki in his letter this week in ANC Today drew interesting parallels between Israel’s struggle for peace and that of the ANC for a democratic South Africa.

As South Africans and activists of the ANC we knew without doubt that we had to attend Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. This was because we too, like him, had understood, when the moment came, that the weapons of war we had taken up to attain our freedom and peace could turn into deadly instruments for the destruction of our people's hopes for freedom and peace.

Mbeki makes it clear that it was Israel who championed the peace process. Israel, like the ANC was prepared to make significant sacrifices for peace. Rabin realised that peace was the greatest guarantee of Israel’s security. As Mbeki explains

...our movement sat at that negotiating table, it understood clearly that we would have to enter into compromises with our erstwhile enemies, deliberately sacrificing the prospect of total victory, to save the many lives of the masses we led and lead, which would be lost in what would be a protracted struggle to achieve that total victory. We understood too that whatever compromises we entered into or spurned, continued war would serve the interests of the oppressors. Peace could not but serve as a harbinger of freedom for the oppressed.

He then makes a further comparison between the assassination of Rabin and Chris Hani.

As happened to the Israeli people when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, our own people's certainty about the correctness of their determination to achieve their liberation through peaceful means was put under severe test when Chris Hani, a soldier like Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered in cold blood, surrendering his life in a hail of bullets.

These comments are truly remarkable. They were not made in a diplomatic forum as a representative of the government of South Africa but in his capacity as head of the ANC. He must have known how badly such support would go down amongst many of his anti-Israel members. Such comments will certainly not bring the ANC any Muslim votes in the upcoming election.

Even a real sceptic like me is tempted to believe that there has been a positive change in the ANC’s attitude to Israel. I don’t know what caused it. But long may it last.

Kasrils on Zionist Myths

Over the past two weeks the Mail & Guardian have reignited their anti-Israel hatefest. That may sound harsh and overly critical. They are after all entitled to endorse a certain political slant in their editorials and opinion pieces. But when a newspaper becomes renowned for editorial comments like the one below you know what you are dealing with.

Finally, let us now be honest. Who on the left did not feel a sense of Schadenfreude at the sight of the World Trade Centre towers crashing to the ground? It is the same instinct that now leads us to quietly celebrate the news of an Israeli casualty. In the end, oppression and its appeasement can bring out the "terrorist" in all of us.

Last week they ran an article by the Jewish South African Minister of Intelligence and pathological anti-Zionist Ronnie Kasrils entitled The Myths of Zionism. Here are some entertaining excerpts from the Kasrils column.

At the core of Zionism lies the biblical myth, suggesting that the Jewish people have a God-given right to the land that was known as Canaan. This revered holy book is not, however, based on scientific fact.

According to Kasrils it is only the Jewish Holy book which suffers this flaw. The Koran and various Hadiths upon which the Muslims stake their claim to Israel are spared this criticism.

Zionists allege that the Jewish people’s sojourn in Arab lands was pervaded by a hatred of Jews. In fact, Jews flourished and enjoyed considerable periods of peaceful co-existence.

It is true that there was a period of remarkable co-existence but the Jews had to coexist as second class citizens known as Dhimmis who had to pay a tax called the Jizya which was “protection money” that had to be paid by Dhimmis under Islamic rule.

Zionists assert that nearly one million Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries in the 20th century. Yet, in the early decades of that century, it was Zionist agents and British officials who aggressively sought to relocate Jews living in Arab countries to the Holy Land, as part of a strategy to increase the numbers of Jews living in Palestine.

Is Ronnie really suggesting that there can be a moral equivalence here?

Campaigning to allow people to leave a country and move to another land is not the same thing as the confiscation of people’s property and removal by force of those people from that country – merely because they are Jews.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan, influenced by the then balance of forces and post-Holocaust sentiment, offered the Jewish people 56% of Palestinian land, when they only owned 6,5% at the time. The remaining 43% was allocated to the Palestinians, with an international enclave around Jerusalem.

According to British statistics in their 1948 survey of Palestine Jews owned 8.6% and Israeli Arabs owned 3.3% of the land.

But the information that Ronnie has concealed is that Jews owned so little because the British owned more than 70% of the land! This land reverted to Israel once the British left. 16.9% of the land was abandoned by Arabs when their armies invaded Israel in 1948.

The fact that Palestinians have been willing to accept a further reduction of land to 22% of historic Palestine is an exceptional compromise on the part of their leadership.

Had they really been willing to accept this then today there would be two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peace alongside each other.

“22 Percent of Historic Palestine” is a lie. Historic Palestine comprises all of the British Mandate which includes Jordan.

From Myths and Facts

Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.

Ronnie then says,

Ehud Barak’s supposed “generous offer” at Camp David in January 2001 was much less than this, and loaded with such constraints on Palestinian sovereignty that Yasser Arafat could not accept it. What Barak offered amounted to a non-contiguous Bantustan, with Israel controlling sea, air and borders. It is instructive to note how Barak’s magnanimity was instantly mythologised by Zionist propaganda.

It never ceases to amaze me how people refuse to accept the word of the then US lead envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross. No-one knew the details of the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians more intimately than Dennis Ross did.

See the details of what was offered via the maps from Dennis Ross’ book “The Missing Peace” here. The maps show that the territory in the West Bank would be contiguous - there would have been no Bantustans.

Bill Clinton agrees with Ross and has publicly blames Arafat for the failure of the talks. Here's Dennis Ross in an interview in the Weekly Standard

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians. On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state. … ROSS: ... So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous. HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect... ROSS: Right. HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state. ROSS: Completely untrue. And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

Who are you going to believe – Dennis Ross who was actually there and coordinated almost every single negotiation that has ever taken place between Israelis and Arabs…or Ronnie Kasrils?

It is also an ongoing myth that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the Arab states do not accept Israel’s right to exist. In fact, the Palestine National Council voted in 1988 to accept a two-state solution based on the 1947 UN Partition Resolution. It was not the Arabs striving to destroy Israel but Israel that has perpetrated the wars since 1948...

Who does Kasrils think he is fooling? Take a look the PLO charter.

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time... Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization. Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations

Yes, they did vote to accept a two state solution. But the PLO makes a clear distinction between their covenant and their political programs. The covenant is strategic and the political programs (like the 1988 recognition of Israel) are purely tactical and are implemented in order to achieve the charter.

During Oslo repeated calls were made for the Palestinians to change the charter. In 1996 the PLO voted in favour of making changes to their charter. However the PNC never actually amended the Charter.All they did was approve in principle that changes would be made, without specifying which clauses would be changed, in what manner, or by what date.

So the charter was never changed and remains on their website in its original form. It includes a footnote about the decision that was taken to amend the charter as well as a decision to have the charter redrafted. 10 years after this vote the and the Charter has still not been redrafted.

Such historians have also exposed the myth that the young state of Israel fought off “overwhelming hordes” of Arab armies in 1948. While the Arab League called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine, only five responded.

Is he honestly saying that it was easy for the nascent state of Israel to repel only 5 Arab invading states?

From day one, Israel has been concerned with expansionism at the expense of peaceful coexistence. The so-called “security fence” annexes even more West Bank land, as do the burgeoning settlements and security roads. This will reduce the West Bank and Gaza to 10% of original Palestine, hardly the basis for a two-state solution. The myth of Israel lacking a partner to negotiate peace terms with is plain to see.

Ronnie is basically claiming that the security barrier is annexing 50% of the West Bank. But an analysis by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says that the barrier only annexes 5-8% of the West Bank.

Since then more changes to the route have been made which brings the percentage of annexed territory to between 4 and 7%. You can download a copy of the route of the map here (it excludes the latest changes).

If this has angered you, fear not. Ronnie has written this with the best interests of Jews in mind.

While the history of the Jewish people has involved periods of unspeakable hardship and discrimination, it is in the interests of Jewish people everywhere to understand the great harm to Judaic values and reputation that has been caused by Zionism. The danger of labelling as “anti-Semitic” anyone critical of Israel and Zionism is that the term degenerates into a hollow cliché and will be ignored when the real alarm is sounded.

And when the real alarm is sounded, who will come to our help if there is no Israel?

Hamas is Dead, Long Live Hamas

South African Muslim Hussein Solomon is fast becoming one of my favourite South African Middle East analysts. I'm probably a fan because he represents a minority yet refreshingly sane voice amidst a raging sea of fanatical South African Muslim views.

After a fact-finding tour of Israel and the Palestinian territories last year Solomon wrote an op-ed piece about the extreme and simplistic views held by South African Muslims.

His latest article is entitled "The Death of Hamas". This article appeared as an opinion piece at the Jerusalem Post earlier today, but I can't seem to find it there anymore. However, you can download a PDF of the article by right clicking here and choosing "save target as".

(You can read more about Professor Solomon here.)

Outrageous Demand

Hamas Leader Zahar: Israel must change its flag

Among his several conditions he placed on Israel was an outrageous request that it change its flag. "Israel must remove the two Blue stripes from its National flag", said Zahar. " The stripes on the flag are symbols of occupation. They signify Israel's borders stretching from the River Euphrates to the River Nile."

This myth is frequently used by the Arab and Islamic worlds. Arab leaders have previously claimed that an inscription, "The Land of Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile," is chiseled over the entrance to the Knesset. Others have claimed a map inside the Knesset shows these borders.

Of course, both the map and the inscription are fabrications of lunatic minds. Some Arabs who have toured the Knesset have claimed that the inscription and map was removed in preparation for their visit.

Meet Israel's New Peace Partner

Only a few days after Hamas’ upset victory in the Palestinian legislative election, there are already voices in the South African media calling for Israel to engage with this new ‘peace’ partner. John Robbie of 702 said on Friday morning that he believed that the Hamas victory was a step forward for peace. Barry Ronge, after giving Steven Spielberg’s new movie Munich a terrific ten, waxed lyrically about how Israel should learn from the movie that violence is not the answer and engage with Hamas. And even Michael Bagraim of the SAJBD naively called on Hamas to put down the sword and embrace the olive branch.

So I have decided to introduce our readers to the Israel’s new ‘peace’ partners. Rather than me explaining what Hamas stands for, I have decided to let them put forward their position in their own words. See what you think.

Let’s begin by asking whether, as so many Middle East ‘experts’ have predicted, Hamas will moderate its positions.

Ismail Haniyah, Hamas leader, at an election rally in Gaza, January 20, 2006 (Reuters) explained

"They have tried to pressure Hamas to abandon resistance and to abandon arms. They tried to pressure Hamas to abandon its strategic choice in Palestine, all of Palestine. They tried to pressure Hamas to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation. But they failed… We say Hamas will not change its constant principles. The constants and the strategy of Hamas do not change according to circumstances. Hamas will stay faithful to jihad, to resistance, to guns, to Palestine and to Jerusalem."

So what are these constant principles that Ismail Haniyah refers to? The Hamas charter provides some clarity. What is Hamas’s potion towards Jews? Article 22 gives some indication.

‘with their money, they (Jews) took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there. You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

In spite of this deep resentment towards Jews, perhaps Hamas take a pragmatic view to their conflict with the Jewish State. Does Hamas support a 2 state solution? Article 11 explains...

‘the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that.’

Well alright so they want the whole of Israel, but maybe they will try to achieve this goal peacefully. What is Hamas’ position on violence? Article 13 answers that one.

‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.’

And once they conquer all of Israel will the Jews that survive be allowed to live together with Mulsims in a single state?

Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas leader, June 10, 2003, in an interview with Al-Jazeera answers this one

‘By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews… You will have no security except outside the homeland Palestine…. We have Allah on our side.’

So they propose ethnically cleansing Israel of Jews. But will they stop there?

Dr Mahmoud Zahar, a senior member of Hamas in interview in Arabic with elaph.com on October 11, 2005 explains

"We are part of Allah's promise that Islam will enter Palestine and every home in the world, with a revelation of the power of Allah the Omnipotent, and a revelation of the inferiority of the infidels. "

He elaborated further at the funeral of the first female suicide bomber on January 15, 2004

'She [first Hamas woman suicide bomber] is not going to be the last because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.’

And what will this new world order be like particularly for women? Article 12 gives some indication.

‘A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission.’

Article 18 explains a women’s role in this new order further.

‘woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and imbuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam.’

In case you think these views archaic, women will not be denied education for ‘she has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned’.

Finally I would just like to inform Barry Ronge, lest he think that by not being a women or Jew, he may escape Hamas persecution. Under Islamic Law, homosexuality is a grave crime. So as I see it, it’s either death by stoning or public castration for him.

Well after hearing that, how do you feel about Israel’s new ‘peace’ partner?

The Hamas Victory

Some recommended reading:

South African blog Commentary has a well thought out analysis about the implications saying that it might not be as bad for Israel as conventional wisdom would imply.

An ex South African, the Head Heeb has his usual must read rundown where he explains the internal Palestinian political situation.

He remarks on an interesting potential move that Abbas may make. Essentially, using the PLO Abbas could ensure more of the same for Israel - external pressure to negotiate with the PLO coupled with an internal security need to crush Hamas.

Abbas also suggested that future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations be conducted through the PLO rather than the PA. Under other circumstances, including the PLO might be a good idea; it's the one internationally accredited organization that represents all Palestinians throughout the world, and a final-status agreement with the PLO could bind the refugees in a way that a deal with the PA couldn't.

Unfortunately Fatah are now seen as real moderates. But with the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades they too had an armed wing which was responsible for many terrorist attacks.

I will watch with interest how this will affect the latest Israeli election polls. I expect the Likud to receive a minimal boost in the polls but the perception I got from Israelis when I was there is that they dont really care who is representing the Palestinians. Very few people still believe in the utility of Oslo style negotiations.

They want a government who will be tough on security and willing to disengage from the Palestinians with Israel's best interests in mind. In a nutshell, that is Kadimah's platform. The Sharon ideas didn't rely on partners from the Palestinian side and so having Hamas control the PA shouldn't draw voters away from Kadimah.

Olmert: Hamas Is No Partner 

Speaking during an emergency meeting of the security cabinet in Jerusalem Thursday, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "Should a government be established in the Palestinian Authority with Hamas leading or participating, the PA will become a sponsor of terror. The world and Israel will ignore it and it will become irrelevant." The Prime Minister's Office issued a statement saying, "The State of Israel will not hold negotiations with a Palestinian government led by an armed terror organization that advocates its destruction. Israel will continue to fight terror resolutely."

Hamas Victory Ends Roadmap and Oslo 

Palestine under Hamas rule puts an end not only to the roadmap and the Oslo process, but also to the formula embodied by UN Resolution 242: "land for peace" and an accompanying end to the conflict. It reshapes the conflict from Israeli-Palestinian to Jewish-Arab and even Western-Muslim. Such a conflict, backed by the global Jihad movement and Khomeinist Iran, has neither a solution nor an end. Now Fatah is liable to resume terror attacks in order to compete with Hamas in belligerence. What Hamas ceases to get from other states it will obtain from Iranian oil revenues and Saudi protection money.

About the Hamas Charter - Jpost

Day of Shame for Constitution Hill

Wits University Press and Constitution Hill will be holding a panel debate next week entitled "Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?"

Wits University Press and Constitution Hill invite you to an interactive panel debate around the recently released book, Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians by Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley, co-published by Wits University Press and Temple University Press, USA. The debate focuses on controversial analogies between two disparate situations, asking what can be learned from South Africa's negotiated revolution for peacemaking in divided societies. The debate will be chaired by Denis Beckett, author and journalist.

It's a worthy debate which I would encourage IF there was a fair, balanced and representative panel. But the panel will be neither fair nor balanced. The Constitutional Hill is supposed to capture the essence of all that is good about the new South Africa. But on February 2 it will play host to a biased, prejudiced debate whose conclusion (that a single binational state should replace teh Jewish state) is known before the debating even begins.

One would expect the panel to represent all views around this topic. There should be pro-Israel views defending Israel's right to exists as a Jewish state coupled with anti-Israel views calling for a single state solution. But this is not what we will get.

But let’s take a look at the panel. We have two groups of people participating on the panel – the authors of the book and a group of independants.

In the first group we have the writers of the book "Seeking Mandela" – around which the debate will take place. (Mike has almost finished reading it and can provide more insight for us.) A Cape Times review of the book described it as a balanced and fair-minded account of the Middle East. The Cape Times says that the writers conclude that a two state solution is an appropriate way to move the conflict forward - i.e. it’s an interim solution until both peoples discover their common interests and trust each other sufficiently to coexist to their mutual benefit.

So this group, whilst advocating a two state solution, do not believe that this should entail a final end of conflict agreement – as the roadmap stipulates. Rather, not unlike many Palestinians, they see it as an interim solution that will eventually bring about a single state solution.

Now for the second group of “ndependents. Its not so much the names of the 3 people in this group that sends an icy chill down my spine so much as the absence of any voice that will defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

First up we have Na'eem Jenna –Na'eem is a lecturer at the Wits Political Studies department who specialise in Islam and Islamic studies. The invite neglects to mention his close ties with the notorious Media Review Network and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. At a lecture I attended at Wits University commemorating the Palestinian Nakba Jenna openly supported a one state solution.

Next up we have the not-so-lovely Virginia Tilley – Advocate of a one-state solution and author of a book called - The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock.

Finally, we have the token Jew, Stephen Friedman - Friedman is a South African freelance journalist who has repeatedly called for a one state solution and written about Israel being an Apartheid state.

So there you have it. The discussion of "Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?" will take place between a group of people who believe it’s a necessary interim solution before the one-state solution can be achieved and a group of three Palestinian advocates who are notorious (or renowned) for their anti-Israel invective.

All three have repeatedly called Israel an apartheid state and all support a single state solution – a solution which is merely a euphemism for the destruction of Israel by demographic subversion.

Is that what Wits Press and Constitution Hill regard as a fair debate?

To debate is to engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Wits Press and the Constitutional Hill are not fulfilling this requirement.

They are not encouraging debate – they are impeding it. They are not encouraging a lateral type of problem solving thinking – they are force feeding intolerance and prejudice.

I call for them to either change the panel to make it more representative or to make it clear that this will not be a debate – rather it will be a Palestinian Propaganda Peddling Promotion.

The rest of the details for the "debate" -

Date: Thursday, 2 February 2006 Venue: Women's Jail Lekgotla Space, Women's Jail, Constitution Hill, Kotze Street, Braamfontein Secure parking in Kotze Street and at the Old Fort Time: 18h00 for 18h30 for snacks and drinks, with the debate commencing at 18h30 promptly

To attend the debate you need to RSVP to this address: Cheryl at constitutionhill dot org dot za. (You need to replace "at" with @ and "dot" with . I did it like that to prevent her from receiving spam.)

I encourage all readers and Jewish student associations such as SAUJS to write to Wits University Press and to Constitution Hill calling for a panel that will fairly represent all sides of the conflict. Without a change to the panel this debate – like the recent Palestinian elections – will become another victory for hatred.

Paradise Now or Never?

I suppose it was with a little irony that yesterday evening, on the eve of the Palestinian election, I managed to drag myself to see Paradise Now. At a time when it looks as if Palestinians are about to commit political suicide by electing Hamas in large numbers to their parliament, I believed a movie about the rationale behind suicide bombing was a must see. And it won a golden globe no less!

Well to be honest I didn't expect to enjoy it and I didn't. I just didn't get it. It's so easy to blame 'the occupation' but can you really explain to me how that drove the 2 bombers in the movie firstly to want to die and secondly to kill innocent Israelis. Perhaps you will answer as they repeated ad nausum that 'they were already dead living under occupation'. But as far as I could make out they were living normal lives. They had jobs (motor mechanics), they had families who obviously cared for them and one was even falling in love (with a very pretty young lady if I may say so). Doesn't sound like they were dead to me.

Perhaps it was those ominous Israeli check points: 'the daily humiliation' of having to have their identification papers checked. Well, on my recent trip to Israel I had to endure my fair share of check points: on entering bus stations, restaurants and even the Western wall. No it wasn't pleasant, some rude man or women insensitively ruffling through my luggage and asking me inane questions. And yes there were times when I got angry, but come on it didn't make me want to blow myself up and take as many Jews as I could with me. Daily inconveniences no matter how irritating are no reason to become a suicide murderer.

The truth, I believe, is that a suicide bomber is more the Western equivalent of a drug addict than a soldier in the fight against Israeli 'occupation'. And organisations like Hamas are the dealers and pushers. They prey on weak Palestinian youngsters with low self-esteems and a desire to be somebody. What were the bombers last wishes? That their pictures be displayed in the town square as heroes. So while Western teens take drugs to be acknowledged as cool, their Palestinian counter parts blow themselves up. Their acknowledgement by Palestinian society as heroes through the sale of 'martyr' homemade movies at the local video store or the suicide bomber playing cards perpetuates this terrible situation.

Their acts have more to do with their personal desire for social recognition than any political cause. I felt sick at how their leaders constantly told them how brave and honourable they were. If that truly is the case, why then, I wanted to scream, don't Hamas' top leaders blow themselves up. Perhaps they not just ready for their place in Paradise.

The line that perhaps moved me the most was the Palestinian human rights worker's plea that although the bombers may go to paradise, they must consider what world they leave for those that remain behind. And so too today, when many Palestinians have thoughts of collectively blowing up their political landscape and electing Hamas to power, they would do well to heed her words. For Hamas will certainly not bring paradise now for those Palestinians that remain - only more violence and more misery.

ANC WP Chief Whip Takes a Whipping

You’ve got to love politicians. Yesterday I awarded an IAS Smoking Socks Award to ANC WP Chief Whip Max Ozinski for his biting letter to the Cape Times about the ANC governments stance on Israel.

I said that Ozinski fell straight into the trap set by Joel Pollack. Today Pollack cashes in on the trap he set.

MAX OZINSKY is wrong to claim that South Africa's policy towards Israel has not changed in the past few years. Since mid-2004, there has been a marked warming of relations. It is not only Zionists who have noticed the change (and Anthony Holiday, who first raised the matter in the Cape Times, is certainly no Zionist). Ozinsky's allies in the Palestine Solidarity Committee protested last year when the government renewed security co-operation with Israel. Ozinsky's claim that the South African Jewish Board of Deputies "changes its positions to reflect the policies of the Israeli government of the day" also does not stand up to scrutiny. There have been several occasions when the board opposed Israeli actions. It does not take instructions from Israel, nor does it have any influence with the Israeli government. It is interesting that Ozinsky reserves all his criticism for Jewish leadership, and never calls on other communities or their leaders to change their approaches to the Middle East. His one-sidedness is striking. Ozinsky claims I was incorrect in stating that he had called for a boycott of Israeli goods, and that he only wants to boycott goods from the settlements. I accept his clarification. However, his position would still appear to be at odds with that of the government, which has not supported a boycott. Finally, he claims that the "biggest obstacle to negotiations" has been Israeli government intransigence. Perhaps the best answer to this comes from Newsweek editor Farced Zakaria, who wrote recently: "The great obstacle to progress in the Middle East is no longer Israeli intentions, but rather Palestinian capabilities." JOEL POLLAK CAPE TOWN

Will Mad Max respond and cause further embarrassment to the ANC? I predict a tag team response with former Smoking Socks Award winner (and SA Minister of Intelligence) Ronnie Kasrils tagging in for Mad Max.

Smoking Socks Award - ANC Laughs at SAJBD

The Smoking Socks award is awarded to a letter writer in a South African paper whose funky smelling socks have induced him/her into a bout of prejudiced stupidity.

Thabo Mbeki’s recent get-well-soon message to Ariel Sharon prompted much debate at the Cape Times. First there was this piece in the Cape Times by Anthony Holliday which bemoaned what could be a positive change in the ANC policy regarding Israel.

Michael Bagraim – Chairman of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) – responded in a letter saying that the SA government has constantly been supportive of Israeli governments that took positive steps toward the achievement of Palestinian statehood.

Michael Belling followed up with a letter asserting that Mbeki’s policy towards Israel is balanced and supports a two state solution. Belling, as I did, noted Mbeki’s letter of support and praise sent to PM Sharon after the disengagement.

In contrast, Joel Pollack from the DA then defended Holliday’s central point saying that the ANC may have indeed made an about-turn on Israel – something which many of the ANC rank-and-file might oppose. Pollack criticised Bagraim and Belling for their inaccurate suggesting that the ANC had always taken a balanced approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

They are wrong to say Mbeki and the South African government have taken a consistent stance toward Israel. From 2001 to 2004, the government refused to meet Israeli government representatives and confined itself to meeting members of the opposition. Furthermore, ANC and government rhetoric was consistently hostile towards Israel. Israel was referred to as "racist" and senior ministers, including Ronnie Kasrils, excoriated Ariel Sharon as a "butcher". Throughout this period, the`board of deputies often protested against the government`s remarks and its attitudes towards Israel. As Holiday points out, government policy began to shift in 2004...

And here now, ANC Chief Whip and winner of the latest IAS Smoking Socks Award - Max Ozinski, one of the ran-and-file specifically mentioned by Pollack, plays straight into Pollack's trap. Read as Max Ozinski sounds more like the children at the ANC Youth League than the Youth League itself.

A GET-WELL message from President Thabo Mbeki to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems to have thrown Zionists into confusion - does this represent a change in government or ANC policy? A message to an ailing leader is not support for his policies, but a normal diplomatic courtesy. There is no change in policy, which still supports the right of the Palestinian and Israeli people to self-determination and the call for the implementation of international law, including an Israeli withdrawal from the illegally occupied Palestinian territories. Government diplomacy hopes to achieve this through solidarity with the Palestinian people and by encouraging negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Our government has consistently applauded any step to strengthen negotiations and create an independent Palestinian state, and condemned actions which threaten this. Thus, it argued strongly in the International Court of Justice against the building of the wall of occupation, a position which was sustained by the court`s advisory opinion, and has supported Sharon`s withdrawal from Gaza. The biggest obstacle to negotiations has been the intransigence of the Israeli government. Our government has tried to encourage influential Israelis to leam the lessons of our experience and to engage in negotiations to reach a political settlement. What has continually changed is the position of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, which changes its positions to reflect the policies of the Israeli government of the day. It is time to for the SAJBD to take a principled stance and to stop dancing to the tune of the Israeli government. Joel Pollack (January 17) is incorrect to say I have called for a boycott of Israeli products. I support a boycott of products from illegal Israeli settlements. This is consistent with international law and the call of Israeli and Palestinian civil society. It is time for all South Africans, including Jews, to take steps to help end the illegal occupation and to create an independent Palestinian state. MAX OZINSKY MPL ANC CHIEF WHIP, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE

Will there ever be a more deserved winner of the Smoking Socks Award?

View previous winners here, here, here, here, and here.