Despite having to deal with the allegations of a "political conspiracy" against Jacob Zuma, our Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils has still managed to find the time to peddle some Palestinian propaganda.
Last week the Guardian ran the latest Kasrils invective. He teamed up with Victoria Brittain in an article calling for sanctions to be imposed on Israel. Once again Kasrils screams "It's worse than Apartheid!!!!!" (And you can bet that this will appear in our local Mail & Guardian this week.)
I don't have time for my own response, but refer to Honest Reporting who responded in one of their excellent media critiques. (They even referred to our fisking of a previous Kasrils column.)
Marice Ostroff, featured on IAS before, offers an open letter to Ronnie.
| An Open Letter to South African Minister of Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils From Maurice Ostroff Dear Minister Ronnie Kasrils Your article "Israel should face sanctions" (The Guardian, May 19, 2006) I heartily agree with your statement, "There is no excuse for not knowing the truth about what is now happening to the Palestinians" and I hope you will join me in examining some facts so that we can establish the unbiased truth. Your empathy for the PLO as fellow freedom fighters is absolutely understandable in view of your praiseworthy role amongst the first anti-apartheid guerrillas. I hope, however that if I remind you of some concrete facts, you will agree that the parallels you draw between the ANC struggle against apartheid and the Palestinian struggle are not quite congruent In presenting these facts, I draw on my experience when I lived in South Africa. As an early, low-key anti-apartheid activist and member of the Springbok Legion as well as the Federation of Progressive Students, of which the late Ruth First was a founder, I admired some great personalities who you certainly also knew very well. I speak for example of the late Jock Isacowitz and the late Wolfie Kodesh. As you know, the Springbok Legion was formed during WW2 by South African soldiers who objected to the discriminatory treatment meted out to their fellow Black soldiers. It was probably the first mass movement of whites promoting the liberation of Blacks. But most of all I was influenced by Chief Albert Luthuli. Even after the massacre at Sharpeville in 1961 he was quoted as saying "How easy it would have been in South Africa for the natural feelings of resentment at white domination to have been turned into feelings of hatred and a desire for revenge against the white community. Here, where every day in every aspect of life, every non-white comes up against the ubiquitous sign, "Europeans Only," and the equally ubiquitous policeman to enforce it - here it could well be expected that a racialism equal to that of their oppressors would flourish to counter the white arrogance towards blacks. That it has not done so is no accident. It is because, deliberately and advisedly, African leadership for the past 50 years, with the inspiration of the African National Congress which I had the honour to lead for the last decade or so until it was banned, had set itself steadfastly against racial vain-gloriousness." I have not heard any statements from the PLO or Hamas remotely resembling the Chief's inspiring message. Have you? The sad but factual difference between the ANC and the PLO or Hamas is that the latter two have been unfortunate in lacking leadership of the caliber of Chief Luthuli or Nelson Mandela. Who can doubt that, had Yasser Arafat possessed some of their qualities, he and Ehud Barak, would have achieved a satisfactory peace agreement? You refer negatively to the efforts of Western leaders to get the Hamas government to recognize Israel and adhere to earlier agreements. It is extremely doubtful that in similar circumstances the ANC under Chief Luthuli or President Mandela would have acted as Hamas is doing, in adamantly refusing these obvious essentials before any move towards a peaceful solution can even be started. The lofty aims of the ANC's Freedom Charter bears no similarity whatsoever, to the hate-filled PLO and Hamas covenants. In fact such comparisons are insulting to the ANC. While the ANC Charter states "South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation - not war" article 9 of the PLO Charter declares bluntly that the armed struggle is not merely tactical, it is the overall strategy. Article 19 rejects outright, the 1947 UN partition of Palestine, implying that liberating Palestine means destruction of the entire Jewish state. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are unashamedly deemed null and void in article 20. The Hamas charter makes it even clearer that there is absolutely no room for peaceful negotiation. Article 13 unambiguously states, "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. The imaginative irrationality of the Hamas concept, so different from the sober tone of the ANC Charter, is illustrated by obsessive phobia about freemasons, rotary clubs, Lions and similar organizations, promising that the day Islam is in control, these organizations, will be obliterated. They are accused of everything from control of the world media, stirring the French Revolution, the Communist revolution, World War I and even of forming the League of Nations. They are alleged to have been behind World War II, and instigating replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council. I believe you will confirm sir, that this type of irrational hate, had, and still has, no place in ANC thinking. Nor would the ANC tolerate the type of incitement to indiscriminate violence against uninvolved civilians, (women, children and invalids alike), which has been emanating for years from the mosques and PA controlled media and taught in schools from the earliest age. Minister Kasrils, may I hope, that with your credentials as a former leader in the MK, you may be able to persuade the PA government to adopt some of the noble concepts, which led the ANC to achieve a bloodless revolution in South Africa, so as to open the way to a peaceful solution of the Arab-Israel conflict. |
For more related to what Ostroff was saying visit:
Comparing the Palestinian Freedom Charter to the PLO Charter
Comparing the ANC to HAMAS
Get those letters for our local Mail & Guardian ready.
Whats this with Israel tranfereing weapons to Abbas loyalists? What were they thinking? Never mind the fact that the weapons will probably not get used for 'defense' purposes but Israel has now gone and got itself involved in the faction Palestinians fighting!
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 25, 2006 at 22:58
Typical Israel. They created and armed Hamas originally.
Posted by: Just a Caring Individual | May 25, 2006 at 23:43
Oh...a and viva Ronnie viva!
Posted by: Just a Caring Individual | May 25, 2006 at 23:44
Just a caring individual, its so nice that Ronnie’s anti-Israel bashing has made him some friends. He is a bit low on supporters at the moment. Ironically in the end all he will have are Jew haters as allies. And even they will surely turn on him.
Posted by: Mike | May 26, 2006 at 11:40
It's myth that Israel created Hamas. Care to show us the evidence?
Posted by: Vaz Lube | May 26, 2006 at 11:48
Nili, the arms transfer is part of Olmert’s commitment to Bush to try negotiate first. They are giving Abbas one last chance to fulfil his road map commitments. If with these arms he still does nothing well … bye bye road map hello further unilateral disengagement.
They tried this with Arafat during Oslo as well. We saw the consequences. Lets hope Abbas is different.
Posted by: Mike | May 26, 2006 at 11:49
Perhaps it is time , we remembered the victims of the friends of Ronnie Kasrils and Just a caring individual
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/memorial/eindex.htm
Posted by: Gary | May 26, 2006 at 12:17
Myths and Facts from Mitchell Bard:
Myth about Israel Creating Hamas
Posted by: Steve | May 26, 2006 at 12:38
Mike, how many 'last chances' have we given the Palestinians? I think that we can see that Abbas doesn't have control of them, so we give him weapons to create control? We saw what happened after Oslo, as you said, lets hope Abbas is different!
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 28, 2006 at 12:58
Nili, honestly I have a lot of respect for Abbas. He is no Zionist but I don’t expect him to be. He has denounced violence as a tool for solving the conflict. That is an enormous step forward.
I believe that a prosperous and democratic Palestinian state is the key to a genuine and lasting peace. Abbas is our only chance of that in the near future.
So we have to way up the costs and benefits. How significant is the risk really that these arms will inflict mass causalities on Israelis. I don’t think that great. Also believe that they could smuggle the guns in any way from somewhere else. But if Abbas does use them to destroy Hamas the upside is endless. So I am for it despite the risks.
Posted by: mike | May 29, 2006 at 09:55
I have to second Mikes reasoning. Although I dont think we can even negotiate with Abbas, I dont see much harm in strengthening him.
whether it's Abbas or Hamas, I dont support negotiations as things stand. But once we do make our unilateral moves then someone will have to govern the Palestinians. And I prefer that person to be Abbas. (But they are proving to be ungovernable as their pseudo civil war shows).
Posted by: Steve | May 29, 2006 at 10:01
Steve, you write "But once we do make our unilateral moves then someone will have to govern the Palestinians"
But if negotiations do start , what positions will we have to negotiatew on?
Having withdrawn from most of Yehuda and Shomron , Israel will be in a weaker negotiating position?
Then they will have to discuss 'the right of return' i.e the flooding of what is left of Israel with millions of Arabs , and the giving up of Jerusalem and the lands that have not been unilaterally withdrawn from
Unilatreal withdrawal is a suicidal recepy for the destruction of Israel chas v' sholem
Posted by: Gary | May 29, 2006 at 14:34
Mike, I completely agree that Abbas is no zionist and most Palestinians aren't. And I do respect him for denouncing violence from his position.
You speak abut a democratic state and yet after democratic elections putting Hamas into power, Abbas still has the political stronghold. I query when you say "But if Abbas does use them to destroy Hamas the upside is endless." You are contradicting yourself. Democracy = Hamas ruling and yet you are in some way supporting Abbas destroying Hamas's rule - can you clear up this misconception?
Gary, I think that once this unilateral withdrawal occurs (it is inevitable), the Palestinians have lost the fight for right of return in a sense, because they have control of part of the territories where 'returnees' would be coming to. So they would have to allow 2 million refugees (or whatever the number is) into 'their' area. Logistical Problem :)
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 29, 2006 at 23:57
Nili , I don't think we have to worry too much about Hamas being democratically elected. Remember so where Hitler and the Nazis democratically elected by the majority of Germans.
At the same time , we should not put too much faith in FATAH either
Their armed wing -the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have carried out thousands of attacks on Israeli civillians , and while Abbas has spoken of ending violence against Israel,the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (A very powerful element in Hamas) has certainly not and openly celebrated the death in the last suicide bombing of American Jewish teen Daniel Wulz.
I'm afraid that unilateral withdrawal woill not bring peace.
Peace will only come when the Arabs (and their leftist backers around the world) realize that the State of Israel is here to stay.
Or as Golda Meir said "When the Arabs love their own children more then they hate ours"
Posted by: Gary | May 30, 2006 at 19:13
Sorry I meant the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are a very powerful section of FATAH , not of Hamas!
Posted by: Gary | May 30, 2006 at 19:15
Gary, I agree it probably won't bring peace. This is the main issue I find difficult in arguing this. No one listens to me when I say that it isn't premised on peace.
Sharon nor Olmert are naive enough to call it a peace plan.
It is a plan that intends to consolidate what we have. It is a plan that intends to provide demographic security. It is a plan that intends to separate us from them.
If we thought it was going to bring peace then we would not need to continue building the security barrier.
We understand that there is no one to make peace with. But that doesn't mean that we must lose everything.
Posted by: Steve | May 30, 2006 at 19:59
Nili, Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. But you ask tough questions.
You have a common misconception about democracy. Democracy is not just free and fair elections. As Gary pointed out with the example of Hitler. There are others. Take the current president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, he was democratically elected by is sliding fast towards dictatorship.
So although Hamas was democratically elected, I don’t think they are democratic. They are actually the antitheses. They hate Western democracy and wish to replace it with Islamic Sharia law. Abbas on the other hand for all his faults is more liberal. There is a much better chance of him maintaining and even strengthening democratic institutions in a future Palestinian state.
A democracy is characterised by the rule of law. Legally speaking Hamas as a terrorist organisation should not have been allowed to run in the elections. Also your understanding of the Palestinian government is simplistic. The scope of the President’s power are extensive. So Abbas does have legal legitimacy in having control of some of the security forces and some aspects of foreign policy. So he is not acting so undemocratic.
Posted by: Mike | May 31, 2006 at 10:37
The Palestinian elections weren't free elections. Free elections, as sharansky says, are held in an environment where people are free to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.
Scharansky goes on to say that only when the basic institutions that protect a free society are firmly in place - free press, independent courts, 1 rule of law, freedom of religion, constitution - can free elections be held.
A society that is not free but in which elections are held should not be considered democratic.
That said, we do have to accept the results of their unfree elections. But as Mike says, Abbas by Palestinian law does still have some far reaching powers.
Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2006 at 14:52
Thanks for clearing up the misconceptions - especially about Abbas's rule. I agree with what you said Steve about democratic elections but democracy in Arab countries has never taken the face of 'western democracy.' With that said, we can still see that Hamas's victory was the result of a majority vote, and the fact that they want to impose Islamic Sharia Law seems to be what the majority of Palestinians want (please correct me if I am wrong!). Regardless, I think that though they are a terrorist organisation (and the international community and especially Israel must not deal with them untill they denouce violence and recognise Israel), their people voted them in and they must be allowed to rule and with whatever decisions they take, they must take the responsibility. Whether that be of their terrorist members being targeted by Tzahal or Israel sealing off of the 'territories' in response to violence. In terms of Abbas's rule, I do agree that he is more liberal and would be better to deal with, but as Steve has said we must respect the outcomes of the elections. The head of Hamas announced this just yesterday when he refused to deal with Abbas untill he recognises the results of the 'democratic' elections.
Posted by: Nili Scham | May 31, 2006 at 22:09
No Nili, I think you are wrong. Tyranny of the majority is no better than tyranny by a minority. Even if the majority oppose women having equal rights in South Africa, for example, the government may not take away their rights. Similarly many South Africans support the death penalty but it is unconstitutional. Human rights are more important in a democracy that the views of the majority.
Posted by: mike | June 01, 2006 at 09:04
Mike, I do agree with you that Human Rights are important. And I am in no way suggesting that they should be compromised but the Palestinians have shown what type of leadership they want. They want rule of their religion and Hamas to deal with their 'national' affairs. It is a tricky area when religion and human rights come into conflict (I think this is what you are suggesting?). Personally I say, give them what they want, but treat them accordingly.
Interesting to note, on a completely different angle, that Fatah won the student elections.
Posted by: Nili Scham | June 04, 2006 at 23:11