It's Almost Supernatural

SA Red Cross Shows Its Moral Muscle

I am pleased to confirm that the South African Red Cross voted in favour of Magen David Adom’s recognition as a national Red Cross society member. This position was contrary to that of the South African government who effectively voted against the Jewish States inclusion in the international humanitarian organisation.

Melanie Jackson, the Information Dissemination and Communication Officer for the South African Red Cross Society, in an exclusive statement to Its Almost Supernatural, explained why the South African Red Cross had taken such a bold decision.

If we look at the plight of the victims of conflict in that part of the world, the Red Cross could only vote YES - Humanity for all, even in the middle of war and conflict. This resolution would also see us enhancing the value of the principles of Unity and Universality, strengthened by Humanity. So, rather than being quoted as voting against my Government, I prefer to be seen as having voted for the establishment of yet another way of bringing humanitarian help to communities, irrespective of their religion, race, colour or creed.

We commend the South African Red Cross for its decision to help rectify the injustice that Magen David Adom has suffered for over 5 decades. We hope this will lead to a strengthening of ties between the two organisation in order to further promote humanitarian relief work around the world.

I have contacted the South African Foreign Ministry for an official explanation of their abhorrent decision. I will post it as soon as it is available. Without an extremely convincing explanation, it would seem that this decision by the South Africa government represents its true position towards the Jewish State: It does not recognize it as an equal member of the family of nations. The silence of the mainstream media and the official South African Jewish community on this extremely serious issue is mind-boggling.

We have also been in contact with Christopher Lamb, the Special Advisor of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (Thanks Gary.) Mr Lamb will soon update the IFRC website with the exact details of what took place at the conference.

In a nutshell:

There was a vote on the resolution that would incorporate the Red Crescent as an emblem which National Societies could use on humanitarian relief efforts. The resolution also called for the special admission of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. Governments and National Societies voted on this resolution.

A favourable vote would therefore pave the way for the admission of the Magen David Adom even though Israel was not mentioned in the resolution. As reported, South Africa voted against this resolution.

After the resolution was passed the Federation General Assembly took over. This General Assembly, which consists of only National Societies – not governments, could then officially admit the two new member societies.

Christopher Lamb explains

So, once the International Conference resolution had cleared the way for the consideration of the membership applications of MDA and PRCS, the Federation General Assembly met and both were admitted to Federation membership by acclamation - in other words by an applause consensus. As just noted, the decision was one for National Societies alone to take, so without governments voting, but the strength of our Movement is that nobody opposed the membership of either Society.

We commend and thank the South African Red Cross Society and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent for being so helpful and taking the time to explain this issue to us.

SA Media Ignore Hamas

In today's edition of the Cape Times and the Citizen there is a Reuters piece on the agreement reached between Hamas and Fatah over the "Prisoners Document". The document, which calls for the "right of return" does not mention recognition of Israel.

The political document, penned by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, implicitly recognises Israel. But the phrasing of the Abbas-Haniyeh deal appeared to leave the prime minister's Hamas movement wriggle room on the issue.

Wriggle room? Hardly. Another piece by Reuters, ignored by the local newspapers quotes Hamas.

But Hamas legislator Salah al-Bardaweel told Reuters: “We said we accept a state (in territory occupied) in 1967 — but we did not say we accept two states.”

The Palestinian Nazi Salute

Members of a newly deployed Fatah militia salute as they parade in the West Bank town of Jenin Saturday. Photo: AP

Hitler would be so proud.

South Africa Voted Against Resolution to Include Israel in Red Cross

As we reported, Israel has finally been admitted into the International Red Cross after 57 years of footdragging.

I mentioned that South Africa last year voted against Israel’s inclusion. I wondered how we would vote this time around.

I can now confirm that South Africa VOTED AGAINST Israel’s inclusion. Yes that’s right; our wonderful democracy that pretends to want to help resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict yet again towed the Islamic line and voted with a minority of the world’s pariahs against Israel.

98 countries voted for the resolution, 27 against and 10 abstained. South Africa stood shamefully alongside most Arab and Muslim countries as well as the dictatorships of China, North Korea and Cuba.

Suadi Arabia, trumpeting its Arab peace plan which it claims embodies Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to exist also voted against.

Read this editorial at Jerusalem Post which explains that by voting against Israel’s inclusion South Africa effectively showed that they care more about eliminating Israel than creating a Palestinian state. (Of course, they don't really want to eliminate Israel, but that is the effective message being sent. See this comment for an explanation.)

A vote for the crystal was clearly to accept both societies, since Israel could not operate without a recognized symbol and "Palestine" would not be allowed in without Israel. Admitting the PCRS required a special decision, because ICRC rules stipulate that only societies representing a state can become members. [...] the vote was to accept Israel and Palestine together into an organization whose sole job is to save lives, and which is supposed to embody the ability of a neutral body to rise above national distinctions and conflicts for sake of all humanity. MDA, for example, does not check the politics of the victims stricken in Muslim countries by earthquakes or tidal waves before rushing in with its unfortunately battle-tested expertise. Is there no forum to which official Arab enmity against Israel - not a particular Israeli policy - does not extend?

It is now clear that South Africa only pretends to stand behind a two state solution – what better embodiment of a two state solution could there be than to simultaneously vote in Israel and “Palestine”.

South Africa wants Israel to allow them to become a mediator in the conflict with the Arab world. Does South Africa honestly expect Israel to believe that they are capable of being neutral mediators when they constantly condemn Israel by voting with nations that reject Israel’s very existence?

South Africa is not neutral. South Africa is not impartial. And most shamefully, South Africa is certainly not independent.

The South African votes of shame:

On the IAEA vote to refer Iran to the UN Security Council on its nuclear programme (link) Try and spot the democracy. Twenty-seven out of the 35 countries on the board voted for the resolution. Voted against: Cuba, Venezuela and Syria Abstained: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa South Africa said it would have voted against but it knew that the resolution would be passed and therefore decided to abstain. The majority of the countries representing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) refused to support Washington on the Iran issue. India, a founding member of NAM distanced itself from their voting pattern and voted for the resolution.

Nations that requested the International Court of Justice to submit an advisory opinion on the legality of the wall (sic) being built by Israel. (link) Again, can you spot the democracy? Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and “Palestine”.

Update 1:
Please that this entry may prove to be incorrect. The source article I used for this information from the Jerusalem Post indicated that South Africa voted against the resolution to admit Israel into the Red Cross but that article may have been incorrect.

Update 2: I am now convinced that this entry is suitable as far as the salient facts are concerned. South Africa did in fact vote against the draft resolution that effectively paved the way for the admission of Israel (via the incorporation of the Red Crescent symbol into the Federation) and of the Palestinian Red Cross Society into the International Red Cross Federation.

The Red Crystal and Cultural Acquiescence

Israel’s acceptance of the neutral Red Crystal symbol in order to join the International Red Cross Society has sparked massive debate throughout the Jewish World. Steve comprehensively covered the issues in his post International Red Cross Includes Israel late last week.

From a Jewish perspective, I totally oppose Israel’s adoption of the crystal. I think it is symptomatic of the creeping post-Zionism that has infected Israeli society. Can you ever have imagined previous leaders of the Jewish State like Ben Gurion or Begin accepting this second class status? The aim of Zionism was for the Jewish people to become an equal member of the family of nations. If Christian and Muslim countries are entitled to use the Cross and the Crescent, I see no reason why the Jewish state should not be entitled to use the Star of David. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that India (majority Hindu state) and Cuba (an atheist communist state) both use the Cross.

But I don’t want this to be the focus of my post. I want to explore the much neglected implications of the Red Crystal from a wider Western perspective. It is naive to believe that the adoption of this third neutral symbol was only to facilitate Israel’s membership. It is part of a much larger process of Western civilization shedding its Christian identity.

Hidden in the detail of reports on this historic International Red Cross decision is evidence of Western cultural acquiescence. It seems that many personnel bearing the Red Cross have been extremely unpopular in the Muslim World even in emergency humanitarian relief efforts. So much so that Red Cross officials have admitted that they do not feel safe in Islamic areas. The usual Islamist apologists justify this gross religious intolerance on the grounds that the Red Cross reminds many Muslims of the hated crusades. Because of that historic injustice, they argue that it is legitimate for modern day Muslims to stone Red Cross bearing humanitarian workers. The neutral Red Crystal is their solution to this problem.

It will be interesting to see how quickly ‘Christian’ countries particularly European ones rush to adopt this new symbol. At first they will continue to use the Cross at home and the Crystal abroad. But it will not stop there. When ambulances are called to the predominantly Muslim suburbs of Paris which symbol will they display? Red Cross bearing personnel have as much to fear from French Islamist as they do from their Middle Eastern counterparts. And will the sensitivities of British and Danish Muslims also not be violated when they see Red Cross bearing ambulances speeding past in the streets of London or Copenhagen? Finally the only acceptable solution will be to ban the Cross and embrace the Crystal through Europe.

Conversely, I predict that not a single Muslim state will adopt the Crystal at home or abroad. The Crescent, no matter how disturbing it may be to many non-Muslims (particularly those living under Islamic subjugation like the Copts of Egypt) will not be sacrificed on the alter of cultural sensitivity.

The adoption of a neutral secular symbol for humanitarian relief is an important debate. It goes to the heart of how extensive the separation between church and state should be in a multicultural democracy. But this is not the context of the Red Cross’ recent decision. This decision is all about cultural acquiescence. And Islamic fundamentalists from Australia to Afghanistan know this. Christendom’s eagerness to forgo the Cross will appease these medieval type conquerors. It will only embolden them in their struggle to replace it with the Crescent.

IDF Soldier Kidnapped by Palestinians

Palestinian terrorists from Hamas killed two IDF soldiers and abducted a third during the pre-dawn hours of Sunday morning.

The abducted soldier is Gilad Shalit. The name to use for any prayers is Gilad ben Aviva. He is a 19 year old corporal from the Galilee.

The IDF are preparing an operation to secure the soldiers release.

Fatah have said that the Hamas leadership from Syria ordered the attack in order to torpedo any agreement between Fatah and Hamas on a controversial document drafted by some Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the territories "occupied" in 1967.

Mahmous Abbas has condemned the attack - not as a war crime against Israelis - but as a "violation of the Palestinian national concensus". The "democratic" Hamas leadership  responded to Abbas' criticism saying

Our national program openly calls for pursuing the resistance against the occupation by all means. We were surprised to hear about the formation of a commission of inquiry. Who are they going to investigate - the heroes who are defending the Palestinians or the Zionist murderers who are killing our children?

Earlier today 5000 people prayed at the Kotel for the release of Gilad.

For the Conductor, a psalm by David. May Hashem answer you on the day of distress; may the Name of Jacob's God make you impregnable. May He dispatch your help from the Sanctuary, and support you from Zion. May He remember all your offerings, and consider your burnt sacrifices generous, Selah. May He grant you your heart's desire, and fulfill your every plan. May we sing for joy at your salvation, and raise our banner in the Name of our God; may Hashem fulfill all your requests. Psalm 20: 1-7

International Red Cross Includes Israel

Finally, after 57 years of exclusion, Israel’s Red Cross society, the Magen David Adom, has been admitted into the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement as an official member, this despite Mulsim delegates’ attempts to scotch Israel’s bid to join.

Two new National Societies have been officially admitted as members of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. They are the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PCRS) and the Israeli National Society, Magen David Adom (MDA). This brings the number of Federation member Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to 185.

The new emblem added is however not the Israeli Star of David. It is the neutral Red Crystal.

The figure below depicts the 3 emblems now accepted by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.

The Red Cross International Federation overwhlemingly adopted the change to the statutes that allowed the introduction of the red crystal: 237 delegations voted Yes, 54 voted No, and 18 abstained.

I wonder how South Africa voted. In September last year South Africa voted against Israel's inclusion - in line with the Non Aligned Movement.

The Red Cross is a humanitarian movement that should include everyone. So why have they decided to adopted a neutral crystal rather than the Star of David?

The new protocol allows the Israeli Society to continue to use its red Star of David as its sole emblem inside Israel. When working outside Israel the Society would need to work according to the requirements of the host country. This could mean that Israel be forbidden to include the Star of David inside the crystal forcing Israel to use the empty Red Crystal instead.

So, in order to get the MDA admitted, they had to accept the use of the Crescent. In those countries that agree, and only in those countries, the MDA will be permitted to put a little Star of David inside the Crystal.

There has been much criticism of Israel's decision to accept this  decision. Some have even argued that it reflects a "second class" treatment in order to be accepted on the playground of school bullies. Is this criticism justified?

Let's try and understand the situation a little deeper by looking at the history of this controversy.

For over 50 years, Israel's Red Cross society, the Magen David Adom, has not been able to be a member of the International Red Cross Movement. The reason for its exclusion has been the fact that the Statutes of the Movement require national societies "to use the name and emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent in conformity with the Geneva Conventions." For historical, religious and national reasons, the use of these emblems to mark Israel and MDA's medical and religious personnel is clearly not practicable. The issue of amending this emblem requirement has been on the agenda of the International Red Cross Movement for over 50 years. At the Diplomatic Conference adopting the Geneva Conventions in 1949 Israel submitted a formal proposal to the effect that a Red Shield of David on a white background should be recognized as a distinctive emblem but, by the narrowest margin of 22 votes to 21, the amendment was not adopted. The ICRC also ruled out the addition of the Shield of David as an additional emblem, arguing that this would not address the problem of other States and National Societies interested in using a new neutral emblem. It was also argued that having an emblem used by only one country, was contrary to the principles of universality.

So trumpeting the principle of universality, the Red Cross ensured that membership was not universal by refusing to accept Israel as a member - all because Israel wanted to use the Star of David as its emblem. (And don't try display that Star at a Fifa world cup either!)

Did you know
There is another lesser known emblem recognised by the Red Cross. The Red Lion and Sun was used by Persia/Iran up until their Islamic revolution when they adopted the Red Crescent. The Red Cross argue against the inclusion of the Star of David because only one nation uses it - but the precedent of allowing an emblem for just one nation had already been set with Iran.

Double Standards?

Professor Wasserstein Live in SA

Bernard Wasserstein, professor of Jewish history at Chicago University, has been on a speaking tour in South Africa over the last 2 weeks. To be honest, I am not a big fan of Professor Wasserstein. I read his book Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop? a couple of years ago and was not particularly impressed.

His treatise is that demographics, the environment and economics will compel Israelis and Palestinians to co-exist peacefully. He believes total separation is not practically possible. He significantly discounts the influence of nationalism and religion on the conflict.

Professor Wasserstein is no Zionist. He almost seems to relish in debunking Zionist mythology. His book leans heavily towards the Palestinian narrative. For all his rave reviews in the Guardian newspaper, I don’t think Professor Wasserstein provides any new understanding of the conflict.

Despite my qualms, I did attend one of his lectures in Johannesburg. I rationalised that any Jewish intellectual debate in South Africa should be supported. The lecture I attended was on the subject of the disappearing Jewish Diaspora. He gave a similar lecture in Cape Town, which made the front page of last weeks Jewish Report.

I found the talk extremely disturbing. Professor Wasserstein paints an extremely bleak picture of the Jewish future. He argues that although Jews may once have been a distinct people, today that may not be the case. The assimilation of Jews into western society, he points out, has rendered them almost indistinguishable from their non-Jewish neighbours. They dress the same, eat the same and speak the same language. The characteristic of Jews as a distinct people that remains is common ancestry. Wasserstein believes that this is a very superficial affiliation. The massive rate of assimilation in the Diaspora is testament to this.

Israeli Jews, Wasserstein claims, are in no better shape. He describes the Jewish state as a society racked by ethnic divisions. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Russian, Ethiopian etc. Hardly the mark of a homogenous Jewish people. Post-Zionism and the demographic threat are other factors he cites as reasons for the potential demise of the Jews.

After all this doom and gloom, Professor Wasserstein offered no solutions. He was opposed to the relaxing of Jewish conversion laws, arguing that it may only dilute Jewish culture further. He also opposed birthright tours to Israel, believing that they served to further drain the Diaspora and replace a Jewish with an Israeli identity. And he dismissed the claim of a Jewish religious revival as exaggerated.

I put it to him at tea that post the enlightenment Jews were exposed to a free market of ideas. Judaism now has to compete with liberalism, socialism and every other ideology under the sun for members. And we are clearly losing. Judaism’s survival rests on its ability to be relevant to the majority of Jews. He nodded supportively and then apologised that he had to go and speak to an old friend he hadn’t seen for 20 years.

And I, like the future of the Jewish people, was left hanging.

Sudan Blasts the Jews

Sudanese leader blasts Jewish groups

When journalists pressed al-Bashir on his objection to UN troops in Darfur, he replied: "It is clear that there is a purpose behind the heavy propaganda and media campaigns" for international intervention in Darfur. "If we return to the last demonstrations in the United States, and the groups that organized the demonstrations, we find that they are all Jewish organizations," al-Bashir said. The comments were al-Bashir's strongest rejection of a UN peacekeeping role in Darfur. At one point he said he himself would lead the "resistance" to such a force. "This shall never take place," al-Bashir told reporters at a press conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki on Tuesday. "These are colonial forces and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country." "They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them chose a different place," he said.

My favourite part of the story...

Jan Pronk, the top UN envoy in Sudan, said in a statement Wednesday that Guehenno and the Security Council delegation had stressed that "the United Nations will not intervene in the country," nor will it deploy troops, without the consent of the Sudanese government.

I guess everything will be fine then.

Mike adds:

This story raises two important issues.

• It is a classic case of the new African anti-Semitism I blogged about previously. "Jews via America are engaging in a new colonial project to enslave Africans". How could our president just stand there and say nothing? It was a tacit endorsement of the Sudanese president’s remarks. The South African Jewish community should be up in arms. (But they won't even hear about this...)

• It also goes to the heart of how useless the U.N. in its current form is. They need the approval of the government that is orchestrating the genocide before they will intervene. What are the chances that will ever happen? John Bolton once remarked that if the top 10 floors of the U.N. building were to disappear nothing would change. I would argue that things might actually improve. Taxpayers would have to contribute less to this black hole.

Worst of all is that this has not even been covered yet in the SA press.

First Anti-Semitism Ruling in Equity Court: Victory Against Hate

Finally, after almost a year, the verdict is in on the first anti-Semitism case to be heard in the equity court in South Africa. Gerhard Barkuizen, the artist who painted a huge swastika on the wall of his home facing his neighbour was last week convicted of hate speech on the grounds that he knew his neighbour, Yaron Fishman was Jewish. Barkhuizen had also spray painted "Habrizo mamzer" on his wall. Loosely translated it means, "spiteful Hebrew bastard".

The affair has been mildly entertaining. In the previous update we learned that Barkhuizen contested his guilt by saying that the swastika was not aimed at his Jewish neighbour, but at…"the devil."

We also learned that Barkhuizen actually has a lot of empathy for Jews. He prays for them and "would like them to be saved". He was eventually forced to take the stand after efforts at mediation failed because he refused to apologise to his Jewish neighbour.

The Lowvelder has the story.

A local magistrate this week ruled that Mr Gerhard Barkhuizen's actions constituted hate speech. He could be forced to make a public apology and compensate Fishman. Fishman laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission almost a year ago after he found that his neighbour had painted a swastika during the night with the words Habrizo mamzer on his wall. Loosely translated it means, "spiteful Hebrew bastard". Barkhuizen told the court earlier that he was an artist and painted the swastika during an artistic process. He said at the time that it formed part of a mural depicting World War II that he was working on. His legal representative argued that according to the constitution, Barkhuizen had the right to freedom of expression. The magistrate in his ruling said this freedom is, however, curbed by the constitution and the Equality Act that prohibits hate speech based on race, ethnicity and religion.

The sentence will be heard on June 29.

Well done to Yaron Fishman for standing up for himself and for the Jewish people who too often accept this atrocious behaviour.

Read my thoughts in favour of limitations of freedom of expression here. I basically argue that freedom of expression has its limitations which are grounded in the other freedoms that a liberal democracy provides. Most radicals from the left or right tend to see civil society principles in isolation of each other, when the reality is far more complicated than that. We are left with a common economic trade off of competing principles and you can't just select "free speech" ahead of other democratic principles without considering the impact the selection has on those other principles.