It's Almost Supernatural

Q & A with Paula Slier - Part 1: Slier on Zikalala

Part 1 of a 3 part discussion with award winning journalist Paula Slier whose reporting from the Middle East was banned by the SABC. For the background to this interview click onto Zikalala Must Go.

IAS: How long has this problem in the SABC been going on regarding your reports? The commissions report seems to indicate that it started during the month where Arafat died. But how long have your reports been refused by the SABC?

Paula Slier: My first problem with him arose when I was working as a news-reader and writer for SABC AFRICA, SABC’s 24-hour news channel broadcast on DSTV. I was told he was unhappy with my news reading because of my English pronunciation! Later when I joined SABC news as a reporter, I was the only journalist to double up as the late evening news-reader and every month he had to sign my news-reading contract so that I could be paid for the previous month’s work. Without fail, he delayed signing and it was always as if he was doing me a favour.

I was extremely angry when he took me off the SA Human Rights Commission investigation into racism in the media (2000). I had covered the story from the beginning – producing numerous news stories in the run up to the commission’s hearings. Late the night before it began, I was told I would no longer be on the story. No explanation was given. I sensed it was because he feared he would not get the report he wanted.

It was also extremely difficult and uncomfortable to work in the newsroom under him. During his time a lot of experienced and excellent journalists left – for many of us whom he did not like, for whatever reasons, he made life unbearable. It was often questionable how it was decided which journalists would cover which stories, especially when it came to the political stories and overseas trips.

IAS: Could you elaborate on how it all started? Was there a specific report you produced that was the so called “tipping point” that led the SABC to take this stance against you?

Paula Slier: The report that was the so-called “tipping” point was what happened when I went to Ramallah to cover former PLO chairman Yassir Arafat’s death. But I want to emphasise that I think this was merely one hook that Zikalala could use to blacklist me. I think if it hadn’t been this story, he would’ve used another opportunity to do it. I’ve no doubt he did not want me reporting for SABC and his reasons had nothing to do with journalistic integrity or professionalism.

It was November 2004 and the rumours were rife that Arafat was dying. I was in Johannesburg at the time. As a contracted freelancer to the SABC, I offered to travel to Ramallah at my own expense and asked if they would use me if I was there. I was given an unequivocal yes. I subsequently report from there for almost a week, doing interviews for SABC radio and SABC AFRICA. When news broke by one of his spokesmen one evening that he had died I was outside Arafat’s headquarters at the Mukata. Sky and Al Jazeera were reporting the statement. I phoned into the SABC newsroom, which was in the middle of its 7pm broadcast, and the editor agreed to do a live phone interview with me. However, later in the evening Arafat’s doctors in Paris held a press conference saying he was still alive. There was a tremendous amount of confusion but my report was in line with numerous other broadcasters and reflected the information we were being given on the ground. Later when I phoned in to file a follow-up I was told that SABC would no longer be using my services. No explanation was given. There had been no complaints about my work before then – and none were ever directed my way afterwards.

A senior person in the SABC hierarchy admitted to me that the reason was because Snuki did not want “a white Jewish girl reporting from Ramallah.”

He advised me to find another media outlet to work for as soon as possible. 702 radio took me on immediately – I offered my services to news editor Katy Katapodis and within thirty seconds was hired. She said she didn’t think she’d ever hired someone so quickly! As it happened the next morning it was (again) formally announced that Arafat had died. I reported live on the story for two days for 702 while SABC had no-one covering the story for them. They had to use Reuters agency pictures.

IAS: Zikalala commented in the evidence taken by the commission that “from the movement where I come from we support the PLO. But she supported what’s happening in Israel. And then I said to them, Paula Slier, we cannot use her on the Middle East issue because we know where she stands. We need somebody who’s impartial.” How worried should we be that our public broadcaster is so strongly associated with the Palestinians?

Paula Slier: What I found both astounding and extremely distressing is that Zikalala implicates himself through his own admissions. He admits bias by saying he is a blatant PLO supporter (“from the movement where I come from we support the PLO”) and then carries on to say, “we need somebody impartial”. Does he really believe that someone who is a PLO supporter is impartial? Would I have had to be a card-carrying member of the movement to be perceived by him as being “impartial”? It’s absolutely ludicrous.

I think it is worrying that our public broadcaster is so strongly associated with the Palestinian struggle, but I think it would be as worrying if it was strongly associated with the actions of the State of Israel. The role of the SABC is to be impartial, to broadcast news as freely and objectively as is can, and to be vigilant about covering both sides of the conflict.

This, believe me, is not always easy, particularly regarding something as charged as the Middle East situation, but it is certainly not the role of Zikalala to start prescribing what view the public broadcaster should take re: the conflict.

Part 2 - Slier on the Blacklisting Commission

Q & A with Paula Slier - Part 2: The Blacklisting Commission

Continuing the discussion with award winning journalist Paula Slier whose reporting from the Middle East was banned by the SABC. For the background to this interview click onto Zikalala Must Go.

IAS: Who made the “white Jewish girl comments?” Were they made to your face?

Paula Slier: I cannot give you the name of the person who claimed that Dr Zikalala had decided to stop using me because I was a “white Jewish girl” because it was told to me in confidence. But I can assure you it was told to me by someone high in the SABC hierarchy, first via telephone when I was still in Ramallah and later to my face (by the same person) when I was back in South Africa. I was certainly not surprised - it was something I’d suspected and sensed all along – it was just infuriating that I couldn’t do anything with the information. The person’s job would have been in jeopardy if I’d gone public and s/he asked me not to. It is now almost a relief to have it finally in the public eye. Legally, the remark falls under the title of “hearsay” which is problematic, although when I mentioned it to a retired judge he wanted to take the matter up.

IAS: How deep do you think the problems at the SABC go?

Paula Slier: The problems at the SABC do run deep. The main issue now with regards to Dr Zikalala is his autocratic management style. Professionalism and integrity are last on the list. Those who curry favour are those who toe the Zikalala line.

There are many pointless turf wars going on inside the public broadcaster and a lot of money is being wasted on often useless departments. News coverage goes overboard on government events, opinions and interests that are literally shoved down people’s throats. I’m told by those who work in the news department now that if your story doesn’t have a government minister in it, it doesn’t have much chance of going on air.

The sad irony is that South Africa has one of the most liberal constitutions in the world and yet we seem to be going backwards – there is talk about growing conformism and even the creation of a culture of censorship. This is extremely worrying.

IAS: What future for Zikalala? On Thursday Mpofu stated that the SABC has full confidence in Zikalala and his staff meaning that he will not lose his job or face serious sanction. Is this then the best SA can expect?

Paula Slier: It would be a very sad reality if Dali Mpofu does not take decisive action resulting in either Zikalala losing his job or facing serious sanction. Mpofu contradicted himself by saying “heads will roll” and then later stating he has “full confidence” in Zikalala.

I hope it doesn’t end with the SABC board assuring the world that Zikalala has been “reprimanded” (or words to that effect) while giving him the green light to continue. It would certainly be the most supreme irony if a commission appointed by the SABC to look into backlisting then censored its own results and took no recommendations.

I fear there will be an attempt at a whitewash. What’s also worrying is that should the commission’s findings be ignored, there will not be many South Africans who will be that surprised. This too is a sad reflection on how little faith South Africans currently hold in their public broadcaster and its responsibility to them. I hope there will be enough of an outcry that Zikalala will have to go.

The commission cannot have it both ways – it has a moral responsibility to do something.

IAS: The M&G reported that the commission was scathing about "arbitrary decision making, iron fist rule and the lack of editorial knowledge of the news and current affairs MD Snuki Zikalala". They also reported that there is a climate of fear in the newscaster’s boardroom. Have you ever experiences or witnessed other experiencing these situations?

Pauls Slier: When I worked under Zikalala there certainly was a climate of fear in the newsroom. I have it on good authority that it is the same today. But unfortunately very few – if any – SABC journalists will come forward and speak out for fear of losing their jobs. Zikalala does rule with an iron fist, people are scared to cross him and his management style involves controlling the newsroom like a dictator and dishing out work to his favourites – those who cower around him and who often pass on tittle-tattle in an effort to damn others and elevate themselves.

IAS: What does this mean for South Africa? Is this just the folly of one or two men (Zikalala and Mpofu) or do you think there is a real worry that the ANC is trying to use state organs as political tools?

Paula Slier: I don’t think that the ANC is trying to use state organs as political tools. But I do think that someone like Zikalala acts foolishly when he does not realize there is no need for him to push the party line; he in-fact does the government a disservice when he does so.

Our constitution upholds freedom of speech so even if Zikalala was to criticize the powers that be, he would have the constitution backing him up if he were to receive flak for it.

What’s more, the truth speaks for itself, so if the government has nothing to hide, there’s no need for the SABC to manipulate the news. Zikalala does the government, the SABC and South Africa’s hard-fought for freedoms a disservice by acting the way he does.

Mulholland Skins Kasrils

It appears that people are finally starting to get fed up with Ronnie Kasrils.

Last week Peter Fabricius wrote a scathing attack on Kasrils and in today’s Citizen there is a shining article by Stepehen Mulholland taking Kasrils to task for invading the foreign ministry’s territory and widely publicising his views on relations with Israel. Unfortunately the Citizen online haven’t published the article.

However, this pillar of the community, who has no words of advice for a girl claiming to have been raped, is quite happy to invade the portfolio of the other Zuma (the former DP`s former wife) by not only calling for boycotts and sanctions against Israel, but by these disgraceful remarks about the country: "...we must call baby-killers `baby-killers` and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis. May Israelis wake up and see reason, as happened in South Africa, and negotiate peace. "And finally, yes, let us learn from what helped open white South African eyes: the combination of a just struggle reinforced by international solidarity utilising the weapons of boycott and sanctions." And all this from an irresponsible, aged juvenile who, visualising himself as some sort of heroic revolutionary in the mould of Che Guevara, led youths in 1992 to their untimely and unnecessary deaths in Bisho, defying a magistrate’s order limiting the area of the march, which led to Ciskei troops firing and killing. Kasrils is a loose cannon. Mbeki should get rid of him.

Be sure to watch out for the next “don’t twist my words or my entire being will be shaken” Kasrils response.

Comrade Kasrils hits back

Last week we reported on Peter Fabricius’ (foreign editor for the Independent Newspapers Group) scathing attack on Ronnie Kasrils for his rebel without a game plan approach to politics. This week in five newspapers across South Africa (Pretoria News, Cape Times, The Mercury, The Star and the Citizen) Red Ronnie has come out in full swing. If there is one thing old style Commies like Kasrils can’t handle its criticism. And as usual Kasrils leverages his public profile to get the last word in.

He accuses Fabricius of deliberately twisting his words ‘in the same way as those bedfellows of Israel, right or wrong, the South African Zionist Federation and Jewish Board of Deputies’. We have to wonder how much lower Kasrils can intellectually go.

First it was "Israel=Apartheid", then "Israel=Nazism", now its allusions to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Is Ronnie implying that Fabricius is a closet Zionist in the service of Israel and the South African Jewish community? I fear our Minister of Intelligence has taken Protocols of the Elders of Zion too seriously.

After outing Fabricius as a Zionists, Kasrils then attempts to wiggle out of his horrendous accusation that Israel behaves like the Nazis. He protests that it was not he who came up with the comparison. He was merely quoting the analysis of others. I think this is probably true of everything the good minister says and writes. Original thought is not Ronnie’s strong suit.

Selective quotes, even from people as intelligent as Einstein (who in fact supported mainstream Israeli political movements and spoke harshly of the splinter movements that were quelled by the mainstream ones), do not constitute an argument. If Ronnie does believe that Israel behaves like the Nazis I challenge him to prove it with facts. For example can he tell us how many concentration camps there are in Israel? It’s pathetic that this blatantly untrue comparison passes as legitimate comment in South African newspapers.

Kasrils, like his Soviet mentors, is a master of doublespeak. Very few would be able to live so comfortably with the contradiction of being an advocate of both a 2-state and 1-state solution to the Israel-Arab conflict as our Ronnie, let alone in the same article. But … Kasrils writes

‘His (Fabricius’) assertion that I am not of the same opinion as the government and ANC on settling the Middle East issue is also incorrect I have made it perfectly clear that I accept a two state solution…’

But then a few lines later he writes

‘Because of my stance on Israel he (Fabricius) condemns me as a romantic. He assails me for hoping to one day see Muslims Christians and Jews of the area living together possibly in a unitary state. That is my personal hope…’

Do you get more Orwellian than that?

Nevertheless, the most farcical part of Kasrils attack is his conclusion. Red Ronnie is a non-practising Jew. He is a self-declared atheist but nevertheless has the Chutzpah to preach to Israel and its supporters from the bible. Citing the prophet Amos, Kasrils states

‘Jehovah puts his people on the same level as the nations that surround it; Jehovah expects the same morality of them all’.

If only Kasrils practiced what he preached. We are not opposed to criticism of Israel or the South African Jewish Community. All we ask is that Israel be judged by the same moral yardstick as its neighbours. But I guess in Kasril’s worldview all nations are equal but some nations are more equal than others.

Steve adds:
The titles of his articles makes for some hilarious reading:

Cape Times: Israeli cabinet minister first to compare his country to Nazis
The Mercury: Upholding my dream
The Star: Condemned as a romantic for hope
The Citizen: Moral duty to highlight Israeli injustice
Pretoria News: Don`t twist my words or my entire being will be shaken

His entire being will be shaken?

SABC Blacklist Scandal

The Johannesburg High Court yesterday dismissed the SABC’s application to have its “blacklisting” report removed from the Mail & Guardian website.

The commissioners of the report recommended its full publication but the SABC only agreed to publish a sanitized summary. The M&G however managed to get hold of the full report which can be downloaded from their website. (Again I note the irony).

Right click and select save target to download the full report from the M&G:
SABCBLACKLISTREPORT.pdf

The report is extensive and covers the allegations of an SABC “blacklist” of reporters, analysts and commentators whose reports the SABC refused to use because of views that were inconsistent with those held by the South African ruling party – the ANC.

The report is a scathing attack on the SABC news team who elevated political positions above objective reporting.

As I focus on one particular freelance journalist who was placed on this alleged “Blacklist” it’s important to note that breeches of the SABC code of conduct were not limited to reporting on Israel and the Middle East. I am focusing on that one aspect of this report because it serves as proof that the SABC news team are, as I have always contested, overtly biased against Israel.

But the major problems with what went on at the SABC effect general South African issues and the bias against Israel is just a subset of this smoking indictment against the SABC news team.

Copied below is the section from the report dealing with award-winning Jewish freelance journalist Paula Slier. Slier is accused by SABC news MD Dr Snuki Zikalala of being impartial (pro Israel) and of "taking sides". These accusations were primarily made because Paula Slier is a "white, Jewish girl".

Slier’s reporting is anything but biased and the criticism of her from both Jewish and Muslim sections of the community is probably the best indication of the absurdity underpinning Zikalala’s censorship of her reporting.

She has on numerous occasions reported very critically on Israel. It seems that for Dr Snuki Zikalala, her mere recognition and acceptance of Israel as a sovereign state is an intolerable position of Zionist support.

So deep does the anti-Israel sentiment at the SABC go that the MD of news Dr Snuki Zikalala described the conflict in the Middle East as a "Jewish war". This is an unacceptable and open display of anti-Jewish prejudice which should not be tolerated in South Africa.

And just who is the SABC supposed to be broadcasting for? South Africa or the Palestinians? Where exactly do their loyalties lie? Zikalala said

"she once wrote an article justifying the separation of the Palestinians, which was very, very negative towards us."

Us?

Paula Slier 5.3.7 Paula Slier is a freelance correspondent who, at one stage, was based in the Middle East. The SABC had a contract with her. She is a former award-winning SABC journalist. At the time of Yasser Arafat’s grave illness, she happened to be in Ramallah. There was uncertainty as to Mr. Arafat’s state of health. He was hospitalised in Paris where certain medical reports were being released but it was uncertain, at least for a while, whether he was alive or dead. Ms Slier had been filing reports from Ramallah concerning the state of Mr. Arafat’s health. The then head of news, Ms Philippa Green, received a direct instruction from Dr Zikalala not to use Paula Slier. So emphatic was this instruction that a not was placed on the system to the following effect: “URGENT NOTE: ALL DESKS The MD of News, Dr Snuki Zikalala has directed that NO MATERIAL OR STORY SUPPLIED BY JOURNALIST PAULA SLIER should be used by SABC news desks until further notice. Dr Zikalala says this instruction applies to all units of SABC news.” 5.38. Zikalala elaborated about his giving an instruction not to use Paula Slier. It is important that his justification be quoted verbatim: “Paula Slier, I’ll give you an example. Paula Slier, why I said we should not use Paula Slier. What happened is that during the time of when Arafat passed away, when Arafat passed away Paula Slier used to work for us as a journalist and Paula Slier was much more biased towards what’s happening in Israel. It was a Jewish war and especially the Middle East. We knew exactly her bias because she once wrote an article justifying the separation of the Palestinians, which was very, very negative towards us. From the movement where I come from we support PLO. But she supported what’s happening in Israel. And then I said to them Paula Slier we cannot use her on the Middle East issue because we know where she stands. We need somebody who’s impartial. We do have a correspondent there, I said lets use the correspondent … that person is impartial, does not take sides. Paula Slier on the Middle East issue we can bring in all the tapes that she’s written, she takes sides. I’ve got that editorial responsibility to do that. That’s why I’m employed, to do checks and balance. I said no, you can’t you can’t undermine the Palestinian struggle, you can’t. for me it’s a principle issue.” 5.39. We leave aside the question of whether or not Ms Slier had taken sides in the manner suggested by Dr Zikalala. Even if she had, and we have no evidence to support this, the circumstances concerning Mr. Arafat’s state of health was not an issue which impacted upon Ms Slier’s opinions, if any, concerning the Middle East conflict. Most importantly, however, was that the instruction was motivated by a political position adopted by Dr Zikalala which has no place whatsoever in a public broadcaster. For Dr Zikalala, it was a question of support for the PLO which, from the perspective of his “movement” was a matter of principle.

Coming soon (hopefully)…
Q&A with Paula Slier

Outrageous Bias at the SABC

Breaking...

Paula Slier has been placed on a blacklist of journalists no longer suitable for the SABC because they do not want a "white Jewish girl" reporting from the Middle East.

More to follow.

Update at 13:30:

An inquiry has confirmed that the SABC does in fact have a blacklist. News 24 is reporting that SABC head of news Snuki Zikalala has been found in contravention of the broadcaster's own code of conduct for ordering that certain commentators and analysts not to be used on air because of their political views. The inquiry is purported to have found that this order was not "objectively justifiable".

The report states that a direct instruction was given not to use Paula Slier for news reporting because of alleged bias (i.e. because she is Jewish). The inquiry concluded that this was improper and against SABC policy.

If true, this is extremely serious for South Africa as a whole. It goes to the heart of the ANC’s obsession with control and their real commitment to democracy. But from a Jewish perspective, it is also extremely frightening. It smacks of classic anti-Semitism where Jews are barred from involvement in public institutions because of their religious affiliation. Other Jewish employees of the SABC have in the past alluded to this type of anti-Semitic environment. Anti-Zionism has as many claimed it would mutated into traditional anti-Semitism in South Africa.

The South African Jewish community must speak out against this blatant infringement of our human rights. Our continued silence will only allow this hatred to fester.

News24.com have the details here: SABC 'blacklisted commentators'

Johannesburg - The SABC has blacklisted certain commentators and analysts, albeit not officially, an inquiry into claims made earlier this year has found. It determined that AM Live anchor John Perlman was right when he stated that blacklisting of commentators and analysts was happening in practice "by instruction".

Update at 14:30
The Mail & Guardian (yes, I see the irony here) have access to the 78 page report produced by the commission it appointed to probe the blacklist saga.

The M&G reports that the SABC violated the recommendations of the commission by releasing only a sanitised summary of the commission's report.

It appears that the SABC of the old apartheid regime is not too different from today's version.

Commissioners Gilbert Marcus and Zwelakhe Sisulu said that "it would indeed be abhorrent, and at gross variance with the SABC’s mandate and policies, if practices of the old order were being repeated in the new, with the effect of again disqualifying South Africans from democratic discourse and debate. "For this reason, we are firmly of the view that this report should be released to the public after consideration by the board.” The SABC issued a seven-page summary and statement about the ­commission. The commission’s 78-page report, of which the Mail & Guardian has a copy, is damning. It confirms the existence of an arbitrary blacklist of outside commentators who should not be consulted and says there is a climate of fear in the broadcaster’s newsrooms. It is scathing about the arbitrary decision-making, the iron-fist rule and the lack of editorial knowledge of the news and current affairs managing director Snuki Zikalala.

The M&G has a list of verbatim quotes from evidence given to the commission by the SABC news chief Snuki Zikalala. This quote concerns Jewish Middle East reporter Paula Slier.

"From the movement where I come from we support PLO. But she supported what’s happening in Israel. And then I said to them, Paula Slier, we cannot use her on the Middle East issue because we know where she stands. We need somebody who’s impartial.” Earlier, Zikalala sent out the following directive: URGENT NOTE: ALL DESKS The MD of news, Dr Snuki Zikalala has directed that NO MATERIAL OR STORY SUPPLIED BY JOURNALIST PAULA SLIER should be used by SABC news desks until further notice. Dr Zikalala says this instruction applies to all units of SABC news.

Bias? What Bias? Incredible.

This quote once again highlights the problem in South Africa of a power hungry ruling party with intentions of controlling more and more of our lives. A public broadcaster represents the State and not the ANC. Snuki Zikalala ran the SABC news with ANC and not South African interests in mind. We have always complained that the news in South Africa is framed from a Palestinian lens and this provides concrete and incontrovertible proof.

All South Africans of good faith need to demand that the SABC release the full 78 page report.

Note for non-South African readers: The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) is the state broadcaster in South Africa and runs 3 public television stations and a host of radio stations throughout South Africa.

Fabricius Skins Kasrils

A must read scathing attack on red Ronnie by Peter Fabricius in the Pretoria News: Rebel without a game plan

Fabricius relates how Kasrils has always trumpeted his personal revolution above his party's lines, almost fearing that peaceful negotiations would snatch his revolution away from him.

This resulted in the needless death of 28 demonstrators in Bisho in 1992 when Kasrils led an unnessecary protest march against the government of an "independent Ciskei". Negotiations had already been underway for 30 months and these "independent homelands were bound to disappear eventually".

Here's an excerpt from the column

The ANC government supports a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict to create independent Israel and Palestine states living peacefully side by side. Kasrils, though, prefers the one-state option, with Israel forgoing its current status as a Jewish-majority state by submitting to a Palestinian majority. It's a perfectly respectable position to hold, of course, and in many ways more logical than a two-state solution. But it is also eminently impractical given the regional sentiments. And, more to the point, it's not the official line, either internationally or in South Africa. But as Bisho demonstrated, Kasrils does not care too much for the official line and is always looking for a hole in it to charge through, his splintered lance to the fore. The other day he wrote an article in the Mail and Guardian in which he suggested that Israel should no longer be recognised, called the state "baby killers'' and added that "those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis (should) be told that they are behaving like Nazis". This week, the Ceasefire Campaign, the Centre for Policy Studies and a few other NGOs held a seminar to discuss the Middle East and invited Kasrils to be the key speaker. The invitation to the seminar included the quotes above from Kasrils's article. Jewish groups complained to the Goethe Institute and the institute's Nikolai Petersen agreed that likening Israel's actions in Lebanon to Nazi Germany's systematic extermination of Jews was insensitive and simply wrong. Kasrils purported to be writing and speaking in his personal capacity. But a cabinet minister simply cannot speak in his personal capacity on a policy matter of such importance. He is confusing the government's message on the Middle East, and, as this week's events suggested, hindering relations not only with Israel, but possibly with another important country, Germany.

Goethe Institute Distances Itself from Kasrils

The Goethe Institute (cultural arm of the German government) this week refused to host a talk given by Ronnie Kasrils because he had likened Israel to the Nazis. The talk moved to the Trinity Church in Braamfontein at the last minute. Peter Fabricius reports in the Cape Times

The Goethe Institute here, cultural arm of the German government, cancelled a speech on its premises this week by Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils after he had likened Israel to the Nazis. Kasrils had to move to another venue at the last minute to deliver the speech in a seminar organised by the Ceasefire Campaign, the Centre for Policy Studies, (CPS) the South African Liaison Office, the Action Support Centre and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR). The Goethe Institute objected to wording in the invitation which these organisations sent out to the seminar on the subject: Israel and Lebanon; Unpacking the source of the Middle East conflict. The invitation quoted from a recent article by Kasrils published in the Mail & Guardian, in which he said about the recent Israeli assault on Lebanon that, "we must call baby killers, `baby killers`, and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis".

I have a copy of the text of the invites that were sent out.

Israel and Lebanon: Unpacking the source of the Middle East conflict Public seminar Ceasefire Campaign, the Centre for Policy Studies, the South African Liaison Office, the ACTION Support Centre and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation INVITATION The UN brokered ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon appears to be holding. But for how long? And what happens next? Is the Middle East conflict intractable? What is fuelling the conflict and where do the solutions lie? The seminar is aimed at understanding the South African government’s role in the Middle East, providing information and analysis on the dynamics of the conflict, and promoting solution focused dialogue that explores the roles and responsibilities of civil society organisations and progressive governments. Key note speaker will be Minister for Intelligence services Mr Ronnie Kasrils. As an outspoken critic of Israel’s role in the region he recently wrote a piece that was published in the Mail & Guardian elaborating on the background to the ongoing dispute. He quoted Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder who said of the recent war in which hundreds of children died: “We no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the apartheid regime. We call murderers ‘child murderers’. “We do not recognize the principle of a thousand Arab eyes for one Israeli eye.” Kasrils concluded, “Like Gaarder, we must call baby killers, ‘baby killers’, and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis”. Minister Kasrils has agreed to speak and to field questions. It is envisaged that the seminar will attract participants from civil society, the diplomatic community, government and academics. A series of inputs will be followed by questions and contributions from the audience. Venue : The Goethe Institute Date : Tuesday, 10th October 2006 Time : 12h30 - 15h00 ALL ARE WELCOME RSVP Thandeka Zondi at Ceasefire The Ceasefire Campaign Tel (011) 403 5315 stopwar - at -mail -dot - ngo - dot -za

It's telling how Kasrils and all of these radical groups have latched onto an article written by Joostein Gaarder which was widely condemned as racist. The article, entitled "God's Chosen People", put forward the thesis that Israel’s ‘barbaric’ actions in Lebanon are the result of Judaism’s ‘archaic’ and ‘warlike’ nature. Using imagery and themes reminiscent of classical European anti-Semitism, Gaarder portrayed Christianity as the humanistic, peaceful successor to Judaism. Following the uproar in Norway Gaarder actually distanced himself from the original article and ensured that the article would not be translated into other languages.

It's sad that this racist and offensive article has been so widely celebrated in South Africa and dissapointing that the Trinity Church in Braamfontein, unlike the German Goethe Institute, took no issue with these ideas.

The Syrian Track

Syria has recently called for the resumption of peace talks with Israel. I tend to agree with Olmert who said that the overtures are merely a ploy.

Either way it's still an interesting development. Seeing as studies and work have taken up most of my time lately I thought I would rerun an old entry made relevant again by the Syrian overtures.

The entry related to 2004 reports that Assad was ready for peace talks with Sharon. And not much has changed.

---

UN envoy to the Middle East Terje Roed Larsen reports that Assad is ready to resume the peace talks with Israel "without conditions".

I won't be expecting too much from the "without conditions" statement. It's similar to how Assad's father first demanded "full withdrawal" as a basis for agreement, only to change his tack when he saw the Israelis were willing to do business - pocketing any concessions and using them as a point of departure rather than a point of conclusion. The initial talks between Rabin and Hafez Al-Assad were based on "full withdrawal" from the Golan Heights. As Rabin moved closer towards Assad, Assad stepped further away. Assad later defined "full withdrawal" to mean full withdrawal to the 1967 lines. To Rabin "full withdrawal" meant withdrawal to the international border, and not the June 1967 lines.

What was the difference? The international border is the mandate border from 1923. It therefore reflected the original border between Israel and Syria. The 67 lines didn't exist on any map. They represented the positions of the two sides on the eve of the 67 war. The difference between the two lines resulted from the war of independence in 1948. By 1949 the Syrians had captured some Israeli territory to the west of the 1923 lines. As part of the armistice agreement Syria withdrew from these lines and returned to the international border, making these demilitarised zones. The actual difference between the two lines was a mere 66 square kilometers, but for the Israelis that area affected their ability to control the east bank of the lake Kineret - their major source of water. Syria wanted it both ways - they wanted Israel to withdraw from territory captured in 67, but were refusing to allow Israel to return to the territory that they controlled as per the international border.

The negotiations carried on without much success. Eventually Israel moved closer to the Syrian demands. Israel eventually agreed to withdraw on the basis of the 67 lines, as long as they could get a couple of hundred meters off the coast of Lake Kineret.

The negotiations eventually ended in early 2000 when Assad refused to even listen to an amazing proposal from Clinton of what Barak could accept. Barak was willing to withdraw on the basis on the 67 lines as long as he had some territory to the east of the Kineret shoreline. In detailing his offer, Barak drew a line on a map that was just to the east of the Jordan river, and south of it he drew a line off lake Kineret - " a few hundred meters off the shoreline." He was prepared to compensate moving the border (from 67) in the north slightly east by moving the border in the southern part of the lake slightly to the west. Assad would therefore still end up with more territory than the international border stipulated.

The following map is my representation of the line drawn by Barak.

As you can see, the line I drew in is to the west of the line in the south, and to the east of it in the north. This allowed for the sum total of territory that Syria would receive, to remain exactly as Assad demanded.

The proposal in 2000 was made in Geneva. Clinton started the presentation with what he thought would be an easy point, in order to gather momentum. He detailed that Israel had finally agreed to Assad's demand - full withdrawal to the June 1967 lines based on a "commonly agreed border."

Assad's reponse surprised even right wing Israelis. He immediately said "this is a problem." June 1967 was Assad's mantra, this is what he repeatedly sought, and yet now he was objecting. Was he objecting that the border would be "commonly agreed?" Dennis Ross points out that the language Clinton proposed was the exact language used as a demand by the top Syrian negotiator in earlier talks!

Thus the Syrian-Israeli talks came to an abrupt end. I fully support Sharon's stance on this issue - that Syria must first show that they are serious by cracking down on the terrorist training camps on Syrian soil, as well ending their role as a channel to funnel arms from Iran to Hizbulla. Until the Arab world accepts Israel's moral legitimacy negotiations will be futile - only then will Arab leaders be able to justify compromises.

For an account of the Syrian Israeli talks see this Daniel Pipes review.

SA No Honest Middle East Peace Broker

South Africans have long hoped to develop conflict resolution as the country’s major political export. With an evangelical like fervour, President Mbeki and his ministers have attempted to save many fellow African nations (however selectively when you consider Zimbabwe) from the fires of war and civil strife. And to be fair they have actually achieved some good results in places like Burundi.

But being the chief solver of Africa’s numerous problems is not enough. Our government wants in to the premier league of conflict resolution and it believed that the intractable Israeli-Arab conflict is its ticket.

It began a couple of years ago with the Spier initiative. Leftwing Israeli politicians and intellectuals together with their Palestinian counterparts were flown to this picturesque wine estate in Stellenbosch to hear from those involved in South Africa’s political transformation how negotiation rather than violence was the way forward. But the Israeli government was completely excluded from this event.

The brains at the South Africans Foreign Affairs Ministry however soon cottoned on that if it was to have any real influence on a Middle East peace agreement it could not engage only with those on the fringes of Israeli society, while ignoring the countries democratically elected leadership. And so in a dramatic shift in policy, the South African government invited representative of Ariel Sharon’s then ruling Likud party on an official visit.

This was followed by an Israeli government delegation led by Ehud Olmert (one of the most high level in years) and the signing of a bilateral trade agreement between the two countries. The warm personal relationship that Olmert and Mbeki were purported to have formed led many in the South African Jewish community to believe that even handedness (as opposed to unwavering support for the Palestinians) had become South Africa’s new Middle East policy.

This delusion was comprehensively shattered recently when the South African parliament finally passed its extremely biased resolution condemning Israel and only Israel for the violence in Gaza and Lebanon. The resolution condemned Israel’s “collective punishment of both the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples” and only Israel’s actions were said to be “against international law and the Geneva Convention.”

Steve previously blogged about the unashamed Israel bashing that took place when this resolution was first proposed almost 2 months ago. If you recall, the resolution was withdrawn in order to find greater consensus. Many in the Jewish community saw this as a victory. But as a rather disagreeable Rosh Hashanah gift, this anti-Israel resolution was again tabled (unamended) in parliament and passed with a large majority.

With the passing of this resolution, South Africa has effectively killed any chance it may have had of being a peace broker in the regions. No Israeli government would rightly allow such a hostile state to influence the negotiation of its final borders. And Egypt, Jordan and even Qatar who now share similar positions to South Africa vis-à-vis Israel have far more influence on the Palestinians. So while trade and cultural ties between South Africa and Israel are sure to continue, the peace process will be out of bounds.

This is a tremendous shame. For South Africa, with its significant accomplishments in nation building, could have played a meaningful role in the development of a democratic and sustainable Palestinian state. Its vast experience in reconciliation could also have served to help counteract decades of anti-Jewish hatred that has infected the Arab world. Ironically, this resolution rather than helping will actually serve to harm peace and economic development in the Middle East.

You can download the full resolution which includes the rejected amendment that was proposed by the Democratic Alliance.

Download ancresolution.pdf