FXI - A Front for the Radical Palestinian Lobby in South Africa

I had hoped that the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) had moved on from Jew bashing to actually defending freedom of speech in South Africa. But old habits die hard.

Over the last few days the FXI has launched a propaganda blitz against the South African Jewish Board of Deputies' (SAJBD's) agreement with the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) for more balanced coverage of Israel. Although I have also been critical of the SAJBD-SABC agreement, the FXI's response has been so dramatic and disproportionate that it once again calls into question their objectivity when it comes to the South African Jewish community.

• FXI's dramatic fear mongering criticism of SAJBD-SABC meeting
• SABC response (use this link if SABC link is broken)
• FXI responds to SABC's clarification of the SAJBD deal

As part of the SAJBD-SABC deal, the two parties agreed to meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the national broadcaster's coverage of the Middle East. The FXI has charged that this could result in 'a pernicious form of censorship that does violence to the notion of free expression and freedom of the media.' Talk about hyperbole!

I don't know how a regular forum to voice concerns and engage in constructive debate could possibly be 'pernicious' or 'do violence' to free speech in South Africa. If anything it would do the opposite: promote a diversity of views in SABC Middle East coverage (the SABC has admitted to a pro-Palestinian bias). In fact this is something that one would expect a freedom of expression institute to be championing not condemning. Is the FXI trying to deny the Jewish community a chance to discuss their views with the SABC? Just who is guilty of attempting censorship!

So what could possibly account for the FXI's belligerent response? The answer lies in its not-so-covert anti-Zionist agenda. FXI executive director Jane Duncan for example has publicly accused the Jewish state of employing 'policies of forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land' and described the South African Jewish Report as 'a mere extension of Zionism's repressive project.'

But Ms Duncan is not the only member of the FXI with an anti-Israel agenda. Na'eem Jeenah is the head of the FXI's access to information programme but also plays a major role in the pro-Palestinian lobby in South Africa as spokesperson for the Palestine Solidarity Committee. His radical views on the conflict are well known. Some examples…

• In an article on Zionism, for example, Jeenah likens Israel's behaviour to that of the Nazis.
• He has called on the South African government to (1) end diplomatic ties with Israel and (2) to boycott "apartheid" Israel and impose sanctions.
• In an article on his blog entitled "Viva Wits-PSC Viva" he ridiculed Jewish students as well as the Jewish Board of Deputies for performing poorly in a debate with the PSC. Is this the sort of childishly partisan attitude we expect from a director of South Africa's prime freedom of expression watchdog?

So it's not surprising that the FXI has made such a fuss about the possibility of more balanced coverage of Israel at the SABC. Even in its statement condemning the SABC-SAJBD agreement, the FXI overtly reveals it real agenda. It denounces the SABC for considering giving coverage to the South African co-existence tour of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists Benjamin Pogrund and Bassem Eid. Both are referred to as 'pro-Israeli propagandists'. Thus the FXI defends the right of extremists to be heard in the South African media, but seeks to censor moderates.

This hypocrisy must be exposed at every opportunity. So committed is the FXI to furthering its radical Palestinian agenda that it is willing to betray its own mandate. The FXI do some valuable work for the freedom of expression in South Africa but until they correct their partisan biases on important political issues they should no longer be allowed to continue masquerading as a free speech watchdog.

Previously at IAS

• FXI: "We are not mindless bubble-heads"
• Jihad by Proxy

IAS Search: FXI

Comments

[Walton]

What [swearing removed-Ed]. Since when is criticising Israel 'Jew-bashing'? Using that kind of inaccurate and emotionally charged language is disgusting and disingenuous. Israel is a racist state that many Jews criticise as well.

The agreement with the SABC was specifically aimed at promoting 'moderates', and isolating any of the 'militants' who refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist, thus entirely shutting down any debate on the the legitimacy of America's racist colony in the Middle East.

Recognising Israel's right to exist is promoted by the Zionists as a precondition for any debate and discussion on Middle Eastern affairs, yet to recognise Israel's right to exist is to excuse racism and colonialism.

By attacking this attempt to crush debate, the FXI is merely doing it's job.

Jews have a right to live in Israel/Palestine. But no one has the right to create a racially exclusive state.

[Gary]

Pantland , no reasonable person buys your repuslive charge that Israel is a racially exclusive state.
As Professor Alan Dershowitz puts it : " "With regard to support forpeople of color , Israelis truly a nation of color. It has one of themost diverse populations in the world , including black Africans from Ethiopia , brown Africans and Asians from North Africa , Yemen , Egypt , Iraq and Morocco;Jews from Central Asia , Russia and the Caucuses ; and families from Romania , Latin America and the former Yugoslavia".
But the Jews certainly do have a right to a nation-state in the Land of Israel.
There are many nation-states, whether you leftist radicals like it or not.
Why do you nevber complain about the manyt exclusively Islamic States?
Becuase you are nothing but a hypocrite!

[Hillel]

I might have agreed with Walton, the language was a little charged. On the other hand the FXI hasn't exactly been the paragon of unbiased virtue.

However, on reading:

"Jews have a right to live in Israel/Palestine. But no one has the right to create a racially exclusive state." I understood what Walton was really trying to say. It was also clear that Walton has quite a grasp on the situation in all its details.

This statement of course explains why Walton will be campaigning for the downfall of Hamas and Fatah/PA and of course why he is opposed to the general idea of a Judenrein West Bank and Gaza. Thanks Walton, I'll sleep more comfortably knowing that you will stand up to Islamic Jihad, Fatah and Hamas and keep the Jews in "palestine/Israel" safe.

For anyone interested, Walton will also be organising a solidarity tour to Iraq and Iran, followed by a stop over in Morrocco to ensure that the rights of all citizens in those countries (including the JEws) will be protected. Naturally, he won't bother with Jordan, Syria and LEbanon, sadly those spots were made Judenrein some time ago.

[Jonty Reid]

Walton,
The SABC said that they wont allow a white Jewish girl to work at the SABC. They said that "from the movement I come from we support the Palestinians".

Don't you tink then that the jews are allowed to meet with them and to lobby them for balance?
(they asked for moderates from both sides. They didnt try push extremists from one side.)

I think you the emotional one. cussing away etc.

[Ariel]

Walton an attempt to end a partisan point of view is not an attempt to crush debate. The SABC has admitted that it is biased for Palestinians.

You have inferred a lot about what the SABC-SABJDE is for. Please substantiate your claims. before you answer i don't care about your rhetoric or idealogical biases, i want facts, links and quotes from their meeting.

Israel is not rascist and all it's citezens are equal before the law. That there is discrimination is endemic to all states which is not to condone it but is simply a reality.

With regards to your views of ethnicity would you say thay Japan has the right to maintain it's own ehtnicity or would you label that as racism?

And cut down on the swearing it doesn't make you sound smarter or validate you claims, it's just childish.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Walton,
The real question is whether the Director of The FXI ( Na'eem Jeenah)
should also be he spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee?
Don't you think that the two portfolios are incompatible?

[theo]

The truth is that the SAJBD should not have entered into an "agreement" with the SABC (and Snuki in particular) and it is to be anticipated that the FXI would proceed to bash the SAJBD in escalating opportunistic mode in the service of achieving the best ideologically based outcome and effect. Their critique could have had more weight and validity had they consistently applied their principles and mandate with universal consistency and integrity.

Na'eem Jeenah is closely associated with the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and Salim Vally (formerly connected to the FXI) of the PSC. In September of 2002 Vally and others were arrested for attempting to disrupt a lecture at the Linder Auditorium given by the then Foreign Minister of Israel and Nobel Prize winner, Mr Shimon Peres. Did the FXI come out, on that occasion, to bat for the seemingly sacrosanct principles of freedom of expression? Not a fat (ideologically-non-committed) chance!: They went along with a wholly flawed rendition of events as portrayed in the M@G at the time and released a statement that the various participants at that demonstration (including Vally) were wrongfully arrested, the arrests seemingly 'orchestrated' by the SAJBD, when in fact the people wishing to attend the lecture were indeed subjected to verbal abuse and physical harassment and were pelted with missiles as reported by other newspapers, including the Star. Here and as also illustrated in other instances ( e.g the Radio 786 antisemitic broadcastings and the Danish cartoon controversy) the FXI showed it's partisan bias by not taking a more appropriately reactive, principled and committed stance in line with their professed mandate. It is thus not surprising that the FXI refer to former anti-apartheid activist, Benjamin Pogrund, and fellow Palestinian peace activist, Bassen Eid, as "pro-Israeli propagandists". The FXI, in the recent past (2006), also did not come to the defence of the principles of freedom of expression when the seminars on the Middle East that were to be given by Pogrund and Waleed Salem (another Palestinian peace activist) in SA were cancelled in the face of intimidatory threats of disruption by Vally and others of the PSC.

The Board/SABC "agreement" is no agreement at all and has diminished the full participatory role of Jews in our new democracy and through the unfortunate withdrawal of the complaint against the SABC in the blacklisting saga. The Board will wince in reflective regret as the whole appeasement based scenario progressively falls apart, as will happen, over time. But that said, anyone who cannot see the flagrant bias of the FXI in relation to issues pertaining to Jews and the seemingly intractable Israeli/Palestinian conflict should commit him/herself for psychological observation.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Theo,
I concur with your excellent comments . Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan
have also revealed their extremely biased anti-zionist positions when
commenting on many other issues. .Na'eem Jeenah is, of course, an
Islamic activist and should certainly make up his mind whether he is
punting freedom of expression or anti-zionism at The SABC.
Btw, the SAJBD / SABC "agreement" is not worth the paper it isn't
written on.
At Beyachad , Tony Leon recently said that the leadership of The SAJBD
should not serve as the government's representatives to the Jewish
community. Unfortunately Zev Krengel and Wendy Kahn did not heed his
words.
It is a great pity that both The FXI and The SAJBD have shown such weak
leadership. The Supernatural blog, as a result, has an extremely
important role to play in highlighting the real issues and encouraging
both The FXI and The SAJBD to get their respective houses in order.
Perhaps it is too late in the day for that to happen but those of us
who believe in democracy and freedom of expression should never give
up.
I also encourage you and other interested parties to comment on this
matter on The FXI's website (www.fxi.org.za)

[BlackSAn]

Mike, what does "The FXI do some valuable work for the freedom of expression in South Africa but until they correct their partisan biases on important political issues they should no longer be allowed to continue masquerading as a free speech watchdog." mean? Particularly, what do you mean by "they should no longer be allowed"? Who should prevent them from doing whatever they want? The government? Someone in civil society? And how?

[Steve]

What we said simply means that concerned people like us should use the democratic tools of this country and continue to highlight their hypocrisies in order to inform the general public that they have credibility (partisan biases) issues when it comes to the Middle East.

Eventually perhaps their board of directors (or sister international organisations) would correct the situation.

The issues I speak of are:

______________________________________

- Sounding the foghorn when a local, private Jewish newspaper refused to print an article from Kasrils.
- Remaining quiet (and providing tacit support) when the FXI's former chairman intimidated a Palestinian peace activist (by no means a Zionist) preventing him from coming to SA on an Israeli Palestinian coexistence tour. The belief that a platform should not be shared with a ZIonist (even a left wing Zionist like Benjamin Pogrund) is contrary to their stated freedom of expression mandate.

______________________________________

- Arguing in favour of censhorship of the offensive Muhammed cartoons (by editors, not the courts, to their credit)
- Arguing in favour of publication of things offensive to Jews such as Holocaust denial, Nazi comparisons to Israel etc - even if its a local and private newspaper. (I don't think these things should be censored, I just believe that a right of reply should be awarded.)

_______________________________________

Explicitly siding with the PSC, supporting their version of events when Shimon Peres visited SA even though newspapers in SA generally reported both sides of the tale.
As Theo commented
In September of 2002 Vally and others were arrested for attempting to disrupt a lecture at the Linder Auditorium given by the then Foreign Minister of Israel and Nobel Prize winner, Mr Shimon Peres. Did the FXI come out, on that occasion, to bat for the seemingly sacrosanct principles of freedom of expression? Not a fat (ideologically-non-committed) chance!: They went along with a wholly flawed rendition of events as portrayed in the M@G at the time and released a statement that the various participants at that demonstration (including Vally) were wrongfully arrested, the arrests seemingly 'orchestrated' by the SAJBD, when in fact the people wishing to attend the lecture were indeed subjected to verbal abuse and physical harassment and were pelted with missiles as reported by other newspapers, including the Star.

That said, I personally wouldn't waste too much energy on this issue apart from the odd blog post here and there so that I have a record of the incidents which can be used to refer people back to their past hypocrisies.

[Steve]

Benjamin Pogrund and Bassem Eid will be on the After 8 Debate on SAFM at 8am tomorrow (Wednesday).

[Mike]

Blacksan, perhaps that was a clumsy use of words. As Steve said, the FXI are obviously free to do what they want. I don’t think government or civil society can prevent them from supporting radical Palestinian positions. But they should be exposed for what they are. Theya re not a nutral independent NGO only concerned about Free Speech.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Let us assume that a spokesperson for The SAJBD or The SAZF ( South
African Zionist Fed) was director of The FXI and was also involving The
FXI in issues relating to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict . Do you
think that such an individual could be objective, fair and independent
?
I would hope that in such circumstances, people like yourself would be
demanding that the FXI gets its house in order.
Of course The FXI can do whatever it likes, but that should not
preclude us from demanding that it is run by people who do not hold
other portfolios which could affect their ability to be professional
freedom of expression custodians.

[theo]

Just to be exquisitely correct with regard to part of my earlier posting dealing with the attempted disruption of the Peres talk in 2002, and having gone back to research sources, the FXI in fact did not issue a public statement in support of the Vally mob, but communicated what I stated in written communications with the Board: different medium, same corroded core of bias on the part of the FXI.