It's Almost Supernatural

Apartheid Gaza

Here's an article in the Guardian about a Christian Palestinian man who was murdered in Gaza. His friends and family are convinced that his only crime was being Christian: Persona non grata in Gaza

The article explains how most of Gaza's Christians live in fear of their Muslim neighbours and want to leave. This is the same pattern that has plagued much of the West Bank causing dwindling Christian populations in places like Bethlehem and Ramallah (see Christians targeted in Ramallah).

The society - originally the British Palestine Bible Society - has long been a target for Islamist extremists. A grenade was thrown at its premises in protest at the publication in Denmark of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, and a bomb was detonated outside earlier this year. Christians have been in Gaza since the fourth century, but Mr Ayad's murder follows a series of incidents that has shaken the community's desire to stay. Christians have been a frequent target of crime in recent years. "Everything has changed. In the times of my father and grandfather, there was no difference between Muslims and Christians," said Ibrahim Ayad, another brother of the victim. "The Islamic revival has also brought intolerance in its wake." . He said he would leave Gaza as soon as he had identified his brother's killers and got retribution.

And here's an example of a comparison between Islamic societies and apartheid South Africa that Bishop Tutu and co. want you to ignore.

He said many Muslims perceived Christians as "kaffirs", or unbelievers, which meant they were not subject to the same laws as Muslims. "We hear this word each day. Most of the time we laugh it off as a joke. My seven-year-old son goes to a Christian school and one of his Muslim friends told him that he would go to hell because he is a Christian."

And remember, this isn't an article from some 'right-wing Zionist rag'. It's from the Guardian.

For more similarities between the Palestinian treatment of Christians and the old Apartheid policies carried out against black South Africans see Hamas bad for the Jews; Worse for the Palestinians.

(Hat tip: Media Backspin)

Did You Know?

It is illegal for a Lebanese citizen to speak to an Israeli citizen no matter where in the world their meeting takes place. Even quietly waving hello to an Israeli on the border is treason.

So writes Michael J Totten, a man with arguably more knowledge about Lebanon than any other journalist/blogger alive today.

He also explains the absurdity of it all

The law is absurd from the West’s point of view, and from the point of view of many Lebanese, too. Lebanon is “the least anti-Israel Arab country in the world,” as Lebanese political consultant and analyst Eli Khoury told me last year. But Lebanon, despite its moderation outside the Hizballah camp, is still under the shadow of the Syrian-Iranian axis, and remains threatened with de facto re-annexation.

(Hat tip Media Backspin)

If they don’t have Pap...

Here some pictures I received that were believed to be of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe’s new mansion. It is said that it will have 116 rooms. The Zimbabwe Times ran the photos a couple of days ago but have since issued a correction. It seems that the images are not of the new mansion, but rather of the mansion where Mugabe and his family stayed while his new mansion was still under construction.

At least we know that when President Mbeki and Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils pop in for a visit, they have some place to stay.

What strikes one of course, is the Eurocentric style. More to the tastes of a French king than an African nationalist dictator. But I guess the good life is universal.

It’s sickening really. While his people are starving, he lives in the lap of luxury. Unemployment in Zimbabwe is estimated to be around 80% and almost half the population survives on international food aid.

Mugabe would do well to consider the outcome of a certain French King, whose interior decorating he seems to so relish. But it’s probably too late, all the power has gone to his head.

Tutu Patronises, Blames Jews

Joel Pollak, at Guide to the Perplexed has a report on Archbishop Desmond Tutu's recent speech at an Israel bashing conference at Boston's Old South Church.

The entire speech is available here.

I have honestly tried to believe that Tutu's views on the Israeli Palestinian conflict have somehow been misunderstood. But its all in vain. The voice of morality in South Africa is completely impaired when it comes to the Israel Palestinian conflict.

Tutu takes a simplistic weak-versus-strong angle implying that God will ultimately turn against the Jews.

Fo we had learned from our Jewish tradition that God, our God, is notoriously biased, forever taking the side of the weak, the oppressed, the downtrodden against the kings and the powerful oppressors. [...] God is not neutral.

Joel sums it up succinctly. He blames the Jews. And only the Jews.

Of course, we will be denounced as alarmist, riddled with persecution complexes, and against freedom of expression simply because we disagree with what Bishop Tutu has said.

It's quite sad really.

South Africa Flirting With Terrorism

A frightening article appeared recently in Family Security Matters (a terrorism watchdog) warning South Africa of the dire consequences that its friendship with terrorist organisations and rogue regimes might bring. In very emotive language, the author Peter Pham (the director of the Nelson Institute for International Public Affairs) accuses our government of ‘foolishly playing with fire before the flames sweep across its entire area of responsibility’. While the content of the article echoes many of the issues we have raised over the last year or so, it effectively connects the dots making it a must read.

South Africa has been at the forefront of opposing the establishment of a regional US Military Command in Africa (AFRICOM) (surprise surprise). South African Defense Minister, Mosioua Lekota, has gone so far as to bully fellow African states into not supporting the initiative. At a recent SADC conference he declared that “the interests of unity of African nations supersedes any individual view of a constituent member” and threatened that “should any particular country choose to break ranks with this decision…other sister countries may refuse to cooperate with it in other areas other than that particular area.”

Interestingly the ANC, which prides itself on talking to everybody, has refused to meet with US representatives about the issue. In July for example, Lekota did not even bother to respond to a request from the US Embassy to meet with the designated first commander of AFRICOM, General William Ward. Contrast this with South Africa’s warm embrace of tyrants like Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Myanmar’s military Junta as well as terrorists like Ismail Haniyeh. Pham argues that this counterproductive behaviour is motivated by the ANC’s revolutionary/anti-Western worldview. He describes it in stark terms as ‘an ideological straightjacket that endangers not only the lives and property of its citizens, but the security of Africa and, indeed, the world.’

As Pham points out, there are many historical reasons that explain this phenomenon. Before 1994, the ANC itself was branded by many governments as a terrorist organisation (not only the apartheid regime). Thus they have an innate suspicion of those who claim to be fighting terrorists. As a liberation organization, the revolutionary rhetoric of the Bin Laden’s and the Chavez’s unfortunately resonates strongly. Moreover as former exiles, many ANC officials are sympathetic to international fugitives and have turned a blind eye to militants hiding illegally in South Africa.

Despite the bleak picture painted by Pham, I don’t believe the situation is hopeless. There are also strong counter historical/philosophical reasons that could be used to motive a different approach by the ANC to foreign affairs. Yes they were also classed as terrorists. But to any half conscious person it is clear that there was a vast difference in the approach of the ANC and say al Qaeda to the ‘struggle’. In fact this should give our government far more cause to speak out against civilian atrocities.

The ANC, strickly speaking, was not actually a national liberation movement. Its goals were far wider. It hoped to establish a free and prosperous society for all South Africans (see the freedom charter). This is very much at odds with the parochial and anti-democratic objectives of organisations like Hamas. Just as moderate Leftists during the cold war were able to both oppose the Soviet Union and promote more socialist policies, I see no reason why the ANC could not fight terrorism and at the same time work towards a more equitable international political and economic playing field.

Evangelism of Hate at Wits University

A newspaper called the Palestine Times caught my eye at Wits University the other day. It’s a wretched newspaper published in London, and students are seemingly distributing it at Wits University. I can’t claim any expertise on the legalities of distributing material like this on university campuses, but having examined 3 issues, there are certainly no stamps permitting the distribution.

It’s not actually the right to distribute the papers on campus that I wish to examine. It’s the content of this newspaper and what it says about the pro-Palestinian crowd at the university that worries me. At a time when student leaders could be conditioning their groups for the concessions that need to be made at Annapolis, it’s rather sad to see a publication of this standard being dished around.

I have since grabbed three different editions.

The content of the publication is sour, hateful and overwhelmingly childish. Really, really childish. The contributors can’t even bring themselves to mention the IDF by its proper name, instead resorting to chants like “Israeli Occupation Army” or the “trigger-happy Nazi Gestapo.” Zionism is “Zio-Nazism” and the settlers are “Judeo-Nazi settlers.” How very prekindergarten.

The allegation that Israel is a Nazi state is a constant theme in the issues I perused. One article entitled “More on the Israeli-Nazi analogy,” challenged the “Zionists and their supporters and apologists to prove that Israel doesn’t harbour a final solution for the Palestinians.” The author then claims that Israeli leaders openly admit that they wish to see all of the Palestinians dead.

Is this what naïve students should be reading on campus? That Israel is planning to do as the Nazis did and attempt to wipe out an entire people! What will these students then think about Jewish students who support Israel?

The publication is littered with ghoulish lies supporting the Nazi vituperation. Here’s an example

“The Nazis imprinted serial numbers on the forearms of Jewish internees, and the Israelis have done the same to the Palestinians.”

Really? You can't respond to that. It's like someone recently said in the comments of this blog -that in the battle for public opinion it is difficult to fight lies with truth because truth is limited but falsehood can be accommodated to match any argument.

Moving on...it’s not just Israelis or Zionists that are caricatured as Nazis.

“I saw face to face the obscene sadistic acts practiced by Jews against their helpless victims. These are not isolated behaviours. This is the norm, not the exception.”

Another article attacks Ashkenazi (European) Jewry.

“Today Israel and the US want Palestinians to lower the ceiling of their expectations. And for those who don’t know, this is a euphemism for surrender and capitulation to Ashkenazi Nazism.”

The Nazi libel goes on and on and on.

“The Nazi like occupation of Palestine by Israel is not the act of a few Israeli Jews. It is not even the act of a military establishment alone. It is the collective act of a morally desensitised society that has nearly lost its humanity and succumbed to a collective psychosis that is not unlike the moral blindness that struck the German people more than 60 years ago."

The publication weaves a tapestry whose every thread is designed to prolong the conflict, igniting the fierce anger of young energised students. The editor leads the way writing that the Palestinians should never recognise Israel’s right to exist. “Israel is an enduring crime against humanity,” he writes, “just as Nazi Germany was a crime against humanity.”

Is it reasonable to compare Jews to Nazis? I recently reviewed a UN report by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. The report, adopted by the UN in August this year, is entitled “Racism, Racial discrimination and related forms of intolerance: follow-up to and implementation of the Durban declaration and programme of action.” The report will get an blog entry of its own, but briefly, let’s take a look at what the report says about anti-Semitism.

There is a crucial need to identify when anti-Zionism is tainted by anti-Semitism. Experts’ analysis point to the following cases of such superimposition: (a) When language, images and character traits attributed to Israel are imbued with recognizable anti-Semitic stereotypes; (b) When Israelis and Jews are represented as cosmic devils, blamed for global disasters and compared with Nazis; - check (c) When Israelis and Jews who support the State of Israel are singled out, attacked, and treated in a manner that is out of proportion to the issue at hand and in comparison with the actions of other countries; - check (d) When the legitimate right of Israel as a Jewish State to exist is questioned. - check

Hmm…if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, then...it’s a duck. I’m not saying it, the UN report, adopted by the General Assembly, is saying it.

And so I ask you, should this incitement be allowed on a university campus? My bet is that it’s not allowed, hence the absence of a stamp permitting its distribution. But I don’t think we can expect anything to be done and sadly, I don’t think we have anything to gain in complaining to the university chancellor. So no, I can't be bothered to even look up the chancellor's email address. The predictable response would be accusations that we are trying to control the debate by stifling freedom of expression. Ho hum.

I just hope that the local distributors at Wits end up sending the reverse signal. I hope that they have overplayed their hand and that this evangelism of hate ends up exposing them for what they really are.

Interestingly, one of the recent issues sports an article by our very own voice of Palestine, Mr Iqbal Jassat, from the South African Media Review Network.

Outrage at Oxford Union

Here's Alan Dershowitz on the demise of the Oxford Union debating societies. A debate on October 23 is scheduled to discuss the motion "This house believes that One State is the only Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict."

Obviously the debaters defending the motion are anti-Israel. That's fine. But who is opposing the motion? None other than the creepy Israel hater Norman Finkelstein. Having Finkelstein bat for Israel is like having President Thabo Mbeki defending Jacob Zuma when the State's case against him goes to trial.

Oxford Union is Dead, Alan Dershowitz

Readers of this article will probably not believe it when I tell them who else was picked to represent the pro Israel side by the benighted Oxford Union (after I turned down an invitation because of the “when did you stop beating your wife” terms of the debate and my proposed teammates). The pro Israel debater is none other than the notorious Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Semitic bigot who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, saying “[I] can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo.” This failed academic, who was fired from several universities for substandard scholarship, emotional instability and abusing students who disagreed with his extreme anti-Israel views, was recently denied tenure and fired by DePaul University. Finkelstein is beloved by Neo-Nazis such as Ernst Zundel, who credits Finkelstein for helping to promote Holocaust denial. Finkelstein is also an open supporter of Hezbollah, which advocates the destruction of Israel. He has called Israeli supporters, including me, “war criminals”

Worst of Dark and Best of Bright

As everyone should know by now, South Africa play England in the rugby world cup final tomorrow night.

These situations fill South Africans with a feeling of tremendous pride. The ability for sport to unite South Africans isn’t as strong as in 1995 when Nelson Mandela, wearing a Springbok jersey, presented Francois Pienaar with the winning world cup trophy, but it is still there. It is evidenced on our streets today as thousands of black and white South Africans wear their green and gold shirts.

It really is beautiful to hear so many black South Africans calling into radio talk shows to express their support for the South African rugby team, a team that for many years was almost a symbol of our apartheid past.

In contrast to this sense of triumph, last night a South African legend was murdered. Lucky Dube was shot dead in front of his two young kids during a botched hijacking.

Lucky Dube was the first black South African musician to sing about apartheid on white radio stations on South Africa. I stand to be corrected, but I think his unique brand of African reggae turned him into the best ever selling South African artist in international markets. He was a true reggae legend.

And so, battling through traffic this morning I experienced the mixed emotions so typical of South Africa. Joy and pride on the one hand, misery, depression and worst of all, fear, on the other. It really can bring one to tears and I don't think many other countries experience quite what South Africans experience on a daily basis. The hope and the fear; the light and the darkness.

To adapt from Lord Byron…

“And all that’s worst of dark and best of bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes”

Update - South Africa 15 - 6 England

GAP Under Fire

Even Libertarians would be hard pressed to support the privatization of policing. For a society in which the government does not have the monopoly on force is anarchy. But this is the situation that we in South Africa find ourselves in. At the recent Jewish Board of Deputy’s conference, South Africa’s controversial Minister of Safety and Security admitted as much when he declared that security was not only the responsibility of his government but of all citizens.

In light of the tsunami of violence crime that has engulfed the country and the government’s inability to combat it, the Jewish community in Johannesburg has taken policing into their own hands. Driven by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, the Glenhazel Active Patrol (GAP) was established in suburbs with high proportions of Jews. It has since been expanded and is called the Community Active Patrol (CAP). Security guards armed with semi-automatic weapons, now patrol the streets. A state-of-the art call centre has also been established so that suspected crimes can be reported and followed up with the police (the national crime emergency number rarely functions effectively). It has been an unprecedented success with contact crime in the area estimated to be down by over 80%.

Nevertheless, the Chief Rabbi and CAP were viscously attacked in an article in last week’s Sunday Times newspaper. Entitled 'coughing up for crime', the piece accuses GAP of unfairly targeting black males; forcing residents to pay for the service and deliberately excluding non-Jews from the process. The two journalists who wrote the story, Benjamin Moshatama and Isaac Mahlangu, claim that two black Metro reporters who visited the area were prevented from taking pictures by the CAP security guards and were allegedly told ‘this is our area and you cannot just do what you want here.’ Angry residents were also quoted as complaining that their black male employees were routinely harassed.

In terms of a municipal by-law if more than 50% of an area’s residents agree, a monthly fee of R500 could be added to rates and taxes to fund GAP permanently (at the moment it is being paid for by a few Jewish businessmen). Some residents are objecting to this additional security charge. South Africans already pay relatively high taxes in addition to the cost of private security firms. Moreover, some residents claim that this additional levy is being instituted without consultation. They complained that many of the meetings were held in synagogues and Jewish schools and thus non-Jews could not be involved.

I am not unsympathetic to these criticisms. I personally have huge ideological issues with GAP. It’s not a pretty sight to see ex Militia-men with guns patrolling your neighbourhood. Nor is it cheap. But in the case of security one cannot put ideology ahead of common sense.

One of the aggrieved residents, Tessa Kassel, is quoted as saying ‘the security around here makes us look like we have an army mentality and this is not the kind of perception we want others to have about us.’ Quite frankly I would much rather have an 80% better chance of not being murdered, hijacked or raped, than worry about what others will think of us.

Of course, unfairly targeting black males is completely unacceptable, and all residents, be they Jewish or non-Jewish, should be consulted. But these problems do not detract from the value of the initiative. When even the Minister of Safety and Security admits that the government is unable to protect you, surely it is legitimate to take up arms yourselves. In fact not doing so would be foolish.

Guest Blog: Anti-Semitism and Free Speech

Here's another response to South African media reporting from guest blogger Mike Berger.  This time Berger deals with the Cape Time's coverage of the University of St Thomas' decision to reverse their 'disinvite' to Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The media have been agitated of late by the Ahmadinejad debacle at Columbia and now Tutu and the University of St Thomas in Minnesota, USA. As most of you know he was disinvited by the President of the University, Father Pease, because of concern that Jewish groups would be “upset” because of Tutu’s past negative comments on Israel, including a speech which could be interpreted as a comparison of Israel with Nazism and Hitler.

Well after the obligatory uproar, the decision was reversed - at least in part because Abe Foxman of the ADL wrote to Pease urging him to let Tutu speak. Ever poised to put the boot into Israel, the Cape Times (Friday, 12 Oct) weighed in with a report by Hans Pienaar, from which the part played by the ADL was conspicuous by its absence, and a Insight(sic) article by Ms Taylor on centre page who could not forbear to mention Israeli brutality and occupation. This was too much and I sent a letter to the Cape Times a shortened and expurgated version of which appeared today (Monday 15 October). The unepurgated version follows:

“I fully support the decision by Father Dennis Pease to allow Desmond Tutu to speak at St Thomas University in Minnesota and was dismayed at his rejection in the first place. While Archbishop Emeritus Tutu may not always be right, his occasional mistakes mainly come from the heart and not from malice, which is not necessarily true of those who ride on his coattails when it suits their agendas. I equally support the Cape Time's right to beat the anti-Israel drum at every opportunity, though I question the wisdom and morality of that stance. But it does behove those who do so to put all the facts on the table, not only those which serve their purpose, and to be careful with simplistic accusations. In this connection it may well be that certain excessively (though, in my book, understandably) vociferous Jewish groups objected to the Tutu invitation, and Pease (as in "appease"?) was too ready to yield to such pressure - if indeed that was the case. But what is incontrovertible is that the Anti-Defamation League of the USA, a Jewish group which monitors anti-Semitism pretty rigorously, urged Father Pease to allow Tutu to speak which undoubtedly contributed to his changed position. This key item of information did not appear in the report by Hans Pienaar (Cape Times, 12 October) or in the Insight (sic) article provided by Tristen Taylor. Taylor also lost no time in sticking it to Israel for its alleged brutality and occupation of Palestinian lands, forbearing to mention the terror groups and countries devoted to Israel's destruction - for reasons which have nothing to do with so-called occupation but everything to do with xenophobia, anti-Semitism and power struggles within the region. The patently false myth of Israeli intransigence and brutality and Arab-Palestinian victimhood and innocence, consistently promoted by elements within the West and by large segments of the Muslim media, is a major source of instability in the world, an effective recruiting tool for vicious extremists of all stripes and an on-going excuse for Islam to avoid addressing the issues of modernisation and democratisation in a globalised world. It is time that such people stepped back from these comfortable simplicities and acquainted themselves with the full truth. Perhaps it will set them free.”