It's Almost Supernatural

The Al-Dura Decision...Pending

The French courts will announce the much anticipated ruling tomorrow in the France versus Phillipe Karsenty al-Dura affair.

Honest Reporting have a quick summary of the entire affair in this latest interview with media expert Tom Gross.

The full transcript can be found here.

Be sure to check Media Backspin tomorrow for the latest breaking news.

The Kosovo Conundrum

I have to admit that I too have been swept up in all the excitement surrounding Kosovo’s Independence. Although I have no relationship with the place or its people (I have never visited nor ever had any desire to go), I feel deeply connected to the events unfolding there. For it is at its heart a Jewish story: that of a persecuted people who out of the darkest depth of genocide have decided to take their destiny into their own hands and establish an independent and free nation state.

The founding of the state of Kosovo (in addition to its feel-good factor) presents an amazing opportunity for international peace and security. Kosovo wishes to establish a pro-Western majority Muslim democracy in Europe, something of an endangered species in the current world order. It could prove as an example to moderate Muslims and disbelieving Westerners that the Freedom agenda is still alive. Moreover, it dispels the myth that America and Europe are anti-Islamic. Here they have used military force against a Christian country Serbia to stop the massacre of Muslims and fought hard for the establishment of another independent Muslim dominated state. Furthermore, it will provide Muslims with an opportunity to show the West that they can respect the human rights of non-Muslims that live among them even those that have historically been their sworn enemies. Thus encouraging ethnic Serbs to stay is crucial.

The problem however is that unlike Israel, Kosovo’s independence was not sanctioned by the United Nations nor supported by the occupying power. Sadly these differences seriously weaken the legality of Kosovo’s right to exist. It seems absurd really that 5 countries in the world (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the right to veto) have the power to decide whether a nation has the right to declare independence. Worse is the fact that their judgment is not required to be guided by legal principles but rather is all about self-interest. Thus Russian, a close ally of Serbia, is able to block Kosovo’s independence. This whole debacle should make it clear to everyone that the UN and the entire system of international law is in need of a serious overhaul.

Despite my affinity with the Kosovan cause, I do understand Serbia’s position. Their stance is also a very Jewish one. Kosovo has for hundreds if not thousands of years been the heartland of Serb culture. It is the same religious and historical significance that Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria hold for the Jews. Moreover there are very real concerns about the safety of the Serbs that remain in Kosovo. What safeguards have been and can be put in palace to protect them? Certainly South African style reconciliation is needed. And finally, as Russia and Serbia have been protesting, this decision to allow a unilateral declaration of independence by a region could create global chaos. It may be the equivalent politically speaking of Pandora’s proverbial box. Why should the Basques in Spain, the Afrikaners of South Africa or the Arabs of Israel for example not be allowed to do the same?

And so given this dilemma, both South Africa and Israel have remained hesitant to welcome Kosovo into the family of nations. But it is a dilemma that needs to be solved not only for Kosovo but for Jewish independence as well. How do we square our support for the right of people to their own states (the basis of Zionism) with our historical and religious connection to parts of the land of Israel that we may be forced to relinquish?

Wouldn’t it be amazing if Jewish Israeli and Muslim Kosovan intellectuals and legal experts could work together on this issue to find some sort of acceptable international standard that could balances the rights of all parties to similar national disputes equitably?

Iran: Cancerous Israel to Vanish Soon

The JPOST reports

"The cancerous growth Israel will soon disappear," Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Muhammad Ali Jafari wrote to Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the FARS news agency reported Monday. In a letter of condolences following last week's assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh, Jafari said: "I am convinced that with every passing day Hizbullah's might is increasing and in the near future, we will witness the disappearance of this cancerous growth Israel by means of the Hizbullah fighters' radiation [therapy]."

Meanwhile, the threats from Hizballah are a touch broader. They include all Jews. Here’s Alan Dershowitz

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's call for the killing of Jews around the world is nothing short of an incitement to genocide, or at least to mass murder. There is no moral equivalent between military action that targeted a terrorist combatant and the targeting of innocent civilians around the world, based on their religion. Until the media understands this crucial, moral and legal distinction, we will all be vulnerable to the genocidal revenge tactics of Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations.

You can just imagine the response that South African based Palestinian activist Virginia Tilley will have for this. Following Ahmadinejad’s calls for Israel to be wiped off the map she was part of the crowd which frantically tried to twist the translation to soften the statements in order to shield Iran’s lies about desiring nuclear power for peaceful purposes (Tilley - Putting words into Ahmadinejad's mouth).

Let’s help Tilley out this time and try to come up with some possible alternative translations for the latest Iranian statements.

Education Experts Reject Bill of Responsibilities

South Africa is often praised for its enlightening and progressive constitution. In fact we have without doubt one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. But so what? We also have one of the most frighteningly vulgar and violent cultures in the world where the lofty words of the constitution ridicule a reality long out of control. (In fact, experts believe that up to 40% of our youth are severely traumatised by crime).

The problem with our constitution was echoed in an article I read last year in the Economist which made the case against the plethora of social and economic rights ‘guaranteed’ by our constitution, arguing that the focus should rather be on implementable first generation rights. First generation rights are clear and simple – free speech, free elections, due process of law etc.

The social and economic rights are murky at best and impossible to deliver at worst – access to jobs, healthcare, housing etc – these are not ‘rights’. These are socio-economic trade-offs which should be decided at the ballot box. The Economist concluded that there are truly very few universal first generation rights and that we weaken them by multiplying them.

The current scenario where we have a constitution laden with so many progressive rights contrasted by some of the worst examples of human behaviour imaginable illustrates a gap between the rights our population demands and the responsibilities that they neglect (we see stories like this every day).

In an attempt to remedy this, South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein has initiated a controversial Bill of Responsibilities for the Youth of South Africa. The idea is to place focus on the responsibilities that South Africans have towards one another. ‘Rights’ are by their very nature passive elements of society whereas responsibilities are elements that people can control. We all have the power to implement these responsibilities – unfortunately we have limited control over the protection of our ‘rights’.

Surprisingly, the bill has attracted a wave of criticism. Professor Mary Metcalfe of the Wits Education facility speaking to the Weekender says that there should have been a process through which South Africans could decide what values they support. I disagree. This ‘process’ would have only served to multiply and thereby weaken the responsibilities. What is wrong with acknowledging your responsibility towards ensuring human dignity, equality, ensuring the right to life, respecting the property of others etc? Is it the paradigm shift of viewing these values as responsibilities instead of rights which so annoys our educational elite?

To be sure, the Bill does deserve criticism in certain respects. Perhaps the language is too highfalutin for young learners to follow. I am also not a fan of the wording of the hot-air pledge that follows the Bill. Still, I find the criticism of the principle idea alarming. Education experts, according to the Weekender have described the Bill as a ‘damaging and desperate’ move.

Desperate? Of course we are desperate! Look around for God’s sake. Yesterday taxi drivers stripped, paraded and sexually assaulted women dressed in miniskirts – in broad daylight! Our society is sick and South Africa is dying. But damaging? How is this Bill of Responsibilities damaging? Why does the idea of placing real responsibilities alongside these mirage ‘rights’ so disturb our education experts?

The Bill has never been punted as a solution to our crime problem – it merely aims to connect the rights we all believe we deserve with the responsibilities we have in terms of those rights. It attempts to address the sickening value system plaguing large parts of our country.

I fully support this Bill of Responsibilities, at least as a starting point. I do however have reservations about the pledge that follows the responsibilities but this can be fixed (how many of us can even pronounce our motto - "!ke e: /xarra //ke" - which translated from Khoisan means 'diverse people unite').

You can read the Weekender’s report on the controversy here, and you can read the draft Bill by downloading this PDF document.

What do you think? Is this Bill damaging?

Tony Leon Warns against South Africa Hosting UN Racism Conference

Former head of the official opposition in South Africa and now the Democratic Alliance (DA) spokesperson on foreign policy, Tony Leon, has raised serious concerns about South Africa offering to host the follow up meeting to the United Nations World Conference against racism. Speaking at a Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO) meeting, he questioned what good will come from this exercise? South Africa’s track record in hosting the previous UN racism conference and international concerns about how the preparatory meetings for the current conference have gone were cited as causing anxiety.

“Durban 1 cost South African taxpayers R100 million”, according to Leon, and “the results have been dismal and in terms of the advancement of the real fight against racism, almost non-existent.” If we are to host Durban 2, we must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. Thus, echoing sentiments we expressed on this blog Leon called on South Africa to ‘use our best endeavours and our foreign policy credentials to steer it in the right direction’.

Leon should be congratulated for speaking out so forcefully on this issue. At this time of a leadership dearth within South Africa it's reassuring to know there are still people in prominent potions who are prepared to tell it like it is. The Jewish community should follow Leon’s example. We really do have a good case on this issue. In terms of UN current rules, Durban 2 can not be held in South Africa.

Today UNWatch in their latest press release, points out that ‘the text of the UN resolution on Durban II, as well as UN practice for all review conferences, requires that the meeting be held within the framework of the General Assembly in New York, or at the UN’s European headquarters in Geneva.’ And as we know South Africa is a stickler for UN technicalities. So let’s hold them to it!

So far Canada and the US have announced that they will boycott the conference and France has threatened to withdraw if the hateful abuses of 2001 recur.

One of the hateful demonstrations at Durban I calling for the use of violence. Copyright 2001, ICARE & Magenta Foundation, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Visit Eye on the UN for videos and images from the original conference in 2001.

Previously at IAS

• South Africa Offers to host UN Racism Conference

South Africa Offers to Host UN Racism Conference

Last week President Thabo Mbeki in his state of the nation address announced that South Africa would play host to the Review Conference to evaluate the implementation of the decisions of the World Conference against Racism (commonly referred to as Durban 2). There are major concerns that this conference will in all likelihood follow in the footsteps of its notorious predecessor held in Durban in 2001 and turn into an anti-Israel hatefest.

America and Canada have already announced that they will be boycotting Durban 2 because they claim the event is likely to descend into ‘regrettable anti-Semitism’. Libya has been elected as chair for the next gathering and Cuba as vice-chair, while Iran is a member of the organizing committee.

Although Durban 2 is by its nature a conference to review the implementation of resolutions taken at the original conference, the African and Islamic bloc has sought to introduce a litany of new charges of racism against Israel and the West that were not covered at Durban 1.

Human rights organization UNWatch has been following Durban 2 developments closely. Their director, Hillel Neuer, has previously warned that Durban 2 was a ‘fiasco in the making.’ Another anti-Israel hatefest on South African shores would be of grave concern to SA Jewry. With violent crime, power outages and Zuma’s rise to power, many are already extremely worried about their futures here. Another Durban could be the spark that sets off another wave of emigration.

However despite Mbeki’s comments, South Africa’s hosting of the event is not yet certain. We have only put forward our nomination, the final decision has to be taken by the UN prep-com at the end of April. So there is still time to lobby the government and the international community to ensure that if South Africa does host the event, it will not be hijacked by radicals. Fighting racism is important to us as both South Africans and Jews. We need to ensure that this conference is a success.

We will keep readers posted on further developments or check out www.unwatch.org for regular updates.

One of the many hateful posters on display at the World Conference against Racism in Durban in 2001. Will Durban 2 be a repeat?

Related

• South Africa's depraved foreign policy

How Will SA Vote on Iran?

South Africa once again finds itself in a catch 22. Will it stand steadfast in solidarity with its Non Alligned Movement (NAM) ally Iran in nuclear defiance or will it once again vote with the West for greater sanctions? As we speak, our UN representatives are doing all they can to delay and water down the Security Council resolution to the point of it being meaningless.

This week South Africa publicly raised concerns about the timing and nature of the draft sanctions resolution against Iran that is currently being circulated by the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (including Russia and China). The text is reported to be calling for mandatory travel bans, asset freezes and vigilance on all banks in Iran as well as the inspection of suspicious air and sea cargo to and from Iran transported by the firms, Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line. It is this compulsory inspection regime that South Africa has specifically objected to. UN Ambassador Dumisani Khumalo was quoted as saying:

"We just want to be sure that that is done right if it's ever done, because it's an obligation (for us). We wouldn't want confrontation on our shores. And what happens if you search the wrong boat? ... It may be an Iranian boat but it may be an innocent one. They'll sue us."

It’s an interesting approach to use South Africa’s administrative incompetence as an excuse. I guess if we can’t keep the lights on how can the international community expect us to effectively search ships and planes. I also wonder what confrontations on our shore he is alluding to. Is he implying that there are groups of people in South Africa who are holding the government hostage? That is a very serious admission.

South Africa is also trying to delay the actual vote. While America and the other permanent members of the Security Council want it to take place as soon as possible, South Africa is pushing for the council to wait for an IAEA report that is scheduled to be released at the end of the month. It is expected that the report will praise Iran for its co-operation with the nuclear watch dog. South Africa has made it clear that Iran should be awarded for this.

This argument is somewhat disingenuous. South Africa knows very well that the sanctions are for Iran’s continued Uranium enrichment in defiance of a previous Security Council Resolution. Its co-operation with the IAEA on its historic illegal nuclear activities is obligatory for all signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and not something it should rewarded for.

From reports in the Iran press it’s clear that Iran is placing Pretoria under significant pressure to help squash the resolution. They have been praising South Africa’s ‘independent and principled position’. And in return for continued support they are offering to ‘share the benefits of its scientific achievements with the other countries of the Global South.’

So what will South Africa do? If the past is an indication of the future then despite its protests, the government will ultimately vote for sanctions in the name of consensus. But the makeup of the Security Council is not as it was last year. We have a new member, Libya, who is as opposed to the sanctions resolution as South Africa. Consensus might be impossible. And then South Africa will have no excuses left for betraying Iran – other than the reality that Iran is a threat to international peace and security. Our days of straddling the diplomatic fence are over.

Racist Palestinian Sheik Hits SA

The Media Review Network has welcomed the arrival of the disgraced Palestinian Sheik Raeed Salaah to our shores. Salaah has apparently “carried the mantle of protecting the Al Aqsa Mosque from destruction by the [dastardly, evil, rancid] Zion[azi] forces”.

Salaah recently made news in Israel when he was charged with incitement to violence and racism. Ha’aretz reports

During the speech at the February 16, 2007 protest in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Wadi Joz, Salah accused Jews of using children's blood to bake bread. "We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood," he said. "Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread." "Great God, is this a religion?" he asked. "Is this what God would want? God will deal with you yet for what you are doing." The rally was called to protest the planned Mughrabi bridge construction in Jerusalem's Old City. Addressing the 1,000-strong crowd and assembled press, Salah accused Israel of attempting to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount while drenched in Arab blood.

The Media Review Network said that they are honoured to be associated with the Muslim Judicial Council during this momentous and extraordinary visit.

Write to your favourite daily paper and ask if the MRN share his views about Jews using the blood of Christian kids to bake Matzah.

The Root Cause of Terror

If you do a search on Yahoo! News Pictures today for "sweets" the top 4 results illustrate almost perfectly the root cause of terror - and it aint poverty or oppression.

This dehumanisation of the victim -- stripping them of their entire humanity, along with glorification of previous suicide bombers and hateful religious propaganda is what creates tomorrow's warriors of Jihad.

A Palestinian boy distributes sweets and flowers to people in the southern Gaza Strip after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in southern Israel February 4, 2008. A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up and police shot dead his accomplice in an attack in a shopping centre in southern Israel on Monday that killed at least one Israeli, emergency services said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

There are no words. These are the people we are supposed to make peace with.

SAJBD Openly Criticises SA Govt

In an uncharacteristic display of fog-horn diplomacy, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies last week publicly criticised the SA government for its extremely one sided condemnation of Israel. SAJBD Chairman Zev Krengel sent the following letter to Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad. The letter appeared last week in the Citizen.

Speaking on SAFM last week Mr Krengel explained that although the SAJBD typically prefer a quite approach in dealing with criticism of the government, this was the first time that they had issued a statement so wholly and completely one sided against Israel – ergo the strident response from the SAJBD.

Whilst I welcome this approach I must disagree with the uniqueness that Krengel ascribed to Pahad’s statement. Pahad’s vitriol is what we have come to expect from our government – no more and no less.

Update

Of course our friends at the Media Review Network, who work themselves up into a frenzy every time the SAJBD make a public statement, have responded. I thought I heard the fierce scratching of pens when I saw the SAJBD's letter in the Citizen. I wondered where it was coming from. Now I know...MRN: Waaaaaaah!!