It's Almost Supernatural

Limmud: So much to choose from

Decidophobia is the scientific name for a fear of making choices. For those who suffer from it, it can be extremely debilitating. Looking at this year’s Limmud JHB program, you could be forgiven for thinking that maybe you have somehow developed this disorder. With over 70 speakers and 80 different events, it is not remotely possible for someone to get to see even a fraction of what they would like. Planning in advance will certainly help and the latest schedule is now available to assist you in this regard. To make things a little easier I have decided to point out some of my personal favorite sessions just in case you miss them.

Limmud in JHB begins on Saturday night 30th August after Shabbat comes out and runs over through the whole of Sunday. Here are my picks:

• In the first slot (20:45) my pick would definitely be the report back by members of the South Africa ‘Human Rights’ Delegation to Israel. We have devoted much space on this blog to their controversial tour and I think personally challenging them on the issues all of us have raised is very important.
• The (21:45) slot is a plenary with music and dancing
• The next day begins at 9:00. This is a really tough call. There is a very high powered session on the Jewish response to the xenophobic attacks which will dfinately be interesting but I would probably go with the session by Rufina Bernardetti daSilva Mausenbaum on her personal journey back to Judaism. I have had the opportunity to get to know Rufina and her story and the amazing work she does on trying to bring the decedents of Jews who were forced to convert to other religions(like herself) back to their Jewish roots. She is an extremely powerful and moving speaker.
• The 10:20 slot has a clear choice for me: Rudo Mathivha on the story of the Lemba. The Lemba are an African tribe in Venda who claim to have Jewish ancestry and customs. Rudo is the daughter of the late Lemba chief. This has always been a very controversial subject in the Jewish community but I have always felt that the benefits of engaging with these people are infinitely more valuable than just dismissing them.
• Next I would go and listen to an evacuee from Gush Kativ at 11:40. The session is poignantly entitled Homeless in the Homeland. But if that’s to heated for you, I would recommend maybe recommend checking out Taylor Krauss’s session on Rwanda and the Holocaust: Listening to the Testimony of Survivor. He has just spent months in Rwanda collecting the testimonies of genocide survivors ala Steven Spielberg.
• Then thank goodness it will be lunch (this is included in the cost of your ticket).
• After lunch one of my favorite presenters Josh Neuman of Heeb Magazine is speaking on the first ever Jewish swim suit calendar. Heeb is probably the most cutting-edge Jewish Magazine in the world. If you in to biting humour (and hear who are the hottest Jewish women of 5758 this is for you! For the more serious there is a panel with Albie Sachs and Gill Marcus on the relationship between Human Rights Activism and Jewish Identity?
• The 14:50 session with renowned Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg is not to be missed. Steve is currently reading his book on the history of the settlements and has recommended listening and engaging with him.
• By now I am sure we will all be exhausted but the session with Jack Bloom at 16:20 is a must. As head of the DA in Gauteng, Jack is one of the highest ranking South African Jews in politics. Ever the contrarian he is speaking about Good and Evil in the Middle East – Who is really racist, fascist and imperialist? Jack is an expert on the discriminatory measure of countries in the Arab world against Jews and other ethnic minorities. Knowing Jack, it will be hard hitting.
• The day’s intellectual events end with a unique panel discussion on the future of world Jewry. Participants including leading international scholars and local leaders on the topic. If you care about the future of the Jewish people be there to give your say.

Check out the schedule and see if you would recommend anything else for IAS readers.

Who does the Muslim Lobby run to?

Who do the Muslim lobby groups run to? Of course, it’s none other than our Minister of Totalitarian Affairs Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils.

SAPA reports

Kasrils asked to intervene on behalf of relief workers The Muslim Judicial Council and the Media Review Network have asked Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils to intervene in the detention of two South African Islamic Relief workers in Uganda. Mufti Hussain Bhayat and Haroon Saley were detained at Entebbe Airport this week and efforts were being made yesterday by family members and the Department of Foreign Affairs to find out why. A report in Uganda’s New Vision Online said they were held by the Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force at 2am on Monday on a stopover in Uganda after a visit to Kenya “to help with investigations”. The reason for their detention was not immediately knowns. Yousha Tayob, a spokesman for the families, said they were taken in because they were with people who had been subjected to terror-related questioning before. Later Tayob said it appeared they were suspected of being Pakistani nationals travelling on South African passports and were transmitting personal documents of the two, including matric certificates, to verify South African nationality. The MRN and MJC said they were outraged “that Muslims of undeniable integrity and a track record of poverty alleviation have been profiled as terrorists”. Sapa

I don’t want to condemn the detained individuals as terrorists but there is one thing we should make clear. The MRN do not even regard Hezballah and Hamas fighters as terrorists. They have wined and dined with them in the past and support their aims and objectives. The MRN statement expressing outrage that the two individuals have been profiled as terrorists should be seen in the light their definition of “terrorism”.

Despite their protests, it seems that the local Muslim lobbyists just can’t shake off the ever increasing allegations linking members of the local Muslim community with terrorism. Perhaps they should replace their knee-jerk maximalist denials with a considered examination of the allegations.

The SA ‘Human Right’s Delegation to Israel and its unjustifiable judicial activism

A human rights approach towards the Israeli-Arab conflict is certainly not something that the South African Jewish community should fear. In fact, given the positive role that respect for human rights have played in our own history coupled with the current circumstances in today’s Middle East, we should be at the forefront of championing it. But over the last month or so, we have allowed a 23 member self appointed committee (calling themselves the South African Human Rights Delegation to Israel) to usurp that role.

Numerous and valid criticism of the makeup and itinerary of this group have been made on this blog and elsewhere. The lack of balance and objectivity has been at the heart of much of this condemnation. For me the best censure came from the current head of the Leftwing Zionist Youth Movement Habonim in this week’s South African Jewish Report (SAJR). Ilan Straus set out clearly the type of people the tour needed to meet for Israel to have any sort of fair hearing. He wrote ‘more could have been done by the Human Rights Delegation to meet with people in government, the military, and larger, more well-known and respected centre-left and left-wing organizations in Israel such as the Council for Peace and Security and the people behind the Geneva Accords. I would add Benjamin Pogrund to the list.

Doron Isaacs, the organizer of this ‘human rights’ tour, has castigated us for only highlighting these types of flaws and not actually dealing with the substance of the group’s findings. I would of course argue that given the anti-Israel views of many of the participants before going and the limited nature of what they were shown and who they were allowed to speak to; their findings, no matter what they are, could not be held up as legitimate. Many of them judges and legal scholars would certainly know that lack of independence by the judge in a court case is grounds for appeal. Why should this same principle not apply here where they have placed Israel in the dock?

Nevertheless, I do believe that it is important for us not only to expose the flaws in this self appointed jury but also to pick holes in their findings lest they say that we have no substantive response. So what were their findings? From the articles I have read; lectures I have attended and personal conversations I have had with members of the tour, the stark ‘separation’ between Israelis (portrayed as exclusively Jews) and Palestinians in the territories was their most shocking observation. The security barrier (which they refer to as the Apartheid wall), the separate number plates, the separate roads, the separate water and electricity systems, the check points and of course the massive economic gulf are all cited as examples of the great racist plan of the Zionist state. Do these things exist? For sure. I have seen many of them myself. Are they things that we should be proud of? No! But that does not mean that they are not legitimate.

Contrary to what many lay people may think; rights are not absolute. Even in South Africa’s constitution, widely regarded as one of the most liberal around, numerous rights in the bill of rights are limited. The right to freedom of speech is a great example of this. The constitution states clearly that this right is not extended to hate speech. Moreover we have a provision that allows a general limitation on all rights under certain circumstances. Thus the problem is not that rights are limited in the territories but whether those limitations are reasonable and justifiable. Something the group never examines in depth.

Much has been made of the’ worse than Apartheid’ roads, so let’s take them as an example. I would certainly agree that barring the Palestinians from travelling on certain roads in the West Bank limits their freedom of movement and may impair their sense of dignity. But is this limitation reasonable and justifiable; I would argue yes. For the fundamental question that the delegation failed to look at was why there are separate roads in the first place? This is not some arbitrarily oppressive measure handed down by an ultra racist state. It is a horrible policy that a democratic state has been forced to take to protect the lives of its citizens who happen to live in that area. What the ‘human rights’ delegation does not mention is that this concept of separate roads is a new one. It has only existed for the last 5 years or so of the last 40 years of the occupation and was a direct response to the killing of Israelis on the roads in the West Bank since the start of the second intifada. So when one considers that the choice is between limiting the rights of Palestinians to free movement and the rights of Israelis to life, the decision to implement such a policy of separate roads is quite easily justifiable and reasonable.

As the above point illustrates, the problem with this delegation’s findings is not that they focused on human rights per say but that they only focused on Palestinians human rights. If they were really interested in making a difference in this conflict they would have examined the difficult human rights balancing act that Israel has been forced to undertake in the territories and looked for better ways to ensure that Palestinian suffering is minimized while Israel attempts to safeguard the lives of its citizens. Not only is the jury in this case biased and the rules of evidence unjust but even their findings lack any real basis in logic. If this is the type of justice that leading members of our judiciary subscribe to then South Africa is in more trouble then we could possibly imagine.

Previously at IAS

• Doron Isaacs responds to our criticism

The obsessive anti-American spin

I don’t know what to make of the Sunday Times lately. Their editor experiences an intellectual miscarriage every time he comments on Israel. On the other hand, his willingness to take on the ANC, almost extends the voice of opposition politics in SA to the masses. They certainly are the guardians of some exceptional local journalism. But unfortunately they also allow space for ideologically bothered bigots.

Bearing the flagpole for this category is none other than Mohau Pheko.

Pheko’s latest column, entitled “Fighting in Georgia provides clarity on US’s true intention” is a wretched reminder of the mental gymnastics people will play in order to create an anti-Western spin on world events. There is simply no discernible logic in this opinionated trash.

Pheko’s vulgar hatred follows the usual obsessive anti-Western approach. Take the latest conflict: cast the US (or Israel) in the starring role as the greedy aggressor. Minimise the roles played by the actual protagonists: set the pro-Western party as a puppet controlled by the evil American forces and then ascribe to the US the deaths caused by the more revolutionary party. Finally, set a greedy love for oil as the prime factor motivating American behaviour. And always maintain that every conspiracy theory you suggest is “obvious”.

Pheko borrows:

“Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House.”

Pheko clumsily mumbles on about Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves. She doesn’t fill the gap in her logic with anything linking the US to this meddling; she simply suggests that the existence of the resources alone is the link she needs.

Of course, no anti-Western conspiracy theory is complete without the inclusion of Israel:

“It gets even murkier according to an AP press report saying that former Israeli generals serve as advisors to the Georgian military.”

This war has now made many things obviously and unquestionably true.

“It has been said that at times wars provide clarity. This is unquestionably true in this case. After the fighting in Georgia this past week, everyone knows that Washington is willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent civilians and plunge the entire region into chaos to achieve its geopolitical objectives and greed for oil.”

Jean Francois Revel once described ideology as a mechanism for rejecting facts when they threaten to force a re-examination of cherished dogma. He continued, “and it invents facts when necessary to the survival of the dogma.”

Pheko is a slave to obsessive ideology. She doesn’t need facts...just similar articles.

I try to play the ball and not the woman, but take a look at the extensive amount of “borrowing” from other articles, like this one by Mike Whitney entitled (and again note how obvious the conspiracy theory is purported to be) "of course its the oil again, stupid".

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of some excerpts

Pheko 16/08/08	Mike Whitney 11/08/08
Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House. Military experts report that an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support especially if it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympic games in Beijing. Saakashvili owes his political career to American power brokers and US intelligence agencies.	Washington's bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he'd be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it's perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance. (sic)
Where natural resources are concerned, Russia’s hand is very strong: it reportedly holds 6.6% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 26% of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it accounts for 12% of world oil and 21% of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.	As far as natural resources are concerned Russia’s hand is very strong: It holds 6.6 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves and 26 percent of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it currently accounts for 12 percent of world oil and 21 of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.

The Sunday Times readers deserve better.

Doron Isaacs responds to criticism of the Human Rights Delegation

Its always been our policy to allow people we criticise the chance to respond and so in that vein I present to you, a response from Doron Isaacs, one of the leaders of the SA Human Rights Delegation, to my earlier criticism...which I must add, I still stand by.

Human Rights Delegation: Shooting the messenger

They call it the right of reply, but I nevertheless appreciate it. Moreover, I appreciate the criticism itself, because it opens up the issues and allows us to discuss them. A problematic pattern though, is that the mode, motivations, and individual members of the delegation come under attack, whilst the glaring crisis in Israel/Palestine – about which we can disagree – receives too little critical attention. Some of the criticism has validity, but much of it is wrong. I’ll reply and then return to the reality we need to talk about.

You dismiss our intentions to improve Jewish-Muslim relations in South Africa. As you’ve said:

They blame only Israel for the problems; they lecture only the Jewish community about softening their positions; they investigate only Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights.

That is false. We have consistently pointed to Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians as being a fundamental violation of Israeli human rights and as being central to all the problems. A careful review of the written and spoken output will confirm this. As I said in a public lecture at UCT:

Everything I saw over the five days, including discussions with people that have used both violence and non-violence, cemented a view already formed, through years of work on this issue in Cape Town, that … violence against civilians, has been a disaster for Palestinians. It has been a politically bankrupt strategy that has come at a terrible moral cost. As Nathan Geffen said on Monday night in Bokaap, the net effect of suicide bombing has been to kill off the once-vibrant Israeli peace camp, and to strengthen the right around the world.

That deals also with your second point: we do not ‘lecture’ only Jewish audiences. Nathan made the points more strongly in Bo Kaap, and in a face to face meeting with the Muslim Judicial Council, as did Jonathan Berger on Radio Islam, where he spoke about the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. What about the human touch? I spoke about my grandmother who was in the Netanya shopping mall when a bomb exploded.

Earlier you wrote that the trip was “devoid of any context”. How does this square with the lectures we heard by Hillel Cohen and Amos Goldberg of Hebrew University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev, respectively; the lengthy tour through Yad Vashem; the discussions with the Chief Justice of Israel; the former Deputy Attorney General; the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem; the meeting with families whose children were killed in bombings and shootings?

One of the group, Farid Esack, a wonderfully interesting professor of religion at Harvard, wrote about the trip for the Al Qalam, a Muslim monthly. He writes humorously of being subjected to “the insufferably boring lamentations of some Fatah apparatchiks”, of how he “came back with a renewed commitment to listen to the narratives of others”, of how he “could not avoid the conclusion that the simple Zionism=Apartheid equation is also a simplistic one.”

Why is this ignored by our critics? Would recognising that our eyes are open to Israeli suffering and Palestinian crimes make our condemnation of the occupation irresistible? Perhaps all of us have been subjected to ideologically perverted debate – in both directions – for so long, that we assume that everyone must fall into one of two unhelpful camps?

You allow that “a large majority of the community needs to be challenged regarding its positions on Israel and the occupation in particular.” Must all criticism be ‘balanced’ to your or my liking? Or sufficiently ‘complex’? As Farid reminds us: “The argument of complexity can become a weapon in the hands of the powerful to disarm the weak and those who act in solidarity with them.” Complexity is venerable, but it comes after both accuracy and honesty.

Has the response to this delegation confirmed the contention that there is “lots of “space” in the Jewish community for criticism of the occupation”? How does calling Nathan Geffen a liar – “who is he trying to kid?” – help to create a pluralistic, tolerant Jewish community where political problems are discussed on their merits?

We’ve been wrongly accused of not providing a context. Surely all those who defend Israel’s actions need context, need to know of the dispossession, the inability to move, the unemployment, the hunger, the forced entry into homes, the indignity at the hands of the IDF, that Palestinians suffer daily? As many Israelis say, unbridled defence, of the variety offered by the Chief Rabbi, entrenches the occupation and thus actually hurts Israel. Pointing to Israel’s wrongs, whilst painful, is necessary to support the forces of peace.

We need to know what the occupation is before we seek to justify it. As we have accurately reported: There are hundreds of kilometers of roads upon which Palestinians cannot drive – called “sterile” by the military commander – these do not secure Israel, but convenience settlers. The separate water, electricity and legal systems operate in the same way. All of this, along with the postal, education and, of course, security services offered to the settlements – including what the Israeli government calls ‘illegal outposts’ – comes at an enormous financial, moral and human cost to Israel, not to mention its terrible impact on Palestinian life. Can we not simply say that all this, like suicide-bombing, is shameful and must end?

Your interesting blog has devoted well over 4000 words to our efforts. I’ll leave this response here. I hope we can continue this conversation in the future. When will It's Almost Supernatural host a public debate on this issue?

---

Doron Isaacs lives in Cape Town and coordinates Equal Education, a community-based campaign for better schools in South Africa.

Previously at IAS

• The lofty goals of the human rights delegation to Israel
• Pollak on the human rights delegation
• The branches in this Forrest only grow on one side
• SA Human Rights Delegation fails to strike the right balance
• Real world tramples on human rights delegation

Limmud SA

Limmud is in town and the programme starts at the end of this month in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. I will definitely be going.

I am most interested in hearing the session by Gerson Gorenberg, author of Occupied Territories: The Untold Story of Israel's Settlements. I'm reading the book at the moment - it paints a candid picture of how a war that Israel didn't want, a vacuum of policy, and a political stalemate in respect of the Arabs became the soil in which the settlements grew.

Don't forget to regsiter! Below is the blurb I received from the organisers.

Limmud Joburg offers over 80 sessions and 60 presenters!

Never before in South Africa has there been a Jewish learning experience hosting over 80 sessions and 60 presenters including 14 overseas speakers all in one day! Don't miss Limmud in Joburg – a premier Jewish educational and cultural experience, a 'Grahamstown Festival' of Jewish learning and fun for Jews of all ages and backgrounds.

This year overseas speakers include the distinguished Orthodox Rabbi Yehoshua Engelman who is rabbi and educational director of the new Yakar synagogue and study centre in Tel Aviv. He also teaches at the Siach Yitzhak Hesder Yeshiva and is on the Jerusalem Kolot faculty.

Gershom Gorenberg is a world renowned journalist – he was associate editor of the Jerusalem Report and has written several books on the Middle East. He will provide a political analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

Maureen Kendler is the head of programming at the world renowned Orthodox London School of Jewish Studies. She was awarded 'Educator of the Year' in 2004 by the London Jewish Cultural Centre.

Simon Gurevichius is a young community leader in Lithuania and will speak about the revival of the Jewish community there.

Taylor Krauss is coming from Rwanda to talk about his involvement in community rebuilding and the connection for him between Rwanda and the Holocaust. Krauss is an independent documentary filmmaker who has worked for various media networks including the Associated Press, BBC, Discovery and Time Warner.

And these are only some of our international speakers. Check out our website for our star-studded line-up of national speakers, who include Albie Sachs, Jack Bloom, Sarah Evian, Alan Swerdlow, Gill Marcus, Dennis Davis, Rudo Mathivah, Johnny Glass and Taddy Blecher, amongst many others.

Limmud Joburg All food is kosher and the rates include dessert and coffee on Saturday night, lunch and dinner on Sunday as well as tea breaks. Saturday, evening 30 August Time: 20h15 till late Sunday, 31 August 2008 Time: 08h00 till late Venue: Wits Medical School in Parktown Adults: R250 till 10 August thereafter R300 Registered students and teenagers 13 – 18: R125 till 10 August thereafter R150 Children: 3 months – 12: R60 till 10 August thereafter R90

Visit Limmud.org.za for more information including the dates and times for the Durband and Cape Town programmes or call 076 480 2896.

RAM FM Shuts Down

As predicted on this blog, RAM FM, Issy Kirsch's 702-styled talk-radio station operating from Ramallah, has gone off air due to a lack of advertising revenue. The Jerusalem Post reports

RAM FM, the independent English-speaking radio station broadcast from Ramallah, has gone off the air due to a lack of advertising revenue, officials said Sunday. The station, which was financed by South African Jewish entrepreneur Isaac "Issy" Kirsch, was inaugurated in February 2007 in an effort to promote Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. The station stopped broadcasting on Thursday, station manager Maysoun Odeh-Gangat said. "Although we are aware that RAM FM established a platform for dialogue and understanding, the decision was taken by the Board of Directors following its inability to generate sufficient advertising revenues to sustain its ongoing operations," according to a statement read on the air.

This follows a torrid time for RAM FM after several people working at the station were arrested this year for broadcasting from Jerusalem without the required license.

Mike predicted their doom back in February last year.

What is the potential listenership of an English talk show radio in Israel and the PA? There are only 10 million odd people in that region (assuming the whole area has coverage). How many of them speak English? And even if they do speak English, how many of them would want to hear their news and current affairs discussed in English when there are already Arab and Hebrew stations that do the same? I would say extremely few. The success of a talk radio station is not only its passive listenership but also its active callers. How many Israelis or Palestinians would be comfortable debating complex socio-political problems in English? Perhaps only first language English speakers. And they are not a very big percentage of either the Israeli or Palestinian populations. The next problem is the talk show host. I heard John Robbie interviewing John Burkes this morning he is going to be one of the presenters. Now no matter how much one may like John Burkes, he knows very little about the culture in Israel or the PA. How is he going to be able to relate to his audience and (his audience to him for that matter)? Who would possibly advertise on such a radio station? I predict that it will be closing down in the not to distant future.

Previously at IAS

• 702 style radio station for Ramallah

Real world tramples on human rights delegation

Foetus lives in brain-dead mom

Tel Aviv - A brain-dead Palestinian woman in her sixth month of pregnancy is being kept on life support in an Israeli hospital until doctors can deliver her unborn baby, a hospital spokesperson said on Thursday. The baby may have to spend the full three months in the womb of his brain-dead mother, said Leah Malul, the spokesperson of Barzilia hospital. The hospital is located in the southern Israeli coastal city of Ashekelon, about 12 km from the Gaza Strip. It treats some 30 to 35 Palestinians from the impoverished strip daily, she said. The mother, in her 30s, was with her husband in a Gaza café when she suddenly felt unwell. She suffered a stroke and was transferred to Israel when the Gaza hospital she had been brought to was unable to treat her. The Israeli doctors were keeping the woman on life support at her husband's request, she told Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa).

Yip, this always used to happen during the "worst periods of apartheid in South Africa"...you know...when Blacks and Whites could share the same rooms and beds in hospitals.

Kuwaiti journalist appreciates Israel's treatment of prisoners

From Doc's Talk, here's a review of an article by Kuwaiti Fuad Alhashem.

Fuad Alhashem, a senior journalist at the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Watan, published an article on 21 July favorable to Israel, entitled "Prisoners of War – Ours and Theirs". The article points out that Samir Kuntar was incarcerated in an Israeli prison for 29 years and "they didn't cut off his ears, his hands weren't amputated, and he wasn't raped! He received three meals a day, watched television and read newspapers. He was given the chance to learn Hebrew, studied in the Open University in Israel and received a BA. The pictures published of him when he was released and returned to Lebanon showed him in good health. Now, he can see his mother and enjoy the various restaurants in Beirut, smoke a water pipe and get drunk and shout out loud: 'To the Israelis, who turned out better than Saddam and his party.'" In his article, Alhashem calls on Hizbullah and Kuntar's relatives to pray to the God that made Israel their neighbor and not Saddam's Iraq. If it had been otherwise, Kuntar would not have returned to his homeland walking on his own two feet and carrying 90 kg. of healthy weight. Instead, his body would have been returned in a little plastic bag – like the Kuwaiti prisoners who were returned from Iraq weighing three kilos each! Alhashem reminds his readers that Saddam Hussein murdered 600 Kuwaiti POWs after they spent 24 months in prison. They were innocent and didn't spray Iraqi civilians with bullets like Kuntar did to the Israelis. Of course the Kuwaitis were tortured in the Iraqi prisons, ate bread harder than rock and drank polluted water. They were certainly not allowed to study in Iraqi universities, but were taken as a group to the desert, murdered using the Nazi method and buried in mass graves, without a trial and without a public appearance in the media.

The Lofty Goals of the Human Rights Delegation to Israel

The recent South African ‘human rights delegation’ to Israel continues to attract enormous attention in the South African public space. Talks at private homes and at universities, air-time on the radio, and editorials and opinion pieces in newspapers have ensured maximum exposure of the delegates' opinions. As a propaganda piece, the mission continues to excel. In terms of fomenting a greater understanding of the conflict, apart from a few astute exceptions (most notably Justice Edwin Cameron), the mission was, in my opinion, a miserable failure.

I spoke to a couple of people who attended the address by the delegation at Wits University last week. The address, they said, brought nothing new to the debate; instead it just rehashed the old Israel-bashing rhetoric to which we have become so accustomed.

The view from people who attended a private invite-only address at a residence in Houghton last week was slightly more positive, thanks mainly to Justice Edwin Cameron. It seems that different messages are disseminated depending on the audience – at least in terms of the selection of speakers. Edwin Cameron is selected for a private predominantly Jewish audience; whilst Mondli Makhanya (Israel is evil!) is selected for a far wider public audience.

Yesterday, the Cape Times did well to provide two opposing views regarding the delegation. Nathan Geffen’s article (“we have a duty to speak out”) was overshadowed by a masterful article by Joel Pollak who, whilst volunteering for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel last year, went on many of the tours that the delegation experienced (“South African mission went wearing blinkers and predictably found what it was looking for”).

I found Geffen’s article profoundly absurd. He writes as one of the three primary organisers of the tour and sets about explaining the lofty goals of the mission. Geffen subtly claims that the delegation has been successful in its mission to “create space, in the South African Jewish community, for views critical of the occupation.” He goes on to say that “It has not been easy in the past to express dissent in the community without vilification.”

I disagree. First off, there is lots of “space” in the Jewish community for criticism of the occupation. This year at Limmud, Gershon Gorenberg, author of the seminal book on the occupation, entitled “The occupation, the untold story of Israel’s settlements”, will be speaking. The Jewish community has previously hosted other outspoken critics of the occupation working to bring about its end, most notably former anti-apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid.

I have myself on numerous occasions expressed criticism of the occupation without being subjected to this community vilification:

Just prior to the disengagement from Gaza I penned an article in the quarterly Mizrachi (Orthodox Zionist) magazine. I criticised the occupation and came out in strong support of the withdrawal from Gaza. My views were certainly not supported by the majority of the Mizrachi community, but I was far from crucified. The only notable opprobrium I received was that the editor of the magazine highlighted that the views expressed were my own and not those of the Mizrachi synagogue. Vilification indeed!

But it gets worse. Geffen first claims that there is no space for criticism of the occupation in the Jewish community and then proceeds to describe the positive manner in which the delegation has been received by the community, noting the significant coverage they have obtained from the leading Jewish weekly as well as the rational and civil debate they have had with the Jewish leaders. Geffen escapes from this obvious contradiction by assuming that it’s his delegation that has made this discourse possible!

Just because events A and B both occurred does not imply that A led to B. It’s a really foolish and condescending conclusion. Perhaps Geffen feels that it’s just not possible that community institutions have previously engaged in rational debate on Israel – no, his mission has suddenly and miraculously brought civil debate to the Jewish community. Well bravo! He ignores the debates within the Jewish community where Hussein Solomon, Benjamin Pogrund, Dennis Davis, Bassem Eid etc have argued against the occupation; he ignores the addresses at the Jewish Board's annual conferences by Mosioua Lekota and Andrei Zaaiman who both stridently spoke out against the occupation. I have to conclude that Geffen is either ignorant of communal affairs or just chooses to ignore everything that doesn't fit his conclusion.

I will be the first to agree that a large majority of the community needs to be challenged regarding its positions on Israel and the occupation in particular. But recent visits from Israelis and Palestinians working towards fostering real ties between Arabs and Jews, from Israelis like former apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinians like Bassem Eid are evidence of a creeping enlightenment of views within the community. A delegation where leading members describe Israel as pure evil does not create space for new debate – it stifles it, marginalises the community, and shoves us back to previous defensive positions!

Most absurd, however, is that Geffen also claims that the delegation set out to try and improve the ties between the Jewish and Muslim communities in South Africa. I don’t buy it.

They blame only Israel for the problems; they lecture only the Jewish community about softening their positions; they investigate only Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights. Everyone knows about the importance of the perception of fairness in conflict resolution. Geffen knows this. Yet, without any attempt to appear fair, he has the audacity to claim that they wanted to improve relations between South African Jews and Muslims. Who is he trying to kid?

Currying favour with one community and lecturing the other does not bring the two sides closer. It polarises the communities. It presses only the Jewish community to change its views, - not through debate but through public pressure! He calls on the Jewish community to better understand the suffering of the Palestinians (here I have to agree) but makes no similar demands of the Muslim community!

Furthermore, Geffen’s comparison between the positions adopted by the organs of the Muslim community and the organs of the Jewish community reflects complete naiveté and ignorance. In fact, he describes the failures of the Jewish community as far worse than those of the Muslim community. I challenge Geffen to actually read what the organs of both communities say. (Here Nathan, read this rhetoric from the Muslim Judicial Council and then find me similar utterances from a local Jewish communal institution).

Another telling hypocrisy is in the way Geffen describes the trauma suffered by both sides. The suffering caused by the occupation is described in human terms – it causes tremendous hardships and suffering. His description of the incessant rocket fire on Sderot however, lacks this human aspect – its failure is described in tactical terms; not as causing immense suffering to the Israelis living there, but as undermining the Israeli left and strengthening the Israeli military.

I have to conclude that the Human Rights Delegation has failed in terms of achieving at least two of their three stated objectives. Instead of trying to help the Palestinians by sharing their state-building experience, they have focused on lecturing the South African Jewish Community. If there will be any good to come from this delegation, it will be that they return to the Palestinian territories, for a longer period of time, in an effort to help the Palestinians build the insititutions that will be so vital to a future Palestinian state.

• For a really good take on the Human Rights Delegation make sure you read Joel Pollak’s article which appeared alongside Geffen’s column. You can read the full text of Pollak’s article at his blog Guide to the Perplexed.
• Michael Trapido has also weighed in with his view - read it at his Thought Leader blog: SA human rights delegation needed here.