It's Almost Supernatural

Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs

In July this year, a group of South Africans headed off to Israel on a tour (SA Human Rights Delegation) which would later cause a great degree of consternation within the Jewish community. Critics argued that the tour was not balanced; that the itinerary overwhelmingly focused on the Palestinian narrative, ignoring almost completely the mainstream Israeli one. Worse still, argued some of the critics (including the authors of this blog), most of the tour delegates already held irascibly vexatious opinions on Israel - they went with their minds made up and were fed an all too familiar diet.

Organisers of the tour countered that the reality of life in the Palestinian territories had been ignored for too long – and more space was needed in the Jewish community for debate about the occupation. They claimed that they aimed to simultaneously express solidarity with grassroots activists in Israel, such as the Jewish Struggle Coalition, as well as improve the often acerbic relations between the South African Jewish and Muslim communities.

This blog has already engaged with the Delegation. Doron Isaacs, one of the organisers of the delegation, penned a reply to our criticism which we cordially published. We also had a somewhat positive discussion with another co-organiser, Nathan Geffen, in the comments of one of our critical posts.

It is against this backdrop that we introduce to you a new feature that we hope to repeat at regular intervals – a debate which we have entitled “Crossing Swords”. This first instalment of this feature stars Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak as the two protagonists. I couldn’t imagine two better equipped personalities to represent the two split camps regarding the Delegation that visited Israel.

Both Joel and Doron will author three contributions to the debate. Each contribution will be posted approximately four days apart. We want to get you, the audience, involved so at the end of the three installments Doron and Joel have agreed to address three of the best questions which we will select from the comments. Doron has agreed to start things off.

Doron Isaacs works as the Coordinator of Equal Education, a community-based civil society formation working for educational quality and equality in South African schools. He has degrees from the University of Cape Town in business and law. In 2003 he was Secretary General of Habonim-Dror Southern Africa. Thereafter he became active in student politics on issues including HIV-AIDS, judicial independence and Israel-Palestine. While studying law Doron provided legal support to the Treatment Action Campaign. He established the Student Society for Law & Social Justice in 2007 which now has branches in most law faculties in South Africa. Doron was a co-organisers of the SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel & the Occupied Palestinian Territories in July 2008. He has family and friends in Israel and visits regularly.

Joel Pollak is the author of the forthcoming book "The Kasrils Affair: Jews and Minority Politics in Post-Apartheid South Africa”. He is a former speechwriter for Tony Leon of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition in South Africa. He is currently studying international human rights law at the Harvard Law School where he is chairperson of the Alliance for Israel. In 2007 Joel spent his summer volunteering at the Association for Human Rights in Israel. During his time in South Africa, he received a Master of Arts with Distinction in Jewish Studies from the University of Cape Town. Whilst studying in Cape Town Joel was involved in many interfaith activities aimed at encouraging dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He blogs at the popular Guide to the Perplexed.

Part 1 – Doron Isaacs instalment 1

Dear Joel,

The Human Rights Delegation has prompted a fair amount of criticism from members of the Jewish community. A little less publicly there has been a big current of support. Our discussion can focus on the delegation itself or on its organisers, but I’d suggest we focus on the reality in Israel and the occupied territories, or as Israelis call it, the “matsav”.

To deal first with the criticisms. “The tour lacked balance and context”: not so, we spent more time with Israeli victims, state officials, members of civil society and academics than we did with their Palestinian counterparts. This was due to practical constraints, but is nevertheless true. All Israelis and Palestinians who hosted the group reject the use of violence. “The tour did not consider Israeli security needs”: false, in an interview in the Jewish Report Geoff Budlender reported learning about the “very deep impact” that the suicide bombings have had on the Israeli people[1]. “The members of the delegation single out Israel”: laughable, these are among South Africa’s most vigorous internal critics, and as one example, I can provide references to campaigns and criticisms by one of the tour’s organisers, Nathan Geffen, in regard to Zimbabwe, China, Ghana, Iran, Swaziland, Darfur, the US, Uganda, Namibia, Saudia Arabia and Iraq during Saddam’s reign. “The group aimed to delegitimise Israel”: wrong, we have consistently said we reject the notion of calling for Israel’s destruction[2].

In fact, recent growth in discussion of a so-called one-state solution makes urgent, from the Israeli point of view (quite apart from the daily suffering of Palestinians) the need to end the occupation[3]. In the view of many of the members of the delegation, this would help safeguard Israel’s future.

I think most people are bored of hearing criticism and defense of the delegation.

I’d like to deal rather with our political paradigm. In so doing I will criticise the commonly expressed view that Israel is eager to end the occupation but is hamstrung by security imperatives, and that this willingness was amply demonstrated by the withdrawal from Gaza. Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s senior adviser and bureau chief, and the man credited with conceiving of the disengagement, has made clear that Gaza was about prolonging the occupation, not ending it: “The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians… It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating partner ... There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation.”[4]

Undoubtedly, there are security considerations. In the same interview Geoff Budlender said that one could not dispute the fact that the separation wall had been effective in putting an end to suicide bombings. But the barrier includes around 11% of the West Bank on the Israeli side – a unilateral act which impedes negotiations – and requires any Palestinian living there to get a permit. The difficulty in acquiring permits is resulting in the area being depopulated by Palestinians.

The Occupation of the West Bank is driven by the settlements. Dismantling them will entail domestic political strife that no Israeli Prime Minister has the majority to confront. As the Council for Peace and Security – a body of 1000 military and diplomatic veterans – has said in regard to the checkpoints needed to protect the settlements: “When all elements of the equation are considered, the barriers have a negative and even dangerous effect upon Israel’s security.”[5]

Can you agree that were it not for the settlements the occupation would have ended by now?

Warm Regards,

Doron

Notes

[1] Moira Schneider ‘Israeli visit “depressing and inspiring”’ SA Jewish Report 7/17/2008.
[2] Moira Schneider ‘High Powered SA Rights Group off to Israel’ SA Jewish Report 3/7/2008.
[3] Sari Nusseibeh ‘The One-State Solution’ Newsweek 20/09/08 http://www.newsweek.com/id/160030; Steven Gutkin ‘Palestinians Despair of Independence Effort’ The Associated Press 21/09/08 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlgsgPgwZ2Kczmg9vIU0IOMXuaYgD93AK33G1; Jonathan Freedland ‘The Two-State Solution is Nearly Dead’ The Guardian 17/08/2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast. [4] Ari Shavit ‘The Big Freeze’ Haaretz 10/11/2005 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929.
[5] Council for Peace and Security: Letter from the Council to: The Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ehud Barak, The Foreign Minister, Ms. Tzipy Livni’ 28/04/2008 http://www.peace-security-council.org/flashes.asp?id=726

The story so far

• Part 1 - Doron Isaacs instalment 1
• Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1
• Part 3 - Doron Isaacs instalment 2
• Part 4 - Joel Pollak instalment 2
• Part 5 - Doron Isaacs Closing
• Part 6 - Joel Pollak Closing

The Torah or the State?

Isabel Kershner, author of "Barrier, the seam of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", outlines the stark, vivid and hyper-exaggerated lines that the radically ideological wing of the settlement movement use to describe the conflict:

These new mayors, like the Samaria council’s Gershon Mesika, reject what they see as the more compromising policies of the Yesha council, the settler movement’s longstanding umbrella group. They are particularly incensed by the Yesha council’s willingness to negotiate with the government over the removal or relocation of some West Bank outposts in exchange for official authorization of others. ... “Amona pretty much divided this public into two parts, the more militant activist part and the more passive part,” said Mr. HaCohen, an Orthodox hilltop youth pioneer and a founder of Shalhevet Ya. The people, he said, “have to decide whether they are on the side of the Torah or the state.” ... Representing the messianic, almost apocalyptic wing of the settler movement, Mr. HaCohen peppers his speech with talk of redemption and makes it clear that in his land of Israel, there is no place for Arabs.

Mr HaCohen did not serve in the IDF. Today he seems willing to serve against them.

Read the full article here: Radical settlers take on Israel

Tony Leon on the end of Mbekism

Tony Leon's 5 points on what the end of the "politics of Mbekism" ("racial nationalism, the over-concentration and centralisation of power and pretensions of the developmental state") means for South Africa - The end of Mbeki and Mbekism: Quo Vadis South Africa.

Here's a quick and typically Leonesque excerpt which serves as an excellent obituary to Mbeki's presidency :

A few hours ago, Parliament brought down the final curtain on the Mbeki era when we elected his successor. At the height of my cold war with the former president over AIDS in 2001, Thabo Mbeki compared me to a Shakespearean villain, Prospero in The Tempest. As I contemplate the sad end and baleful legacy of his presidency, one is left with the distinct feeling, or emotion, that it would take several Shakespearean tragedies to do justice to the rise and fall of Thabo Mbeki: his presidency and the forces behind its collapse seem to combine the ambitions of Lady Macbeth, the jealously of Othello, the backstabbing of Iago and, ultimately in its last act, the impotent rage of King Lear.

South Africa almost tops anti-Semitism charts

Of all the challenges facing South African Jewry, anti-Semitism was not commonly thought of as one of them. In fact the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) regularly boasts that South Africa has one of the lowest rates of anti-Semitism in the world. Non-racism is a cornerstone of our new democracy. Or is it?

(Left: Anti-Semitic graffitti adorning the walls of Wits university earlier this year.)

The just released 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Survey finds that South Africans (along with Spaniards, Mexicans and Brazilians) have some of the most negative views of Jews of all the non Muslim nation surveyed. A shocking 46% claim to have an unfavourable view of Jews. Breaking this figure down further, over two thirds of these South African who dislike Jews dislike them in the extreme. According to the survey 31% of South Africans have a very unfavorable (as opposed to 15% who have a somewhat unfavorable attitude towards Jews).

Compare this to an unfavourable score of 9% from Britain, a country which is regularly in the Jewish press for its high levels of anti-Semitism or 11% for Australia where attacks on Jews are also often reported. Even African nations like Tanzania and Nigeria were found to be less anti-Jewish than South Africa. This is a complete disgrace! But at least we do still rate far behind Muslim and Arab countries were negative perceptions of Jews are in the high 90s.

The Muslim community in South Africa doesn’t fare much better. An equally shocking 45% of South African respondents expressed an unfavourable view of Muslims. Unfavourable views of Christians were recorded at only 10%.

Interestingly, except for South Africa countries with significant Jewish populations report high favourable ratings of Jew (77%,79% and 73% for the US, France and Britain respectively and 73% for Australia). These countries also display a very small number of ‘undecideds’. In South Africa the ‘undecideds’ at 28% outrank the favourables at 26% (of which only 7% views Jews very favourably). While this figure exposes the failure of South African Jewry to promote a positive image of itself among the broader populace, it is also our sliver of hope.

That there are many people in South Africa that hate us, is now no longer just the paranoia of a few ‘rightwing’ Jews. It is a quantifiable fact. Moreover, the lack of support the community seems to get from other segment of South African society when we are threatened is borne out by the survey. It’s clear, very few people in this country really like us. However we still have an opportunity to change the views of almost one third of the population. But it will require real leadership on our part.

Over the last few months, the danger of ‘denialism’ has become all too apparent as Mbeki’s administration has imploded. South African Jewish leaders have to be careful not to suffer the same fate. It is time to start honestly confronting the challenges this community faces. We can no longer delude ourselves and others into believing that there is no anti-Semitism in South Africa. This Pew Survey should form the basis of that response.

Survey in hand prominent members of this community need to call an urgent press conference on the issue. South Africans from the government, to media, to NGOs, to business, need to be challenged to do some serious soul searching about the high levels of intolerance that are plaguing our society. This of course is not limited to Jews and Muslims. The shocking xenophobia that we experienced at the beginning of the year has its source in the same septic pit.

Daniel Greenberg in his controversial article The Beloved Country: Minority Politics and South African Jewry charged that ‘the South African Jewish experience (whether under a racist regime or in the midst of appalling insecurity) has above all else been characterized by fear’. Now is our chance to demonstrate that this powerful community is no longer afraid to stand up for itself.

Lauren Booth: Gaza is a concentration camp!

This has been all over the web already and although I'm clinging on the last vestiges of a worn tailcoat, it's just too funny not to post.

Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of Tony Blair who recently joined an activist voyage to show solidarity with Gaza, recently compared Gaza to a concentration camp. In a billious interview with the foreign press corps, she said that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is on the scale of Darfur.

Do they have grocery stores like this in Darfur? Is this how we were treated in Auschwitz? Clever girl.

British journalist and peace activist Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British premier Tony Blair who is now an international Middle East peace envoy, shops at a grocery store in Gaza City on September 3, 2008.

Visit Soccer Dad and Harry's Place for more. Harry's Place provides some photos of real Nazi concentration camps and a scene from a real humanitarian disaster in Darfur to reveal the level of insanity stricken by Booth.

Israeli leaders prepared to give up on its dreams; where are the Palestinians?

Almost answering my previous question on "what type of Israel to we want?" the Israeli Knesset has passed a bill compensating settlers who voluntarily leave Judea and Samaria.

According to the bill NIS 1.1 million will be given to each family that voluntarily moves from isolated areas of Judea and Samaria to the Negev. Vice Premier Haim Ramon said that 18% of the settlers east of the security fence were prepared to leave of their own accord.

Speaking at the cabinet meeting, Ehud Olmert said that the idea of "Greater Israel" was over.

'Greater Israel' is finished. There is no such thing as that anymore. Whoever talks in those terms is only deluding himself," said the prime minister at the weekly cabinet during which Vice Premier Haim Ramon's evacuation-compensation bill was discussed. "It doesn't help Israel. The international community has changed its perspective ahead of the possibility of Israel becoming a bi-national state. We can prove that we were always the initiators and were more creative and that it was the other side that was more stubborn. However, as usual, we are winning the argument but are gradually going to lose the most important thing," he said. Olmert explained that although excellent justifications could be brought as to why talk of of concessions to the Palestinians should be postponed, time was "not ticking in Israel's favor." Olmert admitted that he had changed his mind on the subject. "I admit that I didn't always have this opinion. I thought and I also said to [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak that the concessions he offered at Camp David were exaggerated. I believed that the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean was all ours since in every place there that is excavated, there is evidence of Jewish History. "But finally, after a lot of suffering and misgivings, I came to the conclusion that we need to share the land with whom we are residing if we don't want to become a bi-national state." The prime minister emphasized that Israel was the strongest country in the region. "We are strong like no other country in the region, no entity can overcome us," he said. "The strategic threats don't come from questions of where the borders are. We can argue over every small detail but we will then have no peace partner and no international backing. We will just feel that we were right, as we have done for the last 40 years."

Israeli leaders have almost always been willing to give up on parts of their dreams in order to compromise with their protagonists. In contrast; the Palestinian leaders never change and continue to hold out for total victory, that is, for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Former US envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross used to say that to achieve peace Israel must be willing to give up control and the Palestinians must be willing to accept compromise.

Well Israel is willing to give up control. They showed this during Oslo, they showed this when they evacuated Gaza, and this new bill is further evidence supporting this concept. The problem is that the Palestinians haven't moved and are still unable to accept compromise.

Also significant is that steps like this condition the Israeli public for peace (and unfortunately probably also, as Shaul Mofaz argues, raise Palestinian demands). How do the Palestinian leaders condition their public for peace? I would love for one of the members of the SA 'human rights' delegation to inform us.

What type of Israel do we want?

It’s recently become increasingly apparent to me that there are two Israels. There is one Israel – a democratic Israel – that respects the rule of law, cherishes democracy, walks on the cutting edge of advancement in high tech, medicine and agriculture, and believes in the fundamental rights of other human beings – Jewish and non -Jewish.

But there is another Israel - a militant and lawless society. This Israel is once again in the headlines primarily because the democratic Israel has once again failed to haul them in.

By failing to act, the democratic Israel is losing its grip on the fabric of Israeli society, allowing the thugs in the “other Israel” greater control over our heart and soul.

What am I on about?

Last week on Wednesday night 40 militant settlers attacked IDF reservists at a position west of Ramallah. The attackers called the reservists “Nazis”, entered the military post and damaged the pipe system that carries water to the base. Two soldiers were injured in the attack – a deputy commander got his hand broken and another was bitten by a dog that a settler brought to attack the soldiers. The parents in our State don’t send their boys off to the army to be attacked by other Jews. They are sent there to protect us from an uncompromising and deadly enemy. And yet they are then attacked by those who they are supposed to defend!

In another incident, settlers attacked officials from the civil administration of Judea and Samaria who had arrived at the illegal Yad Yair outpost to confiscate equipment allegedly being used for settlement construction.

Over the weekend, a Palestinian attacked and stabbed a nine year old boy (see left image) from the Yitzhar settlement. Settlers responded by embarking on a rampage through a Palestinian village, shooting in the streets and stoning homes and cars - eight Palestinians were wounded in the riot. No arrests were made. According to Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, “there is no reason to assume, and no intelligence indicating that the residents of this village were involved in what happened in Yitzhar.” Olmert called the settler attacks “brutal and unacceptable” and declaring that “pogroms against non-Jewish residents” would not be tolerated.

Of course, the weekend’s violence is different because it was triggered by the Palestinian attack on the settlement, but we cannot tolerate a situation where the settlers are allowed free reign – this wouldn’t be allowed in Tel-Aviv and should not be allowed in Samaria. The IDF treated the Palestinian attack seriously; they imposed a closure on nearby Palestinian villages and are hunting down the Palestinians responsible for the attack.

Interestingly, I came across an incident where Jewish settlers again clashed with IDF soldiers that occurred just prior to the Palestinian attack on Yitzhar. On Wednesday last week, along with the reports about the settlers attacking the IDF base near Ramallah, the Jerusalem Post also reported that settlers from Yitzhar – the same settlement that was attacked by Palestinians later that weekend – clashed with soldiers after they began throwing rocks at passing Palestinian cars.

Irrespective of whether this triggered the Palestinian attack on Yitzhar (and we have to assume it didn't given the frequency of Palestinian attacks of Israeli settlements), we have to allow that throwing rocks at passing Palestinian cars and then clashing with soldiers – positioned there for the settler’s protection – is behaviour that should be outlawed.

But that is the problem. It seems that there isn’t much that is outlawed when it comes to the settlers. Writing about the rising settler violence in Judea and Samaria, Yaakov Katz of the Jerusalem Post writes:

But despite the presence of soldiers in the village of Asira el-Kibliyeh, the settlers were able to roam freely there, shooting in the streets and throwing rocks at homes and cars. No one was arrested. Had a Palestinian fired a shot in a street in a Jewish settlement, the army would have shot him dead. Had an Israeli opened fire on a street in Tel Aviv, he would have been arrested, if not shot. Some believe that the West Bank is turning into the "Wild West Bank," where settlers are taking the law into their own hands.

Member of Knesset (MK) Ephraim Sneh follows a similar tone in his weekly Jerusalem Post column:

The attack on the IDF must not be passed over in silence and must not go unpunished. As of this moment not one of the rioters has been arrested. The response to the events of the week is a test for the government, and mainly to the defense minister who, by law, is in charge in the territories. But I have low expectations of this timid government.

It's important to acknowledge that this violence is the behaviour of a minority of settlers in Judea and Samaria. Too often, all settlers are placed into one basket and equally condemned. MK Sneh makes it clear that the violence comes from a few very well organised groups who use hundreds of indoctrinated youths guided by extremist Rabbis. They reject the laws of the State of Israel, and view IDF soldiers – again, there to protect the settlers – as enemies who must be fought against. 

If the settler violence is perpetrated by a tiny minority, then is it extreme to suggest that there are two Israels? I don’t think so.

Just read the comments of the articles on the Jerusalem Post and witness the support that exists for these violent groups. If the Jerusalem Post is just another self-hating left wing publication then we have all lost the plot.

The radical members of these violent groups reject almost everything about the modern State of Israel. People who love this state, even in its current imperfect form, should not reward the radical thugs with support just because we have the same enemy.

The question of “what type of Israel do we want?” has been postponed for too long. It first reared its head when former US President Lyndon Johnson asked it of former Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol just after the 6 day war. Eshkol, devoid of any strategy or formula for what to do with the newly acquired territory had no answer and chose to ignore the question.

Today more than ever this question needs to be addressed.

Israel’s Africa Policy Revisited

Our friends at ‘Z’ word have posted a great in depth article on the history of Africa-Israel relations. Contrary to the myths peddled by many anti-Zionists and the fears of the more paranoid Israel supporters, Africa has not displayed a uniform or timeless opposition to the Jewish state. This article by Michelle Sieff (Associate Director of the Africa Institute of the American Jewish Committee) details both the disparity between different African states and changes over time in their policies towards Israel. Thus for those interested in understanding how to improve the Israel/Jewish-Afro relationship going forward this article is a must read.

African liberation movements and newly independent states felt a strong sense of kinship towards Zionism and the Jewish state. There was of course the common bond of historical suffering but also a tremendous respect for the Israeli model of state building and economic development. For example, Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial told the court that the structure of the ANC’s armed wing had been based on the right wing Irgun movement that fought against the British occupation of Palestine in the 1940’s.

By 1972 Israel had established diplomatic relations with 32 African states. Aside from the former colonial powers, this amazingly represented the largest diplomatic network in Africa. Every country that established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state benefited from an aid and technical assistance program administered by Mashav, Israel's Division for International Cooperation.

But the ideological winds had begun to blow against Israel. Nassar and later Qadhafi began to strategically demonize Israel in ways that conformed with, as Sieff puts it, ‘the cognitive frames that African nationalists used to make sense of the world’. They were able to exploit African fears of "neo-colonialism" by portraying Israel as a tool of the former colonial powers designed to perpetuate their control over the continent. The allure of vast sums in aid from the petro-rich Arab states was also no small incentives. While for a time some prominent African heads of state attempted to rebuff this ideological and financial pressure to cut ties with Israel, the 1973 Yom Kippur war was the event that finally broke the relationship. Israel’s crossing of the Suez Canal and stationing of troops on African soil was a red line whose crossing most African states could not support. By mid-November of 1973 Malawi, Swaziland, Lesotho, and Mauritius were the only black African states to still maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

Following 1973, declarations equating Zionism with racism and Apartheid became the staple of African bodies like the OAU and African voting blocks at the United Nations regularly aided Arab states in ramming through anti-Israel resolutions. 20 African states supported the infamous 1975 UN Zionism = Racism resolution for example (Although five states - the Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Malawi, and Swaziland – did oppose it and twelve states abstained). During the 1980s Israel’s relationship with Apartheid South Africa also further complicated Afro-Israel relations.

The fall of the apartheid regime and the signing of the Olso accords paved the way for the 1990s to be the decade of Africa-Israel rapprochement. By the end of the turn of the millennium, forty African governments had established ties with the Jewish state. But as Sieff warns, the civil societies of many of these countries have remained hostile or even become more so. Sadly South Africa is used as the prime example. Looking forward, given the more active role of NGOs in African politics, this may pose a serious challenge to strengthening these renewed ties in the future.

In light of this, as Sieff asks at the end of her piece, what can Israel and the Jewish world do to safeguard and continue to improve Africa Israel relations. Darfur is her answer. For she claims that firstly, the atrocities in Darfur lay to rest, once and for all, any myths of Arab-African unity. Secondly, she argues that the "rhetoric of reaction" which the Sudanese government, other Arab governments, and the Arab press have used to deflect attention from the real cause of the atrocities reveals the absurdity and pernicious nature of anti-Zionist discourses.

From New York this solution may seem plausible but given what I have seen in South Africa I seriously doubt it would have any significant impact. It might surprise foreign reads but Darfur has elicited almost zero media attention or concern in South Africa. Our government has consistently supported Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir; there have been no big save Darfur rallies or campaigns nor do most people even think of the violence in racial Arab verse African terms. In fact the large amount of attention that Sudan gets in the West (particular America) is certainly not comforting to Africans. Oil, imperialism and precipitating war in Africa are all seen as possible reasons. Many Africans fear Sudan is the next Iraq. The significant Jewish contribution to the international save Darfur effort only aggravates this suspicion.

Apart from solving the Arab-Israeli conflict (in particular the Palestinian issue), the only way for Israel to improve its branding in Africa is a return to its strategy of old. Development assistance, development assistance and more development assistance. Now 50 years on sine the first African states gained independence, prosperity is surely more important to Africans than ideology. Israel represents a unique example of a poor country with no natural resources that was able, within a relatively short space of time, to achieve massive economic development. We hear so often about the Asian Tigers or the Celtic Tiger but never about the Jewish Lion. Strengthening Israel’s future relationship with Africa lies in sharing its knowledge and experience on how to build a modern and successful market base and democratic nation state.

Human Rights Delegation Watch

This week’s Jewish Report covered legal action that members of the SA 'Human Rights' Delegation are taking against Ze-ev Krein. You can download the latest edition of the Jewish Report here for the lowdown.

The Jewish Report also includes a letter signed by 17 members of the delegation in response to a letter penned by Krein in the previous week’s edition. The letter isn't worth reproducing here; it's pretty boring.

What's interesting about the letter is the list of names that have signed it; or rather, the list of names that have not signed it.

The letter states that the delegation is not “anti-Israel” and that they seek peace on just terms; i.e. not the “destruction of Israel”.

The thing that bugs me is that barring Isaacs (whom the letter is defending and is therefore not expected to sign) 5 members of the delegation did not sign the letter.

I think this is an important question...why did some of the members not sign the letter?

The missing names are

• Mondli Makhanya
• Drew Forrest
• Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge
• Thabo Makgoba
• Jeremy Routledge

I don't mean for you to read much into this - after all the letter doesn't really say much anyway. I just think it's a beit weird.

SA Embraces Chavez

In a disturbing but not unusual move, the South African government is hosting Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez this week in what the DFA website has dubbed an‘historic’ visit. Chavez is in South Africa to sign an energy cooperation agreement. But even more worrying, South Africa is also hoping to increase its arm sales to this rogue regime. At a time when those who value freedom and democracy are putting their differences aside to stand united against growing international totalitarianism, the South African government has once again made it abundantly clear where it stands.

Chavez, not unlike the new leadership of the ANC, portrays himself as a cadre of a new popularist revolution. Although democratically elected Chavez has shown a particular disdain for liberal democracy both at home and abroad. Venezuela’s once independent judiciary, now stacked with Chavez’ supporters is a mere rubber stamp, the oversight functions of the legislature have been curtailed and now media critical of the president have been closed down and threatened. Drunk with the power that petro-dollars have brought, internationally Chavez has sought to roll back the neo-liberal reforms that South America has made over the last 2 decades. He has explicitly attempted to meddle in the democratic processes of his neighbours and is rumored to have been funding FARC Leftist rebels in their struggle to overthrow the pro-Western Columbian government.

The Center for Security Policy describes Chávez as a "self-absorbed, unstable strongman" who has found "common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them." While Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez has "updated tyranny for today" and "is practicing a new style of authoritarianism". Clearly not the type of guy a democratic country like South Africa should be flirting with!

But more worrying from a Jewish perspective is Mr Chavez’s extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and his strong support for Iran. In an interview with Al Jazeera during the Lebanon war, Chávez likened Israel to the Nazis saying, "They are doing what Hitler did against the Jews." He was also quoted by the Miami Herald, two days later, on his Sunday radio program, Aló Presidente (Hello President), of accusing Israel of "going mad and inflicting on the people of Palestine and Lebanon the same thing they have criticized, and with reason: the Holocaust. But this is a new Holocaust”, he added. If this wasn’t bad enough, Jewish human rights groups like the ADL, have chastised Chavez of more classical anti-Semitism. In 2005, he attacked 'some minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Christ, [who] seized the riches of the world'. Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession of all the wealth of the world."

Given these views it’s not surprising that Chavez is also a major ally of the Holocaust denying Iranian regime. As a reward for this friendship, on his birthday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chávez with Iran's highest honor for "supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community". Decorating Chávez with the "Higher Medal of the Islamic Republic of Iran", Ahmadinejad said, "Mr. Chávez is my brother, he is a friend of the Iranian nation and the people seeking freedom around the world. He works perpetually against the dominant system. He is a worker of God and servant of the people." Chávez in response pledged that Venezuela would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition". He has stated subsequently that he "admired the Iranian president for 'his wisdom and strength.”

Now is not the time for South African Jewry to remain silent. We need to speak out loudly and firmly against our government’s warm embrace of this man. That South Africa has been so willing to sell its international reputation for a few gallons of cheap Venezuelan oil once again brings into question the ANC’s support for democracy. The closer we move towards the totalitarian bloc and away from the Western sphere of influence, the greater the risk that our hard fought for freedoms will go the ways of the poor Venezuelans.