It's Almost Supernatural

Taking Terror to task

This morning, Talk Radio 702 hosted a round-table discussion with leading South African political parties. Much of the discussion focused on Terror Lekota’s recent criticism of the ANC.

Part of Lekota’s argument has been that the ANC has become intolerant of dissenting opinions and that there is no longer any room to raise opposition voices. He questions why disagreements can’t be raised publicly – why should they only be raised internally within the ANC?

I agree with Terror, but I also need to point out some hypocrisies.

Lekota seems to suggest that the problems with the ANC started at Polokwane, where Jacob Zuma was voted in as the new ANC president. Not so. Intolerance of criticism, stifling control of state institutions (including the public broadcaster, which Lekota mentioned today), cadre redeployment, 'alice in wonderland' style policies, childish name-calling, and tolerance of violence from supporters were some of the undeniable highlights of former President Mbeki’s hellish rule. We cannot listen to Terror Lekota now and pretend that these ANC attributes suddenly appeared overnight at Polokwane.

Lekota needs to position himself as someone who has always felt uncomfortable with the ANC – not as someone irked by ANC post-Polokwane behaviour.

In fact, according to William Gumede, Terror Lekota was himself once on the receiving end of Mbeki’s extreme intolerance of dissenting views.

In his, at times insightful, book, “Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC” Gumede relays an incident relating to Mbeki’s despotic policy on Zimbabwe. As Mbeki’s unflinching support for Mugabe continued to baffle onlookers, Terror Lekota spoke out against Mugabe. He called for a public condemnation of the human rights violations in Zimbabwe and “slammed quiet diplomacy as totally ineffective.”

Mbeki, in typical fashion, saw red. He demanded that Lekota withdraw his comments. Lekota refused, saying that they were his personal opinion. Mebki’s influential legal advisor, Mojanku Gumbi, responded that as ANC Chairman, ‘Lekota had no such thing as a personal view’ and should be disciplined.

How Lekota then transformed into an ardent Mbeki loyalist, I have no idea. But it’s certainly ironic that this man is now attacking the new ANC leadership for preventing diverse opinions.

During this morning’s debate, a question from the press asked Lekota why he had not expressed public criticism over Mbeki’s deranged policies on AIDS. Tellingly, Lekota ignored the question.

Any half-decent analysis of the Mbeki era will indicate that, whilst the ANC is certainly deserving of Lekota’s criticism, the criticism applies also (if not more so) to the ANC under Mbeki’s rule – a man Lekota seems to be protecting and defending.

A website called “Friends of Democracy” was recently setup (presumably by the Lekota movement) in response to the pathetic “Friends of JZ (Jacob Zuma)” website. It resembled somewhat of a shrine to Mbeki – a sober and wise portrait of King Thabo was splashed on the home page. We have since heard that Mbeki will not be backing Lekota’s new movement and to no surprise, Mbeki’s front page splurge has been removed.

Still, listening to Lekota have a full go at the powerful beast that is the ANC, one can’t help but like him - he comes across as genial, yet forthright - despite his inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I won’t vote for him, but I hope that many ANC supporters will.

Update

A comment on this thread has pointed to a quote used on the fatuous "Friends of Democracy" website:

Like Mao Tse-Tung we say: “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

It's a quote that the ANC has used before and was recently mentioned in one of former president Mbeki's ANC Today newsletters. Mike responded to this in a post just over a year ago, and it's well worth reading again: ANC marches in the footsteps of MAO

Mbeki's legacy and why you should vote opposition

A study from the Harvard School of Public Health published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome has asserted that more than 330,000 lives were lost to HIV/AIDS in South Africa from 2000 to 2005. During the same period, a staggering 35,000 babies were born with HIV because a mother-to-child prevention program using Nevirapine was not implemented. (Via HealthNewsTrack)

The authors estimated the benefits that South Africa lost by “restricting or delaying the use of ARV treatment in South Africa”. The study compared South Africa’s situation with neighbouring Botswana and Namibia.

From late 2000 Boehringer Ingelheim offered Nevirapine free of charge for five years for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in developing economies. South Africa restricted the use of Nevaripine whilst Botswana and Namibia took full advantage. By 2005 South Africa had achieved less than 30% prevention of mother-to-child transmission. Botswana and Namibia in comparison had achieved up to 70% prevention.

Mbeki’s drumming of racial nationalism prevented South African from getting serious about AIDS. I am reminded of a particularly grim moment in parliament when the DA’s Ryan Coetzee asked the former president if the high incidence of rape in South Africa is partly responsible for the dramatic prevalence of AIDS. Mbeki, still seething from an article in the press suggesting that tradition and religion play a role in South Africa’s high rape rates, retorted:

"Whatever the circumstances, and regardless of the regularity of catholic incantations about 'playing the race card', I, for my part, will not keep quiet while others whose minds have been corrupted by the disease of racism, accuse us, the black people of South Africa, Africa and the world, as being, by virtue of our Africanness and skin colour, lazy, liars, foul-smelling, diseased, corrupt, violent, amoral, sexually depraved, animalistic, savage and rapist," ... This year, in an article entitled "The Continuing Miseducation of the Negro", an African American Associate Professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, Dr Edward Rhymes, wrote, "We are portrayed as oversexed or lascivious, and yet the porn and adult entertainment industry is dominated by whites.It is African Americans that get accused of being rampant sexual beasts, unable to control our urges, unable to keep our legs crossed, unable to keep it in our pants. Source: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2004/at42.htm

ANC MPs cheered and applauded.

Back to the study - it concludes:

Access to appropriate public health practice is often determined by a small number of political leaders. In the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of a failure to accept the use of available ARVs to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner."

In South Africa, a small number of powerful leaders use excessive power to control the course of this country. The disbanding of the Scorpions, an elite crime fighting unit loved by the people and feared by the criminals, is a case in point.

Don’t reward the ANC for past failures. And don’t listen to Bishop Tutu either. Vote next year for an opposition party. Say no to the ANC hegemony.

The Star issues an apology for Jenin lie

In April this year, our benighted former Minister of Totalitarian Affairs Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, unleashed one of his typically rancorous anti-Israel pieces in the Star newspaper. The article was accompanied by 3 images claiming to illustrate the bloody path that Israel has chosen to embark on.

One of the images claimed that there had been a “massacre” in Jenin and another claimed that Israel had perpetrated a bloody massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The third image depicted some of the carnage that resulted in the recent war with Hizballah in Lebanon, a war started by Hizballah.

The media team of the South African Zionist Federation took the incident to the Press Ombudsman and the Star has today, issued an apology, but only for the reference to a massacre in Jenin.

It’s a small victory for us, but it some sections of the ruling should cause us to question the neutrality of the ombudsman.

The image of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre gave the distinct impression that Israel carried out the massacre. That was a lie, so why no correction?

The Ombudsman writes:

A more careful reading of the Kahan report implicates Israel much more deeply than Ms Goldman accepts. For example: “The Chief of Staff, together with the people accompanying him, went to the Phalangists' headquarters, where, according to his testimony (p. 210), he ordered the Phalangist commanders to effect a general mobilization of all their forces, impose a general curfew on all the areas under their control, and be ready to take part in the fighting.” And: “Brigadier-General Yaron spoke with the Phalangists about the places where the terrorists were located in the camps and also warned them not to harm the civilian population. He had mentioned that, he stated, because he knew that the Phalangists' norms of conduct are not like those of the I.D.F. and he had had arguments with the Phalangists over this issue in the past.”

Even though the Ombudsman notes that (1) Israel didn’t actually perpetrate the massacre, and (2) Israel warned the Phalangists not to harm the Palestinian civilians, he still rules against the Zionist Federation’s complaint.

The Ombudsman ends his analysis of the photos with this piece of certain knowledge:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Kasrils on the source of the violence it is true that Israel has been on a bloody path. The intention of the newspaper in using these pictures was to illustrate that path.

It may be correct to say that Israel has been on a bloody path in so far as the Arab nations have forced her hand – but Kasrils uses the phrase to suggest that Israel has single-handedly and unprovokingly caused all of the bloodshed. This is the pig-headed opinion that the Ombudsman has decided to side with.

Today’s edition of the Star published the apology along with the entire ruling by the Ombudsman. The apology reads:

Apology: In an article in The Star on April 7, we carried an analysis by Ronnie Kasrils entitled “A Call to Confront the Past” in which the writer examined what he regarded as terror conducted on the part of Israel to induce the Palestinians from the land of their birth. A complaint was directed to the Press Ombudsman by the Zionist Federation, and a ruling has been made. We apologise for inaccurately describing the events at the Jenin Camp between April 3 and April 18 2002 as a massacre.

You can read the entire Press Ombudsman hearing here: The South African Zionist Federation vs The Star and the Cape Argus

Related

• The Sunday Independent clarifies its stance on Jenin

Response to SA Jewish Board of Deputies

I am extremely pleased that Zev Krengel, National Chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, has taken the time to respond to some of my concerns. Choosing to engage with members of the community on a public forum like IAS shows a commitment to a degree of democratic leadership we have not seen from previous leaders of SA Jewry. One of the major goals of this blog is to provide a space for open debate in the community. I hope that we are making progress in achieving this.

Mr Krengel and I, have a serious difference of opinion on the role of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies in the New South Africa. I see it as a Jewish Human Rights organization with a commitment not only to defend Jewish interests, but South African democracy more generally. He views its role more as a lobby group whose aim is ‘to safeguard the Jewish way of life in South Africa’. But arguing for the triumph of idealism over pragmatism in SAJBD policy towards the government was not the point of my original post.

My major concern was the perception that Mr Krengel’s Above Board column gave about the SAJBD’s efforts to build relationships with the new Motlanthe/Zuma/Malema ANC administration in last week’s Jewish report. At a time of so much political uncertainty in South Africa, particularly within the ruling party, I believed it was risky for the community to be seen to be engaging with only 1 camp in the now split ANC. Thus I am relieved to read Mr Krengel’s commitment to meet with Lekota et al. I am also comforted to learn of the SAJBD’s interaction with opposition political parties.

But why was none of this mentioned in the original Above Board article? If the SAJBD does in fact adhere to its policy of “not taking sides” what was the purpose of highlighting the President’s Shabbas dinner at Mr Krengel’s home over 3 years ago? I believe the column was an attempt to reassure the community that despite the political changes the SAJBD still has influence with those in power. Whether Mr Krengel realizes it or not, stressing the SAJBD’s strong relationship with Motlanthe while not stating the SAJBD’s commitment to “not take sides” or its policy of broad political engagement results in the community being perceived as supporting one side. This does involve South African Jewry in the internal ANC power struggle.

In warning about the risks for the Jewish community of being perceived to support one party in a political conflict, I used the historical example of the SAJBD’s constructive engagement with the Nationalist Party under Apartheid. It was not an attempt to make any moral comparison between Mothlanthe’s ANC and the Apartheid government. I am acutely aware of the ethical difference between the Jewish community building a relationship with an illegitimate regime and now trying to engage with a democratically elected one. I was merely trying to point out the negative consequences in deeply divided societies of being caught clinging to the wrong tree when the winds of political change begin to blow.

I also disagree with Krengel’s analysis of the democratic significance of the recent regime change in South Africa. While I am of course grateful that President Mbeki’s ouster was relatively bloodless, I do not as Krengel put it think this ‘demonstrates democracy in action’. Usually in democratic countries political change comes through the national ballot box. Here the decision of a few ANC apparatchiks is being imposed on the nation. In fact it’s much more reminiscent of the internal politics of the former Soviet Union than a democracy, in particular the ‘recalling’ of Khrushchev as Premier by the communist Party Politburo in 1964.

No matter how positive Mr Krengel may personally feel about the recent political turmoil in the country, I do not believe it is his role as SABJD chairman to advocate such a partisan position on the issue to the community. Adopting the narrative that this is a triumph for democracy in South Africa is endorsing the position of those who have managed to dethrone Mbeki and alienates the Lekota et al camp, who feel they have been unjustly treated. Once again it calls into question the SAJBD’s stated policy of political neutrality.

While in the past I did not support the SAJBD’s approach towards the ruling party, I could understand it. When Thabo Mbeki’s ANC seemed to have hegemonic control of South African society there was some logic to being a part of its sphere of influence. But now with a divided ANC, being seen to associate with or promote the narrative of only one faction of the party can be politically costly. At least until things settle down (probably only after the next general election) Mr Krengel and the SAJBD should be far more circumspect in what they say and how they portray who they have Shabbas dinner with. As much as they may declare otherwise, how and when their political activities are communicated to the community makes them political.

Crossing Swords Part 6- Pollak's Closing entry

For almost 5 weeks now we have been running a debate between Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak centred around the recent controversial SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Herewith is Joel Pollak’s closing entry, in response to Doron's closing entry which we published last week. 

Remember to submit you comments addressed to both Joel and Doron so that we can have one final entry from each answering some of the better questions posed from the floor.

To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 6 - Joel Pollak instalment 3

Dear Doron,

You claim that we disagree because we have "different outlooks on the world." Not so: we disagree because you do not understand human rights law. You believe the weaker party always has a higher moral claim than the stronger. But such prejudice has no meaning in human rights law (or any other law). By putting power before right, you empty human rights of their content.

You resort to personal attacks. I am disappointed--given the vicious comments you have faced, which I condemn--but I am not surprised. In August, you accused UCT student Samantha Beckbessinger of writing "apologia for oppression." [1] She had agreed with you that the occupation "should be ended." [2] But because she criticised your "one-sided approach" to the issue, [3] you accused her of "gutter reporting." [4] Now you question my commitment to human rights because I support John McCain and Sarah Palin. I support them precisely because of their record on human rights. In 2005, McCain opposed the Bush administration on the use of torture in military interrogations. [5] In 2006, it was clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would lead to civil war and genocide. McCain alone called for more troops. He was right.

Sarah Palin has also spoken out for women’s rights in the Islamic world and against Iranian Holocaust denial. [6] I can forgive your ignorance of American politics, but I reject your assumption that human rights belong exclusively to the political left. Equally, I reject the "straw man" you set up by implying that criticising Palestinian human rights abuses amounts to justifying the Israeli occupation.

You evade the question of equal rights for Jews in a Palestinian state by misquoting me, claiming I suggested giving "Israelis equal rights in the West Bank." You then ask, sarcastically: "Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them?"

U.N. Res. 181, the legal basis for both Israeli and Palestinian statehood, requires Arabs to respect Jewish rights in their state (as Arab rights are respected in Israel). [7] Furthermore, the resolution requires each side to declare the equal rights of minorities prior to independence.

Israel fulfilled this condition in its declaration of independence:

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." [8]

If Israel could offer Arabs equal citizenship, even as Arab armies were mobilising to destroy the new Jewish state, why is it too much to ask that Palestinian leaders accept the human rights of Jews, occupation or no? If Palestinian leaders did so, would that not greatly advance their cause? Why, then, do you mock the idea?

You are determined to prove Israel did not face an existential threat in the 1967 war, though this is irrelevant to the actual point--namely, the origin of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. You revert to your single, controversial source. I have met Tom Segev and I respect his work, but his claims about the 1967 war are simply not authoritative. You really ought to read a little more widely.

You claim that you are "not an apologist for Palestine." I agree, because a true friend of the Palestinian cause would have the courage to speak candidly about Palestinian failures without using the Israeli occupation as an excuse. I am proud to stand up for both Palestine and Israel, and I pray that we shall soon see the day when both shall live in peace and freedom.

Chag sameach,

Joel [1] Isaacs, D. 2008. "Misrepresenting the facts." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 8 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/doron-isaacs-israelpalestine.html 
[2] Beckbessinger, S. 2008. "A weak debate." Quid Pro Quo [weblog], 4 Aug. URL: http://quidproquoza.blogspot.com/2008/08/samantha-beckbessinger-israelpalestine.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Isaacs, Ibid.
[5] Miller, G. and Reynolds, M. 2005. "McCain Wins Agreement From Bush on Torture Ban," Los Angeles Times, 16 Dec., A-1. URL: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/16/nation/na-torture16
[6] Palin, S. 2008 "Palin on Ahmadinejad: 'He Must Be Stopped'," New York Sun, 22 Sep. URL: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/palin-on-ahmadinejad-he-must-be-stopped/86311/
[7] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 29 Nov. 1947. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
[8] Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948. Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

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

Zev Krengel replies to IAS criticism

Herewith, a response by SA Jewish Board of Deputies National Chairman, Zev Krengel, to our earlier criticism of an Above Board column he penned in the Jewish Report.

Your post of 15 October (“SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight”) is critical of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies for allegedly “openly aligning the [Jewish] community with the Motlanthe/Zuma/Malema camp”. Such an interpretation is highly misleading, not to say alarmist.

From the outset, it must be stressed that the SAJBD is not a political party. Its primary mandate is to safeguard the Jewish way of life in South Africa, while at the same time leading the Jewish community in being a role player in the development of South Africa. This aim we pursue through networking and building relationships with the government of the day, and with other political parties, different faith groups and NGOs. We will not, indeed cannot, take sides in political disputes.

The Board’s recent engagement with government and the ruling African National Congress in no way means that it is “taking sides”. In fact, the Board meets with political parties from rights across the political spectrum. This year, for example, we have met with the leadership of the Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party. In the event of a new political party being formed by disaffected ANC members, we will certainly seek to meet with them as well.

Yet again, we see the same tired comparisons being made with the Jewish leadership of bygone years and its relationship with the old Nationalist government and that of today. This, too, is incorrect as well as unfair. During the apartheid era, the Board was compelled by the circumstances of the day to deal with a minority government that had no legitimacy, either amongst the great majority of the population or internationally. This is diametrically opposed to the situation as it exists today. We have a democratically elected government, a constitution that safeguards human rights at the highest level, an independent judiciary and an equally independent media, amongst other democratic safeguards.

It is true that any signs of incipient totalitarianism is something we all need to be extremely vigilant about, and certain recent developments are indeed a cause for concern. For all that, however, South African democracy remains vibrant and healthy. The fact that we have seen a regime change take place swiftly, bloodlessly and entirely in accordance with democratic procedures is surely proof of this. So far as criticizing the government of the day goes, our record shows that we have been willing do so, and strenuously, particularly where Israel is concerned.

In conclusion, promoting Jewish civil rights and working to ensure Jewish security, the Board often has to walk a difficult tightrope. Lobbying does not just mean talking to your friends but also trying to influence those who hold different views. On certain occasions, it does become appropriate for the Board to speak out on contentious issues, and our record shows that we have frequently done so. At other times, however, quiet diplomacy is often the preferable course of action. Whichever route we choose to go, it is always taken only after carefully assessing each situation on its merits and deciding which response is the most appropriate.

I would also like to point out that, contrary to what was implied in the above post, Kgalema Motlanthe was not a recent Shabbat guest at my home. This, in fact, took place three years ago.

ZEV KRENGEL
NATIONAL CHAIRMAN
SA Jewish Board of Deputies

The criticism we volleyed can be found here: SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight

Helen Zille: Best Mayor in the World!

Congratulations to Helen Zille and the DA - Zille was recently voted best mayor in the world: Helen Zille named world's best mayor

I would love to hear a response from the two real ANC factions.

Zille was on Talk Radio 702 tonight and she skillfully quipped that Lekota's real ANC is not trying to be an opposition to the real ANC. They are trying to be the real ANC.

Zille also answered a question which many (either racist, arrogant or naive) real ANC supporters have been exhaustively posing, clinging to it as the ultimate proof that the DA are racist. The questioner asked why, if Joe Seremane is not good enough to lead the party, did they nominate him to lead the country when parliament elected Kgalema Motlanthe as state president.

The answer is simple. A person who is not a member of parliament cannot be nominated for president. Helen Zille is not a member of parliament. She was too busy becoming the best mayor in the WORLD! Joe Seremane is party chairman and is therefore the DA's most senior person in parliament and was thus nominated for president.

Remember, don't be an idiot. Don't listen to Bishop Tutu. Vote in next year's elections. There are alternatives to the two real ANC factions.

SA 2010: Israel let it slip 2 minutes from time

Israel's chances of automatic qualification for the world cup in 2010 took a serious knock tonight as they conceded a heart breaking 88th minute equaliser away to Latvia. A victory would have sent Israel top of the log and all but cemented their chances of a top 2 finish.

Liverpool's Yossi Benayoun gave the hosts a a 1-0 lead in the second half but a goal from Kolesnicenko 2 minutes from time left Israel ruing what would have been three consecutive victories on the road.

In the group's other big game, Switzerland managed a great away victory over Greece. The group is thus really tight at the top with Israel a point behind Greece, and Switzerland a point behind Israel.

The next round of games is scheduled for next year March 28, when Israel will face a crunch encounter against Greece.

Crossing Swords Part 5: Doron Isaac's closing remarks

Herewith is Doron Isaac's closing instalment for our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Rights Delegation to Israel. Last week Joel Pollak penned his second entry. To read the opening introduction to this debate and the brief author biographies, follow this link: Crossing Swords, Part one.

The following link will always display all entries (without comments) in chronological order: full text of Crossing Swords debate

Part 5 - Doron Isaacs instalment 3

Dear Joel,

I’ll deal briefly with some of your specific arguments before closing.

I’ll begin on this odd point about Palestinians giving Israelis equal rights in the West Bank. I agree (incidentally, some Palestinian groups do propose this) and the details should be negotiated within the two-state framework. But what do you want now, that the Palestinians accept that the settlers live on their illegally expropriated private land? Should they offer settlers to be occupied with them? Didn't you hear that Palestine is not a state?

I must respond to your questioning my sources. Segev acknowledges the threats of destruction, including threats of “Holocaust” and “death” on Egyptian radio[1]. He explains comparisons of Nasser with Hitler as prompted by “Nasser’s speeches, Radio Cario broadcasts, and the anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press.”[2] In this regard he concludes: “The existential anxiety that gripped Israelis when the crisis erupted was real.”[3]

But there is a crucial difference between the genuinely-felt, yet misplaced, anxiety of the public, and the factual reality. While “concern was growing” that “the Egyptians would try to hit the nuclear reactor” or “initiate a general attack”[4], the overall assessment of both the American and Israeli military and intelligence establishments was that there was no existential threat[5]. Yigal Allon’s own assessment was that “the only crisis was psychological”.[6] One of Israel’s most serious historians cannot so easily be delegitimised.[7]

~*~

I think this debate has shown that people with different outlooks on the world come to different conclusions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You have presented yourself as someone committed to human rights. Interestingly, you support John McCain for President, and have written in the Cape Times supporting Sarah Palin. McCain has an 82% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, the US’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organisation.[8] You seem to identify strongly enough with McCain to have him in your Facebook profile picture. I don’t mean to disparage your support for McCain, but merely to point out that it contradicts your claims to human rights credentials.

You are an apologist for Israel. I am not an apologist for Palestine. I think Palestinian politics is violent, divided, corrupt, and reflects contempt for human rights. But these things – not unique in the world – do not justify the indefinite denial of freedom. The idea that a prolonged occupation is legitimate – and even more so, with settlements – is contrary to my belief system. There are problems within Israeli society and there are problems within Palestinian society. A military occupation is a different category of problem.

It is moreover true that freedom from occupation would improve the chance of dealing with the problems you raise. The fact that I accept your view that internal Palestinian human rights abuses deserve to be condemned is beside the central point: domination of one group by another cannot be justified by saying that the dominated group is bad. The Occupation cannot be justified by recourse to problems within Palestinian society.

The abuse of human rights and the domination of the weak by the powerful are the central problems of our world. Antisemitism – alive and well in some radical anti-Zionist circles – is a classic example, and must be vigorously countered. Violent attacks on Israel – my repeated condemnation of which you’ve been reluctant to accept – are equally barbarous and unjustifiable. These threats to what we know and love are easier to recognise and therefore oppose. It is always hardest to recognise our own faults, but this is a test of one’s commitment to human rights. We therefore cannot go on making excuses for Israel’s increasingly oppressive Occupation.

Regards,

Doron

Notes:

[1] Segev pp 287 & 342.
[2] Ibid p 284.
[3] Ibid p 285.
[4] Ibid p 235.
[5] In 1966 the US assessment was that Israel would win a war “within days or weeks”. (Segev pp 235 & 337). Before the war the US assessment was that Israel had “complete military superiority over every combination of Arab forces”. (May 1966, USNA, Box 19, Memos to the President, cited in Segev p 253). Rabin and the Generals predicted it would take five or six days.
[6] Segev pp 235 & 337.
[7] Curious that while you debate with me about the genesis of the Six-Day War, you campaign for McCain who supports a war in Iraq which was indisputably based on misinformation and falsified intelligence.
[8] ACU 2007 U.S. Senate Votes, http://www.acuratings.org/2007senate.htm. Interestingly, he is far from the least conservative Republican.

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

SA Jews must not pick sides in ANC fight

One of my all time favorite films is ‘a Man for All Seasons’, that tragic tale of Sir Thomas Moore. In particular I love the contrast between the moral fortitude of Moore and the actions of his obsequious and conniving servant. While Moore’s refusal to deviate from his principles results in his dramatic fall from grace, his cunning servant on the other hands manages to continually improve his standing in society. In the final scene this parallel rises and fall of fortunes is brought to a dramatic climax when it is the servant who is given the responsibility to administer the guillotine that ends Moore’s life.

Despite understanding the risks (as evidenced by the movie) I have always advocated for the Jewish community to adopt a more Moorean approach to dealing with the ANC government. Even in the current context of a split ANC, I would hope that our official representatives speak out in favor of defending the constitution and highlight the very serious risks that many in the new ruling coalition pose to our young democracy. But I know given the position of the powers in this community that sadly this will never happen.

In fact the very opposite is underway. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies seems to be engaging in a charm offensive with the new ANC administration. According to the Above Board column in last week’s Jewish Report, not only have they organized a meeting with the President for select Jewish businessmen, but Motlanthe has in fact been an honored guest at SAJBD chairman Zev Krengel’s Shabbas table.

Values aside, given the current political uncertainty in the country, openly aligning the community with the Motlanthe/Zuma/ Malema camp is an extremely dangerous strategy. There is a very real chance that former defense minister Mosiuoa Lekota and his new ‘movement’ could cause a significant break within the ruling party. What if it happens that in elections next year this new ‘movement’, together with other more established political parties, actually manages to gain enough votes to form a coalition government? How will this new/old government now be disposed towards the Jews given that we did not hesitate to jump in bed with their enemies at our first opportunity? Even if this outcome has even a 10% probability, this is not the sort of gamble that the leadership of this community should be making with our future.

We have already experienced the consequences of this sort of mistake in the past. Would anyone deny that the SAJBD’s relationship with the old Nationalist government did not hurt the communities standing in the new South Africa? I fear our leaders are once again making the same mistakes. I am not asking the SAJBD for grand Moorean moral stands, but at least to be pragmatic in being pragmatists. Now is the time to take a wait-and-see approach. But if you just cannot resist ingratiating yourselves with the new ANC administration, at least keep it quiet!