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

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.

Comments

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Dear Doron

It is clear from the above that despite your obvious defeat, without Joel even needing to put in that last nail, your idealogical myopia won't allow you to concede your moral bancruptcy.

Nevertheless, as a good sport, I include a few tips so hopefully you can come accross a bit better in the next debate, to help I've included one or two examples:

Rule 1: play the ball (not the man)
e.g. pointing and using big words like "apologist"

Rule 2: repeating a fallacy often enough doesn't make it true
e.g. their illegally expropriated private land

Rule 3: Corker's only get past the totally ignorant, I would have expected more from you with an audience like this, Gush Katif is too festering a wound to try a line like this:
"freedom from occupation would improve the chance of dealing with the problems you raise."

Rule 4: stick to the subject
And by the way, it's only the "whole world" of like minded lefties who are convinced of the Obamessiah. Not "everyone" is this blind. Some people don't buy into your world view (which is not the only "correct" world view being pedalled). McCain is not the worst thing since Bush, the worst thing since Hitler etc etc.

Climb out of your little lefty fox hole and try seeing the world for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.

Rule 5: using hind sight (see note 7) especially with how badly Obama, Ayers, Wright, Rabin, Sharon, Barack, Clinton are looking in hind sight is a particularly nefarious tactic, notwithstanding it's complete irrelevance.

Final advice: next time you're visiting those peaceful yet bullied and hard done by Palestinians you feel so sorry for, try using this line: "But there is a crucial difference between the genuinely-felt, yet misplaced, anxiety of the public, and the factual reality"

[Brett]

It's been a while since I heard such closed minded leftist remarks. Doron's political tolerance is ominously reminiscent of the Kremlins tolerance for opposition view points. You may not like McCain, but to blatantly accuse him of being anti-human-rights with even trying to substaniate the claim is all but absolute proof the Doron's objectives are simple propaganda and that his opinions are based in sensationalistic rumour and emotion rather than fact.

I once again refer Doron to the questions I raised to his previous post.

Here's another one. Please explain to us, without lying, what rights Israel is abusing. Because here are the facts. The PA is in civilian and police control of more that 80% of Judea and Samaria. The check points set up and strategic points around the area are there only to stop terrorists (and they have been remarkably successful at this with terrorism from towns like Nablus drop nearly 90% with the introduction of checkpoints). If you are not a terrorist the only way you are affected by the checkpoints is that you have to wait in lines. People all over the world wait in lines for things as trivial as posting a letter, you would think the saving of innocent lives would be worth it. The military only launches operations because the PA police refuse to arrest known terrorists, a commitment they made at Oslo. The IDF has no great desire to risk its soldiers' lives, if the PA police did its job the IDF would stay as far away as possible. The land never belonged to the "Palestinians". It belonged to Jordon, and regardless of how many minority opinions you quote/misquote redarding Egypt, is cannot be denied that Jordon attacked Israel after Israel begged them to stay out of the war. Judea and Samaria were the result of a defensive war.

[L. King]

Doron - you wrote:

"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."

Ow - that's a tough concept. Violent and corrupt people should not be denied freedom? Actually that's a pretty good reason to deny people some freedom - the freedom to commit violence and corruption on others in particular.

Palestinians in the territories are caught in a double bind. One is the control by Israel, the other is by their own repressive political strictures which to some extent they propagate and support, be it Fatah or Hamas. If by relaxing Israeli control one empowers the internal oppressors and reinforces their positions then more is lost than is gained. Do not be so naive as to expect them to suddenly reform. Nor should one subscribe to the dictum that internal oppression, be it in Sudan, Zimbabwe or even Palestine is somehow excusable because the oppressors come from the same group.

One also must consider the legitimate rights of Jews to live where they would like to. Hebron is an excellent case in point - it is the oldest continuously settled Jewish community in the world, except for the ethnic cleansing between 1948 and 1967, yet the characterization is made that it is "occupied" by Jewish settlers. Joel has identified the Palestinian held trope that there are some places where Jews should not be allowed to live. Perhaps we should accept that this is something we will have to (not) live with, but it doesn't mean we should accept it as right or without a counter argument as part of the negotiations.

I agree with the previous comments regarding your attack on Joel's support of Senator John McCain. The candidate does not deserve your approbation nor is it appropriate to bring an outside issue such as this. It merely obscures the discussion with an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the conduct or your recent tour. It is as irrelevant as your political leanings either towards or against the ANC, for example.

Notwithstanding I do feel that the separation wall has created opportunities for removing roadblocks and checkpoints internal to the territories that Israel has yet to implement. If Palestinians are willing to stop the violence then the need for these things should gradually fade. Outside of violent aspirations to do harm to others I wish Palestinians well in an their attempt to construct a State of their own or, if failing to do so, forging an economic union or relationship with their brethren in Jordan or Egypt.

[Lawrence]

just the other day an IDF check-point stopped some Palestinian terrorists from getting through with pipe bombs, so those oppossing check-points would prefer it if more Jews were killed by terrorists then, to such people Palestinian inconvenience which they themselves are responsible for is worth far more than the lives of Jewish men, women and children.

Doron is not going to change his position, he just keeps repeating the same old same old, that we have all refuted, he is living in a parallel universe. He didn't even acknowledge a single point made against him, not one, he just dodged and dived and threw in misinformed distractions, he's like a stuck record. This is why it is a waste of time arguing even politely with these people, they will just stick to the same old easily refuted nonsense, it's psychological.

They just need to be exposed for what they are constantly, and who they keep company with.

[TC]

Imagine Joel supported not John McCain but the AWB or the Ku Klux Klan. Is there any condition under which any liberal would support him or his cause? Wouldn't this discredit him entirely, and wouldn't he relinquish any support?

But the Palestinians have voted for genocidal, theocratic fanatics, Hamas, compared to which the AWB and Ku Klux Klan are Puss in Boots.

Their hatred is not caused by the occupation, but causes it. For the Arabs started a genocidal war against Israel in 1948, and threatened genocide again in 1967. Furthermore, Hamas were elected after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza.

How can any liberals, indeed anyone in good conscience, sympathise with these folks or support their cause?

[Marc]

Just to remark further on Doron's implication that McCain is not a supporter of human rights, I would love to see ANY substantiation Doron may have of that mindless defamation.

Its public and indisputable knowledge that McCain led the charge in the Senate against the alleged torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, at tremendous cost to his political capital within the base of the Republican Party. This when he was already running for President.

So I'm afraid we must assume that its simply a matter of "GOP conservatives" = "abusers of human rights" in Doron's mind, not a very rational or fair way to engage in dialogue or to establish the truth of a particular matter, and certainly not very convincing.

No wonder it was so easy for Joel to win the argument about the "Human Rights" delegation!

[Gary]

Actually doron, the garbage u write about Israel not being under real threat before the 6 Day war has been refuted in michael Oron's Six Days of War as well as books written straight after that war before revisionist propagandists could revise things to slander Israel and try to make the Arab aggressors look innocent.
All this anti-Israel revisionism is like Holocaust denial revisionism really, thoroughly discredited and designed purely because of a hate-driven political agenda against Jews
(and spare me that we are not against Jews, we are against Zionism crap).

As regards the settlers who you malign so viciously, many were returning to areas inhabited by Jewish communities BEFORE 1948 such as Gush Etzion whose communities were forced out by Arab attackers during the War of Independence (What u and your friend Ronnie would refer to as the 'Nakba' when u play Arab Arab-" I'm an Arab, I can say 'Inshallah').
The community in Hebron existed for hundreds of years before they were massacred by Arab pogromchiks in 1929 (spae me that crap that only White Europenas can be anti-Semitic), so why shouldn't they return to their land?
Doron, you didn't create the propaganda yourself I know, but you've been talking so much Arab lies you've started to convince yourself.

[Ze-ev]

Lets see:

"Violent attacks on Israel – my repeated condemnation of which you’ve been reluctant to accept". Doron; Yasser Arafat would also condemn suicide bombings against Israel. However, almost immediately afterwards he would appear on arab television praising the jihad.

Its easy to speak meaningless words but eventually your actions give you away. Yasser didn't have anyone fooled when he condemned suicide bombings. Especially considering that some of the terrorists were coming from his own organization. In the same vein your words have no meaning as well. Your anti-Israel actions drown out your facade of caring for Israel.

Doron, your mention of McCain within the context of this argument is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to try redirect the argument to disguise how ridiculous and flawed your arguments really are.

You argued "But what do you want now, that the Palestinians accept that the settlers live on their illegally expropriated private land?"

My grandparents had to leave Iran not because they wanted to leave the place of their birth but because as Jews Iran made it unbearable for them to live there.

They did not have the opportunity to sell their home and possessions and had to leave it all behind. Leaving a place where they had acquired significant wealth and come to Israel with hardly anything.

My grandparents are still alive. Living evidence of how Jews who posed no threat to their country were driven out of arab lands. Can you get my grandparents home back please doron?? and if not why aren't you fighting for their rights.

[Dave Ballin]

Much has been made in Israel and abroad lately of the fact that the Palestinian/Arab narrative and not just the Zionist narrative should be heard. This argument is made because it is implied that these radically different "narratives" are like points of view, having equal validity and one can only come to the objective truth about the Middle East conflict when both stories are given equal weight.

The view that there are two narratives for the conflict implies that objective facts can be found in both. As the stories are so completely different, it is obvious that one story must be closer to the objective truth than the other. Both stories cannot be equally right. An example is the status of Jerusalem in the Zionist (Jewish) narrative versus Jerusalem in the Arab (Muslim/Palestinian) narrative.

Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish state of Israel. It has been "their" city for thousands of years. Jews have died for it, prayed to return to it for millennia. "Next year in Jerusalem", are words from the prayer at every Pesach (Passover) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). The Arab (Muslim) narrative claims Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, with no Jews in it. They claim today that the Jews never had a temple in the city. Dr Ekrima Sabi, Mufti of Jerusalem said in an interview with Mike Seid in the Jerusalem Post, Friday the 26th October 2007, "There was never a Jewish Temple on Al-Aksa and there was no proof that there was ever a temple. Because Allah is fair, he would not agree to make Al-Aksa if there were a temple there for others beforehand. … this wall is not part of the Jewish Temple, it is just the Western wall of the Mosque. … there is not a single stone with any relations at all to the history of the Hebrews. Zionism tries to trick the Jews claiming that this was part of a Jewish Temple, but they dug there and they found nothing"

This is a very recent Muslim view supported by the PLO, but what did the Supreme Muslim Council say about the Temple Mount in 1930 as quoted by the Jerusalem Post 26/10/2007? "…sanctity dates from earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute...". Which is the historically accurate narrative of Jerusalem – modern Jewish narrative and the Muslim one of 1930, or the modern PLO and Muslim view as expounded by Dr. Ikrema Sabri, mufti of Jerusalem?

If one believes the Bible is God's Word to mankind, then one can come to only one conclusion regarding Israel and the Jewish Zionist endeavour, namely that the restoration of the land of Israel to the Jewish people is a fulfillment of prophesy. However, the bible is not the only place to check the validity of the Jewish claim to the land.

The objective events of the 20th century present the Jewish claim to Zion/Palestine/Eretz Israel, in terms of international law, as an undeniably just and fair one. The 31st October 2007, marked the 90th anniversary of the War Cabinet's decision in London, to press for a Jewish homeland in the Holy Land. This decision became known as the Balfour Declaration. The 31st of October 1917 was also the date of General Allenby's victory over the Turks in the Battle of Beersheba. These two events are objective verifiable facts.

How we are to interpret these facts with regard to Zionism is a result of our personal worldview. These two events can be seen as mere coincidences in the history of the world, or as part of God's plan for the restoration of the Jewish people to their biblical homeland.

The Battle for Beersheba was won by 800 Anzacs, attacking 4000 entrenched Turkish soldiers. This last great cavalry charge in human history resulted in the capture of Beersheba. The charge was made into the setting sun, taking the Turks completely by surprise. By nightfall, Beersheba was in Allenby's hands.

The victory at Beersheba, opened the way for Allenby to enter Jerusalem on the 2nd December 1917. Without the physical territory in the hands of the British, the State of Israel would never have been born. An extreme claim perhaps, but the Ottoman Empire had never been open to granting a homeland for the Jews.

In short, Isaacs and his cohorts are trying to rewrite history, covering their efforts in currently politically correct nonsense and simply, G-d, history and facts are not on their side. They will all fade into nothingness and promotion in in the ANC/SACP is mere short-term gain with no lasting significance in the firmament of time and history. Isaacs is just a current irritation, nothing more.