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
| 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. |
Joel with all due respect you are way too soft on Isaacs, but I guess you need to be diplomatic in a way. On the other hand do you really, Isaacs will say what he says no matter how you go out of your way to be polite and step on tiptoes with him and his ilk. Also in all frankness what was the point of this debate since we all knew that Doron would repeat his same old lying garbage no matter the contradictory facts that he was exposed to?
Isaacs continues to praise just like all the Jew-haters the world over (Muslim fanatics included) Tom Segev's lying nonsense about the 1967 War, despite the fact that the actual facts on the '67 war are easily available (it was not that long ago for crying out loud) and refute easily enough the evidence-free claims of Segev's disgraceful nonsense, what next - is Segev going to write a book blaming the '48 War on Israel, why not? It would be consistent at least. Will you still tell us then that you respect "his work" Joel? Segev's book is of the same kind of bilge as the Walt and Mearsheimer "the Jewish lobby controls America" variety.
Beckbessinger calls for the end of the occupation, which would be a disaster threatening Israel's very existence, the ability of Israel to survive in the long-term against implacable enemies, ending the occupation would be a disaster for Israel as long as the Palestinians remain fantical and committed to murdering Jews which they are (and no it is not the fault of the occupation, the Jew-hatred of the Palestinians and their Arab Muslim neighbours led to the occupation in the first bloody place) and yet to Isaacs this is not enough, in his eyes she is guilty of "gutter reporting" because she doesn't completely parrot lying Palestinian propoganda like Isaacs and all his Jew-hate buddies (oh I'm not supposed to call a spade a spade I forgot, sorry..not). With Hamas and the other jihadists in control of the West Bank (why wouldn't they take over? they took over Gaza, they have the support base in the WB and they say they will take over if the IDF and Israel leave - this is not hard to undestand is it? why should the fate of the WB be different to Gaza), there would be nothing to stop rockets raining down on Central and Southern Israel including West Jerusalem, must everybody move to the coastal cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa? In any future war with her Arab neighbours, a distinct possibility given the unending hostility to Israel's existence from her Jew-hating neighbours (which Doron doesn't even recognise) and the fact that there have been three major Arab-Israeli Wars in the past, Israel would face a very real threat of being split in two having to fight a war on several fronts, the West Bank cuts into the very heart of Israel - look at it on a map for crying out loud - if Israel is cut in two it is finished. All military strategists realise this. So those advocating the end of the occupation (Jews included) which the Arabs themselves are responsible for, are advocating nothing less than lessening the odds considerably of Israel's very survival in any future conflict/s and of putting the lives of even more thousands upon thousands of Jewish lives at risk, children included, of Palestinian terror attacks; which makes such people ignorant at best, even perhaps deranged and idiotic and pathological Jew-haters at worst - but I guess if I call it like it is, it makes me a racist and "a voice of oppression". Yet to Doron such people (ie Beckbessinger who is obviously ignorant of the pertinent facts in this regard, she is certainly not a Jew-hater) do not neccessarily go far enough and are still seen by him and his ilk as evil propogandists for the Jews, oh sorry I mean Israel! That is how bad the state of the "debate" is. And just what kind of a "Jew" Doron is.
If it was up to Isaacs and his ilk and that includes the lying media, I would never know what was actually going on in the M-E, like you know that there were such entities as Hamas who call for the killing of every last Jewish man, woman, child and baby on the planet on their charter, which the majority of Palestinians support as the 2006 election showed, that Fatah calls for Israel's destruction on its charter (still in place), that its president is a Holocaust denier who praises suicide bombers as "martyrs", that Israel is surrounded by very real enemies like Hezbollah and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood and its countdown time until mad Amandinjehad has the Bomb...
So Isaacs moans in self-righteous martyrdom fashion that he has come in for some harsh name calling from some people, oh boo hoo poor Isaacs cry me a river. Isaacs is as bad as it gets when it comes to leftwing hypocrisy, moral relativism and wilful moral blindness and a lot more when it comes to Israel, ie the JEW NATION.
The anti-Israel venom and demonisation is only going to get much worse from the likes of Isaacs and his kind, only worse as the threats to Israel's survival continue to intensify (it's psychological/sociological and it would take too long to explain exactly why this is), in fact the past decade or so has only seen the Israel-hate from the left intensify and deepen as the terrorist threats from Hamas, Hezbollah etc have worsened; it is just going to go on in this vein. Are you still going to be oh so fucking polite Joel (and Steve and Mike) to Isaacs and their ilk (the useful idiots of Muslim fanatics) if the unthinkable happens, or don't you like to even think about it?
Posted by: Lawrence | October 19, 2008 at 20:24
IAS writes above:
"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."
you are joking right?
Isaacs won't answer a single question anybody has posed "from the floor" without misrepresenting it at best. What are the "better questions", the ones that do the most to let Isaacs off the hook of being a propogandist and useful idiot for Islamic supremacism?
So I guess the following questions won't qualify then? -
1 Isaacs what is a dhimmi?
2 Isaacs who do you count as objective and reliable commentators/reporters/broadcasters on the Middle-East conflict? The BBC, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, the M&G, Al-Jazeera, the Teheran Times? Please specify why if you answer in the affirmative to any of the above (I asked this question before but Isaacs ain't gonna answer it)
3 Isaacs when are you packing your bags to move to Gaza or Damascus or Riyadh or Jedda or Dubai or Khartoum, Lahore or Islamabad even? Take your pick. Don't you think you should put your money where your mouth is, the above are Zionist-free cities, plenty of anti-Zionism in the localities I mention, so don't you think it a good idea for you to move to one of these places considering all the support your SAHRD has garnered and had praised upon it from anti-Zionist quarters? Think about it.
Posted by: Lawrence | October 19, 2008 at 21:02
Lawrence calls it as he sees it and anyone who disagrees with him doesn't.
Lawrence, it's not for you to say who is and isnt a Jew.
Joel,
Please elaborate on your plan for awarding rights to Jews in the West Bank. Surely this cannot occur when the resources are so disproportionately allocated. I would be ok with that is the conditions were met
1a - Settlements are dismantled
1b - Privately owned land that has been expropriated is returned
2 - Jews submit to Palestinian law - whatever they may be (assuming they protect minorities)
3 - Jews can then go live in palestinian villages in the similar conditions that the palestinians must live in
Joel, what are your conditions? surely not to just allow the current settlements to be.
Posted by: Lynda | October 19, 2008 at 21:21
I'd like to address the following sets of questions to both contributors:
1. Will there likely ever be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? If so, will there likely be peace within our lifetimes? What evidence supports your answer?
2. Why do the Palestinian media indoctrinate Palestinian children with genocidal propaganda whereas other suffering peoples, including more persecuted people, do not indoctrinate their children in this way?
3. You have disagreed about whether criticism levelled against the Israelis is accurate. Whether or not the criticism is accurate, what explains the duplicity of the criticism? Why are the Israelis singled out for so much criticism when there are other nations across the world rcommitting far greater wrongs than those of which Israel is accused?
4. Why was a delegation sent to Israel and not to other countries with far worse human rights records? Is there any chance such a delegation will be sent to other countries in- and outside of Africa?
Posted by: TC | October 20, 2008 at 00:34
Lynda, please explain why: "resources are so disproportionately allocated" is somehow a block against fairness or peace?
Do you think we should steal from the rich to feed the poor too?
Since you inevitably own more than the average starving somali, do you think it fair if the Politburo knocked on your door tomorrow and redistributed your bmw to the starving people?
As for Lawrence, it's free country, and more specifically a free internet. Lynda, please afford him the right to express himself just as Doron is free to spew his putrid filth.
Posted by: Religious Fundamentalist 1 | October 20, 2008 at 00:50
My questions to Doron are as follows (each number is an entire question):
1) If you were the leader of Palestine, what concessions would you make to have Peace with Israel? Given these concessions, what would you SAY to convince the vast majority of Palestinians to go along with these concessions? (Given that overwhelmingly the preference has been for death and jihad rather than letting the Jews be), do you honestly beleive you would survive 2 weeks as leader of the Palestinians after saying these things?
2) If you were the leader of Israel, and you were of the opinion that the ENTIRE arab world was hell bent on your annihilation, the rape of your sisters, the murder of your children etc, or at best nuking your entire people, what would your strategy for survival be?
3) Do you take it as a given that all people, the world over, want the same thing. I.e. a 9-5 job, a livable wage and regular overseas holidays with the whole family? Or are you multiculti enough, and open-minded enough to accept that some people want different things to you, and that these things may include, inter alia, a family, a slice of the ever after, a little of g-ds favour, 70 virgins, and/or the death and destruction of your entire people?
Posted by: Religious Fundamentalist 1 | October 20, 2008 at 01:06
Dear Readers of this Debate
Look beyond the surface of this debate and a look deeper. What are Doron Isaacs' motivations? You will see that it is guaranteed that he will never consider making Aliyah, unless the proverbial hits the fan and even he has no other option, and he is using the Israel/Palestine debate to further his career and ambitions in the ANC/SACP and build up cred with his political masters in these parties. A costless and easy ploy. I refer you to the insightful comments by Shmuel ben Dov at the bottom of the comments at http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2008/10/crossing-swor-2.html (Crossing Swords Part 3: Doron Isaacs' second entry).
Isaacs will keep this issue on the front burner as long as he can and abuse his access to Jewish institutions and activities and take advantage of our unbelievably weak Board of Deputies and the gutless South African Zionist Federation and the Western Province Zionist Council and affiliated bodies wherever he can. He will abuse his access to Habonim under the guise of "debate" to continue his huge influence on this "Zionist" Youth Movement.
As for his financier, the "delegation" is hugely financed and I believe it has cost at least R1 million so far, a fool and his/her money are quickly parted.
To Lynda above, you really don't get it, do you? The debate isn't about what Lawrence's views are. The debate goes around what Isaacs and Pollak are saying.
To Joel, Kol Hakavod for answering Isaacs and partaking is this debate. However, Isaacs will never change even if logic continues to slap him in the face, because logic doesn't suit him and simply gets in the way of his ambitions. Watch out Doron, publicity and notority are addictive and can also destroy you, although you don't need much assistance in that area. What your critics say is sometimes more important than the accolades and the "looking-glass self", when you mistakenly think what you see in the mirror is what others see.
At the end of the day, Isaacs, his fellow travellers and accolytes' activities are meaningless and only an irritation to the South African Jewish Community, which is part of their strategy, but will amount to nothing in the end. To Israel, it has no effect or influence. Israel will do what it has to do and doesn't even know about this debate and Isaacs and Co can whistle Dixie until the cows come home.
Posted by: Jonathan C | October 20, 2008 at 01:09
Religious, apologies, I won't disagree with Lawrence again because you equate it with me denying him his right to express his view. How absurd. Are you always this engaging?
I don't think we should steal from the rich to feed the poor. The excessive defensiveness of your position is hysterical! Do you try bash down everyone who ever argues with you? Freedom of expression and robin hood. Surely two of the best donkey punches I have ever seen!
Seriously though, I would like Joel to indicate how he thinks we should deal with the areas where Jewish settlements happen to encroach upon private Palestinian land. I am not saying that all settlements are on private Palestinian property. But some certainly are.
Also, how do we better distribute resources within the territories. The settlements are getting better access to water and electricity. If there is no land swap but rather the Jews live there as residents of Palestine (which I support) how then do we justify these Jewish blocs continuing to appear as if they are in Israel in terms of resources when they are in Palestine. Why must they get better water and electricity than say Nablus?
Posted by: Lynda | October 20, 2008 at 08:50
Lynda, telling Lawrence who he is and isn't entitled to call whatever he wants is precisely denying him his "right" to call it as he sees it.
Yes, for the record, I'm always this engaging. Including while asleep.
Lynda, the point of hyperbole is to point out the logical conclusion of your statement. The palestinians should indeed be entitled to resources (to the extent they don't use them for diminishing other peoples human rights). They should be entitled to build their own power stations etc, just as Israel did. Or to BUY electricity and become productive members of society.
As the largest recipient of foreign aid, it's incredible they haven't as yet. It also goes to show that foreign aid is a sham and the mentality of hand-outs has created basket cases accross the middle east and africa.
Private land must be dealt with in terms of porperty law, but the same goes for houses purchased by jews, land illegally occupied by arab housing accross east jerusalem and other areas, as well as the illegal and phoney land grabs made by palestinians.
Bottom line though. Palestinians aren't interested in resources, electricity etc. It's all an excuse to beat Israel over the head and to garner additional foreign aid to syphon off to Swiss bank accounts, to pay for cute blonde scandinavian body guards, and most importantly to keep funding the import of weapons to kill JEWS.
The longer people beleive this conflict is about resources, land (in the private property sense), "human rights" and olive groves the longer innocent people will die. This is not about "settlers", this is about infidels and the embarassment to the Uma.
Posted by: Religious Fundamentalist 1 | October 20, 2008 at 11:07
Lynda, if the Palestinian Authority under Arafat stole over three hundred million dollars of EU and US donor money, which Arafat and cronies expropriated into personal bank accounts in Europe and into a multi-million dollar pad in Paris for Arafat and his wife, (among other things) is this the fault of Israel and the settlements?
Lynda blathering on about the settlements, which it is fair to criticise, is not going to change the fact that Hamas calls for the annihilation of Jewry and Hamas and the likes of Islamic Jihad are continuing to plot terrorism against the Jews, continuing to smuggle rockets into Jew-free settlement-free Gaza to fire at Jews in Israel proper, but I notice you have nothing to say about that.
Anymore than you have anything to say about honour killings in Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the Arab world like Egypt and Jordan. So whilst Palestinian and Arab Muslim women and girls face routine violence and murder from the hands of their husbands and brothers and uncles in the name of family honour, I notice that as a woman you have nothing to say about that.
Also you do not acknowledge anything I actually wrote re what an Israeli withdrawal of the West Bank would actually mean in the long-term, namely that Hamas would fill in the power vaccuum and what that means for Israel and Jews, but then nowhere do you make mention of Muslim radicalism in Palestine or anywhere else, and Palestinian terrorism neither. But then you wouldn't.
Maybe if the PA has stolen over four hundred million dollars of donor money (which it has) it is the fault of Israel. The Palestinians have received more donor money per capita (note per capita) than any other ethnic/national group from the West, over the last decade and a half. I have worked in international aid and NGO work, I know this field pretty well and know how to check up on the actual figures on aid (and where it goes most importantly) from the EU, US and Canada - but maybe the fact that much of the donor money has been squandered and stolen by thugs in the PA, or spent on aid for terrorist groups like Al-Aqusa is all the fault of Israel, maybe Lynda can tell us how.
Lynda, the IAS forum is not the M&G or the SABC or the BBC, where only anti-Jew nation opinions are allowed, at this forum one is actually allowed to express opinions and actual facts that paint the Jew Nation in a positive light, and that dares to acknowledge the existence of Muslim radicalism and terrorism in the Middle-East and elsewhere, even as it irks the likes of you so much.
Posted by: Lawrence | October 20, 2008 at 13:49
Jonathan C you make some interesting and intelligent points re Isaacs and motivation. I know something about NGOs from personal experience, (as I allude to above) and the PC idiocy, as well as the moral relativism in that crowd when it comes to the West, Israel and the rest of the world. And there is so much anti-Semitism in that world, but it is not unique to the NGO community. There is much more I can write about NGOs and international AID that would make even the most hardened cynic sit up with surprise, as the inside joke goes "I used to be a cynic but then I joined an aid organisation/NGO and now I can't keep up".
However Jonathan C whilst I acknowledge your telling and intelligent points, I don't think you have gotten to the bottom of it, that is there are plenty of Jews like Isaacs in South Africa, North America, UK and even Israel who think and talk exactly like Isaacs and they have nothing to do with NGO work and related. I think it runs deeper in other words, that is it is predominantly ideological, an unthinking adherence to Leftist PC culture. Of course many Jews immersed in work and social activity that is heavily blanketed in Leftwing (and radical leftwing in particular) ideology are thus naturally working with non-Jews who are anti-Israel in a kneejerk unthinking manner, because that's the fashion among these crowds. So to get along with these people, to work with them in a way that doesn't result in conflict and strained relations, under which it would be impossible to work, one has to adopt their anti-Israel stance, even as a Jew. This is not just in NGO work but applies more widely (it also applies very much so if a Jew is working in the Western media, including the SA media).
So such people have a choice, and they make their choices. If one goes along with the anti-Israel status quo in order to make life easier for oneself in work and socially, then it is by its very nature not a conscious choice, but a subconscious one. They literally do not know what they do or why they do it.
Posted by: Lawrence | October 20, 2008 at 15:07
Lawrence, I am aware of the facts you have stated but they are no justification for illegal settlement development and expropriation of private Palestinian land where there is no security justification.
Your questions should perhaps be directed towards Joel - or is he an untouchable? He seems to be saying that he supports a two state solution with an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank land. Why not ask him to confirm this and if so address your points to him?
Your points on aid are quite irrelevant I'm afraid.
I havent charged Israel with responsibility for the Palestinian predicament so I can only imagine you mention aid as a justification for Israeli behaviour. In that case you admit that Israel has taken some Palestinian land unfairly. Well, you can't steal just because you know the other side doesn't really look after their stuff.
Its irrelevant (if not as ridiculous) as your point charging that I don't have a problem with honoour killings because I didnt mention them in my earlier comment.
By the way, I am against rape. Are you? You haven't condemned it. Perhaps you support it.
I also condemn Israeli anarchists who recently attacked settlers in the West Bank. DO you condemn them? You haven't as yet so I'll assume you support them.
One thing about the IAS forum is for sure - it attracts a nasty and belligerent bunch of people.
Posted by: Lynda | October 20, 2008 at 15:10
Lynda, I hope some of the comments doesnt put u off expressing ur views here. we (the authors) really want a more diverse perspective.
Your question on the settlements wll definately be put to joel. I thought it was exremely relevant.
I think we all need to be a bit more tolerant in our comments. I know this is an emotional issue but lets try be more civil to each other.
Posted by: Mike | October 20, 2008 at 15:32
Lynda, I think if you scroll through the comments in various other posts you will notice that the blog indeed does attract a nasty and belligerent bunch of people, which tends to result in the usual posters getting a little het up at repeating themselves day in and day out for people just not prepared to listen to logic or reason. Or people who tend to make up the facts to suit themselves (ref our friend Doron)
In that vein, I apologise if I came across too strongly for your liking. However, the point is to debate and argue and while I believe in playing the ball not the man - all is fair when the ball is in play, i.e. freedom of speech is a right that trumps the newly invented right not to be offended. (cf Ezra Levant's war against the useful idiots at the CHRC commissariate)
In terms of your question, the bottom line is that if indeed people are in possession of property, be it real estate or other that belongs to someone else, it must be returned, or compensated for, as the situation allows.
Your starting point of calling settlements illegal though, typically doesn't reference to some chap in a caravan on a piece of land that might have once belonged to someone else. Rather, the language of illegal settlement generally refes to anything over the mythical green line (according to anyone non-arab) and any Israeli city at all (if you're arab) - so perhaps that was a primary cause of the dispute. Indeed when you embark on the discussion of "illegal settlements" it's the first step on a road that leads to denying Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation - a discussion not entered into on any other country. Interestingly, the Russian Governments seizure of land in Jerusalem is a fine illustration of just how the depraved the current situation has become.
But I must suggest that "reparations" for designated pieces of land is hardly a major question to Joel's fundamental argument. It's a subsequent detail that can easily be agreed by reasonable people. The problem with all these "final status agreements" is that they ignore the elephant in the room - i.e. that Abbas is a Holocaust denier who intends to perpetrate another, if he can just wrest control away from the Zealots at hamas. The axiom of "reasonability" just doesn't apply and the longer we kid ourselves that it does, the longer innocent people die.
Posted by: Religious Fundamentalist 1 | October 20, 2008 at 16:12
Lynda's responses are incoherent and illogical, and all the worse for Mike for trying to give them some kind of legitimacy. What do settlements have to do with the fact that the Palestinians do not accept Israel's right to exist, and seek its destruction? - the fact that Lynda has nothing to say about this reveals her blatant bias and prejudice, which Mike tries to legitimise. It's ultimately a red herring blathering on about the settlements whilst ignoring the pervasiveness of Palestinian and Muslim radicalism that seeks what the Nazis sought - the eradication of Jewry.
You do not address the facts Mike about what an Israeli (IDF and Israel controlled) withdrawal from the West Bank would mean, which I elucidate clearly,and then you pretend it somehow irrelevant, as if the security of Israel is irrelevant.
Lynda endorses Doron's anti-Israel gibberish wholeheartedly and all you do Mike is sympathise with her in this regard. Maybe you ought to quit IAS, close down the blog and go apply for a job at the news desk of SABC or get work with the M&G.
Posted by: Lawrence | October 21, 2008 at 10:16
Oh, Jihad Lynda
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 ).
The community in Hebron existed for hundreds of years before they were massacred by Arab pogromchiks in 1929 (spare me that crap that only White Europeans can be anti-Semitic), so why shouldn't they return to their land?
As regadring your crap about recourses everything the 'settlers' have is built by their own sweat and tears.
why don't you actually try live in Israel before u point fingers at the Israeli people?
Posted by: Gary | October 21, 2008 at 11:45
Quite honestly, I find Lynda's contributions infantile and it has definitely acted as a red herring and taken almost all off track. Isaacs, I find it hard to address him by his full name, must be smiling as the attention is taken off him and his comrades.
We can go backwards and forwards discussing whether the Arabs that now call themselves Palestinians get more or less water or electricity. One wonders where Lynda finds her facts and how she can prove them. I suspect they are more propaganda than truth. It is, by the way, one of the alleged "items" highlighted by Isaacs and Co. Like so many of their "facts", untrue. I know as I investigated it when it was raised by these wonderful human beings whilst I was recently in Israel.
We forget that Shomron and Yehuda (The West Bank) are conquered territories from a country, Jordan, that had no legal right to annex them after 1948 and has since washed their hands of them and officially has no claim to them anymore. Hence disputed territory. Public land would logically revert to the State, Israel, whilst private land is still honoured in the hands of their original owners. So-called settlements are on public or state land. The use of the words "settlement" and "settlers" buys into the propaganda of the Palestinian Arabs, which I have discovered is applied by them to all Israelis. Lets be careful in our use of terminology in a world where words are weapons.
But the point or purpose of this debate is Isaacs and Co and what they did and what they continue to do. Calling themselves a delegation is a huge chutzpah. More accurately they should have called themselves a solidarity mission. It would have been much more honest, but then honestly is not necessarily their aim or on their agenda.
Dear friends, how many of you know that the word or name Palestine comes from, first of all, the Romans renaming the land after the Jewish Revolt after the biblical enemies of the Israelites, the Philistines, to insult them. This name was resurrected after World War 1 by the British who took the area from the Ottoman Turks. None of the countries, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc existed at that time and until the British took the area over, Israel was referred to as Southern Syria in a general descriptive geographical way, which is why the Syrians would like it back too, in addition to all the other Islamics reasons. Now, the Philistines were a Greek people who came down from the Adriatic area. They didn't call themselves Philistines. It was a name given to them by the Israelites, Plishtim. Plishtim means invader and intruder and I always take the view that if the Palestinians want to call themselves invaders and intruders, I absolutely agree with them as it is the most accurate description. I won't go into detail how the majority of them were indentured by the British from surrounding countries when they needed labour and kept the Jews from returning to their ancient biblical homeland. Look it up yourselves.
With this little bit of background, the issue remains what to do about Isaacs and his acolytes? The effort they are applying is huge. They are well funded from what looks like a bottomless pit. Their penetration into the Jewish community via the stupid, gutless and thoughtless assistance of the Board of Deputies (SAJBOD)and Zionist Federation (SAZF/WPZC) must be stopped, though I believe at the end it only upsets us all and in our reactions we aid and abet Isaacs' career path as he impresses his masters at the ANC/SACP with how much he annoys and upsets us. I would like to suggest that we get a message out to our community not to attend their meetings and not to engage them in any way. We need to let our appallingly led SAJBOD and SAZF/WPZC know that we, the Jewish community, find this and their lack of decent leadership, their lack of initial response and subsequent belated response are not acceptable and we should call for their replacement with a new and decent leadership. This will defeat Isaacs and he can spend his endless "report backs" speaking to his own people, who will also eventually tire of the vacuous nonsense.
Debate is good? Really? As can be seen, it is so easily sidetracked. Joel has done a good job. At least he has been given a full chance in a forum where Isaacs doesn't control the microphone and good manners seems to dictate that we do not offend anyone, whilst being hugely offended by him and his comrades.
Whilst Isaacs has been roundly defeated by Joel, it means nothing to him. He has achieved his purpose. Let us all deal with him and his kind and his backers in a way that will ensure his defeat. Ignore him.
At the end of the day, may I suggest you all study the history, read the Israeli papers, all of them and not just those that suit your political bent. Read many of the authors on the subject and unlike Isaacs, don't limit yourself to Segev and what suits your agenda. Read books you don't like or agree with and acquire the knowledge to know why you disagree with their authors. Through this process you will find that you are greatly enriched.
Disabuse yourselves of the error of applying Western thinking to a Middle Eastern, and in this case, Arab mentality. Read about these people and get to know their culture and religious drives so that we can understand them better and in so doing, defeat their evil medieval schemes and dreams.
Let us hope and pray that they will soon be blessed with honest leaders who truly care for their people, care for their welfare and want to bring them into modernity and want to make peace with Israel and see the huge benefit they will derive from that.
A final warning. Isaacs and his delegation have made a film of their trip to Israel, which they are now showing around the country. It is biased in the extreme and simply an awful and appalling "work". This was shown in Cape Town recently. To the knowledgeable amongst us, it is will be seen for what it is. The tragedy is it will be taken to the unknowledgeable and will be accompanied by some of the "delegation" and some imported allies from the Israeli and Palestinian left and is being used to further their aims. Even the showing of the film and the subsequent discussions afterwards are being filmed. Don't doubt a huge and finance agenda behind Isaacs and Co.
Am Yisrael Chai, and will continue to do so long after Isaacs and Co are no more.
Lawrence, thank you for your kind words.
Posted by: Jonathan C | October 21, 2008 at 18:38
While on the subject of Macain:
http://www.omegaletter.com/blogs/index.php/2008/10/14/the-october-surprise/
Posted by: Religious Fundamentalist 1 | October 21, 2008 at 18:43
I suppose, Jonathan C, that with fat Ronnie retiring from government, Isaacs is looking to become the ANC/SACP
s new court Jew
Posted by: Gary | October 21, 2008 at 18:59
Dear Gary
You are absolutely correct. In his mind, Isaacs has exactly that career path mapped out. Israel and the South African Jewish Community are mere fodder to his ambition and to those that support him. It is also what Dennis Davis has done, and Isaacs emulates him too, but Rotten Ronnie is the one he would like to replace.
I again refer you to the insightful comments by Shmuel ben Dov at the bottom of the comments at http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2008/10/crossing-swor-2.html (Crossing Swords Part 3: Doron Isaacs' second entry).
Posted by: Jonathan C | October 21, 2008 at 19:26
Gary, Lawrence etc, lets all focus on what RF said. Play the ball not the woman. Lynda's arguments are in incoherent, she has some fine points to say regarding the poor "Palestinians". Where she is quite deluded is in thinking that 1)Israel is responsible and 2) Settlements are in any remote way connected to the conflict.
Lynda, Lawrence's first comment to yuo asked some brilliant questions which you dismissed as being irrelevant. No Lynda, they are exactly relevant. How is it irrelevant to the "Peace process" that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israeli and Jews, regardless of the status of the so-called west bank? As I have said before, and I pose this to Doron as well, the "Palestinians" have been attacking us since long before 1967, the continue to call for our destruction, Settlement removal from Gaza did not in any way decrease terrorism or improve security and every time Israel has made any concession (going at least back to Oslo) the rate to terrorist attacks has climbed.SO please, other than being a side issue on whether the settlements are or are not legal, how is their existence in any way relevant to a peace agreement with these barbarians. And even assuming that they are (which I do not believe) why should Israel given them to a people who openly claims to want to kill her? Lynda, you claim that land has been "stolen" which is not relevant to security. When you are that close to the enemy every inch has security relevance. When these savages start lobbing rockets from Samaria into places like Kfar Saba, Modiin, Netanya etc, the residents of these cities will be eternally greatfull for every second of warning they can get to get behind cover.
In short Lynda, if you want to feel sorry for these poor people (the poor people with the highest amount of aid than any other, the poor people receiving water and electricity for free from a people they are sworn to destroy, the poor people whose quality of life, life expectancy, health care, schooling etc has only improved since 1967) then go for it, feel all the sorry you want to. But don't suggest that 1)Irael is responsible, 2) Israel can change any of this and 3) that it is in any way connected to a possibility of peace. The evidence is clear that none of these are true.
Posted by: Brett | October 21, 2008 at 21:00
I am a 45 year old single mother. I have visited Israel no fewer than 14 times in my life. I have sent my child to Israel twice already.
I am an Orthodox Jew. I am a Zionist.
My question was for Joel. I hope he still addresses it and doesn't give in to these bullying tactics.
I do not, nor have I ever said in this forum, believe that the Israelis are responsible for the conflict. I believe the Palestinians have the majority of responsibility. Yet I still support a 2 state solution which means I support Israeli withdrawals from occupied territory. I did not say ALL territory. But certainly from any territory beyond the security fence/wall.
My question was posed to further understand how the Israelis can be awarded rights by the Palestinians in a a future Palestinian state with the current settlement status quo. I don't think this question means that I support the Palestinians.
I am aware of the wasted aid they receive. I am aware of where the name "Palestine" originated".
The response my questions to Joel has excited has dumbfounded me. Calling me a Jihadi? That's nuts.
It seems that this certainly is not a playground for debate, unless you agree with the pugilistic Lawrence.
Don't bother replying, I shall not return to read your next bunch of jeremiads.
Mike, I appreciate your response, and I may continue to read what you have to say. I'll just make sure that I don't click on the comments link.
Posted by: Lynda | October 22, 2008 at 22:55
Dear Lynda
Thank you for your question. I will answer it when instructed to do so by the editors. I look forward to our dialogue.
Yours
Joel
Posted by: Joel Pollak | October 23, 2008 at 08:11
Dear Lynda,
Your question will certainly be included.
Lawrence,
Perhaps this blog isn't the place for you, what with us tolerating opinions that aren't yours.
Perhaps you should start your own blog to counter our views?
Posted by: Steve | October 23, 2008 at 10:13
I find the following report and quotation taken from the Board of Deputies' "Whats happening at the Board" dated 17 October 2008, circulated nationally, interesting and telling:
Regional
Cape
Moonyeen Castle, Jonathan Silke, Li Boiskin and David Jacobson met with Mikhael Menkin, of "Breaking the Silence" and Hevron activist Abu-Heikel and discussed matters pertaining to the "human rights" delegation and general issues around Israel and its perception in South Africa.
From this brief paragraph quoted above you can see how they have reacted to the "delegation". No criticism, no stand, no defence of Israel, no position, NOTHING! This is why they must go and also why they are irrelevant. What a disgrace!
All persons mentioned above are members of the SAJBOD (Cape Council) and also hold the following positions on the WPZC:
Moonyeen Castle - Chairman WPZC
Jonathan Silke - Hon Life President WPZC and President SAZF
Li Boiskin - Vice chairman SAJBOD (Cape Council) and committee member WPZC.
David Jacobson - Director SAJBOD (Cape Council)
And where has Avrom Krengel, chairman SAZF, been in all of this? Not a word heard from him.
How is it that Dennis Davis is still a member of the Cape Board and hasn't been asked to resign when he put a newly acquired loyalty to the "delegation" above his loyalty to the Board, which he has chaired and sat on for years?
Posted by: Desmond Bach | October 27, 2008 at 18:31
Timidity and pernicious lack of conviction by the Board of Deputies and SAZF/WPZC may parade as enlightenment. Yet super-circumspection constitutes the perfect cop-out for gutless "leaders" and may trigger dangerous dynamics. It invites trouble rather than averts it.
Our struggle for survival in Israel and in South Africa doesn't hinge on concessions and acceptance of Doron Isaacs and his group. Our so-called leaders willfully prefer to misidentify it and therefore they will not stay under control and as a result, nothing should shock us.
Who will stand up and be counted?
Posted by: Jonathan C | October 28, 2008 at 05:53
Much has been made by Isaacs' merry band of humanists 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. Lies and exaggeration can also 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.
As the famous rhyme goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but in the new world we now face words can also do as much harm if not more. Words today are weapons.
It is a disgrace that under a very shallow excuse and cover, Isaacs and his group, Jews including himself amongst them, have allowed themselves for extremely selfish personal reasons, to be used against their own people. They are traitors to their people and will be branded as such and deservedly so. They are what Stalin called "useful idiots", and he was absolutely correct.
Isaacs tries to equate the two narratives. They are not the same and no amount of lies and propaganda will change the truth and those that know the difference will stand up and fight for the truth, which is not on Isaacs side.
Posted by: David Ballen | October 28, 2008 at 22:46
When will " The 3 Questions" be selected ??
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR/GORILLAMOVEMENT | November 01, 2008 at 16:09
Doron,
It is time that you let the SAHRD cat out of the anti-zionist bag...
(1) What process was undertaken to select the "human rights" delegates?
(2) Did you select yourself ?
(3) Will you now make public any minutes that were taken at the various meetings which discussed the selection of the delegates?
(4) Did you discuss the selection of delegates with Ronnie Kasrils?
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR/GORILLAMOVEMENT | November 02, 2008 at 19:21
Doron,
Your SAHRD mission statement includes the following..
"We are committed to personal and public integrity and to the governance principles of transparency, accountability and openness."
If you do not answer my above questions, you will be in breach of your mission statement. In such circumstances, I will have no option but to ask Judges Davis and Cameron whether they might kindly issue a court order forcing The SAHRD to comply.
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR/GORILLAMOVEMENT | November 03, 2008 at 00:30
May I recommend Mike Berger's excellent Blog to you all. His latest entry is called "Betrayal" and can be found at:
http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/
His latest entry discusses the launch of the book, "The Kasrils Affair" and the responses from the "Not in my name" supporters who are the same people supporting the so-called "Human rights delegation". Well worth a read and highly recommended.
Posted by: David Hersch | November 16, 2008 at 00:30