Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs Part 2

Herewith is Joel Pollak’s first instalment in our Crossing Swords debate about the recent SA Human Right Delegation (SAHRD) to Israel. Last week Doron Isaacs penned the first entry. To read Doron's first entry along with an introduction to the debate and the brief author biographies, click here: Crossing Swords, Part one.

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

Part 2 - Joel Pollak instalment 1

Dear Doron

I commend you for engaging in this debate. I know it has been hard to persist in the face of some harsh responses to your activities and your views. While I disagree with your opinions, I will defend your right to express them in this or any other forum.

You seem eager, however, to put the issue of the "human rights delegation" to rest. I do not think you can dispose of it so easily, since your delegation is what prompted this debate in the first place.

Let's face a few facts. The delegation was organised by three individuals--Andrew Feinstein, Nathan Geffen and yourself--who had already stated on previous occasions that Israel bore most or all of the blame for the continuing conflict.

You claim that you spent more time meeting with Israelis than with Palestinians. Yet the Israelis you met with overwhelmingly shared the left-wing views of your delegation. And Israeli terror victims did not feature prominently in your itinerary.

In the final analysis, your group could not agree to endorse the two-state solution. I leave it to you to explain how this squares with your claim that the entire group rejects calls for Israel's destruction. Yours was not an even-handed mission, Doron.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. You might have called the trip a "solidarity" mission to express your support for Palestinian and Israeli peace activists. Not everyone would have liked it, but most would have understood it.

By calling your trip a "human rights delegation," you invoked a particular set of ideas and doctrines. Despite the best efforts of the anti-Israel demagogues at the UN Human Rights Council, the principles of human rights still retain their meaning.

Human rights apply to everyone equally, and therefore no inquiry into human rights in the Israel-Palestinian conflict can begin and end with Israeli violations against Palestinians. Nor can it ignore the serious rights deficiency of Palestinian society.

One lesson that the South African "miracle" taught the rest of the world--through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example--is that the strictures of human rights apply to the weaker side in a conflict as much as they do to the stronger side.

Human rights activists in Israel and the West Bank often forget this basic principle. Palestinian leaders have ignored it altogether, and in doing so have undermined their own nation-building efforts while prolonging the conflict with Israel.

If, as Nathan Geffen claims, "[r]eversing the erosion of Palestinian human rights is in all our interests",[1] then it is important to confront violations of Palestinian rights by Palestinians themselves. Your delegation did not address these.

Another important principle is that the right to life stands above all others. That is why the security barrier is necessary. It has saved hundreds of lives on both sides and set limits to the conflict. There is no sense in denying that.

As for the occupation, I am surprised I need to remind you that it began after Israel repulsed Jordan's unprovoked attack in 1967. It continued because the Arab states refused to negotiate land for peace. The settlements were not the cause.

The settlement project has indeed damaged the rule of law in Israel. It has also made the resolution of the conflict more difficult. But it is not the main obstacle to peace. The Gaza disengagement--and the violent response--were proof enough.

You are entitled to your views about the motivations of Israeli policy--though I wonder why you rely on Internet quotes rather than your own knowledge--but you ought not disguise one-sided advocacy in the language of human rights.

Shanah tovah u'metukah

Joel

Notes

[1] Geffen, N. 2008. “Achieving Our Objectives.” 5 Aug. URL: http://www.humanrightsdelegation.org/press_item.asp?id=23&page=1

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

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Joel,

I agree with your critique and will also defend Doron's constitutional right to design and build delegations. However, it is evident that The SAHRD was built on PC deceit. As a result, it has already collapsed under the weight of its own immoral authority.

At Limmud, Judge Dennis Davis a member of The SAHRD, agreed that the "human rights" appellation was a misnomer.

The SAHRD has the same sort of moral authority as a delegation appointed by the UNHRC. If Richard Falk had been South African, he could have headed it ?

As I have stated previously, most of the delegates would have been just as comfortable getting a freebie as part of The SAAZD (South African Anti Zionist Delegation). It would have been less disingenuous to have used this acronym and would, at least, given the delegation a more forthright and honest direction to their deliberations.

Doron,
As this is a public debate, it really would be beneficial if you could muster some "SAHRD" supporters to participate. I am sure that South Africa is swarming with such people, so now is the time to see if they have the wherewithal to post some stinging comments.

If the critique is not debated, one has to conclude that it is because there are no rational counter-arguments. As a result, the debate is effectively lost by default.

So please... inform your mates that a Supernatural debate about The "SAHRD" is taking place and encourage them to participate! Perhaps your opponents can be defeated using logic and wit? If so, lets hear such arguments asap!