Crossing Swords - Q&A with Pollak and Isaacs 1 of 3

Over the last few months we have been hosting an online debate between Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs about the South African Human Rights Delegation’s controversial trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Doron was an organizer of the tour and Joel, a leading Zionist thinker and writer within the South African Jewish community, has been a major critic.

As part of this debate we promised readers of this blog the opportunity to pose some tough questions to both Joel and Doron about the mission and their views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all agreed to limit questions to 7 each. Thus Steve and I have done our best to choose questions that are not repetitive and go to the heart of the debate. We have also tried to get as much coverage of the issues as possible. Ensuring some level of interaction in this debate with our readers was very important to us and I think the questions and their answers make for a fascinating conclusion to what has been a very fierce debate. I am sure readers will continue to debate and analyze the responses at length in the comments section. I hope non regular commentors, who share different opinions, will also chip in.

Finally I would like to thank both Doron and Joel for taking part in this extremely time consuming and intellectually strenuous exercise. Both are busy people but have put in considerable effort and thought into their responses. They deserve much praise for their level of commitment to open debate within the South African Jewish community.

We hope this is not a once off event but perhaps may serve as a catalyst for more of this sort of thing in the future. There are some who have criticized us for providing Doron with a platform within the community to air what they see as his unacceptable views. This is the type of worldview that this blog is established to fight against. We have devoted many hours and ink to advocating for a balanced playing field for the Israeli-Arab conflict to be discussed in the South African media. Likewise we have tried to facilitate a balanced playing field for the Israeli-Arab conflict to be discussed in the South African Jewish community as well. Grappling with and debating complex, and at times, uncomfortable issues in a fair forum is in the long run surely the best way to strengthen South African Jewry.

Below are the questions and answers. Due to the length of this conclusion to the debate, we will post the questions and answers over a series of 3 posts. The final entry to this debate will appear before the end of this week. We asked Joel and Doron to limit each answer to 300 words but decided to tolerate excesses.

Question 1 for 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 and in a situation where the settlements are Jew only areas. I could live with your proposal under certain conditions, for example 1 - 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? Please take into account an equitable distribution of resources within the occupied 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 really in Palestine. - Lynda

I’ll agree with you that private land that has been expropriated should be returned—with the exception of land that is being temporarily used for legitimate security reasons. So, for example, I would agree that private Palestinian land that has been used by Israeli settlements should be returned, but I believe that the use of private Palestinian land for the Israeli security barrier is legitimate and restitution would have to wait until such time as Palestinians snipers stop trying to shoot Israeli civilians and Palestinian suicide bombers stop trying to infiltrate Israeli cities. I also agree that Jews living in a future Palestinian state should be subject to Palestinian laws, just like any other citizen. I am puzzled, however, by your suggestion that Jews should “go live in Palestinian villages in the similar conditions that the Palestinians must live in.” I agree that Jews should be allowed to live in Palestinian towns if they wish. But I don’t think that Jews who become Palestinian citizens in the West Bank should be forced to leave their current communities (if that is indeed what you are suggesting), nor do I think they should be forced to accept any particular standard of living as the price of citizenship. You seem to have accepted certain propagandist arguments about the distribution of water and other resources in the West Bank. Israel is not stealing Palestinian water, and in fact pumps water from Israeli sources into Palestinian communities ( See http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_water.php). Water is also one of the only areas in which Israeli-Palestinian cooperation has continued in spite of the intifada. Moreover, Israel supplies Palestinian communities with electricity and other necessities. I would expect this sort of cooperation to continue under any future peace agreement.

Joel

Question 1 for Doron 

While you might believe the Palestinians you met with believed in non-violence, they still voted for HAMAS, whose platform calls for the destruction of Israel. Saying that this is just rhetoric or purely for economic reasons is as outrageous as saying that in 1933 the Germans ignored the anti-Semitism expressed by the Nazi party for which they voted en-masse. You deride Joel for supporting John McCain, but imagine if he allied with the AWB or Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t this discredit him entirely? Well the Palestinians have voted for genocidal, theocratic maniacs. Yet somehow, this has not discredited them. My question Doron is, what do you believe would be the ideal “human rights based” approach to HAMAS’s success at the polls?  - Shaun

Dear Shaun,

I agree it is outrageous to explain away Hamas propaganda. Therefore I have never done so. Hamas must be challenged on their antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, murderous attacks on Israelis, equating of Israelis with Nazis, diminishing of the Nazi Holocaust, and the conspiracy theories in their Charter.

But in deciding what an appropriate political response should be, Hamas’ desires – even on the worst reading thereof – must be weighed against what they are capable of achieving; i.e. the balance of forces. The violence Hamas can muster is capable of killing a number of innocent Israeli civilians – in 2002, by far the bloodiest year, the death toll was 141 – and thereby terrorising the entire Israeli population[1]. Every life should be protected, fully, and in doing that it is crucial that we understand that Hamas lacks totally the capacity to mount a violent campaign that would pose an existential problem for Israel. The existential danger, as Ehud Olmert has lately pointed out, lies rather in a continuation of the status quo[2].

Notwithstanding Hamas’ irrationality, driven by its religious fundamentalism and bigotry – fostered surely by the suffocating conditions of the Occupation – the organisation is not incapable of rationale self-interested behaviour. Ultimately, Hamas can offer its followers little unless it recognises the fact of Israel. The weakness of one’s political opponent offers the possibility that it may reform, if one acts strategically. Given this, and Israel’s unquestionable superiority, it would be well-advised to engage Hamas in negotiations.

This, of course, has been happening behind the scenes for some time. The Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture published a leaked document from Israeli-Hamas negotiations which took place in Europe last year. Its key provisions are a five-year mutual Armistice/Hudna whereby Israel will withdraw to an agreed temporary line, both sides will desist from any attacks, there will be a freeze on settlement-building, and a lift on Palestinian travel restrictions within and between the West Bank and Gaza. During this time a joint economic zone will be established[3]. The document’s status is unclear.

Publicly too, there have been glimmers of reform. The recent reaction to the Arab Peace Initiative (known as the Saudi Plan) was interesting. This plan, first adopted at the Beirut Summit in 2002 and again endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007, is a proposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. The initiative obtained the unanimous consent of all members of the Arab League. It is premised on Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and a “just solution” to the refugee problem. In exchange the Arab countries would “consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel” and “establish normal relations with Israel”. Joel apparently opposes this plan[4]. I think it should be vigorously pursued.

Anyway, on the day of Riyadh Summit, Ismail Abu Shanab (Hamas’ spokesperson and a member of the five-person executive committee of Hamas) sat for a two-hour interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. He said that his organisation would accept the initiative: “That would be satisfactory for all Palestinian military groups to stop and build our state, to be busy in our own affairs, and have good neighborhood with Israelis.” He also said Hamas will “cease all military activities”. Asked if he was speaking for the entire Hamas organisation, Shanab said, “Yes”. He also, for all practical purposes, gives up the wholesale return of refugees[5].

“There has been generation after generation (of war). Now there is a generation who needs to live in peace, and not worry about their safety,” said Shanab. “So it is a generation that wants to practice living in peace and postpone historical issues. We speak of historical Palestine, and practical reality[6].”

It may well be that this is pure spin, and that nothing good ever comes of it. Hamas’ public utterances are inconsistent, and I am not naïve about the insincerity of political spokespeople[7]. But because Hamas is so weak relative to Israel these cracks might be opened wider by careful engagement.

Even this week there was a de facto negotiation between Israel and Hamas in regard to opening up the Gaza crossing in exchange for a ceasefire[8].

Lastly, on a slightly different note: You think the support for Hamas discredits the Palestinian population – whose situation I sympathise with. You see this as a greater indictment than the active endorsement Joel gave to John McCain and Sarah Palin. But you're not comparing apples with apples. I'm saying Joel's support for McCain weakens his claim to being a person who cares about human rights. You seem to be suggesting that Palestinian support for Hamas is a legitimate reason to deprive them of basic human rights. I am not interested in depriving Joel of his human rights – I just want to point out that the fact that Joel campaigned for these people contradicts his rhetorical commitment to human rights.

Doron

Question 2 for Joel 

The focus of your argument in all three postings is an explanation of various problematic issues in Palestinian society - human rights abuses, violence, non-acceptance of an Israeli minority. But what is striking is that you have yet to put forward a direct opinion on the occupation of Palestinian land and people by Israel. My impression from your entries is that you support such a situation and justify it in terms of the bad behaviour of Palestinians. Is this true? - Sean Wasserman

No. I believe the occupation must end. In terms of international law, the occupation is legitimate—both in terms of its origin (response to attacks against Israel by neighboring states), and in terms of the continued belligerence of anti-Israel forces operating within the territories in defiance of a peace process between the recognized representatives of both sides. However, there are aspects of the occupation that are morally reprehensible, legally questionable and politically destructive. Despite the gains made by Palestinians under occupation from 1967 to 1987—rapid economic growth, the introduction of tertiary education, and so on—it has not been a “benign” experience for Palestinians and has eroded both security and the rule of law in Israel as well.

Joel

Question 2 for Doron 

Do you agree with Mondli's Makhanya’s use of the word "evil" and Nozizwe Madlala Routlegde’s “worse than Apartheid” description of Israel? Do you believe this has helped the SAHRD gain credibility with Jews who do not seek Israel's destruction? " If no, then will you publicly condemn their comments? - Anthony Posner

Dear Anthony,

Makhanya and Madlala-Routledge were referring to the Occupied West Bank.

Their words are not words or phrases I have used. I think facts and detailed descriptions are the best method of communication, given the masses of cheap slogans and misinformation on offer.

I think those comments probably upset and alienated quite a number of Jewish people.

I also know that they generated an enormous amount of debate, some of which was positive.

I don’t think that anybody, especially not those who have made sacrifices for democracy and human rights, should be reduced to a sound bite. Both Makhanya and Madlala-Routledge have reflected at length[9].

Their comments can be disagreed with, but I will not condemn them. They were harsh, perhaps unfairly so, but do not contain an ounce of prejudice.

Doron

---

Q&As 3 and 4 will be posted on Tuesday and the final 3 will be posted on Thursday

---

Notes:

[1] It is worth noting that 150 people are murdered every three days in South Africa. See SAPS ‘Crime Statistics – Summary’ Table 1 pg 6 at http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2008/docs/introduction2008.pdf.
[2] Haaretz ‘Olmert: To honor Rabin, Israel must cede land’ at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036034.html (In the speech Olmert said “If God forbid, we procrastinate, we could lose support for a two-state solution… The decision must be taken now, without hesitation, before ... the narrow window of opportunity to plant [that] solution in the consciousness of our people and the nations of the world vanishes in front of our eyes.” He made similar comments to the Knesset, see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036083.html.)
[3] Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture (Vol. 13 No. 4, 2007) p 121-123.
[4] Joel Pollak ‘Obama backs Saudi peace plan’ 16 November 2008 at http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/.
[5] Robert Plotkin ‘Hamas would accept Saudi peace plan, spokesman says: Group would stop attacks on Israelis if occupation ends’ San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, April 28, 2002, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/MN222422.DTL; See also Michelle K. Esposito ‘Quarterly Update on Conflict and Diplomacy’ Journal of Palestine Studies XXXI No. 4, (Summer 2002), pp 139 – 167, available at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3247324.
[6] Ibid. Without renouncing their horrendous Charter and their rejection of Israel’s existence, the key device that Hamas uses, to give themselves room for reasonable politics, is the idea of “postponing historical issues”. This appears to be a way of relinquishing their dreams for all practical purposes, and saving a bit of face.
[7] Steven Erlanger ‘Hamas Leader Sees No Change Toward Israelis’ January 29, 2006 New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/middleeast/29hamasx.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1.
[8] Roni Sofer ‘Barak: We'll open Gaza crossings if Hamas holds its fire’ 11.23.08 Ynet.com at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3627487,00.html
[9] Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge ‘A million tiny ripples of hope’ ANC Today Volume 8, No. 35 • 5—11 September 2008 at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2008/at35.htm; Mondli Makhanya ‘We can try to help as Palestinians and Israelis begin to build a new bridge’ The Sunday Times Jul 13, 2008 at http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=800690; Mondli Makhanya ‘The never-ending face-off’ The Sunday Times Jul 27, 2008 at http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=809572

Update

• Q&A - Part 2 of 6

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

Comments

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Steve,
You write re Joel and Doron..
"They deserve much praise for their level of commitment to open debate within the South African Jewish community."

Ar you praising Joel and Doron for debating on Supernatural or are you also implicitly suggesting that Doron somehow "deserves praise" for using the SAHRD to "open debate". If you are suggesting the latter, I have to unfortunately conclude that you may have lost it. Doron should be condemned for selecting delegates that would, for the most part, have gained the support of Ronno Einstein ( NOT the Minister of Intelligence!)

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Steve,
You write:
"There are some who have criticized us for providing Doron with a platform within the community to air what they see as his unacceptable views."
I certainly do not criticize you for providing Doron with a "platform".
Supernatural has served as the only forum in which The SAHRD has been given some sort of run for their anti-zionist money.

In the mainstream South African anti-zionist media, The SAHRD had a field day. I think that much of the OTT opprobrium that Doron received was due to this fact. A lot of Doron'c critics were frustrated by not being given a right to reply by the anti-zionist media. As a result, although I certainly disapprove of any threats that Doron may have received, I do unfortunately believe that many South African Jews felt powerlesss to stop the SAHRD propaganda onslaught that appeared in the SA press.

[Mike]

Anthony,

I wrote it. I was refering to them debating on IAS. Both Steve and my views of the tour are clear from what we have written about it. I chose to use the words fair and balanced playing field for good reason. I agree that the community has not had a reasonable platform in the MSM to debate the tour.

You are not our only critic BD. People besides yourself, have complained about our decision to host the debate. Some cited your position that Doron has had enough publicity to air his views.

I think the debateand Q&A format has given us all much more insight into his position and the situation as he sees it. I beleive strongly that it has been positive for the community that we all have chosen to engage with him.

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Mike,
I am NOT criticizing Supernatural. You misread my comment.

I wrote:
"I certainly do not criticize you for providing Doron with a "platform".
Supernatural has served as the only forum in which The SAHRD has been given some sort of run for their anti-zionist money."

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Just for the record, Doron Isaacs never responded to any of my critical emails. In fact, after he received a few of my emails he decided to "auto return" them.
My questions were never personally offensive but for some reason or another, Doron Isaacs was unable or unwilling to answer them.

The following is one of my unanswered emails...

From: aposner
Subject: SAHRD AND THE M&G
Date: 28 July 2008 9:43:13 AM
To: isaacs.doron

Hi Doron,

I am curious about the inclusion of Drew Forrest (deputy editor of the Mail and Guardian) in the delegation.

Why was he selected?

Was it because the Mail and Guardian is well known for its extreme anti-zionist stance?

If so, why didn't you invite Ronnie Kasrils and Na'eem Jeenah ?

kind regards

Anthony Posner

This is the response I received from Doron Isaacs...

Dear Anthony and Gary,
 
Just to let you know that I've set up a filter on my g-mail account so that I won't receive your e-mails any more. They'll be automatically deleted.
 
Anyone else wanting to know how to do this can e-mail me.
 
Regards,
 Doron

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

I attach the following Supernatural comments in response to Doron's decision to auto delete my emails...

Doron Isaacs has really upset me. It is such a kick in the teeth. After all, I offered free airline tickets. I was giving to the universe in the most spiritual way I know how and he has the chutzpah to auto-delete my emails. It really makes me wonder... should I throw my annotated versions of Deepak Chopra's collected works out with last week's SAJR?
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | August 14, 2008 at 00:40

I offered all the SAHRD free one way tickets to Tehran on the basis that they would rock up at a stoning. None of them have had the courtesy to respond. It is an incredibly generous offer and I would have had to sell my house to pay for the tickets, but I would have done it. I would live on the streets to hears Messrs Davis, Cameron, Achmat, Geffen etc report back on what it was like to cast the first stone.
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | August 13, 2008 at 15:04

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Doron,
You write in response to question 2, that Makhanya and Madlala-Routledge's comments "do not contain an ounce of prejudice."

I find this quite intriguing.. did you actually weigh their comments using a non-metric scale?

Did you know that in The UK it is illegal for retailers to price their goods in non-metric measurements ?
So please be careful if you ever venture foot into the UK. If you serve up "non metric" portions of your Ronno Einstein/ Drew Forrest/ Farid Eassack rhetoric, you could find yourself in the clink!

[Lawrence]

Isaacs's response to BD re Drew Forrest tells us everything we need to know about Isaacs. Which begs the question, what was the point of this moronic debate, when Isaacs is not going to answer anything pertinent here, ever?

And Pollak seems to have lost it. Anybody who even considers the POSSIBILITY of taking a Hamas propogandist at his word, is not only naive but delusional. Shanab is lying, he is a nazi by the very fact that he is a Hamas member. Has Pollak not heard of taqiyya, maybe he needs to look it up. Hamas is Hamas, jihadists by the very fact that they are jihadists are not going to give up on the jihad, because the jihad is what they are. Pollak seems to think just because Hamas, on its own cannot succeed in driving all the Jews into the sea, that this frustration is going to have even the tiniest possibility of moderating Hamas! Pollak needs a lesson in Psychology101.

Pollak writes "Notwithstanding Hamas’ irrationality, driven by its religious fundamentalism and bigotry – fostered surely by the suffocating conditions of the Occupation..."

Blaming Jews for the fact that Palestinians seek to annihilate them, even just a little bit as Joel does - "fostered surely by the suffocating conditions of the Occupation" - is actually anti-Semitic. Why? Simply this - Pollack makes use of an anti-Semitic argument SINCE one hears this SELF-SAME argument or rationale from the usual anti-Semitic suspects, the EU beauracrats, Scandinavian NGOs, M&G readers, ANC Youth League and the like; and to the point, this includes people who are even openly and viciously anti-Semitic (ie not just admitted anti-Zionists) ie those who call for sanctions and disinvestment from Israel BUT no other nation on the planet, who believe the Protocols of Zion is genuine, endorse Holocaust Revisionism etc. Is this a coincidence Joel?

The Palestinians and Israel's other Arab-Muslim neighbours have always hated the Jews, for century after century, going back in excess of a thousand years. The Palestinians have hated the Jews for centuries and supported the Nazis during WW2, was that Israel's fault too? The Occupation is the consequence of their Jew-hatred and the Jew-hatred of their neighbours, not the other way around as Pollak himself realises, but doesn't understand that it applies likewise to "the stifling conditions of the Occupation" which are are a consequence of the perpetual relentless threats of Palestinian terrorism, which itself is predicated on their Jew-hatred, not the other way around. Pollak puts the cart before the horse here, as do anti-Semites the world over. How come your position is the same as anti-Semites in this respect Joel?

Don't answer the question Joel, just call me an extreme right-winger (even if in private) which in this case is code for a Jew who has a clue and does not care for pathetic dhimmi apologetics, which Joel engages in. What's a dhimmi Joel? The Palestinians and for that matter other Muslims hate the Jews, because their religion teaches them to hate the Jews, just like with the Christian Church, Pollack.

They also hate the Jews because the anti-Semitic world (see Muslims and Christians) actively encourage their Jew-hatred and lust for Jewish blood by broadcasting anti-semitic and anti-Israel propoganda, glorifying, justifying, excusing and apologising for the Palestinian jihad (called by the euphemism "resistance' or "struggle"), giving open support to the palestinians no matter the terror they unleash, and thus justifying Palestinian anti-Semitism and terrorism. That is by justifying, even in part the anti-Semitism of the Palestinians, one justifies their terrorism, even if partially.

Tell me something Joel are honour killings in the West Bank, the murder of homosexuals and the persecution and violent harrassment of
Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem by Palestinians Muslims also the fault of Israel, even partially?

Pollak makes it worse though with his call for Israel to end the occupation, which would worsen Israel's security not improve it, as the disastrous withdrawal from Gaza has shown. An endless series of rocket barrages, including the other day a rocket landing on an IDF base in Israel in which several soldiers were wounded and one lost his leg, has seen homes, buildings, even playschools come under rocket fire, a shopping-mall has been hit, farms and kibbutzes have been hit, Sderot and other border communities are under seige from these relentless Kasseem rocket attacks. Hundreds and hundreds of rockets have been launched from unoccupied Gaza since late 2005 (the Withdrawal) into the south-Western Negev, Israeli communities there are under perpetual seige, scores of Israelis have been wounded, even killed as a consequence. Thousands of Sderot's residents have left or are considering leaving the town because of the rocket barrages, the economy of Sderot is collapsing, increasingly
dependent on govt aid. All this in the security vacuum created by IDF and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, since there is now no IDF presence in Gaza to stop Palestiniant terrorists operating with ease and without restriction, with free movement and the like. There is no IDF presence to prevent the smuggling and construction of rockets in Gaza, unlike the case
with the West Bank. as a consequence life among Israel's communities bordering Gaza has become hellish.

All this as a consequence of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, all this in the news; but it don't mean nothing to Pollack since he advocates an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank where there would likwise be no IDF presence to prevent terrorist rocket crews from operating with ease and putting Israel's communities in the Eastern Negev and Gallille under siege from rocket attacks, that includes Jerusalem. In fact far more Israelis would be under seige from rocket attacks (hundreds of thousands) than is the case now with Gaza.

As I wrote in the comments of the pathetic crossing swords debate between Pollack and Isaacs:

"Beckbessinger calls for the end of the ccupation, 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."

And let me add now, what kind of a Jew does it make Pollak, whose postion in this regard is the same as Isaacs and Isaacs's Jew-hating supporters? Not that Pollack stops to think what that might mean... A clueless Jew is what Pollak is.

Let me stress the point, the pathological Jew-hatred of Israel's non-Palestinian neighbours remains, Jew-hatred (at Nazi levels) is actively encouraged and endorsed in the mosques, schools, universities, media etc of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and throughout the Persian Gulf. Is this "surely fostered by the occupation" of the West Bank Joel? Because that Jew-hatred among Israel's neighbours remains at fever-pitch levels, it has its consequences, not least of which is the very real possibility of ANOTHER combined multiple Arab assault on Israel in the future. Israel would then, if people like Pollak AND Isaacs have their way, have more indefensible borders to defend itself from annihilation by enemies who heavily outnumber us, than is now the case! Every piece of land that Israel has surrendered to its enemies, including south Lebanon and Gaza has been used by our enemies to wage jihad on Israel (Sinai is used by weapons smugglers for the jihad against Israel and only Egyptian police and soldiers can stop them, and often they ar indifferent if not outright supportive of these smugglers. Another thing in any future conflict with Egypt, always a possibility, Israel no longer has the buffer zone of Sinai, imagine the '73 War without Israel having had this buffer). Why will it be different to Gaza if we hand over the WB to a Palestinian populace where hundreds of thousands support jihad, and the vast majority do not accept Israel's right to exist?

Why would the consequences of a withdrawal from the WB be different to the consequences of the withdrawal from Gaza?

And another OBVIOUS POINT that nobody else would notice (because it is so bloody OBVIOUS) - by calling for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank, Pollak ONCE AGAIN makes the same argument that ANTI-SEMITES make, the usual suspects, once again those that are openly anti-Semitic, who call for sanctions and disinvestment from Israel whilst they remain indifferent to fascism, tyranny and oppression throughout the Islamic world etc. This is hardly surprising that such people ie Jew-haters, support a policy (Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank) that would make Israel less secure, that would make it easier to kill Jews in terror attacks (rockets) in the short and medium term, and Hamas openly boasts about taking over the
West Bank if Israel leaves just like they did in Gaza.

Yeah Joel Hamas in control of the WB (which is the REALITY) makes Israel so much more secure gagag..How is that Joel? In the long-term such withdrawal would make it easier to bring about Israel's very end, in any future conflict with all or even most of Israel's Arab neighbours, because our enemies would have more territory with which to attack Israel and we would have less territory to defend ourselves from. What's your excuse Joel? Israel is made less secure by abandoning the West Bank, not more secure, Pollak has it the wrong way round.

It obviously doesn't bother Pollak at all that his position on this issue is the same as the deranged Leftist anti-Semites he is always battling. Pollak doesn't stop and pause to reflect what this means or may mean. But Pollak seems to thinks that if the Palestinians in postions of authority maybe sign a piece of paper in which they pretend to recognise Israel's existence blabla that they actually MAY mean it THIS TIME. How super-naive.

Has Pollak learned nothing from the Oslo Accords? Obviously not. All Arafat did after the Oslo Signings was proceed to orchestrate suicide terror attacks from his base in the West Bank and gave his open support to jihad and the destruction of Israel. Till his dying day, he was an unrepentant jihadist. Pollak hasn't learned from this any more than he has learned any lessons from the Gaza withdrawal. He thinks that Hamas can maybe change even though Arafat never did!

He doesn't understand Hamas or what motivates them, he doesn't have a clue where their Jew-hatred and the Jew-hatred of Muslim society in general comes from. It's their religion Joel. Of which you obviously know nothing or at least appear to, except the usual PC lies which counts for less than nothing. If Israel withdraws from the WB Joel, will Palestinians there no longer seek to take the teachings of the Prophet seriously Joel? After all Joel blames the 'stifling occupation' (in part) for the fact that Palestinians take the teachings of Islam seriously ie inclusive of Jew-hatred, so maybe with the occupation ended, the Palestinians will no longer take the teachings of their religion seriously. How so Joel? Pointing out these subversive truths re Islam (which I can back up with evidence) probably makes me a racist in Joel's eyes (who cares for Isaacs), hey Joel?

Incidentally Pollak Hamas are on record very recently as saying that lying to the infidel is permitted according to religious instruction, maybe Pollak wants to look it up if he doesn't believe me. Maybe it doesn't matter to Pollak, by the fact that he hems and haws on whether to take a Hamas member like Shanab at his word, which is scary. Taking fascists at their word, when these fascists say they are prepared to make peace as they prepare for war...Now who does that remind me of, oh yeah Chamberlain.

Hamas doesn't care too much if by themselves they can never achieve their goals of driving Israelis into the sea, this frustration is not going to moderate them as Pollak desperately hopes. Pollak doesn't understand these jihadists at all, their goal as such is jihad against the infidel Jew FOR ITS OWN SAKE, that is jihad is both a means and an ends. Merely by waging jihad they are successful, every suicide bombing attack, rocket strike is a success by the very fact that it is carried out; it ensures one is fulfilling one's jihadist duty, doing Allah's and the Prophet's bidding and ensuring a divine reward from Allah of heavenly bliss for eternity after death, and escaping the damnation of hell.

They do not need to destroy Israel or kill every Jew on the planet (not that they don't want to) in order to get their heavenly reward, they just have to keep doing what they have been doing for decades, killing and maiming Jews, it doesn't matter how many (obviously the more the better) just so long as they make the effort, this is what matters to the holy warrior; the destruction of Israel, if and when it comes would just be a bonus. It wouldn't add to the heavenly reward of the jihadist, how could it add to an eternity of bliss? Makes no sense. It is only the consequence of jihad for its own sake, not the rasion-d'etre of the jihadist per se. It is the hoped for consequence of his raison-d'etre. And jihad for its own sake is the rationale of Hamas and other jihadists around the globe. Failure to destroy Israel doesn't in the slightest change the fact that jihad against the infidel is pursued for its own sake. Joel understands none of this, the mentality of the jihadist is something he knows nothing about.

And such ignorance of the nature of the threat that faces Israel's very existence only makes Israel's survival more precarious in the long-term.

And in this third-rate debate, Pollak is supposedly on the side of Israel!!

With friends like Pollak, who needs enemies?

for the record I know Joel has studied Arabic and Islam, this is why what he writes above smacks of disingenuousness, and I think he has failed to follow through on what he himself knows, or should know well. Maybe he lets emotions and wishful thinking get the better of him.

The fact that Leftwing anti-Semites the world over hate Joel, only counts in his favour btw. And yet as I write above Polak has not thought through on things esp on the topic of Mddle-East military strategy and what this actually entails. And what it entails is unfortunate (West Bank occupation) but sadly necessary. He is looking at things through to a narrow focus. He is also way too polite to Isaacs as I pointed out before. Isaacs is adored by the Jew-haters, why be polite to the likes of him?

To add, I think Melanie Phillips's points are pertinent here re the Mumbai atrocities (btw evidence that the Jews at CHABAD House were tortured before being executed..):

-------------------------------------------

....It is a war waged in the name of Islam against America, Britain, Hindus, Jews and all who refuse to submit to Islamic conquest. The Mumbai atrocities told us very clearly a number of things.

The Islamists want to murder as many Americans, Brits, Hindus and Jews as possible. That is because they are waging all-out war against civilisation.

They went to some lengths in addition to single out a centre for observant Jews. Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivka were murdered not because of Palestine but simply because they were Jews. That is because hatred of Jews as Jews is fundamental to the Islamists’ hatred of the west – and of Israel.

With over a billion people living in India, the terrorists sought out the most visible of its 5,000 Jews. That's because there is no hatred in the world like Jew-hatred, and today's Islamists are as expert practitioners as their European forebears. Jew-hatred has nothing to do with the State of Israel or any rational grievance against the Jewish people. It is the oldest hatred in the books. And it's not going to go away even if the Jews were to leave Israel for other parts of the world.

It's time to face reality.

----------------------------------------------

Couldn't have put it better myself, ending the occupation of the West Bank is not going to make the reality of Islamism go away, not in the Middle-East, not anywhere else. Pollak didn't get the memo I guess..

As for Isaacs he is a useful idiot for the other side, the side of Islamism.

[Mike]

Lawrence u are confused. Doron said that not Joel.

[Joel Pollak]

Lawrence, I am afraid you have really lost the plot. Try reading the post before you insult everyone.

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

For those who are interested, I copy a selection of letters and comments to The SAHRD which unfortunately remain unanswered. It is clear evidence that Messrs Isaacs and Geffen are, unable or unwilling to answer the points that I have raised over the last few months.

Subject: THE PALESTINIAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.
Date: 08 August 2008 9:57:49 PM
To: nathangeffen

Dear Nathan Geffen,
I alert the SAHRD's attention to the recent announcement of The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR). Like you, they have a 'human rights" mandate, so you might find the following relevant...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233902&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

I would hope that the SAHRD (South African Human Rights Delegation) takes their concerns seriously and brings them to the attention of the South African public.

Of course, such concerns might not suit your narrow agenda. You might, moreover, agree with Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri who said on Thursday that the PCHR report was "unfair and unbalanced," If so, please ignore this email.

yours sincerely,
Anthony Posner

From: aposner
Subject: NA'EEM JEENAH'S NEW INSTITUTE
Date: 08 September 2008 11:20:58 PM
To: nathangeffen

Hi Nathan,

Na'eem Jeenah's new Middle East Institute sounds like an excellent place for The SAHRD to continue its research. If you or Doron or even Dennis Davis want an internship there, I could supply references based on your SAHRD work. I can't, of course, promise that you will get offered a position but I have often communicated with Na'eem Jeenah when he was at The FXI, and I am sure that I could pull a few strings!

I am not certain if Na'eem's personal institute will actually be allied to The FXI or The SAHRC or The MRN or The Mail and Guardian or The SAHRD or The SACP or The PSC or The ANC or Cosatu, but if it is... then its' reputation will be even greater in academic, media, human rights and freedom of expression circles.

I have not yet been approached by Na'eem to lecture on the Middle East, but I am sure that this is only an administrative oversight on his behalf. Setting up your own major academic institution takes a lot of time and effort and I fully understand that he might have been a bit too hectic to contact me.

viva
blacklisted

Doron,
In the light of Farid Esack's recent statement that he “could not avoid the conclusion that the simple Zionism=Apartheid equation is also a simplistic one”, could you kindly explain why he signed "The Kasrils letter" comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa ?

Do you think that the inconsistency is due to the fact that Prof Esack is "wonderfully interesting"?

Or is it that he just makes it up as he goes along??
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | August 15, 2008 at 15:58

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

Re Farid Esack...
"Noting that the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial is “largely” dedicated to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, he described commemorating
one’s own victimhood and “failing to see how it is tied up with th evictimhood of others”, as “hugely problematic” "

Mike,
Doron Isaacs writes that Farid Esack is "a wonderfully interesting professor of religion at Harvard". Yes...I also find his views about Yad Vashem "wonderfully interesting".
I am starting to conclude that the SAHRD trip is "wonderfully interesting" and not at all sinister. I now realize that I was wrong to smell a rat.
Btw, Ahmadinejad is also "a wonderfully interesting" President who has "wonderfully interesting" ideas about the holocaust.
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | August 15, 2008 at 12:47

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

I think it is clear from my above comment ( December 01, 2008 at 19:05) that The SAHRD was a carefully constructed attempt to denigrate Israel. When choosing, for example, Messrs Forrest and Esack, Doron Isaacs and Nathan Geffen knew precisely what they were getting.

Farid Esack had signed Kasrils's letter comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. Drew Forrest is a well known anti-zionist deputy editor of The Mail and Guardian, whose hatred for the State of Israel is only matched on a weekly basis by his boss, Ms Ferial Haffajee.

The SAHRD might as well have been organized by Ronnie Kasrils, Na'eem Jeenah or The Media Review Network. It is disingenuous for Doron to suggest otherwise.

Judge Dennis Davis and Judge Edwin Cameron were unfortunately naive enough to give the whole sorry episode some sort of judicial credibility.
Jonny Steinberg, had never been to Israel, but as a talented writer felt that he knew it all after a mere 5 day trip. I will leave readers of this blog to conclude whether SAHRD participation has sullied any professional reputations.

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Subject: CHUTZPAH
Date: 02 December 2008 7:19:12 AM
To: DDavis

Hi Dennis,

I thought that you might be interested to read the latest "It's almost Supernatural" debate about, inter alia, the selection of SAHRD delegates. Although I certainly do not criticize you for going to the Occupied Territories, or writing about them on your return, I do believe that you and Judge Edwin Cameron were used to give the whole episode some sort of judicial credibility.

I know that you, like me, consider the "Human Rights Delegation" to be a misnomer. I believe that the HRD title was also used to try and give the enterprise more credibility than it deserved. One has to conclude, moreover, that Doron Isaacs, a young man who has just started wearing long trousers in Cape Town, has a bit of a chutzpah to call himself a "human rights delegate"!

In the circumstances, perhaps you can comment on the "Its almost Supernatural" blog ?

kind regards
Anthony

[Lawrence]

oh shiiiiiiiite sorry I got confused, I forgot who said what..really stupid of me.

sorry Joel. So what I said to you re Shanab applies to Isaacs not you. Makes sense that Isaacs would take a lying Hamas terrorist supporter at his lying word, not you. Makes sense that Isaacs would not have an inkling of the mentality of the jihadist, not Pollak, since Isaacs is the useful idiot of the Jihad, not Pollak. Makes sense that Isaacs would use this anti-Semitic argument, not Joel - so let me recopy a part of what I wrote above with the proper target this time, Isaacs, not Pollak....(I really don't understand how I got confused here - maybe too much coffee, maybe I'm getting old before my time, maybe stress, I wasn't drunk or on drugs, no excuses - sorry Joel)

Blaming Jews for the fact that Palestinians seek to annihilate them, even just a little bit as Isaacs does - "fostered surely by the suffocating conditions of the Occupation" - is actually anti-Semitic. Why? Simply this - Isaacs makes use of an anti-Semitic argument SINCE one hears this SELF-SAME argument or rationale from the usual anti-Semitic suspects, the EU beauracrats, Scandinavian NGOs, M&G readers, ANC Youth League and the like (of course to Isaacs they are probably not anti-Semitic, there you go); and to the point, this includes people who are even openly and viciously anti-Semitic (ie not just admitted anti-Zionists), those who call for sanctions and disinvestment from Israel BUT no other nation on the planet, who believe the Protocols of Zion is genuine, endorse Holocaust Revisionism etc. Is this a coincidence Isaacs?

The Palestinians and Israel's other Arab-Muslim neighbours have always hated the Jews, for century after century, going back in excess of a thousand years. The Palestinians have hated the Jews for centuries and supported the Nazis during WW2, was that Israel's fault too Isaacs? The Occupation is the consequence of their Jew-hatred and the Jew-hatred of their neighbours, not the other way around as Isaacs fails to realise, since Isaacs wants to blame the '67 War on Israel (apropos T Segev) when in fact her neighbours are to blame. Isaacs doesn't understand that it applies likewise to "the stifling conditions of the Occupation" which are are a consequence of the perpetual relentless threats of Palestinian terrorism, which itself is predicated on their Jew-hatred which is integral to their religious culture of which Isaacs is clueless, not the other way around. Isaacs puts the cart before the horse here, as do anti-Semites the world over. How come your position is the same as anti-Semites in this respect Isaacs?

Don't answer the question Isaacs, just call me an extreme right-winger (even if in private) which in this case is code for a Jew who has a clue and does not care for pathetic dhimmi apologetics, which Isaacs engages in. What's a dhimmi Isaacs?

It's what you are, Isaacs, you who are adored by all the Jew-haters in South Africa and beyond. Does that make you proud? There are plenty of SA Jews who will club together to buy you a ticket, so you don't have to worry about the cost.

also again, with Isaacs the RIGHT TARGET this time:

Isaacs doesn't understand Hamas or what motivates them, he doesn't have a clue where their Jew-hatred and the Jew-hatred of Muslim society in general comes from. It's their religion Isaacs. Of which you obviously know nothing, except the usual PC lies which counts for less than nothing. If Israel withdraws from the WB Isaacs, will Palestinians there no longer seek to take the teachings of the Prophet seriously Doron? After all Doron blames the "suffocating conditions of the Occupation" (in part) for the fact that Palestinians take the teachings of Islam seriously ie inclusive of Jew-hatred, so maybe with the occupation ended, the Palestinians will no longer take the teachings of their religion seriously. How so Isaacs? Pointing out these subversive truths re Islam (which I can back up with evidence) doubtless makes me a racist in Isaacs's eyes.

Incidentally Isaacs, Hamas are on record very recently as saying that lying to the infidel is permitted according to religious instruction, maybe Isaacs wants to look it up if he doesn't believe me. Maybe it doesn't matter to Isaacs, by the fact that he hems and haws on whether to take a Hamas member like Shanab at his word re peace with Israel, which is scary. Taking fascists at their word, when these fascists say they are prepared to make peace as they prepare for war...Now who does that remind me of, oh yeah Chamberlain.

Also what I write in my previous post, re the mentality of the jihadist, remains valid, with the useful idiot of the Jihad Isaacs my target, not Pollak.

Hamas doesn't care too much if by themselves they can never achieve their goals of driving Israelis into the sea, this frustration is not going to moderate them as Isaacs desperately hopes. Isaacs doesn't understand these jihadists at all, their goal as such is jihad against the infidel Jew FOR ITS OWN SAKE, that is jihad is both a means and an ends. Merely by waging jihad they are successful, every suicide bombing attack, rocket strike is a success by the very fact that it is carried out; it ensures one is fulfilling one's jihadist duty, doing Allah's and the Prophet's bidding and ensuring a divine reward from Allah of heavenly bliss for eternity after death, and escaping the damnation of hell.

Just so long as the jihadists make the effort of waging jihad terror (as in Mumbai), this is what matters to the holy warrior; the destruction of Israel, if and when it comes would just be a bonus. It wouldn't add to the heavenly reward of the jihadist, how could it add to an eternity of bliss? Makes no sense. It is only the consequence of jihad for its own sake, not the rasion-d'etre of the jihadist per se. It is the hoped for consequence of his raison-d'etre. And jihad for its own sake is the rationale of Hamas and other jihadists around the globe. Isaacs understands none of this, the mentality of the jihadist is something he knows nothing about. The lesson of the hundreds upon hundreds of rocket attacks from no longer occupied Gaza by jihadists there (not just Hamas neither) doesn't mean a thing to Isaacs. Just because they (Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc in Gaza) can't achieve the goal of destroying Israel doesn't stop them from waging jihad terror on Israel.

Let me add in light of the Mumbai horror, jihadists in Asia (India, Pakistan in particular) know that the conquest of Hindu India in toto is not feasible, not really achievable. Hindu India is too powerful, hundreds of millions of people...This does not change the fact that Asian jihadists continue to wage a perpetual unceasing jihad against Hindu India (and other infidels who happen to be around), simply because jihad for its own sake is their motivation.

So that Phillips piece that I quote remains valid, just with Isaacs the target of my ire, not Pollak.

My apology to Pollak not withstanding, it is Pollak who wrote that "I believe the occupation must end", I didn't confuse him with Isaacs in this respect. So my criticisms of his position in this regard remain valid, although with toned down language. The disastrous experience of the Gaza withdrawal over the last three years (and for that matter the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon which has also proven disastrous for Israel), has important lessons for what a withdrawal from the West Bank would actually mean, which I detail in my post further up.

Every bit of territory we give up to our enemies is used by our enemies to wage jihad against us. Everything I write about what an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank means remains valid re the likelihood of rocket terror attacks in the short and medium-term against Israel's population and related growth of terror infrastructure on the West Bank, as has proven to be the case with Gaza. An end to the occupation of the West Bank would also prove to be a strategic liability to Israel in any war with her neighbours in the long-term as I detail in my previous post.

I think Pollak needs to re-think this, from the point of view of Israel's security. Just like I shouldn't go off half-cocked on this forum, launching into a screed against Pollak, when Isaacs was meant to be the target. I think I need to switch from coffee to orange juice in the morning. I'm serious as well, I have been having problems remembering things, my memory is not what it was, and I'm not yet forty.

My sincere apologies to Joel though, again and again, for as he put it, losing the plot. Even when I disagree with you about ending the occupation, my language in this regard is inexcuably harsh and over-the-top, to put it mildly. It's just that I was over-reacting to what I thought you said about Shanab (which so pissed me off) because my brain was still asleep...No excuses though really.

In fact I was thinking, how can Pollak have written such a thing? It's the kind of thing Isaacs would say, not Pollak! Well like duh Lawrence, maybe that's because it was what Isaacs had written, not Pollak. Maybe that's why you should have rechecked who wrote what hey Lawrence? uh tail between his leg, shucks yeah..

As for Isaacs, what I really want to say to you..calling you the useful idiot of jihadists is the politest thing I can think of actually.

[Lawrence]

As Posner points out, the inclusion of the likes of Esack who equates Israel with apartheid South Africa, who had an article he wrote about his participation in the SAHRD in the Middle-East posted up on the notoriously anti-Zionist viciously anti-Israel zmag (and elsewhere of course) and the Israel-hating Drew Forrest of the Israel-hating M&G in the Orwellian named SAHRD, tells us all we need to know about Geffen and Isaacs for including them in this delegation.

What more is there to say?

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

I refer to my email to Judge Dennis Davis. I received a courteous reply but when I asked if it could be copied and blogged on 'Supernatural", his permission was unfortunately refused. I have to conclude that SAHRD delegates have been extremely reluctant to debate the complex issues surrounding their trip. My feeling is that they know that they are on shaky ground!

Subject: Re: can I blog your email reply?
Date: 02 December 2008 11:36:52 AM

Dennis,
What a pity. I believe in forthright discussion in the public domain. There is no point shlepping off to these places in the Middle East if we can't debate them.
Anthony

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

Although, Dennis Davis has refused permission to blog his reply, I am certainly at liberty to blog my reply to his reply. As a campaigner for freedom of expression in South Africa ( please refer to my FIX THE FXI blog), I am duty bound not to be silenced...

Dear Dennis,

Many thanks for your reply.

The issue, btw, is not dead on "It's Almost Supernatural". It is very much alive!

There is nothing that you can do about the dead Jews in Mumbai. It is part of the Islamic fundamentalist war, which the SAHRD, strangely enough, failed to identify. Of course, I tried to bring the subject, in emails and blog comments, but to no avail. C'est la vie!

I think that Ehud Olmert might end up in a Zionist prison so I take everything that he says with a pinch of salt.

Just for the record, I have not stated that Doron is an enemy of Israel but I do believe that the purpose of The SAHRD was to denigrate Israel. Unfortunately, as I stated in my comment, you were naive enough to be used.

kind regards
Anthony

[Shmuel ben David]

Dear BLACKLISTED DICTATOR

No, Dennis Davis was not "naive enough to be used". He knows exactly what he is doing and has an irresistable urge towards intestinal engineering with the ANC. It was also imperitive as there was a sudden change within the ANC and he was marooned up the wrong intestines and had to beat a quick retreat and start climbing all over again. The SAHRD gave him an easy route and in.

Davis is hugely if not completely self-serving who will never let an opportunity go by to promote himself. Whatever the spin above by Isaacs about his motives, they are just that, spin and Isaacs' sycophancy here is a lesson he takes from Davis.

Davis should be made to resign from the Board of Deputies. He is a past-chairman and long sitting member of the Board and did not inform them of his invitation to join it on its trip to Israel, leaving this to Isaacs to do. Unacceptable and as usual unethical.

Is there no one on the Board who has the courage to rid us of this man? His "debate" with Mike Berger (http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/2008_08_31_archive.html) should have been enough to remove him. What a disgrace this pretender to intellectualism and bully is in so many ways.