It's Almost Supernatural

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

Never give up - new look DA

The official opposition in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance, has relaunched their look and feel. The relaunch took place this past weekend at the Constitution Hill in Braamfontein.

I think Tony Leon used a necessarily aggressive approach in order to entrench the DA as the official opposition. He evolved the DP from the pit of insignificance to real political relevancy. The party's leadership now feel that a more inclusive (the colours of the South African flag) approach is necessary to build an infrastructure from which they can bill themselves as not only just an opposition party - but a party of government.

There has been some controversy over the similarities between the new DA logo and the Barak Obama campaign logo (well spotted by commentary.co.za). Quite frankly, I couldn't really care. It looks ok, better than the Obama logo I would venture, and its close enough to their previous logo (the previous DA logo was also round and featured a sun) to be on the safe side. It looks new, young, fresh and sends a message of hope for a better future. But, its just a logo, the real changes in their approach are:

• An attempt to position the DA not as a party of opposition, but as a party of government
• The (somewhat dubious) determination to be in the national government in the near future

I'll share my thoughts soon but for now check out the new DA website at www.da.org.za

Here's a (somewhat amusing) video of Helen Zille singing along to a song whose title has become somewhat of a DA/DP/PFP mantra over the past couple of decades: Never give up

Community giant passes away

Sadly, earlier this week the Jewish community was informed that Jocelyn Hellig passed away after a long illness. Jocelyn always gave of herself to the community, either as a member of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (with over twenty years of services, this past year she was the national vice-chairperson) or as a respected academic (she was the Associate Professor of World Religions at Wits University) renowned as one of Jewry's leading minds on the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.

Hellig's intellect belonged to Jewry, always marshalled to the benefit of the community. She had the courage and foresight to, at times, adopt controversial opinions which challenged her constituency, creating debate and questioning cherished beliefs.

Those lucky enough to have ever heard her on the radio will agree with me that when she was a guest on a talk-show, we could always rest assured, that the Jewish perspective of whatever the issue under discussion was, would be put forward accurately and articulately.

The last time I heard her on the radio was June 2007. Mike did a quick write-up at the time and his praise back then is a fitting tribute to her quintessential characteristics: Jocelyn Hellig crucifies anti-Semitism

I happened to catch Professor Jocelyn Hellig’s interview on Sunday night with Kate Turkington on her Talk Radio 702 show “Believe It or Not”. She was speaking on traditional largely Christian anti-Semitism. To put it mildly, she was brilliant. She never once lost her cool despite many infuriating questions. When callers claimed that Romans had never been in Israel or that Judea was actually called Palestine in Jesus’ time, her responses were tolerant and yet still convincing. I was not the only one impressed by Professor Hellig. Many non-Jews sent smses after the show imploring the host to invite her to come back. Even Kate Turkington was impressed. In closing she described Professor Hellig as a person of immense tolerance. To be honest, I don’t always agree with Professor Hellig’s positions and have on a few occasion written letters to the South African Jewish Report (SAJR) in response. But she is certainly one of SA Jewries greatest intellectuals. We are fortunate that she has taken such an active role in the leadership of the South African Jewish board of deputies.

Her passing is a tremendous loss and she will be sorely missed.

The Jewish Board will be compiling a tribute book for Jocelyn's family and they have asked if anyone has memories, tributes or messages that they would like to share, to please send it in to their offices (beagle - at - beyachad -dot-co-dot-za). You are welcome to use the comments to add your tributes or memories and we will forward them on to the Board.

Our low life expectancy

The life expectancy of South Africans is lower than the average in Africa and that of war-ravaged Iraq, a UN Population Fund report has shown.

It seems that with more and more power, the ANC has had less and less effect on improving this important scorecard. AIDS policies from 2000 to 2005, where a blind refusal to properly distribute free ARVs resulted in 330,000 deaths and 35,000 mother to child transmissions, have made a major contribution to this horrific statistic.

Vote opposition.

The role of South African Jewry— past and present

A few months ago, I blogged about a controversial article, ‘The Beloved Country: Minority Politics and South African Jewry’, by Daniel Greenberg, on the response of South African Jewry to the tumultuous experiences, both past and present, that has shaped this country’s history. The article has generated an unprecedented response. The number of hits it has received is in the tens of thousands and Greenberg has been inundated with emails from readers, ranging for the fiercely critical to the admiring. A small taste of the debate it has stirred up can be seem in the letters section of the latest edition of the influential American Jewish student journal, The Current, where Greenberg’s original article was published.

Greenberg has come in for some biting (but expected) criticism from Zev Krengel, the current National Chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD). But interestingly, Russell Gaddin, a former National Chairman of the SAJBD has come to Greenberg’s defense. In his letter he condemned the SAJBD’s 'policy of appeasement' towards the ANC. The third letter was from Sasha Polakow-Suransky, an associate editor at Foreign Affairs, praising Greenberg for taking on the South African Jewish establishment. This type of public disagreement by such prominent members of the community is seriously unheard of. Agree with him or not, Greenberg must be complimented for advancing the debate about the role of this community in South African society.

In the spirit of what Greenberg has achieved, I am not going to write a long critique of each letter (although I do have strong views) but rather encourage readers to give their opinions. While all responses will be viewable in the comments section, we will post some of the more interesting ones as articles on the front page (there is no obligation to leave your name if you feel uncomfortable). It would be appreciated if regular readers could help spread the word so that we can encourage as wide and diverse a debate as possible.

While everyone should read all three letters (and Greenberg’s article of course), here are some snip bits:

Daniel Greenberg : “When the ANC refuses to accept the link between HIV and AIDS and installs a Minister of Health who advocates the eating of beetroots and garlic instead of Antiretroviral medication as a treatment for HIV, should the community not take a stand? When the government refuses to condemn the tyrant Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe because of liberation credentials, should the community not take a stand? When there is widespread poverty and the government spends $5 billion on unneeded armaments, probably traceable to the petty gains of a few corrupt politicians, should the community not take a stand?” “But for now, the omnipresent fear of crime stands above all other considerations. Fear—fear of suffering Sheldon Cohen’s fate—drives many Jews away from the country. Fear causes those remaining to look inwards at the expense of all else. Whether under a racist regime or in the midst of appalling insecurity, the South African Jewish experience has been characterized by fear.”

Zev Krengel:  “Greenberg also does the SAJBD a profound injustice by simplistically caricaturizing its members as knee–jerk “yes men” for the South African government. In reality, the SAJBD has on frequent occasions strenuously criticized government, both publicly and privately…Earlier this year, for example, the SAJBD spoke out strongly against an especially one–sided statement on the Middle East conflict issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs… These, and many other statements regularly issued by the SAJBD since the beginning of the decade, clearly debunk the notion that we indiscriminately seek to “ingratiate” ourselves with the government of the day.” “Finally, concluding that “the South African Jewish experience has been characterized by fear,” apart from being unnecessarily melodramatic, is simply untrue. Jews are certainly not blind to the local and regional problems facing their country, and the unacceptably high crime levels are indeed a matter of deep concern. However, “concern” is not the same thing as “fear.” Taken as a whole, South African Jewry, while reduced in numbers, is better organized, united and Jewishly committed than at any other time in its history. Whatever the future holds—and no Jewish community anywhere can be certain in this regard—the SAJBD will always be there to represent its best interests.”

Russell Gaddin: “The role of the Jewish community during the Apartheid era is usually misrepresented by commentators who do not understand the background and harsh influence of those awful times… The world had stood by while six million Jews perished. There wasn’t the international Jewish support system that exists today, and there was as yet no strong Israel. There was a bullying government that dealt harshly with its critics in South Africa. The SAJBD made a decision, supported by the views of the majority of the community, to remain silent and not confront the government or draw attention to themselves.” “…the SAJBD today has adopted a policy of appeasement, or silent diplomacy. This silence is not supported by the community at large. The ANC Government of Thabo Mbeki has largely failed in its leadership of the country. The silent diplomacy has not influenced the South African Government to take a fair stance in its handling of Israel and Middle Eastern affairs. It has not added to Jewish security, nor to the devastation caused by crime. Emigration is peaking again…” “It will be interesting to see how the Jewish leadership reacts to the new ANC leadership whose numbers include many with tainted and questionable pasts. The political game in South Africa has never been an easy one, and there is no indication that this situation will improve soon.”

Sasha Polakow-Suransky: “The community is notoriously touchy and remains extremely insular. Since the demise of Apartheid, communal leaders who once denounced their fellow Jews in the anti–Apartheid movement now seek to claim that heritage of resistance as their own.” “ When Nelson Mandela’s ANC comrades Arthur Goldreich and Harold Wolpe escaped from prison in 1963, the Jewish Board of Deputies took great pains to denounce them, distance themselves, and assure the pro–government press that, “except at his circumcision, [Goldreich] has never again been in a synagogue.” When American Jewish organizations, outraged by the Apartheid regime’s violence, passed a tame resolution in 1983 calling merely for “the granting of freedom, justice and equal rights,” the Board’s leaders blew up and told their American brethren to stay out of South Africa’s business…Harry Schwarz, a child refugee from Nazi Germany who rose to become an opposition member of parliament during the Apartheid years and then ambassador to the United States, believes that the community behaved like the “Court Jews” of the Middle Ages, currying favor with the country’s leaders.” “Even former Board President Boomie Abramowitz lends support to Greenberg’s argument, claiming “There’s a parallel...Whether you like it or not there are almost echoes of the past. We must not say anything that will upset the status quo.”

The Kasrils Affair Book Launch

Our very own South African Jewish maverick, Joel Pollak, will be launching his controversial book “The Kasrils Affair: Jews and Minority Politics in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” Tuesday 11 November, at 17:30 in the Harry Oppenheimer Institute Building, UCT.

All those in Cape Town, who can make it, should definitely go. There will be a round table discussion with Historian Richard Mendelsohn, President of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies Michael Bagraim and Dr Sally Frankental.

I have previewed the book and think it is a must read for anyone interested the future of the Jewish community in this country. Joel has over the years made a name for himself as one of the most outspoken critics of the SAJBD, in particular of its policy of quiet acquiescence towards the ANC.

In his book, he provides a forthright analysis of the pivotal role the Kasrils affair has played in the evolution of the South African Jewish response towards the Government. After a brief moment of public debate with the ANC over its policy towards Israel in the late 1990s, the community has reverted to its historic strategy of refraining from public condemnation and even supporting the ruling party while voicing its concerns through back door channels. A strategy that, as Pollak points out, can be dangerous not only for the community but also for South African democracy.

What is interesting about the book, is that it is also a comparative study. It becomes clear that Minister Kasrils' public attacks on Israel and the community were not an isolated case. Other minority groups like the Portuguese community and Afrikaners were also placed under tremendous pressure to endorse the ANC line. Whether we realize it or not, our community has become caught up in the ANC's desire to dominate every aspect of South African society and silence all opposition. The morality and pragmatism of such a situation are things that we as a community should be discussing.

As South Africa heads into uncertain political territory, this book comes at a crucial time to understand the mistakes we have made as well as the things we got right in our endeavour to promote a democratic and prosperous Jewish community in South Africa. Hopefully it can serve as a launching pad for a broad debate within our community of what the way forwards should be.

Register to vote!

Next year, South Africans go to the polls for our fourth democratic elections. Can we choose hope over fear and rise above the barbed-wire of racial politics to vote for the change we need? NO WE CAN’T!

Come on, we all know that ANC supporters will once again reward the ANC for past failures. The ANC’s liberation credentials guarantee them an overwhelming landslide victory. The best we can hope for is to temper the ANC’s overwhelming majority by voting for an opposition party. 

Two weeks ago, in the Sunday Times, Chris Barron interviewed Angie Motshekga (President of the ANC Women's League and contender for premier of Gauteng). She said that it is in the best interests of all South Africans to have a de facto one-party state that can't be blocked from doing what it thinks is best. Let's punish the ANC for this profound arrogance. Use this weekend to register to vote if you haven't done so already and next year, make the effort to vote for an opposition party. Say no to a one-party state. Say no to arrogance and corruption. Say no to free-wheeling cadre deployment and a childish disregard for the procedures of parliament. Say no to the ANC.

The first step towards reducing the ANC’s power (and that will ultimately be good for them) is to make sure you are registered to vote in next year’s election.

To check if you are registered SMS your ID number to 32810.

If you are not registered, then make sure you get registered this weekend.

VOTER REGISTRATION WEEKEND 8-9 November 2008 Voting stations open 08:00 to 17:00 For more information call 0800 11 8000 toll free from a landline OR SMS your ID to 32810 if you are already registered to check your details

Remember to take your green bar coded ID book with you. If you don't have the correct ID book then you will need to get one from the Department of Home Affairs. They will also be open this weekend (Saturday and Sunday) so you can apply for an ID book and hopefully then be in a position to register should there be another registration weekend.

To find out where your nearest registration/voting station is located, use this station finder from the IEC website: http://www.elections.org.za/SearchVD.asp

Now is the time to squeeze Iran

For all the things that made Bill Clinton’s presidency memorable, his insightful campaign slogan ‘it’s the economy stupid’ had somewhat faded into insignificance until the recent American sub-mortgage crisis. The economy is now once again front and centre in this year’s US election. If Barak Obama is in fact to win on Tuesday night, as the polls suggest, market crash and liquidity freeze will certainly have a lot to do with it. But financial hard times are not only key to momentous internal political change in democracies; they have also shown themselves to be tenacious in disposing of authoritarian regimes. Over the next few months, the Islamic Republic of Iran will hopefully provide us with our latest case study.

Only a few months ago the strategic situation in the Middle East from an Israeli, Western and moderate Arab perspective looked horrible. Awash with petrodollar as a result of record high oil prices, the Iranian regime looked unstoppable from acquiring nuclear weapon and fomenting chaos through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. With military action seeming politically unfeasible and technically problematic, many had begun to whisper about just having to get use to living with a nuclear Iran. But all of this has now changed. Fears of a global slowdown have caused oil prices to collapse from over $140 a barrel to below $70. If this fall is sustained, it could as much as halve the Iranian regime’s fiscal revenue and places the country at risk for a serious budget crisis. Given the already poor state of the economy with rising inflation and high unemployment, Iran has few benign macro-economic options.

Iran is now showing symptoms of what economists refer to as the Dutch Diseases, the almost counter intuitive situation where countries that experience commodity export booms usually end up in serious financial trouble. Given the Iranian regime’s shaky internal political position and its messianic belief that oil prices would continue to rise until the Twelfth Imam returns, they have spent almost all their additional oil revenue in the form of cash handouts and price subsidies to buy the support of their people. But just throwing money at the people ala Evita Peron, as we saw in Argentina, does not create economic growth. It only fuels inflation.

Moreover their arrogant disdain for Western advice has led them to reject perhaps the most important macro-economic policy of the last few decades, an independent central bank. Under Ahmadinejad’s control the Iranian printing press has been working overtime (with money growth in the region of 40% per annum) to keep interest rates low and consumers and businesses happy. But this temporarily effective political strategy has disastrous economic consequences. Coupled with the excessive government spending, it has unleashed the dragon of stagflation (high inflation and low growth) on the Iranian people. Inflation climbed last month to 27 percent while unemployment continues to remains high at high at 11 percent.

Given the structure of the economy, this is a self perpetuating financial collapse. As inflation rises the government of Iran will be forced to spend more and more money, money they no longer have, to maintain the various price subsidies they offer. With falling oil revenues they will either have to borrow or print more money to fund this additional expenditure. The latter will serve to further boast inflation and cause this downward economic spiral to continue over and over again.

So what should the Iranians do to stop their march towards economic ruin? Conventional economic advice would be to cut spending, stop printing money and give the central bank independence. But Ahmadinejad does not seem prepared to listen. In the last 3 years he has fired 3 central bankers for suggesting just such a policy. Moreover, he faces an election in the near future and cannot afford politically to cut back on handouts to the people. By all accounts he is already in a precarious position in the polls. So in fact, expect government spending to increase, at least in the short term.

Natan Sharansky has for the last few years been talking up an imminent internal Iranian revolution. When he visited South Africa a couple of years ago, he told me that from what he has read and heard the Iranian people remind him of Russians in the late 1980’s just before the fall of the Berlin wall. “Almost everyone is a ‘double-thinker’ there”, he told me emphatically. He was predicting regime change within a year. Of course it did not materialize: not because I believe Sharansky’s analysis was wrong but because he failed to foresee the oil price boom that has allowed Ahmadinejad to maintain stability by buying off political support. This has now come to an end. In fact, the current reality in Iran actually now much more closely mirrors the USSR. The fall of the Soviet too was ultimately sparked by falling oil prices and the resulting economic challenges that this wrought.

Clearly now is the time for those who wish to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb and terrorizing the region to act. Simple measures like limiting the Iranians access to foreign finance would force the regime to fund its expenditure through printing more money, seriously accelerating the economic collapse that is under way. Of course large scale sanction that prevented countries from buying Iranian exports would really cripple them economically but given that 80% of their exports are oil, this is not seen as economically viable for the rest of the world. A public disinvestment campaign would also help.

On a political level, now is not the time for meetings between Western leaders and the Iranian regime. Quite the opposite. We need to make it clear that this government is not legitimate. Financial and moral support for dissident groups should be urgently augmented. The West and moderate Muslim states must publicly declare that they will do whatever they can to stand by the Iranian people against their tyrannical government.

The financial crisis has resulted in the hope that change is possible here in America. But this applies equally to our enemies as well. If Obama would only formulate a foreign policy position on the same basis as he does his domestic political strategy then this could really be the moment when the rise of Islamic fundamentalism begins to slow and our planet begins to heal.