Here’s part 2 of the 3-part questions from the floor finale to our debate between Joel Pollak and Doron Isaacs. Part 1 of the Q&A can be found here. If you haven’t read the full text of the debate you can find it by clicking on the blue button. The final 2 questions will be published on Friday.
Question 3 for Doron
The Hamas charter calls for the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth, do you blame the settlements and occupation for this?
- Lawrence |
Dear Lawrence,
I am obliged to point out that the Hamas Charter does not call for “the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth”.
It speaks of the “struggle against Zionism”[1] , of “defeating the enemies”[2], of eliminating Israel[3], and of raising “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”[4].
Those of us – all of us – who distrust Hamas must do so on the basis of fact, not propaganda.
Now there can be no doubt that the Charter is not only xenophobic, sectarian, and racist, but also ill-conceived, inaccurate, retrograde, and intellectually vacuous. Its use of classic unhinged antisemitic conspiracy theory would be laughable if it wasn’t so vile. The “enemies” – presumably the Jews – have managed to “take over control of the world media”[5], “stir revolutions in various parts of the globe”[6] including the “French and the Communist Revolutions”[7], establish and control the “Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith”[8], “take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize”[9], “established the League of Nations”[10], “stood behind World War II”[11] and “inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council”[12]. This has apparently “been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”[13]
It also contains this charming phrase from the Koran:
“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” [14]
(Incidentally, I recently heard Prof Faried Esack, a member of the Human Rights Delegation, remark publicly on the contemptibility of that verse.)
For good measure the Charter claims that the Jewish “merchants of war”[15] have been “behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds”.[16]
Do I blame the settlements and occupation for this bigotry? Of course not. I blame the bigots who wrote it.
Two additional points you might find interesting:
Firstly, it seems fairly possible, as explained in 1986 by the former military commander of the Gaza Strip, that at a time when Israel sought to undermine the secular PLO, it extended “financial aid to Islamic groups ... to create a force that would stand against the leftist forces which support the PLO”, i.e. that Israel assisted Hamas in the early days[17]. Of course Israel didn’t anticipate the killing Hamas would carry out.
Secondly, although there can never be any excuse for Hamas’ violence and grotesque antisemitism, they are capable of holding genuine political grievances. When they say that the situation “destroys houses, renders children orphans and issues oppressive judgements against thousands of young people who spend the best years of their youth in the darkness of prisons[18]” they are a little closer to the truth.
But they must learn. If they want to be supported as the victims of oppression, then they cannot preach oppression.
Doron
Question 3 for Joel
While I agree that human rights apply to all, it is - in my view - simply absurd to consider rights violations on both sides without seriously taking into account the fact of a belligerent occupation (referred to as such by the Israeli High Court of Justice). Do you agree? If so, what impact does the fact of the occupation - one side being an occupier and the other the occupied - have on considerations of human rights violations? - Jonathan Berger |
You seem to misunderstand the term “belligerent occupation.” In international law, it does not describe the character of the occupation itself, but the manner in which the occupation came about—i.e. in a military conflict. In fact, the law of belligerent occupation allows the occupying power to do certain things that would ordinarily be forbidden in peacetime—such as evacuating civilian populations for “imperative military reasons” (see Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
For many years, the Israeli government refused to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention (which covers “belligerent occupation”) to the territories, partly because they did not belong to a legitimate sovereign power when they were captured by Israel. But Israeli courts have long applied the Convention to the occupied territories as customary international law, and have gone even further than the text of the Convention itself in establishing both the duties of and restrictions upon the Israeli occupying power. Israel has also taken the extraordinary step of giving Palestinians the right to petition the High Court of Justice directly, which is unprecedented. All this is not to say the occupation is a rosy affair, but to the extent that your use of the term “belligerent” is pejorative and not merely legal, it is inappropriate, at least given the legal nature of your question.
As far as human rights are concerned, Israelis and Palestinians have the same, equal human rights with or without an occupation. Some rights are inviolable, such as the right to life. And some are subject to “balancing” against security needs, in accordance with standards recognized by international law, such as the proportionality doctrine. Your view of Israel’s human rights performance is likely to be dictated by whether you believe Israel’s restrictions of certain Palestinian rights (such as the constraints imposed by the security barrier, for example) are proportional to the danger of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, or not.
One thing is certain: the fact that the Palestinians are on the losing side of this conflict does not excuse them from obeying the same human rights norms and doctrines as the Israelis.
Joel
Question 4 for Doron
I would like Doron to flesh out his powerful point about Israel not having adequate incentives to end the occupation and make peace with the Palestinians. He argues that moral pressure, which organisations like the SAHRD and their tour put on Israel, is his way of trying to change this situation. In a similar vein, he lobbied for Nadine Gordimer to boycott the international writer’s festival held in Israel earlier this year. But what if cultural and moral pressure do not bring peace? Say in 1 year or 2 years from now there is still not agreement? Would Doron support financial and diplomatic sanctions against Israel? In fact given his logic, I can’t understand why he does not call for such measures now. Surely serious economic pain and travel restrictions would be a very useful tool for allowing Israelis to internalise the cost of the occupation. So my question is, does Doron support financial and political sanctions against Israel and if not why not? Mike |
Dear Mike,
I will explain the rationale for overt moral pressure, and then answer your question directly.
There are 191,000 settlers in East Jerusalem, plus 276,100 in the rest of the West Bank, totalling 467,100[19]. Of these, approximately 65,440 live East of – beyond – the Separation Barrier[20]. Whichever number you pick, it’s a lot more than the 8,195 removed, traumatically, from Gaza.
Currently, attempts to remove settlers from a single house in Hebron, for which the High Court has issued an evacuation order, are being met with threats of unprecedented resistance from settler leaders[21] and accusations by Rabbis that the State of Israel is an enemy of the people[22].
Within a broken political system the High Court is repeatedly petitioned for relief. Some, like Joel, put much store in it, but its reliability and reach are limited, and its rulings so routinely evaded in the West Bank that a mainstream journalist like Ofer Shelach is now calling the Court a “fig leaf” and Hebron “a place with no law”[23].
The possibility, even prospect, of violence between army and settler – between Jew and Jew – should give us all pause. It is foremost in the minds of Israel’s leaders, and it makes them less likely to pursue, let alone succeed in, a serious peace process. Shimon Peres recently told the British Parliament that withdrawal may lead to civil war[24]. Ehud Barak warned of the danger of another assassination[25]. But there is no two state solution without significant withdrawals. Olmert, free from the danger of having to actually do something, is now speaking this truth:
“We were wrong; we did not see the big picture...
“It will not work. It is already not working. It claimed a price from us which we do not have the moral strength to bear - and it will claim even heavier costs - which will unravel the fragile bonds which still preserve the social solidarity of Israeli society..
“This truth, unfortunately, will obligate us to rip away many portions of the homeland - in Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.[26]”
As I said in the first salvo of this debate: even if all violence stops, which it must, the settlements are the structural barrier to peace. Despite the risks counted above, I think the settlers are relatively weak, and believe that the State of Israel wields enough rule of law, and has enough internal coherence, to affect withdrawal. But it will not happen on its own. It must be incentivised. This means supporting those who act and pressuring those who do not.
So I support various forms of non-violent political pressure. I think it is crucial to show that suicide-bombing will get Palestinians nowhere, but that peaceful political organising can yield results.
If an inclusive human-rights based campaign emerged to impose targeted economic sanctions on Israeli goods and services produced in the West Bank, I would support it.
Doron
Question 4 for Joel
If Jews - especially those who settled on the West Bank in violation of international law - are to be offered full citizenship of an independent Palestine, should all Palestinian refugees not be entitled to return to Israel? If not, why not? - Jonathan Berger |
No. First of all, the definition of a Palestinian refugee is absurdly broad. After the 1948 war, the UN applied a peculiar definition to Palestinian refugees—never used for any other group before or since—according to which anyone who had been resident in Palestine for two years prior to the war was eligible for refugee status. The descendants of these persons (and their descendants, too) are also considered refugees, according to this peculiar UN provision. Thus the number of Palestinian refugees has ballooned beyond several hundred thousand to the several millions.
An unrestricted right of return would completely overwhelm Israel and end its existence as a Jewish state. Israel could and should absorb some number of deserving refugees (perhaps those who can prove they were expelled from their homes by Israeli forces in 1947-48), but it should not be expected to commit political suicide.
Your question establishes a false equivalence between granting full citizenship to Jews as a minority in Palestine on the one hand, and granting Arabs majority status in Israel on the other. The former would be a reciprocal gesture, based on the fact that Arabs in Israel are full and equal citizens. The latter is simply the expression of Palestinian maximalist demands and cannot be taken seriously.
Joel
Question 5 for Doron
"I support one tactic, moral pressure, focused on the Occupation, never the state’s existence. The Human Rights Delegation was an instance of this." How does the "moral pressure' exerted by The SAHRD differ from the "moral pressure" exerted by Ronnie Kasrils?" - Anthony Posner |
Dear Anthony,
I know little about Ronnie Kasrils’ politics – I’m sure you know more than me. But I do know two things. He has a background as a member of MK, the liberation army of the ANC, and as a Jew. I can contrast the Delegation’s engagement with these traditions.
On the evening of Tuesday 8 July, in Budrus, a Palestinian village badly affected by the Separation Barrier, Barbara Hogan, Nozizwe-Madlala Routledge and Janet Love told their personal and political histories to an audience of Arab and Israeli activists. Love was an MK soldier, enrolled in Angola a few short years after matriculating from King David Linksfield. She later re-entered South Africa illegally and set up the ANC’s covert communication network under direction from Mac Maharaj. Hogan, the first white woman to be tried for high treason, was in the ANC underground before spending her nine years in prison. She was tortured repeatedly. Madlala-Routledge, an ANC activist in the Natal region, spent more than a year in solitary confinement. These three women are today Director of the Legal Resources Centre, Minister of Health, and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, respectively. That night in the West Bank, all three stressed that the armed struggle was not a significant force in South Africa’s liberation and cautioned against the use of violence in politics.
In terms of Jewish identity, people like me, Nathan Geffen, Dennis Davis, Jonny Copelyn and others are not merely “of Jewish decent”. We are actively involved in the Jewish community. We do not see ourselves as external critics of the Jewish community, but rather as concerned citizens of that community. We recognise that it is important that the Jewish community be convinced rather than reprimanded. That doesn’t appear to have been Kasrils’ attitude.
Kasrils – as brave as his role in the struggle was – has some hypocrisy hurdles. He was Deputy Minister of Defense during South Africa’s corrupt and obscene arms deal. He was a loyal member of Mbeki’s cabinet, keeping silent during the AIDS and Zimbabwe catastrophes, and the abuse of state apparatus for party-political purposes. None of this disqualifies him from a legitimate perspective on Israel, but it does reduce the moral influence he wields.
Doron
Question 5 for Joel
i. Would you agree that the policy of separation on the West Bank as evidenced by the five examples below is a violation of Palestinian civil rights? a) Palestinians cannot travel on route 443, nor many other roads in the West Bank. b) The separation barrier cuts deep into the West Bank, often hugging against Palestinian villages so as to make land available for settlement expansion. c) The movement of Hebron Palestinians is severely curtailed. They cannot access the city's main road nor can those living on this road exit their front doors etc. d) Palestinians and Israelis living on the West Bank are subject to separate legal systems. e)A complex permit system operates restricting Palestinian movement to many places including religious sites in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as to their agricultural lands. ii. If so, what do you suggest be done to change Israeli policy with respect to the above? (Nathan Geffen) |
ia. Probably not. Most of these travel restrictions did not exist prior to the second intifada. The question is whether all of them are in fact justified by military necessity. I cannot be certain of this (can anyone?), but Israel’s courts have certainly been diligent in scrutinizing these developments and have ordered changes where necessary. Israel’s High Court of Justice has also imposed an additional standard: namely, that changes to the occupied territory be for the benefit of the occupied population. This is a more difficult test to meet, and one that the Israeli road network very likely fails in some respects, but again the courts have been responsive to meritorious challenges brought by Palestinians and by Israeli human rights groups. The fact is that these restrictions would disappear absent the threat of Palestinian terror.
b. No. Your description of the security barrier is inaccurate. It is meant as a defensive measure, not a land grab. Furthermore, the barrier has been closely monitored by the High Court of Justice, which has ruled that the route is to be strictly dictated by security concerns. There are many settlements that now find themselves on the “wrong” side of the barrier; if anything, the barrier has sent a signal that the ambitions some settlers may have harbored for a “Greater Israel” have been definitively ended.
c. Probably not. You do not specify which part of Hebron you mean. Eighty percent of Hebron falls under Palestinian control, according to the 1997 agreement with Israel. There are no such Israeli restrictions there. Perhaps you are referring to the remainder of Hebron that is under Israeli control, and which includes both Jews and Arabs. Movement along the main commercial road in that area was basically free until a deadly Palestinian suicide bombing in 2003. In response to that episode, and continued inter-communal violence, the Israeli military shut down that road. It has also repeatedly removed Jewish settlers who have tried to occupy abandoned Palestinian shops and homes along the road. One can perhaps argue that the Israeli military has been harsher towards Arab residents than to Jews in this area. Perhaps that is a violation of Palestinian civil rights. But since your question is not specific enough, I cannot be sure exactly what you mean.
d. No. Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank ought to be subject to different legal systems. That is what makes an occupation different from an annexation. Israel is required to respect the pre-existing laws of the territory, which was administered for nearly two decades (though not, perhaps, legally) by Jordan. Palestinians in the West Bank are not citizens of Israel (and in the case of East Jerusalem, many consciously refused Israeli citizenship when it was offered to them after 1967). The fact that Palestinians have different laws is also the necessary outcome of the Oslo peace process, which established the Palestinian Authority. The PA has legislative powers of its own, and Israel ought to respect these as far as possible in preparation for the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state. Despite these two different legal systems, Palestinians are still granted the right to petition the Israeli courts, which may blur the legal distinctions but is beneficial overall in terms of the protections provided to Palestinian rights. Your question seems to imply that Israel imposed separate legal systems on Jews and Arabs, but that is simply not the case. Separate legal systems existed before the occupation, and will exist afterwards as well. There are difficulties that Palestinians face in that the ordinary criminal courts in the West Bank have been Israeli military courts, but the right to petition the Israeli High Court of Justice goes some way toward restoring a balance.
e. Probably not, as long as the permits and restrictions are not arbitrary but required by legitimate security concerns. One can expect visas and permits to persist—in a more formalized, bilateral manner—once an international boundary exists between Israel and Palestine as two sovereign states.
ii – The answer to all of these problems is the same. End Palestinian terror, negotiate a lasting peace, and build a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Joel
Click continue reading to view notes.
[1]Hamas Charter ‘Article XIV’; Copies of the Charter available at http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html and http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm.
[2] Hamas Charter ‘Introduction’.
[3]Hamas Charter ‘Preamble’.
[4] Hamas Charter ‘Article VI’.
[5] Hamas Charter ‘Article XXII’.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10 Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Hamas Charter ‘Article XXXII’.
[14] Hamas Charter ‘Article VII’ quoting Bukhari and Muslim.
[15] Hamas Charter ‘Article XXXII’.
[16] Hamas Charter ‘Article XXVIII’.
[17] Graham Usher ‘The Rise of Political Islam in the Occupied Territories’ Middle East International (London) No 453, June 1993, p 19; See also Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari Intifadah (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991) pp 233 – 234.
[18] Hamas Charter ‘Article XX’.
[19] Israel Central Bureau of Statistics ‘Localities and Population, by District, Sub-District, Religion and Population Group’ from ‘Statistical Abstract of Israel’ (2008 No. 59, Table 2.7); See also B’Tselem ‘Population by year in West Bank settlements’ at http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/Settlement_population.xls.
[20] ‘Population Growth East and West of the Barrier’ Foundation for Middle East Peace at http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/population-growth-east-and-west-of-the-barrier; Although housing a minority of the settlers, these are the majority of settlements.
[21] ‘Settler leader: Hebron evacuation will be met with force greater than Amona’ Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040507.html.
[22] Nadav Shragai ‘Settler rabbi: The State of Israel is an enemy of the people’ Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038565.html.
[23] Ofer Shelach NRG http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/812/857.html.
[24] Anshel Pfeffer ‘Peres warns evacuation of settlers may lead to civil war’ Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038961.html
[25] ‘Barak warns against another political assassination’ Ynet.com at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3620609,00.html.
[26] Shahar Ilan ‘Olmert speech urging settlers to prepare for withdrawal sparks outrage’Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036083.html; See full speech at http://216.239.59.132/search?q=cache:8mhq-TIdFkoJ:www.geneva-accord.org/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/3/1283.doc+%22It+will+not+work.+It+is+already+not+working%22+olmert&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=za; see also Ehud Olmert ‘The Time Has Come’ New York Review of Books (Volume 55, Number 19 • December 4, 2008) at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22112.
Doron writes above in response to me writing this:
----------------------
The Hamas charter calls for the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth, do you blame the settlements and occupation for this?
- Lawrence
Dear Lawrence,
I am obliged to point out that the Hamas Charter does not call for “the killing of every Jewish man, woman and child on the face of the earth”.
------------------------
Doron then writes further down.....
"It also [The Hamas Charter] contains this charming phrase from the Koran:
“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” [14]"
Uh Doron do you not see how you contradict yourself here? What is it about the above that doesn't unambiguously translate to killing ALL THE JEWS, which is what I wrote? No the relevant passage from the Hamas Charter I was referring to (the one you quote above!) does not literally, word for word say "every Jewish man, woman, child on the face of the earth" must be killed, as I wrote, it just says (as you quote)
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! "
I did not intend to give a word for word direct quotation with all the punctuation, of the pertinent part of the Hamas Charter I was referring to; after all I did not put up what I wrote in quotation marks, even though you put what I write in quotation marks. What I wrote was a mere summation of the relevant part of the Hamas Charter, not a direct quotation. Talk about pedantry Doron!
I thought that my intent here was and is simply obvious, an aggregate, a summation, a rundown of the pertinent part of the Hamas Charter - the liquidation of Jewry, which your own quote proves the truth of.
Incidentally the first part of the quote "the time will not come.." is in fact a reference to the Judgment Day. In other words there will be no Day of Judgment from on High until the Jews have been killed, (liquidated, exterminated) by Allah's faithful servants, as the relevant part of the Hamas charter Doron quotes, unambiguously makes frightenly clear. The relevant quote Doron provides (article 7 of the Charter) even makes clear that there will be no place for the Jews to hide, none of them, let me repeat NONE OF THEM, even the vegetation, the rocks will aid the faithful Muslims in killing the Jews as they attempt to hide from the vengeance of Allah's servants. Even nature shares the Hamas faithful's bloodlust and Jew-hatred and seeks the genocide of the Jews! Even Hitler didn't think that the trees shared his Jew-hatred, even Hitler and the Nazis didn't believe the trees and rocks would aid them in making the world Judenrein!
Doron's quotation proves the truth of what I wrote, the Hamas Charter calls for the killing of JEWS without discrimination. Where does it say any are to be spared, the babies, the children, the women Doron? It doesn't, that part of the Hamas Charter Doron quotes to supposedly refute me, only proves my point - the Jews are to be killed (that would mean all of them Doron), even those that hide behind the rocks and trees will be betrayed by them, by Mother Nature herself (who also apparently hates the Jews) and given up to slaughter for Allah's sake. This is very clear from the Hamas Charter which Doron himself quotes, apparently with the intention of proving me wrong!!
Doron do you have holes in your head?
Doron writes again:
"Incidentally, I recently heard Prof Faried Esack, a member of the Human Rights Delegation, remark publicly on the contemptibility of that verse"
Ah yes Prof Esack who as Anthony Posner points out, had this to say re Yad Vahsem (quoting Posner on 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 the victimhood of others”, as “hugely problematic”.
On Prof Esack, this is also very relevant:
The University of Minnesota in Minneapolis organised a "Divest from Apartheid Israel Organizing Conference" in April/May 2007. Guess who was a guest speaker?
Here is the relevant part, quoted from the "Divest from Apartheid Israel" conference organisers......
"Saturday, 4/28, 1-6 pm @ Carlson School of Management, U of M West Bank, Rooms L110, L114, L118 and L122.
Attend any of a variety of working groups to discuss how labor, student, religious, and political groups can work towards justice for the Palestinian people. Keynote speaker Farid Esack is a veteran of the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa and a former national commissioner on gender equality appointed by President Nelson Mandela. Farid Esack is currently the William Henry Bloomberg Visiting Professor at Harvard Divinity School. After the conference join us for a "Cafe Intifada", an intellectual salon with interactive theatre, where the audience becomes the occupied and occupier. Learn about the Israeli occupation of Palestine like never before. The “ Café” will be from 7-9 pm at the Bedlam Theatre Fireplace Room, 1501 South 6th St., West Bank, Minneapolis. Sponsored by the Coalition for Palestinian Rights (CPR) For more information...."
Never mind the deceitful reference to apartheid South Africa, Esack spoke at a US university in support of divestment from Israel (that's Israel proper, not Israeli businesses and farms on the West Bank). He has never spoken out in support of divestment from all the other Middle-Eastern nations (where? nowhere) including nations such as Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Egypt etc where oppression, gross human rights violations, tyranny and the denial of many basic civil liberties are routine. Unlike Israel in many of these nations there is very limited freedom of religious expression, in at least one case (Saudi Arabia) if not more, absolutely none, no democratic elections, severely limited or no free press and limited or no freedom of association. Many of these nations sponsor jihadist terror and fund and arm the likes of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad etc. Yet Esack has not spoken out at any university conference in support of divestment of any of these Muslim nations in the Middle-East (and other tyrannical, reppressive, despotic and authoritarian Muslim and non-Muslim national governments around the globe from Africa to Asia).
How to explain Esack's hypocrisy and double-standards here? The question answers itself. How to explain your respect for him Doron? How to explain his inclusion on the misnamed SAHRD? Don't answer the question Doron. Because of course you can't. Not honestly.
Doron let us know when Esack comments in a public forum on the "contemptibility" of Muslim terrorists torturing and killing Jews in Mumbai (and gunning down other people in hotels and restaurants). Without blaming it on US imperialism or Israeli "apartheid".
Here is an article (delivered as a lecture) of Esack's after the 9-11 attack, centering on 9-11.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/Esack.htm
It reads like Edward Said, slippery as a snake, a pretence at compassion, non-racism, a desire for universal justice etc. It contains though so many of the boiler-plate inaccuracies and lies esp on Saddam (who armed him to the teeth Esack? you have it wrong) and Osama one has encountered ad infinitum from the Muslim "moderate" (that is not) and Internationalist Left this last decade or so. It is fairly standard, albeit slippery apolegetics re Muslim terror, ultimately the usual justification for 9-11 one expects from the likes of him, and yet he also writes this...
"We are now engaged in a collective taqiyyah (dissimulation) with the West; we all pretend that we mean no harm, that Islam is inherently pluralistic and that Islam only means peace. Yet virtually all of our religious institutions and mosques on the Indo-Pak subcontinent and the Middle East espouse the kind of Islam visited upon us by the Taliban and Osama. Osama is not an anachronism. He has followed the letter of the teaching to which I and countless others have been subjected for eight years or more of our lives. These religious institutions, as well as the vast majority of Muslim organizations throughout the world, did not merely fail to condemn the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhist icons; they refused to do so. How could they, given that for centuries they have taught the destruction of everything that does not represent their kind of Islam?"
On occasion, Esack lets the cat out of the bag, and is honest about his faith and yet he always turns it around and ultimately it is the West, America, Israel that is the brunt of his ire and criticisms. He is the conniving sly propogandist who has very few equals, you can never pin him down, his machinations are something else, he weaves and dodges...
In addition Doron also writes:
"If an inclusive human-rights based campaign emerged to impose targeted economic sanctions on Israeli goods and services produced in the West Bank, I would support it"
Yes you and all the anti-Semites of the world. Economic sanctions on Israeli goods produced in the West Bank is also supported by those who DO NOT LIKEWISE support sanctions on goods and services from any other nation in the Middle-East, that would include sanctions on numerous undemocratic and tyrannical regimes across the Middle-East, gross human-rights violators from Libya to Saudi Arabia, from the UAE to Syria. Such hypocrisy and double standards can only be explained by anti-Semitsm/Jew-hatred. Doron how come your position on sanctions re Israeli goods produced on the West Bank is the same as Hamas? How come your position re sanctions on Israeli goods and services produced on the West Bank is supported by Hamas (you can check on it) who have carried out suicide terrorist attacks and terrorist rocket attacks on Jewish men, women and children, praising the terrorists as martyrs and heroes, and continue to do so? How come your postion re sanctions in this regard is identical to the Palestinian Nazi Party, Hamas, which has a charter, as you point, calling for the killing of the Jews?
Posted by: Lawrence | December 03, 2008 at 12:32
Doron,
Re My "Question 6" about Kasrils ... you state in the opening sentence..
"I know little about Ronnie Kasrils’ politics – I’m sure you know more than me."
Are you seriously expecting anybody to believe that you know "little" about the anti-zionist politics of Mr Ronnie Kasrils?
Nave you not read his regular anti-zionist column in "The Mail and Guardian" which is probably commissioned by Mr Drew Forrest (The M&G's deputy anti-zionist editor and SAHRD member) when Ferial is on holiday?
Have you been inhabiting another South Africa in which Ronno Einstein ( NOT the minister of Intelligence) never campaigned 24/7 to denigrate the State of Israel?
Doron, I am sorry to say that I don't believe you. Nobody, with a modicum of common sense, will believe you. It is evident that you are selling us kosher "porkies". But we wont consume them. We know they are tainted even if you "are actively involved in the Jewish community."
In the circumstances, if you are not prepared to answer questions honestly, everything that you write on behalf of The SAHRD will be viewed with a pinch of salt (an ounce of prejudice?).
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 03, 2008 at 15:57
Mixed mataphors...
should have written "taken with a pinch of salt (an ounce of prejudice?)"
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 03, 2008 at 16:26
Doron,
You write:
"The Hamas Charter also contains this charming phrase from the Koran:
“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
(Incidentally, I (Doron) recently heard Prof Faried Esack, a member of the Human Rights Delegation, remark publicly on the contemptibility of that verse.)"
Yes, as you previously wrote, Prof Esack is "wonderfully interseting". An enlightened Islamic scholar. But what do you think of the following Prof Esack comment? Do you think it is contemptible.?..
"noting that the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial is “largely” dedicated to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, Esack described commemorating one’s own victimhood and “failing to see how it is tied up with the victimhood of others”, as “hugely problematic”."
I suppose that instead of finding it "contemptible" you find Esack's comment "wonderfully interesting"? Perhaps when you are next in Jerusalem, you should contact Yad Vashem and ask them to make the appropriate SAHRD "victimhood" adjustments. When these are made, in line with Esack's requirements, you can also then invite Ronnie Kasrils do the brand new "SAHRD/Esack" Yad Vashem ?
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 03, 2008 at 18:20
"If Jews - especially those who settled on the West Bank in violation of international law - are to be offered full citizenship of an independent Palestine, should all Palestinian refugees not be entitled to return to Israel? If not, why not? - Jonathan Berger
Jonathan,
Is The SAHRD campaigning for the restitution of property and right of return to all Jews who were expelled from Arab countries? Perhaps I've missed that point when reading SAHRD reports in the SA press. Of course, the widespread ignorance of Jewish/ Arab relations over the last 100yrs was quite staggering and prevented the delegates from putting the conflict into any meaningful context. Lets faced it Jonathan, hardly any of The SAHRD crew had a clue about the history of the conflict. Their ignorance was actually embarrassing, a bit like Sarah Palin when answering foreign affairs questions.
You could take a group of nursey school children next time and get an equally "informed" response.. how about the South African Kindergarten Delegation (SAKD).
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 03, 2008 at 22:46
Mike Berger's correspondence with Doron Isaacs of the SAHRD - a continuing revelation of arrogance, disrespect and rudeness.
How not to react when you find yourself in a corner.
I would like to recommend you read this correspondence on Mike Berger's blog at:
http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/
Posted by: David Hersch | December 04, 2008 at 08:21
Re Question 4 for Doron.
Mike writes that Doron "lobbied for Nadine Gordimer to boycott the international writer’s festival held in Israel earlier this year."
Mike, it is interesting that Doron can lobby for Gordimer to stay away, and get involved with the usual anti-zionist suspects, but at the same time he assures us that he knows "little about Ronnie Kasrils’ politics".
Doron presents himself as a naive ingenue when asked to comment on Ronno Einstein's politics. But has Doronno taken over his mentor's mantle? As Ronno starts to retire from the anti-zionist fray, a fresh faced protegee has taken over. Is it purely coincidental that their names are similar? Some spiritual gurus argue that nothing happens by chance. Scary stuff indeed re Ronno and Doronno.
(Doronno for the record, Ronno Einstein labelled me a "dictator" at Wits because I tried to ask him a follow up question after his 'Beyond Victimhood' lecture. It is a moniker that I have since worn with pride. I suggest that you take your new "Doronno" moniker in the same way.)
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 04, 2008 at 08:35
To be fair with Doronno, although he has had the chutzpah to auto delete my emails, he has at least pitched up on Supernatural and entered into a debate.
Even if his answers to the questions do not gain top grades we must take account that we are living in South Africa and we shouldn't mark him too harshly.
The Supernatural syllabus is quite tough and more rigorous than the Outcome Based Education (OBE) which the ANC says it is sticking to.
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 04, 2008 at 08:58
In correspondence with Mike Berger, Doronno writes:
" I have met Ronnie Kasrils exactly once in my life, seven years ago, in December 2001, when I chaired a debate he had with Hagai Segal and Joel Pollak."
This is really weird. Another bizarre coincidence. I have also only met Ronno Einstein once.
Its a funny thing about Ronno. You only need to meet him once. Once you have, then you know all that you need to know. I wonder whether Doronno had the same experience?
But what amazes me about Doronno is that he actually chaired a debate starring Ronno and he still doesn't know about his anti-zionist politics.
Ok.. I can, if push comes to shove, kind of believe (with my fingers crossed) that Doronno doesn't read the M&G and has never come across Ronno's weekly column. But to actually chair a debate and not to listen to a word that Ronno was saying.. well, that really takes some doing!
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 04, 2008 at 10:46
Subject: THE SAHRC
Date: 04 December 2008 4:29:00 PM
To: rhoda
Dear Rhoda Kadalie,
I read your article in today's Business Day about The SAHRC. Your voice is real fresh air in a very stale and odorous "PC/ANC/SAHRC/FXI/MRN/M&G" establishment. In fact your voice is just about the only fresh air!
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A898224
As you may know from my emails and blogging, I am also very concerned about their (in)activities which do not appear to be quite kosher (pork and prawns would be far more accurate.)
My daughter, who is 15yrs , has alerted me to the following HARD TALK interview with Jody Kollapen (SAHRC). Although she is not all that interested in politics, (she prefers fashion designers), she could not believe her ears. She was horrified/ outraged ( and btw I have never spoken to her about the SAHRC) by the nonsense that Kollapen spouted. She thinks he must be a a Zuman.
Of course, Kollapen was also a member of THE SAHRD which just about says it all. Interesting how this place works.. it would make an interesting Phd.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7762772.stm
viva
blacklisted
Posted by: BLACKLISTED DICTATOR | December 04, 2008 at 16:36
I understand that Dorron Isaacs is now a member of the ANC, maybe the SACP and works for the ANC in Equal Education, whatever that may be, and which also leads one to ask what Israeli affairs have to do with this and how does he find the time or is the job a cover to allow and encourage his nefarious activities. Further more, who in the ANC was and is his boss? He has easy access to Madlala-Routledge (Now Deputy Speaker in Parliament), Barbara Hogan (New Minister of Health) and many other. Both these ladies were members of his ill-starred "delegation" that he took on a freebie to Israel. Didn't the funding mostly if not completely come from the very person who funds Kasrils' "Not in my name" group? Makes one think and question, doesn't it?
In addition to Madlala-Routledge and Hogan, Isaacs had easy access to the perfidious Dennis Davis, which I assume he had via the Jewish community in Cape Town. He also had easy access to Judge Cameron, Geoff Budlender and many others that he used to wrap a veneer of "respectability" around his questionable "delegation".
So now we are asked to believe that he doesn't know Kasrils. Me thinks Isaacs doth protest too much and prefers to keep his relationship with Kasrils quiet and secret for obvious reasons. Please! He has been tootling around the ANC for far too long. Furthermore, as head of Habonim at the time when he chaired the debate that he refers to above, who other than him would have invited Kasrils and liased and organised it?
No, I am afraid Isaacs is not as naive and innocent as he pretends and yes, I suspect he will be the natural heir to Kasrils and is being groomed for the role, but unlike Kasrils, comes from within the Jewish community and is unintelligently, if not stupidly, aided and abetted by certain members of the Board of Deputies and Limmud.
One final thing to the BLACKLISTED DICTATOR, I admire your passion and spirit and your willingness to take the likes of Isaacs on and give back as good as you can. However, the nicknames will only confuse your readers and I would therefore advise you not to use them. It devalues every good thing you do and loses the reader.
Posted by: Shmuel ben David | December 04, 2008 at 17:14
Shmuel, must agree with you about the Dictator, although I have become very fond of his nicknames.
His spirit and passion is unbounded. His walk matches his talk (he attended an anti-SABC demonstration with a T-Shirt that said "Sack Snuki").
Imagine his contribution if he were a committed Zionist. (He denies being a Zionist, although I would still include him on a SAZionistsHRD).
Posted by: Steve | December 04, 2008 at 17:51