It's Almost Supernatural

South Africa Israel Relations Still Holding

Despite intense pressure, the new ANC government has surprisingly remained relatively restrained in its condemnation of Israel over the last 3 days. President Kgalema Motlanthe and his political allies are not exactly renowned for their pro-Israel views. A few month ago he, signed a hate filled declaration accusing the Jewish state of every crime imaginable from Apartheid to genocide. However the ANC has publically remained committed to a 2 state solution and continued relations with Israel. But if the military operation escalates and the death toll rises, one wonders if they will maintain this position. Thus this latest Mid East war will provide the first real test for the durability of Israel South Africa ties under the new ANC administration.

Almost as soon as the first Israeli planes stuck Gaza, South African trade union and ANC coalition partner COSATU called on President Motlanthe to ‘break diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel and institute sanctions against it’ as a result of the Jewish state’s ‘criminal’ behaviour. They also implored South Africans to ‘intensify’ the boycott of Israeli goods.

Cosatu was supported in its condemnation of South Africa's official policy toward Israel, by radical South African Islamic organizations, the Media Review Network (MRN) and the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC). Chairperson of the MRN Iqbal Jassat and the president of the MJC Ighsan Hendricks in a press release made the ridiculous claim that South Africa’s 'balanced approach' to the Arab-Israeli conflict had ‘allowed Israel to intensify its illegal policies of collective punishment’. They too called for a change in approach. Citing the lessons learnt from the struggle against Apartheid they declared rather poetically that ‘It’s untenable to proclaim support for Palestinian rights while the Israeli flag flutters in the capital, Pretoria.’

The usual South African anti-Israel gang also wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon. Former minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils said he stood by his statement that Israeli security forces were 'babykillers'. In addition he claimed that that the attacks and the siege against Gaza were proof of Israel's 'genocidal intentions'. He also condemned in his usual over the top style the 'complicity and silence of the west' throughout the period of the 'slow murder of the people of Gaza'.

Prof Steven Friedman, another one of South Africa’s infamous Israel hating Jews, said the actions of the Israeli army cannot be called 'war crimes'. 'There is no war,' he said, ‘but a brutal massacre. These are crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the fourth largest army in the world.'

Of course UN appointed Gaza massacre PI Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu could not hold back his anger. With his usual simplicity, he declared that the Israeli bombings bore ‘all the hallmarks of war crimes’. His logic is as follows: ‘in the context of total aerial supremacy, in which one side in a conflict deploys lethal aircraft against opponents with no means of defending themselves, the bombardment bears all the hallmarks of war crimes.’ Thus it’s not so much the civilian causalities that worry the Archbishop but the fact that Hamas is getting thoroughly beaten.

But the surprise outburst was from the South African Council of Churches (SACC) General Secretary, Eddie Makue, who called on the South African government to take a strong stand against Israel. On further research it turns out that Mr. Makue has just returned from an 11 city US speaking tour denouncing Israeli Apartheid. I was under the impression that the SACC had been seeking to build good relationships with the Jewish community. This is definitely a matter for the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD to take up. He must understand that South African Jewry will not befriend organizations that seek to harm the Jewish state.

Yet despite all this protest, the South African government has not broken off diplomatic ties. In a rather mute statement on Sunday President Kgalema Motlanthe condemned the escalation of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, saying it is counterproductive to efforts aimed at bringing about lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. He called on both sides to end hostilities and urged the international community to do make every effort to bring about a two - State solution with an independent Palestinian state co-existing side by side with an Israel State, existing within secure borders as a lasting solution to the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Today the South Africa government stepped up its condemnation summoning the Israeli ambassador to express its ‘grave concern’ at ‘the brutal assault’ by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. Deputy foreign minister Fatima Hajaig in a statement said that ‘the South African government called on the Israeli government to stop the military onslaught in Gaza and to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces currently amassing on the border’. She also urged all parties to return to peace negotiation immediately without preconditions.

As the violence escalates and the bodies pile up, we can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to only amplify. While of course we need to be concerned about the developing situation on the ground in the Middle East, South African Jewry should also be strategizing about limiting the impact of this latest conflict on the community. A breakdown in diplomatic ties would be a disaster much more for us than for Israel. Despite my past personal objections, I really hope that the SAJBD’s policy a quiet diplomacy with the ANC government pays off this time.

Rising Antisemitism in South Africa?

A couple of months ago, I wrote a hard hitting post on South Africa almost topping the Antisemitism charts in the 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Survey. South Africans (along with Spaniards, Mexicans and Brazilians) were found to have some of the most negative views of Jews of all the non Muslim nation surveyed. A shocking 46% claim to have an unfavourable view of Jews. Breaking this figure down further, over two thirds of these South African who dislike Jews dislike them in the extreme. This is compared to an unfavourable score of 9% from Britain, a country which is regularly in the Jewish press for its high levels of anti-Semitism or 11% for Australia where attacks on Jews are also often reported. Even African nations like Tanzania and Nigeria were found to be less anti-Jewish than South Africa. Negative sentiments towards Muslims in South Africa were also found to be unacceptably high in the survey.

In response I called on the leadership of the South African Jewish community to desist its destructive denialism and hold an urgent press conference on the issue. As I put it ‘South Africans from the government, to media, to NGOs, to business, need to be challenged to do some serious soul searching about the high levels of intolerance that are plaguing our society. This of course is not limited to Jews and Muslims. The shocking xenophobia that we experienced at the beginning of the year has its source in the same septic pit.’

Of course no such press conference was held but the SAJBD did agree that the findings were of concern. In particular they found the fact that the Pew report seems to contradict the low level of Antisemitic incidences that are reported in South Africa worrying. They therefore approached development consultant Jocelyn Smith to contextualise the Pew report. Although I am disappointed with the limited response, I do think the SAJBD deserves praise for its sensitivity to the concerns of the community. It has been a consistent feature of the current leadership under Zev Krengel and Wendy Kahn that our worries and at time criticism are

addressed. Below is Jocelyn Smith’s findings:

PEW 2008 Global Attitudes Survey: Unfavourable Views of Jews and Muslims on the Increase

Shedding More Heat then Light

When attitudes towards Jews are shown to be unfavourable, our history teaches us that we must be concerned. The respected PEW Global Centre's 2008 Global Attitude Survey reveals a disturbing rise in ethnocentric, and specifically negative attitudes towards Jews and Muslims, highest in European Spain, Russia, and Poland. Significantly, of great concern to Jewish South Africans, is the report's finding that 46% of South Africans view Jews unfavourably. As disquieting as that is to read, an appropriate response to what these numbers mean to us needs to strike a balance between an emotional reaction brandishing the Survey report in hand, and a reasoned response based on the data presented in it.

In considering whether the Survey's findings can be generalised to South Africa, these issues should be noted: Barring countries with majority Muslim populations, those with negative attitudes to Jews also have negative attitudes to Muslims; "publics that view Jews unfavourably also tend to see Muslims in a negative light". Muslims are also viewed unfavourably by 45% of the South African population sampled.

This is inconsistent with our South African experience (post 1994), which has been that anti-Jewish attitudes are driven in the most part by Muslims and are primarily by-products of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The originators of these attitudes in South Africa are then hardly likely to also have negative views of Muslims. The Survey offers no context for the views offered.

In Western Europe, the Survey shows, the increase in anti-Jewish attitudes is driven by older, less educated people on the far right of the political spectrum. Interestingly, in those countries, the data also shows a 17% increase in the numbers of people viewing Christians unfavourably. Negative attitudes to Jews in Eastern Europe are growing most among younger, less educated people.

In pre-1994 South Africa, the far right wing publicly expressed anti-Semitism. Since then however, the opposite has been true. Where anti-Semitic remarks have been made, they have tended to be on the left of the spectrum. In South Africa's case, the Survey offers no analysis of respondents' age, gender, education or position on the political spectrum. The Survey shows an increase in negative attitudes in other countries by showing differing attitudes over time. There is no such comparison in South Africa's case. In fact, the report states that it did not use South African data obtained in a previous survey because the sampling techniques were changed. Therefore, no inferences about an increase in negative attitudes towards Jews in South Africa can be made at all from the Survey.

Perhaps the best general response to a growing tendency to view "others", including Jews and Muslims, negatively, should be to redouble efforts to promote tolerance and a greater understanding of other cultures. As a community we discount indications of negative views of Jews at our peril. Undoubtedly our community faces significant challenges, especially in the light of our support of Israel, but it would be disingenuous to use the findings of the PEW Survey as proof of an imperilled future as Jewish South Africans.

Jocelyn Smith
Development Analyst

Jocelyn Smith is the sole proprietor of JS & Associates, specialising in research, consulting and project management in the development sector, particularly in the arena of small and micro enterprise development. After working as National Director of The Continuing Education Programme, a national NGO that assisted companies and organisations to implement adult basic education in their workplaces, Jocelyn has, since 1998, worked with different partners on a variety of projects. Clients she has worked with include Investec (on their enterprise development project The Business Place), social scientist Prof Lawrence Schlemmer, The Centre for Development and Enterprise, Markdata, SSACI (Swiss South African Co-operation Initiative), BEES Development Organisation (for the BANKSETA, Human Sciences Research Council, and the International Development Research Centre) and the South African Institute of Race Relations. She completed a BA degree at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1986, followed by a Higher Diploma in Education (post grad). She taught in a high school for two years, and then went into adult education, and completed a Higher Diploma for the Educators of Adults at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1993.

Zuma verses Zapiro

Henry Kissinger famously remarked of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war that, "the only acceptable outcome is for them both to lose". That this precisely how I feel about the current legal battle between ANC president Jacob Zuma and arch anti-Zionist cartoonist Jonathan Zapiro. Zuma is suing Zapiro for 7 million Rand (about $700,000) over a cartoon in which he drew the ANC president unzipping his pants in preparation to rape a woman labeled justice system who was being held down by the ANC’s coalition partners.

Zuma and Zapiro slugged it out live on Radio 702 on Thursday morning. The ANC President was being interviewed by Redi Direko and explained that he was suing Zapiro because ‘even in places where I've been found not guilty, he continues to find me guilty. He can't be right. He's totally out of order’.

Zapiro then called up the station to respond. He accused Zuma of paying ‘lip-service to freedom of expression’. ‘I am a columnist, a visual columnist. I comment on what you do and what you say’, he declared.

Growing more angry, Zapiro charged ‘You are a public figure. You are the one with the power, not me. And you just turn it on its head and act the victim.’

If you didn’t catch it here is the full podcast of the show. http://is.gd/ciTI

But whether Zapiro realize it or not he does have power. As an international award winning cartoonist, the visual comments he makes with his poison pen do have consequences. Ignoring this makes him a highly irresponsible journalist. In an interview with the BBC in September, Zapiro claimed that he drew the ‘shocking image’ of Mr Zuma as a ‘metaphor for what he's doing to the justice system’. He said that Mr Zuma had attempted to undermine the independence of the judiciary in order to get corruption charges ‘wiped off the slate’. The cartoon did not seek to examine Zuma’s previous rape charges. ‘The aspect of Mr Zuma's own personal history of having been acquitted of a charge of rape is a secondary issue in this cartoon’ Zapiro said.

Who is Zapiro kidding? The idea of a politician raping justice is really not a novel metaphor. Any third rate cartoonist could have come up with it. Zuma’s history of rape being accused of rape is exactly what makes the cartoon so powerful. In fact using a person or nation’s history is a common technique that Zapiro employs for maximum shock effect. For example he once portrayed Israeli Prime Minster Ariel Sharon dressed in SS uniform stomping on the bodies of Dead Palestinians declaring “never again”.

 

Now I am very concerned about the fate of freedom of speech in South Africa under the ANC and in particular Jacob Zuma. Suing the Country’s leading commentators does create a climate of fear. Moreover Zuma has also made some frightening comments about the need for more press regulation. This cartoon may even be used as the catalyst for this. But that should not give people like Zapiro the right to possibly defame and denigrate the dignity of people with impunity. Calling someone a rapist after he has been acquitted or a Jewish leader a genocidal Nazi is just not acceptable. But lets see what the courts have to say…

Friedman of speech

Two veterans of the battle with the anti-Zionist media in South Africa recently attended the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinians in Pretoria. They have agreed to provide us with their account of the experience.

UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinians
Gill Katz and Rolene Marks

It was a particularly hot day, but in the University of South Africa’s auditorium, the air conditioner only added to the chilly reception we felt as we slipped in – a half hour late. Five Media Team members, having somehow lost our way to the correct campus, finally arrived and not a moment too soon! Sliding down as unobtrusively as possible into my seat, I was prevented from seeing the speaker at the podium because of the dark-suited man wearing a kefiyeh and blocking my vision. Was he a government spy? He certainly appeared to be one, as he persisted in taking photographs of us five throughout the afternoon. How irritating!

We had come in midway through Palestinian Ambassador, Ali Halimeh’s message of welcome. The event was sponsored by the University of Pretoria, UN Information Centre, South African Department of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy of the State of Palestine (I know, I am confused about this as well!) and included a panel of six experts: Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa, Ali Halimeh, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon (on whose behalf a message was delivered), HE Dr Alzubeidi, Ambassador of Libya to South Africa and Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, SABC radio presenter, Xolani Gwala, Professor Steven Friedman, Ronnie Kasrils and Dr Mahmoud Abada, senior advisor, Fatah Foreign Relations.

With hindsight, I am not sure if we five were brave, stupid or just gluttons for punishment for deciding to attend this event.

We had come because as members of civil society, and as proud Zionists seeking peace which can be attained in a 2-state solution embracing Israel and Palestine, we wished to show solidarity with the Palestinians who wanted the very same things. We didn’t want to keep returning year after year to such events, because the Palestinians deserve better. They deserve a government that looks after them and schools which practise and preach peace and tolerance; they desperately need the funds stolen by their leaders for nefarious reasons - both present and past. But as the panelists rose one by one to address the audience, we became more and more saddened.

“This is not helping the Palestinians” we whispered to one another, “This is another event designed to hijack the plight of the Palestinians and use the platform to spread hatred and to poison minds with anti Israel rhetoric” I was transfixed by the sight of two Jews on the panel of Palestinian sympathizers. Unless I was mistaken, we late comers were five out of a total of 7 "tribe" members, the other two being Messrs. Friedman and Kasrils.

Kasrils – when he got up to speak, beaming and shrugging his splendid kefiyah over his shoulders like some obscene version of a tallis – was no surprise. Like the proverbial record, he went on and on, reciting his familiar mantra of hatred and antagonism towards Israel, Zioinsts and anyone foolish enough to think that Israel had the slightest modicum of ethics and integrity.

When Professor Steven Friedman got up to speak, we could taste the bitter irony. Here were 2 men – cogs in the wheel of the New South Africa – the struggle – the incredible death of apartheid and the welcome miracle of a democratic country, yet both were able to do nothing other than drown their receptive audience with vitriolic racism - the cheap double standard they both employ when engaging in racial profiling which they legitimise by their "intellect".

At the end of the speeches, members of the audience were invited to comment and question. A polite and well spoken Josh Shewitz rose to his feet and addressed Professor Steven Friedman:

‘Jews will never give up Jerusalem, just as Moslems would never think of giving up Mecca”,

To our collective disgust - but not surprise - Prof. Friedman turned on Shewitz, calling him an "evil Zionist!" We were outraged!

Was calling someone an ‘evil Zionist’ not akin to calling someone else ‘nasty Moslem’ or similar? From one of the stature of Professor Friedman this kind of bully boy behaviour would surely create dismay and disgust among others in the Auditorium. But how wrong we were!

Nobody had batted an eyelid when earlier he had opined, "Israel is an ethnically national State that creates a human rights violation with its identity." Instead, he was applauded and lauded for effectively delegitimising a state which had been created by the United Nations some 60 years earlier - as is the policy of those who cry for Israel's destruction.

For Steven Friedman, Ronnie Kasrils, members of the Media Review Network, Ambassadors of many Arab states, and sadly, many ordinary men in the street, who lack any knowledge of history, those ‘evil Zionists’ do not deserve a State of their own. Somewhere Martin Luther King is looking down with great sadness and frustration. Imagine how the mood of the room would have changed if the "Zionist entity" present would have declared Islamic republics or emirates ethnically national human rights concerns. Ah, ye olde double standard…when would we ever learn?

The traffic on our return drive to Johannesburg was bearable. We had hoped the panel would have come up with some solutions to the horrible plight that has befallen the people of Gaza. We’d hoped that we could have become partners for peace.

Are we masochists or just passionate Zionists? Definitely the latter

It's the Jews stupid

Perhaps too malignantly hateful for the Smoking Socks Award, here’s an egregious letter from the Durban Daily News blaming the Jews for the Mumbai terror attacks.

'THE REAL EVIL OF MUMBAI ATTACK by Saber Ahmed Jazbhay It is hurtful and offensive to read some of the asinine comments printed in your Backchat column attributing what happened in Mumbai to Islam. Mostly irrational prejudice and visceral hate informs those commentators whose lack of identity marks their true agenda. What a pity, when we could discuss this great evil terrorism, and together work towards its total eradication. Will we, now that such hurtful comments have been levelled, ever learn the entire truth behind the despicable acts in Mumbai that claimed so many innocent civilians? Yes, those who perpetrated the odious acts were Muslims and yet there is something intangible, if not imponderable, that requires closer analysis. Incredibly they were young men wearing Versace apparel who made no demands as would terrorists except for a questionable missive released in the name of a nebulous and hitherto unknown organisation the Deccan Mujahideen, which I suspect is just a cover for something more sinister and larger, demanding more respect for Muslims. Those who executed the military-precision operation were not amateurs, but highly trained and motivated professional terrorists who, I suspect, were part of a larger geopolitical agenda and the operational nature and scale of their enterprise suggests that they were not religious zealots. What transpired in Mumbai, as evil as it was, had the hallmarks of Operation Susannah better known as the "Lavon Affair" one of the most bizarre events in Israeli history which occurred in November 1954. Historians will remember Operation Susannah as a Machiavellian charade that played itself out in Egypt in 1954 at a time when a nascent Israeli state was in a state of perpetual war and there was a power struggle between David Ben Gurion's successor Moshe Sharret and defence minister Pinhas Lavon, the latter who was seeking to unseat Moshe Sharrett the dovish prime minister who had taken over from Ben Gurion. British and American targets were blown up in Egypt by a ring of Jewish terrorists and the intention was to blame it on the Egyptian regime headed at the time by Gamal Abdel Nasser, but the affair was blown and the ring leaders, all Jewish, were apprehended and a few were hanged or died in Egyptian jails'.

The writer turns the victim into the oppressor and accuses others of what his letter clearly proves him guilty of – “irrational prejudice and visceral hatred”.

This is not one arbitrary and isolated opinion. It’s pretty much a mainstream school of thought amongst many Muslims in South Africa. It’s totally in line with discussions you can openly hear on Muslim radio stations, blogs, and more recently, some emails that I have been copied in on. Just the other day in fact, I was sent an email going around the Muslim community claiming “an entire city [Mumbai} has been attacked by Mossad and probably units of mercenaries.” (You can see the article discussed in the email here).

I think we have a better chance of making peace with the Palestinians than we do with most of their supporters.

Crossing Swords: Q&A finale with Pollak and Isaacs (3 of 3)

And finally, the concluding post of the Crossing Swords debate between Doron Isaacs and Joel Pollak. It’s been a long series and the end of the year is a fitting time for its finale. Also fitting, is the final question from the floor, asking both Joel and Doron if we will ever see peace in our lifetimes.

The delegates of the SAHRD enjoy an excess of access to our media, partly because of the high degree of credibility that many of its members have earned in working within civil society towards the common good of our nation. The irony, argued by us at IAS, which triggered this very debate, is that it is a dearth of precisely these type of people, prepared to build a country from the bottom-up by strengthening and inventing institutions critical to a free and successful nation, that prevents the Palestinians from achieving their freedom.

We have already thanked both Joel and Doron (see our conclusion to this debate here: Q&A with Doron and Joel – Part 1 of 3) but we also need to send out a warm thank you to the people who make this debate possible – our readership. Thank you for taking the time to read the debate and a special thank you to those who got involved by writing to us or posting your thoughts and questions in the comments. The debate only exists because of the audience and we appreciate the views of everyone, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our decision to host it.

And so, without any further ado, we present to you, the closing 2 questions from the floor.

Question 6 for Joel

Doron has called you an apologist for Israel. Do you give blanket support to all Israeli policies and action? Can you name some instances where you have disagreed with Israel? (Anthony Posner)

No. Some examples: I opposed the route of Israel’s security barrier when it was first built, and I was vocal in my opposition to the Israeli use of cluster munitions in southern Lebanon in 2006.

Question 6 for Doron

The terrorist attacks existed before Israel conquered Judea and Samaria, so what indication is there that they will end if we leave? Hillel

Dear Hillel,

There is no guarantee that the attacks will end – we must be honest about that. But before I answer you further, I must provide some context.

From very early on Arabs have violently resisted Zionism. Once Zionist settlement passed the threshold from quaint and novel to significant and viable, local Arabs understood that its success would mean, even partially, their dispossession. One can say that the Arabs were xenophobic, that they underestimated totally Zionist military strength and resolve, that they lacked compassion for Jewish persecution, and that they attacked or resisted with violence when other options were available; but the main point they got: Zionism was on a collision course with them. A minority of Zionist leaders worked actively for a peaceful accommodation, but it was not to be.

So yes, the terrorist attacks, like the Hebron massacre in 1929, in which 67 Jews were killed “existed before”. But this was usually in the context of a conflict in which – then like now – casualties were higher on the Palestinian side. In the 1936-1939 Great Arab Revolt Jews lost their lives in the hundreds, whilst the Arab death-toll was in the thousands.[1]

It is also worth noting that suicide bombing – the symbol of terrorist attacks as we know them – began on April 6, 1994 with a Hamas bus bombing in Afula, in which 9 people were killed. This tragedy took place 27 years into the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. In fact it occurred six weeks after Baruch Goldstein, on Purim, February 25, 1994, entered a mosque in the Cave of the Patriarchs, wearing, according to the Shamgar Report, “his army uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve officer on active duty”, and opened fire, killing 29 people.

One hundred Baruch Goldsteins do not justify one suicide bombing, just as one hundred suicide bombings do not justify one Baruch Goldstein. But such phenomena are not unrelated and can help to explain one another.

There are no guarantees. But just as violence has its roots in a political context, so too can wise and humane politics reduce the chance of violence. What I do know, is that staying guarantees that violence, by both sides, will never end.

Doron

Final Question for Both Joel and Doron

Will there likely ever be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? If so, will there likely be peace within our lifetimes? What will the eventual solution look like (1 or 2 states)? What evidence supports your answer? - TC

Response from Joel

  Yes, there will be peace within our lifetimes. I will even say, optimistically, within the next ten years. It will be a two-state solution, or perhaps a three-state solution (the Gaza-West Bank conflict may prove more intractable than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

There are two options. In the best case scenario, we will see an agreement emerge between the two sides. In the West Bank, the borders will generally follow some line between the security barrier and the 1967 boundary, with compensatory land swaps elsewhere in the Negev. Parts of East Jerusalem will be ceded to Palestine as a capital city. A few Palestinian refugees will return to Israel; the rest will have a limited right of return to the Palestinian state, or will be resettled in their current countries of residence, perhaps with the aid of some American-sponsored compensatory payments from Israel. In the worst-case scenario, talks will fail and Israel will withdraw to the line demarcated by the security barrier and declare the occupation over.

This will not formally end the conflict but will perhaps end military hostilities while the Palestinians create a society and a government that can, eventually, return to negotiations and finally bring matters to a close.

Joel

Response from Doron

Dear TC,

My personal view is that the two-state / one-state dichotomy is a false one. The Geneva Accord, a recent proto-solution, combines elements of political integration and separation, of independence and interdependence, of national self-determination and international cooperation. So for example, the states have independent governments, education systems, national symbols, language policies, fiscal bases, and security apparatus – the essentials of statehood – but there is co-governance over water, parts of Jerusalem, and other interests. One could imagine the two countries sharing a common labour market and monetary policy[2].

I would support any solution that the parties willingly agreed to in negotiations. I support the two-state model because it is the least unfeasible, and also because it is the stated preference of both sides.

The majority on both sides want to live in peace, and that means a lot and gives me hope. But in the short term I am pessimistic. Peace cannot come without justice.

As Rabban Gamaliel said:

“The world stands on three things: on truth, on justice, and on peace, as is said, ‘Execute truth, justice, and peace within your gates.’ (Zechariah 8:16) These three are interlinked: when justice is done, truth is achieved, and peace is established.” (Pirke Avot 1:18).

Rabbi Elazar put it more bluntly:

“The whole Torah depends upon justice.” (Exodus Rabbah, Mishpatim 30:19)

Peace requires choices many are not willing to make – choices than can only be made by those committed to justice. To do justice, Israelis – and those of us Jews who connect to them – must recognise not only, as Joel does, that there are things in Israel (like the Occupation) that are problematic, but also that choices, Israeli and Jewish, have willed, partly, these tragedies; that, as Ehud Olmert acknowledges, “we were wrong”[3]. Once Israel has accepted its share of responsibility it will do the difficult things that must be done for justice and peace. As the dominant party, the greater burden rests on Israel, but the exact same logic applies to Hamas, the PLO and the Palestinians.

Peace also means urgency. We must work for it now, and not waste a day.

Doron

Notes

[1]Benny Morris Righteous Victims (New York: Vintage, 2001) p 159.
[2]Geneva Accord Text available at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=351461&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y; Note: Some of the staunchest Zionists implicitly push for comparable diminutions of national sovereignty in their efforts to have Israel admitted to the European Union.
[3]Shahar Ilan ‘Olmert speech urging settlers to prepare for withdrawal sparks outrage’ Haaretz at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036083.html

Debate Links:

• 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
• Q&A - part 1 of 3
• Q&A - part 2 of 3
• Q&A part 3 of 3

[Correction] I initially said that the communal leadership had rejected Joel's offer to respond in the mainstream media to opinion pieces by the SAHRD. This is incorrect. They did not reject Joel's offer and he did respond in the Cape Times.

The Smoking Socks Award - who's a 'terrorist'?

I haven't trawled the letters pages of our media for some time now but this morning's Mail & Guardian sports a pearler, which IAS readers will know is exactly the sentiment shared by their editorial staff.

Who’s a ‘terrorist’? One feels for the people of India. Still, one can’t help but feel that the word “terrorist” Is far too easily employed in the media. Other more neutral words would be more prudently used in these kinds of situations. In last week’s editorial you wrote eloquently about being circumspect regarding the words politicians use. The subtext of the word “terrorism” when the targets are from the West is that the local people are inherently less valuable than Americans, Britons, Israelis and Australians. The media uses “militants” when local people are killed but when the victims are Westerners the actions are labelled “terrorism”. — Craig

Does anyone believe Craig really does "feel" for the people of India? Hands up. No? That's what I thought. I find it incredibly annoying when lefties invert this situation, complaining about reality even though it's spun in a way that they support. The overwhelming policy in local and international media outlets has been to use the word 'militants' when describing attacks against Americans, Israelis et al. I have seen the word 'terrorism', however, used with increasing frequency to describe the attacks in India. If anything, the exact reverse of what Craig whinges about applies. 

Do you think Craig ever reads the newspapers? Hands up. No? That's what I thought.

President Motlanthe signs anti-Israel petition

I’ve been so busy at work that I haven’t managed to blog about the uproar surrounding an update to an anti-Israel petition from earlier this year that includes President Kgalema Motlanthe’s name.

It’s late and I’m tired...I’ll save you from my analysis and instead provide some quick, top-of-mind notes of interest .

• The ANC is no longer listed as an organisation who has officially endorsed the petition – although they did endorse its first incarnation.
• The new “saviour” of opposition politics, who recently called for smart Jewish minds to join his new political party, Mosioua “Terror” Lekota, is still a signatory to the petition
• The Jewish Board has spoken out against the President signing the petition. But it’s too little too late. Its particularly embarrassing for them after, just a few weeks ago, paying for an advert in the local Jewish Report outlining Jacob Zuma’s (and the ANC’s) commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis.

So very quickly, here’s all the information you need:

• Our write-up on the original petition
• A scan of the updated petition that appeared in the Mail & Guardian 2 weeks ago (PDF - right click and save target as to download)
• The news report on the Jewish Board’s reaction to Motlanthe’s name on the petition
• If you confused on where the ANC stands, click here
• The Zionist Federations press release condemning the President’s decision to sign the petition (see below)

1 December 2008 Anti-Israel petition signed by President Motlanthe The name Kgalema Motlanthe, President of the R.S.A., affixed as a signatory to the anti-Israel petition which appeared in the Mail & Guardian on 21 November, is a matter of grave concern to the South African Zionist Federation. The petition, headed “We fought for apartheid; we see no reason to celebrate it in Israel now!” and condemning Israel for having “caused six decades of catastrophe for the Palestinian people”, was signed by more than 120 politicians, trade unionists, members of NGOs, academics and business people. President Motlanthe’s spokesman Thabo Masebe attempted to allay the fears of the Jewish community, saying that “presidents don’t sign petitions” and that he “signed it in his personal capacity long before he became president – I don’t know why this has been published now” and continued that the president would have communicated any government view through official governmental channels. However President Motlanthe has not yet spoken out on this issue, which conflicts with the accepted ANC and government policies promoting a two-state solution in the Middle East with an independent Palestinian state existing side by side in peace with Israel. The South African Zionist Federation calls on President Motlanthe to distance himself as a signatory from this appalling and abusive petition and to confirm that not only does he not share its sentiments, but that he too condemns it as being counter-productive to any moves towards peace which are vital for the well-being of the region. Issued on behalf of: Avrom Krengel Chairman: South African Zionist Federation

Pollak podcast on the Kasrils Affair

You've been reading Joel's debate, now hear him speaking about his new book, "The Kasrils Affair", at this Z-Word Podcast: Joel Pollak on the Kasrils Affair

On the Z Word podcast: Author Joel Pollak speaks to Z Word editor Ben Cohen about his new book The Kasrils Affair: Jews and Minority Politics in Post-Apartheid South Africa - a penetrating insight into the impact of the apartheid analogy and anti-Zionist ideology on the domestic South African scene.

I was lucky enough to read an early draft of the book and recommend it not only to Jews who have been intimidated and victimised by Ronnie Kasrils, but also to anyone interested in the challenges that minority and special interest groups feel in societies so dominated by a single political party that demands obedience and acquiescence.

One of the general messages I took from the book is that minority groups (who should know better) have been so pressurised into kow-towing the ANC line that they have contributed to the increasing isolation of opposition parties like the Democratic Alliance.

The front-of-mind example for me was when the ANC pressurised FNB, a large bank in South Africa, to halt their anti-crime campaign which called on government to take a stand.

Pollak examined whether minority groups (he focused on South African Jews) should be more politically outspoken, or should behave as intercessors, using quiet diplomacy to influence government policies. The pressure the ANC exerted on FNB revealed the tactics they repeatedly exert on minority and special interest groups, forcing them to tow the ANC party line. Pollak describes a general fear that minority and interest groups suffer in dealing with the goverment.

“The ANC has almost created a “social contract” on minorities and on interest groups within civil society. The penalty for failure to join is political, social and economic isolation.”

Pollak's book is available in most leading bookstores in South Africa, or get it online from Kalahari.net.

Terror at Chabad Mumbai—A personal reflection

Last week’s terrorist assault on the city of Mumbai has sent shock waves throughout the world. Our vulnerability, be it in the best hotels, cosmopolitan restaurants or houses of worship, to the well laid plans of fanatics with machine guns has been chilling. In particular, the tragic events at Chabad House have really brought the murderous consequences of terrorism thousands of miles away.

I grew up believing that Political Zionism and the IDF were the only vehicle for restoring Jewish pride after 2000 years of oppression and persecution. But through my interaction with Chabad in the last few years I have come to realise that this movement too has been, and will continue to be, a crucial vessel for the continued blossoming of the Jewish people. It was no coincidence that Chabad was singled out as a target. The terrorists too have now, unfortunately, come to understand the importance of their work.

Howard Sackstein, a leading personality in the South African Jewish community, has written a very moving personal tribute to the late Rabbi and Rebetzen Holtzberg who were killed in the terror attacks. Howard was in India last year and spent Shabbas at Chabad House. He has agreed to give us permission to publish it here on IAS. If any other readers wish to share their interactions with the late Rabbi and Rebetzen Holtzberg or Chabad in general, we will be happy to publish them as well.

Shabbat at Chabad Mumbai “Now, I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds” By Howard Sackstein

Bronzed from the beaches of Goa and exhausted from the constant trance parties of Anjuna, Hellipad, Baga and Hilltop, we arrived in the sprawling mass of humanity, which is Mumbai. Bodies sleeping on the streets, beggars scamming tourists and the well heeled Bombay elite speaking English in their posh accents, punctuated with expletives, to impress their coteries. This is Colaba the heartbeat of Mumbai.

The smells of the street rise up and punch you in the nostrils. In Mumbai you can never be alone, at every step someone is selling to you, negotiating with you, cajoling you, tugging on your shirt sleeve. The teaming multitude of people know the only way to survive is to engage, to enjoy, to accept – this is one of the most tolerant places in the world. In Mumbai you can be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Jew – all are welcome.

In the shadow of the Gate of India, sits the Taj Palace hotel, pride of India, built by the founder of the Tata group, to revenge the British who declined him entrance to their lavish colonial hotels. The Taj Palace is built as a monument to Indian dignity, prosperity and independence. Its magnificent dome, its arches, its pools and uniform clad staff make this edifice an authentic tourist fantasy.

Down the main strip of the Colaba Causeway is Leopold’s Cafe, immortalised as the meeting place of Shantaram. Tourists sit at the restaurant tables with copies of Shantaram in their hands reading the monolith trying to grasp the singularity that is India. Occasionally Gregory David Roberts, former heroine addict, bank robber, mobster, author and philanthropist wanders into the restaurant. Tourists flock to him to talk about his book which has become the Rosetta Stone translating Mumbai to the meandering generation searching for spiritual and physical redemption on the streets of India.

If you cross the road and walk past the Sassoon Library, donated by the Indian Jewish businessman and philanthropist of that name, and past the trendy art galleries and music stores not far from the magnificent structure of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Train Terminus you come across the Knesset Eliyahoo Synagogue. Nestled in a back alley behind flaking pale blue walls, the shul is ornate and cool in the searing Mumbai heat.

We entered before Shabbat in January 2008, not quite sure what to expect. This back alley building in the centre of the Hindu heart of capitalism is one of 7 or 8 shuls within Mumbai. One week later, Madonna and Guy Ritchie would tour the Knesset Eliyahoo shul as part of their spiritual quest in India.

The shul fuses five distinct Jewish cultures, the traditional Bene Israel Indian Jews, who trace their roots back in India two thousand years, Baghdadi Jews who came to settle in Mumbai over the past few centuries, Israeli business people, Jewish tourists with backpacks or staying in the opulent Oberoi or Taj Palace Hotels, all looking for the vestiges of something familiar in a very foreign land, and of course Chabad who have come to lead all of these disparate, often conflicting, scions of the tribes of Israel.

I sat down on the hard wooden bench next to an Indian Jew who asked my origin. When he heard I was from South Africa, he immediately asked if I knew Anne Harris. Anne had visited the previous year and had been a guest in the shul.

After the service, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg lead a group of tourists and Israelis working in Mumbai back to his home for dinner.

We moved at a blistering pace back through the streets of Mumbai, no one gave the kippa clad group a second look. In comparison to other religious practices in the city this was uneventful. Back through the smelly streets of the Fort area, into Colaba, back past the Sassoon Library, past the new falafel shop of one of the Israelis, past Leopold’s Cafe and down into side alleys and back streets to come to Nariman House, home of Chabad in Bombay. It was so out of the way that I feared we would not be able to find our way back.

The Rabbi’s home was an entire floor of the building. The rooms was host to about 20 of us. Rabbi Holtzberg introduced us to Rivka his wife, and to his mother in law who was visiting from Israel, the baby was just over a year.

In the kitchen about three or four cooks and helpers prepared Shabbat dinner and the food kept on coming.

Israeli salads, spicy fish, chicken, desert - the meal was endless. Before desert, the Rabbi gave a lengthy shiur in Hebrew, lengthy at least to the four South Africans whose Hebrew was not up to the standard of the other guests, all of whom were Israeli.

Among the guests were diamond dealers and business people who regularly frequented Mumbai. The next night we would meet up with one of the Israeli diamond dealers and go clubbing in a disco called Polyester one block from the Taj Palace Hotel. Another guest was opening pure vegetarian Israeli falafel shops in India to cater for the needs of pure vegetarian Hindus and the Buddhists who will not harm any living creature.

Before desert and birkat hamazon, Rabbi Holtzberg asked each person present to re-pay the favour of the meal. He did not want money, he wanted commitment, commitment to Judaism, to faith to ritual to charity. One by one, people around the large U shaped table rose and committed themselves to charity or teffilin or hospitality to the stranger.

The night ended with offers of hospitality for a return to Chabad for Shabbat lunch the next day or another Shabbat dinner when next in Mumbai. We thanked Rabbi and Rebetzen Holtzberg, for their hospitality and we commented on the cuteness of the baby – they told us their home was always open to strangers.

Last week a number of strangers entered their home - this time not for Shabbat hospitality, this time as the angels of death.

When the cute baby turned two last Shabbat, his parents lay dead in pools of blood at Nariman House. Saved by one of the helpers who cooked us dinner in the kitchen, she snatched the baby and ran from Chabad House when the terrorist entered.

Neighbours of Rabbi Holtzberg and Rivka had been shot while throwing stones at machine gun wielding terrorists while trying to protect their Jewish neighbours. In a country of religious tolerance like no other, the streets of Mumbai flowed with blood.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Train Terminus was under siege, Leopold’s Cafe had been attacked, the blood stained copies of Shantaram lay strewn across the rubble, the Taj had fallen, a symbol of bruised Indian pride.

Although the attacks were perpetrated by fratricidal Muslim terrorists, I am reminder of the quote from the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad Gitav, made famous by Robert Oppenheimer on the explosion of the fist nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945, “Now, I Am Become Death (Shiva), Destroyer of Worlds”.

But there was a difference between those merchants of death and the Hindu lord Shiva, for by Hindu tradition, Shiva destroys all - even evil - so that from destruction new good may be built.