An important post by Joel at Guide to the Perplexed which, I think, aptly sums up our recent spat with Nathan Geffen and members of the SA Human Rights Delegation (SAHRD) to Israel: The hypocrisy of the anti-Israel Jewish left
I wish to personally thank Joel for his supportive letter (which you can read in his post that we linked to).
Joel remarks on various points capture the essence of the problems with the SAHRD. (1) Their fatuous claim that the failures of tolerance within the Jewish community are more severe than those in the Muslim community, (2) that regardless of their intent, they are driving the mainstream Jewish communities further apart and not closer together, and (3) the fallacious notion that it's the official community leadership that is fueling the fires of anti-Semitism in South Africa - a claim that amounts to blaming the victim for having been attacked.
Steve, it seems to now be a pattern on your and Mike's blogs to rather attack members of the SAHRD personally and collectively rather than the content of what we say. Again your facts are questionable.
First, the SAHRD is not some organisation in perpetuity with a single view. We went on the trip together, but we are all different with our own views. Occasionally we might sign things together and even then not likely all of us.
Second "(1) Their fatuous claim that the failures of tolerance within the Jewish community are more severe than those in the Muslim community"
I have definitely not made this statement, nor would I agree with it. I am not sure who has. I assure you it is not the collective view of the SAHRD. Please let me know who has said it. Nevertheless, there are many examples of intolerance in the Jewish community.
Third "(2) that regardless of their intent, they are driving the mainstream Jewish communities further apart and not closer together."
I would prefer the community to be closer but there is no doubt that differences in opinion over Israel are causing severe frictions. Why should it be us that must keep quiet and not express our views in the name of unity?
Fourth, "(3) the fallacious notion that it's the official community leadership that is fueling the fires of anti-Semitism in South Africa - a claim that amounts to blaming the victim for having been attacked."
Interesting that you say this because it is precisely this allegation that Pollak absurdly makes against me, even suggesting I might be responsible for some unspecified dreadful action in the future:
“For the past several months, Nathan, it is you–yes, you!–who have engaged in a campaign of lies, falsely alleging conspiracies among Jews and Jewish organizations in South Africa and around the world to support “crimes” in the Middle East and beyond. It is not a far leap to conclude that your acts and speech have encouraged South African Muslims to see Jewish organizations and businesses as fair targets for boycott, protest, and–who knows?–even worse. You have never been satisfied merely to criticise Israeli policy. You have set the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders at the very top of your agenda.”
I really do encourage people to read Pollak's latest blog. I can't follow its logic. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.
Finally, I notice the incredibly distasteful use of the movie title "Don't mess with the Zohan" at the top of Pollak's blog in support of Operation Cast Lead. This was a military operation in which massacres and war crimes took place. Pollak's attempt at comical celebration of it renders rather vacuous the claim frequently made by some of the people who comment on this site that Jews never celebrate the deaths of Palestinians, in contrast to Palestinians celebrating the deaths of Jews.
Posted by: Nathan Geffen | January 22, 2009 at 08:38
Nathan, for once I agree with you.
I hadn't seen Pollaks title but if it is as you say it is I agree. War is not pretty and its not funny. It may be necessary but it is never a cause for mockery and the celebration of the death of the enemy, only their defeat. Equating the war to a slapstic hollywood movie is distasteful at best.
I also wish to urge you to be more careful and accurate in your accusations. There has been neither proof nor evidence of any war crimes cimmited by Israel. (I assume you were not referring to Hamas' shooting at civilians and using non combatants as cover - of these there is proof). If you believe there may have been such crimes then you may say so, to state with such certainty that there were is wrong. But I must commend you - you have learned the propaganda tactics of the "Palestinians" very well.
Posted by: Brett | January 22, 2009 at 10:05
Get real.
The post of the movie title is intended to mock the empty claims of the Israeli government that it achieved "deterrence" in the Gaza War.
If you had bothered to read my other blog posts about the war, you would know that I have been highly skeptical of "deterrence" as a war aim in and of itself.
While I supported the war I did so hoping that the outcome would be one in which Israel stopped rocket attacks against its civilians, either by achieving a cease-fire agreement germane to that outcome, or by military means if no such cease-fire was possible.
I specifically mourned the loss of civilian life on both sides. I have never celebrated the loss of civilian life--not ever, in any conflict, and I have specifically and publicly protested past Israeli actions, such as the use of cluster bombs in Lebanon, that led to civilian casualties that were entirely avoidable and disproportionate to any legitimate military objective.
I can only regard Geffen's complaint as yet another attempt to avoid engaging the substance of my criticism.
Posted by: Joel Pollak | January 22, 2009 at 12:15
And another thing:
Leaving aside Geffen's completely bogus claims of "massacres and war crimes" (I assume he is not talking about Hamas), there is nothing wrong with Israel telling terrorists: "Don't mess with us."
I am skeptical about whether this war actually achieved that--especially since mortars continue to be fired into Israeli territory from Gaza--but it's a perfectly legitimate sentiment.
Unless, of couse, you believe that Israel has no right to defend itself, and that if Hamas uses human shields in violation of international law, Israel is solely responsible.
Posted by: Joel Pollak | January 22, 2009 at 12:52
Nathan when Palestinians do celebrate the deaths of Jewish civilians in suicide attacks and other terror attacks, they really celebrate, with raucous cheering, the handing out of sweets and joyous emotion. There is plenty of footage and photos of this. The Palestinians named a soccer tournament after the suicide bomber who blew up Jewish families at a hotel in 2001 or 2002 and they celebrate their martyrs/shaheeds in their newspapers, radio, TV, mosques, public rallies and school textbooks. The Palestinians wildly celebrated on 9-11 for example. Not that we would ever hear about it from the likes of you Geffen.
Israelis certainly (I live in Israel) do not celebrate the deaths of Palestinian civilians. We do not glorify (taking comfort or satisfaction in the deaths of Hamas Nazi terrorists is not glorification) the deaths even of enemy terrorists in our synagogues, media, schools etc. Yet to Geffen (who comes with no evidence) Israelis are to be compared to the Palestinians in this regard - given everything I write above about the Palestinians and the glorification of their "martyrs" even in official Fatah circles (see my comments on the recent Hussein Solomon thread) such moral equivalence made by Geffen between Israelis and Palestinians is odious, disgusting and untrue.
Geffen I am still waiting for you to answer the questions I posed to you that you refused to answer. Do you keep thinking you can distract me? You know the questions relating to Esack and Forrest and the M&G that you won't answer, and your considered support for a boycott of Israel and the support you have in this regard from Jew-haters of all stripes. Likewise the support you have from Muslim Jew-haters in SA after the not in my name style letter you and others sent off to the press (remember it got this whole broohaha with IAS going). You can distance yourself from them all you like, your letter had the unambiguous support of these Jew-haters. Likewise the support from Jew-haters the world over for the Israeli "free Gaza movement", support you likwise give to this movement. You did not answer my questions in this regard. I'm still waiting..
And what's with the attacks on Pollak? From you Geffen! You came here, you accused Steve of anti-Semitism, a big fat lie and a defamation. People make legal threats against Steve without any basis in a blatant bullying attempt to shut up any very PERTINENT AND RELEVANT (yes snarky so what) criticisms of you Geffen. Your MO is a standard bullying tactic - if you can't refute very uncomfortable facts coming from your critics (which you can't other than by misrepresenting the facts), try threaten then with lawyers. You then lied about Steve and Mike making a "retraction" which they never did, act like you did nothing wrong and then with utmost gall, pretend to accept their non-existent retraction with such grace and generosity! So as to paint youself as the forgiving victim - the good and noble saint being burned at the stake by the evil IAS Inquisition, but you forgive them as they have seen the errors of their ways! - when you are just a very insecure bully who tries to intimidate Steve and Mike with legal action without any basis whatsoever, because you cannot stand to face up to any telling criticisms about yourself. So send in the lawyers, that will shut them up!
I'm under no illusion about what you are Geffen. Like your buddy Berger, you should move into politics. Pretending reasonableness, transparency and good intentions, you come with a smile on your lips and a dagger hidden in your sleeve.
Posted by: Lawrence | January 22, 2009 at 12:54
sorry I should clarify something here
I wrote above:
"Yet to Geffen (who comes with no evidence) Israelis are to be compared to the Palestinians in this regard - given everything I write above about the Palestinians and the glorification of their "martyrs" even in official Fatah circles (see my comments on the recent Hussein Solomon thread) such moral equivalence made by Geffen between Israelis and Palestinians is odious, disgusting and untrue."
It is more to the point of course that Geffen makes a moral equivalence between Pollak (and by implication other Jewry who support Pollak in this respect ie the banner at his blog associated with Operation Cast Lead) and the Palestinians in this regard, rather than Israelis and Palestinians per se, as I wrote. Pollak of course refutes this absurd charge above, but I want to add something...
Geffen by drawing a moral equivalence between Pollak with his banner of "Don't Mess with the Zohan" at his blog, and the Palestinians' joyous celebrations of suicide bombings and the like, the glorification of terrorists who kill Jewish men, women, teenagers and little children as martyrs, as heroes in the eyes of God is clearly implying Pollak is no different to these Palestinians concerned, those who celebrate the murder of Jews by Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc!
In other words, Geffen implies Pollak is no better than a bloodlustful Hamas or Islamic Jihad supporter dreaming of the deaths of the Jews! This is not merely absurd and nonsensical, it is the worst kind of defamation. It is a roundabout way for Geffen to imply that Pollak is a nazi. No Geffen is not calling Pollak a nazi, Geffen just clearly implies that he is, Pollak being no better in Geffen's eyes than the Palestinians who celebrate the murder of Jewish civilians by Hamas and their kind. It is beyond the pale, and would be laughable if not so sad.
Posted by: Lawrence | January 22, 2009 at 14:32
Nathan,
You need to distinguish between when we "attack" you and when we "criticise" you. You are not exempt from criticism.
I don't know how to refer to you guys.
First, the SAHRD is not some organisation in perpetuity with a single view. We went on the trip together, but we are all different with our own views. Occasionally we might sign things together and even then not likely all of us.
This makes it very difficult to respond to your views and makes debate difficult. But ok!
Second "(1) Their fatuous claim that the failures of tolerance within the Jewish community are more severe than those in the Muslim community"
I have definitely not made this statement, nor would I agree with it. I am not sure who has. I assure you it is not the collective view of the SAHRD. Please let me know who has said it. Nevertheless, there are many examples of intolerance in the Jewish community.
In the Cape Times In August 2008 Nathan wrote:
I don't care for a play on semantics...tolerance, hardened positions, intolerance of sympathy for our neighbours, etc. But I will agree that I am often witness to tremendous intolerance within my oqn community - though not to the scale of what I have seen and heard from the radical elements of the Muslim community.
Third "(2) that regardless of their intent, they are driving the mainstream Jewish communities further apart and not closer together."
I would prefer the community to be closer but there is no doubt that differences in opinion over Israel are causing severe frictions. Why should it be us that must keep quiet and not express our views in the name of unity?
No, I am not saying you must keep quiet. But I will criticise you when I disagree. Remember, I am not charging any of you with antisemitism. My point is in response to one of the "goals" you named for your tour, to come back and bridge the divide between the two communities. I am commenting on the lack of success you have had in your attempts to achieve your objective.
Fourth, "(3) the fallacious notion that it's the official community leadership that is fueling the fires of anti-Semitism in South Africa - a claim that amounts to blaming the victim for having been attacked."
Interesting that you say this because it is precisely this allegation that Pollak absurdly makes against me, even suggesting I might be responsible for some unspecified dreadful action in the future:
What precisely is interesting? The context of the post if Joel Pollak's post. I am trying to sum up some of what his post discusses. This is a claim you guys have made and Joel responded to it. I am directing readers to his response!
As for your last point, I think Joel has already responded well enough.
Posted by: Steve | January 22, 2009 at 15:22
Dear Steve
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of reading properly and not misrepresenting people. The quote you use does not refer to tolerance; it refers to hardened positions on Israel and Palestine within the Muslim and Jewish communities which prevent closer relations between the two communities. And yes, the hardened positions on Israel in our community, especially by our official institutions, are in my view a more severe problem, i.e. the main barrier to improved relations between, say, the MJC and the SAJBOD. The SAJBOD is reasonably tolerant of other views, but despite much exposure to these other views it does not seem to change its position very much, if at all. It has a hardened position. Hopefully that will change in time.
As for lack of success on the Muslim/Jewish divide, do you think the Muslim statement against anti-semitism was more likely inspired by the SAJBOD/ZF/Chief Rabbi or our response to it?
Other examples of success (not entirely, but surely partly due to the HRD trip):
* Getting swastikas cleaned off the walls of Bo Kaap.
* A recent really excellent meeting of Muslim and Jewish youth.
* Muslim and Jewish youth holding two recent demonstrations together against the attack on Gaza (with much more nuanced views than at any other demonstrations and not the slightest hint of anti-semitism).
Unfortunately, the attack on Gaza coupled with the SAJBOD's response makes progress on this very difficult, as does the grotesque anti-semitism at some of the public marches. I never claimed this would be easy, but don't accuse me, as Pollak does (and worse), of exacerbating tensions between Jews and Muslims. It is not me or the other SAHRD delegates who are the barriers to better relations.
Posted by: Nathan Geffen | January 23, 2009 at 19:22
Dear Brett
It is true that no official commission has yet found proof of war crimes and massacres in Gaza, but all the news reports are unlikely to be wrong. More important, all of Btselem's research is unlikely to be wrong. Please see this URL:
http://gazaeng.blogspot.com/
and this one
http://www.btselem.org/English/OTA/?YF=2009&image.x=15&image.y=11
From hereon, I will respond to questions either by email or on the "Israel Deserves Healthy Criticism" group on Facebook. The vitriol, misrepresentations and outright racism emanating from many people writing comments on this site is so vile that I prefer not to surf it as regularly as I have in the last few days.
Regards
Nathan
Posted by: Nathan Geffen | January 23, 2009 at 19:29
Dear Nathan,
I don't understand why you are so disturbed by claims that you have worsened relations between Jews and Muslims when you make the same claim against the Board.
I think you have worsened relations, not by moving or hardening the Muslim position, but by ostracising the multitudes of mainstream Jews in SA.
There may be some wins you have in your list. The cleaning of the swastikas sounds good, let's wait and see if they return. Are they being removed because there are some good Jews like you? If all the Jews in SA supported Israel, say to the extent of Amos Oz, would they then leave the swastikas? I don't think we can answer that question. By the way, is that not a failure of a community more severe than the Board's failure to condemn Israel?
But I contest that the third of your bullet points has improved relations. It's improved relations between Jews that are on your side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but it has not improved relations between Jews who support Israel (including those in the centre, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state and negotiated withdrawals from the West Bank) and mainstream Muslims who don't understand why we believe a Jewish state is necessary.
I still believe the hardened positions/tolerance issue is largely one of semantics.
First off, its not very clear. You say "but the failure from witjin my own community is far more severe". This after describing the intolerance of many Muslims "antisemitism", "Holocaust denial" ("not infrequently expressed in mosques").
It sounds like you are now unwilling to stand responsible for you claims. Claims that you have never substantiated.
Let's be clear, this is not about just intolerance or hardened positions. Your accusations are far broader.
Finally, I can understand your decision to close the discussion taking place here. I can only apologise if racist remarks against you have been made in comments on this blog. I can't claim to have read all the comments.
Mike and I have always called for informed and civil debate. We do our best to promote that debate through discussions such as the debate with Joel and Doron. Another example: Both sides of the coin - (also read comments) http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2005/11/both_sides_of_t.html
Posted by: Steve | January 24, 2009 at 20:30
Dear Farid Esack,
In the light of your "Muslims Against Racism" petition, I hope that you, together with The SAHRD, will immediately endorse my letter which I have sent to the Israeli embassy in Pretoria.
viva
blacklisted
ISRAEL SHOULD LEAD THE WORLD
Dear Sir,
I refer to the following recent statement made by South Africa's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fatima Hajaig at a COSATU rally for Palestine.: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else”.
In the circumstances, Israel should cut diplomatic relations with South Africa. She can then remove herself, with dignity, from all the anti-zionist/ anti-semitic garbage emanating from The RSA.
Israel should do so, not only because of South Africa’s hatred towards her and American Jewry, but also because of South Africa’s partnership with Mugabe which has led to the destruction of Zimbabwe and its population.
Whether other countries should follow Israel's example is up to them but there is no reason that Israel should not lead the world.
your faithfully
Anthony Posner
Posted by: Blacklisted Dictator | January 24, 2009 at 20:32
Why is it that people can spit out the most vicious venom against Israelis and it is seen as 'merely' anti-zionism, but when anyone is precieved as being prejudiced against Arabs, it is 'racist'
Something the Geffens, Isaacs and Bergers of this world have never answered when I've asked.
Posted by: Gary | January 25, 2009 at 10:55
I am amazed--though perhaps I shouldn't have been--that Geffen reiterates his claim that the SA Jewish Board of Deputies is more to blame for the state of inter-communal relations in South Africa than the Muslim Judicial Council.
Consider the following report from 2005, based on extensive news coverage of an MJC-sponsored march that actually attempted to target the SAJBOD offices:
"The most worrying development was a move by the MJC to make the local Jewish community answerable for alleged attacks on Muslims and Islamic holy sites. In May, the Cape Town office of the SAJBD received a letter from the MJC claiming that the Israelis were plotting to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and demanding that the SAJBD accept a memorandum of protest.
"Although it refused to accept the memorandum, the SAJBD extended an invitation to the MJC to meet and discuss Jewish-Muslim relations. In response, MJC Secretary Shaykh Ahmed Seddick wrote a virulently antisemitic letter, saying, inter alia: 'The Quran and the Bible state that the Jews were killers and murderers of Prophets. The Jews have attempted to kill Jesus… global Jewry denies… historical facts and dismisses the Word of God "as a pack of lies and fabrication"… Who are the liars and fabricators of untruths, misinformation, disinformation and falsehood propagation – The Muslim Judicial Council/global Muslims or the Jewish Board of Deputies/global Jewry?'
Calling Jews "killers and murderers of prophets" is the vilest form of antisemitism and there is simply NO EQUIVALENT in the Jewish community vis-a-vis Muslims. I lived in Muslim communities for several years in SA and while I made lasting friendships and found most people to be very tolerant, the vitriol from the radios and in the mosques made its way into everyday life. Geffen is simply living in a state of negligent ignorance.
I think the test for whether the opinions of Jewish critics of Israel deserve to be taken seriously ought to be: do you defend Jews against antisemitism with at least the same vigor that you defend Palestinians against Israelis? If not, then your opinion is groundless and worthless.
Posted by: Joel Pollak | January 26, 2009 at 07:01
Another point, in case anyone is still reading.
Geffen argues that there must have been "war crimes" and "massacres" because "all the news reports are unlikely to be wrong."
This is a weak and morally contemptible argument. In our ordinary criminal law, we do not convict people for crimes based on media reports. History is replete with examples of people falsely accused and punished (even executed) on this basis. Was Dreyfus guilty because "all the news reports" in France maintained he was a spy?
In this case, "all the news reports" were filtered through a terrorist organization, namely Hamas. Occasionally some objective reporting emerged--usually by accident, as in the case where Al-Arabiyya TV revealed that a rocket had just been launched from their headquarters. But neither the news reports nor the casualty figures from Palestinian sources during the war can be relied on.
Perhaps Geffen's maxim ought to be reformulated: "Innocent until proven guilty - unless you are Israeli, whereupon the reverse shall apply."
Posted by: Joel Pollak | January 26, 2009 at 15:31