It's Almost Supernatural

Letter to the President

Howard Sackstein, a leading personality in the South African Jewish community, has written a scathing open letter to President Motlanthe over South Africa's increasingly disgraceful foreign policy.

Howard was an important mainstream Jewish activist against Apartheid. As chairman of SAUJS in the 1980's, he regularly clashed with the more conservative leadership within the community over his outspoken opposition to the racist policies of the National Party. He was also a founding member of Jews for Social Justice. He is perhaps most famous for organizing the first official ANC tour to Israel.

He has played an important role in entrenching democracy in the new South Africa. As chief director of delimitation & planning at the Independent Electoral Commission he was instrumental in organizing our country's first few elections.

When people like Howard Sackstein start to question whether this ANC government is leading our country in the right direction, the ruling party should stand up and take note.

---

Dear Mr President

Please forgive me, I was both inexcusably wrong and hopelessly naive. I mistakenly used to believe that South African foreign policy should somehow reflect the moral lessons that we, as a nation, learned during the lengthy period of our dark ages. But Mr President, I now realise that I was utterly puerile and hopelessly callow.

Why should our facade to the world reflect those lofty and wishy-washy ideals contained in our constitution? I have now belatedly realised that, like so many other state assets, we have merely privatised our country’s foreign policy – and why not, I ask?

So what, if we have sold our foreign policy on the occupation of Tibet and the oppression of the people of Burma to China. I am sure we have received good value for this - and those trendy knock-off shoes sown by those industrious little 6 year olds and the thousands of prisoners on death row will no doubt be shipped to us even cheaper. And let’s face it, during these tough economic times who can afford a pair of real Prada shoes when fake ones come at one hundredth of the price.

I now understand that Deputy Minister Hajaig’s racist anti-semitic outburst was probably sponsored by Iran, as was our refusal to co-sponsor the General Assembly resolution on Holocaust denial and our mysterious absence to vote in its favour. I hope we got proper money from those Iranians, I hear they have a glut of Persian carpets, also handily made by entrepreneurial tweens, and they are good hagglers so, I hope we bargained well for the best deal.

I presume our entire Middle East policy has been purchased by Arab petro dollars – I hope they didn’t pay us in oil – you know what’s happened to the price of crude these days. Don’t do anything for Hamas or Hizbollah without pre-payment, I hear from other countries that they are not good payers.

Rumour has it that we bartered our ZIM foreign policy to Bob for some farms. I hope the rumour’s not true that the farms went to politicians rather than to the treasury – foreign policy is a state asset and we all need to benefit from its sale. Did we give him back Captain Morgan because he didn’t pay us in full?

I can’t for the life of me understand what President Lt-Gen Omar el-Bashir of Sudan gave us in return for the protection we have afforded him for his genocide in Darfur – I don’t think those Sudanese have much? But then again I hear that the Chinese are generally willing to underwrite el-Bashir’s debts, maybe we gave his protection as part of a bigger package deal, like one of those Fifa 2010 packages you can buy on the internet. Make sure you get a guarantee from a Chinese Bank, let’s face it, when its time to collect, the last place you want a guarantee from is Citi Bank or Barclays.

It’s quite evident to me that our participation in the much maligned UN Human Rights Council must be a very lucrative enterprise for us, it’s almost like a spot on the International Olympic Committee. I bet Pakistan and the Organisation of Islamic Congress coughed up lots of cash for our vote against freedom of expression on religion and to not support the General Assembly declaration on gay rights – how did those things get into our Constitution anyway?

Trevor Manual must be loving it! Who needs taxes when your entire Budget can be funded by foreign countries and organizations buying your foreign policy. No wonder he came out in support of our decision to deny a visa to the Dalai Lama. From what I understand, His Holiness, the saffron clad monk, earns very little salary and could probably not even have afforded the Visa fees even if we had granted it to him. The Pope, on the other hand, has an entire empire and art works worth billions – when he wants a Visa let’s put the price up – he can afford it. It’s a similar system that the British seem to be using against us when we want to go watch their Queen in concert at Buckingham Palace.

You may have to share a little of the bounty with Minister Hogan – those random outburst of rational principle are enough to frighten away any purchaser.

So now Mr President, this brings me to the real point of my letter. It’s my mother’s birthday in April and I was really not sure what to buy her as a gift – and then I thought, why not buy her one of our country’s foreign policies.

I don’t have that much money, so I doubt I could afford a really important foreign policy like condemning Russia for its invasion of Georgia or its gross human rights violations in Chechnya or for that matter condemning the abuse of women in Arab countries or their lack of democracy and I am convinced I couldn’t afford a policy to criticise Hamas for firing nearly 10 000 rockets at Israel over the last few years. I am sure that would cost a lot because I would have to pay the government, ANC and Cosatu.

I was thinking more on the lines of doing something to an obscure un-important nation. So, how much would it cost to impose sanctions on Micronesia? Or what is the price to lobby to elect the King of Bhutan as Secretary General of the United Nations?

I was also thinking of an international campaign against the banking secrecy or tax evasion status of Belize or the Cayman Islands, but if any of our politicians have stashed their cash there, it may be a little too rich for my budget to buy that particular foreign policy.

I am sure I have not exhausted all the options on the menu so, I kindly ask you or your foreign minister to e-mail me a price list for all of our foreign policy options and I am sure I will be able to find one that will make my mother really happy on her special day, and that I can afford.

I live in hope that one day, the people of this great tapestry which is our nation, will be able to once again look upon our government with respect and pride.

Warm Regards

Howard

Qualification slipping further away from Israel

Israel’s campaign to qualify for their first world cup in 40 years took a step backwards on Saturday night as they were held 1-1 at home to Greece.

Liverpool playmaker Yossi Benayoun played despite not fully recovering from an injury which has kept him out of the Liverpool side for the past 3 weeks. Without Benayoun at his best, Israel struggled to take control and can be considered lucky to have come away with a point.

Switzerland won their game to leapfrog Israel into second place. It could have all been so different had Israel not conceded a last gasp equaliser away to Latvia in October last year.

Israel face Greece again on Wednesday night in a must-win encounter if they hope to win the group and with it, automatic qualification for South Africa 2010.

The winners of the group automatically qualify and the top 8 best runners up proceed to the sudden death qualification play offs.

Jewish Community Election Debate

The Jewish Board will be holding an election debate on Wednesday 1st of April at 5:30pm for 6pm at Beyachad. The evening will be moderated by Primedia Eye Witness News reporter Mandy Weiner and will include speakers such as Jack Bloom (DA), Rev Meshoe (ACDP), Lynda Odendaal (COPE), Mervyn Cirota (ID) and Ruth Rabinowitz (IFP), and Firoz Cachalia (ANC).

This debate also presents an unique opportunity for the community to submit the questions and issues they’d like to see raised on the evening to the Board prior to the debate. Details below.

Jewish Board confronts Masuku threats against Jewish community

Update at 30/03/2009

See update concerning the Board's exaplanation of what they hope to achieve at the Human Rights Commission at bottom of post.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies has issued a press statement indicating that they have laid a formal complaint with the SA Human Rights Commission against Cosatu’s International Relations secretary Bongani Masuku.

Masuku has been featured extensively on this blog for his crazed outbursts against South African Jews who support Israel. Amongst other things, he has called on Israel-supporting Jews to leave South Africa (said in an email to me) and threatened students at Wits University that he (and Cosatu I assume, as he was representing them at the talk) would make their lives “hell”.

The Jewish Board have made the correct decision here and I hope we finally get some decent press coverage of this unacceptable situation.

Hopefully next week we will get comment from the Jewish Board around what sort of ruling they are looking for. Watch this space.

25 March 2009 The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) today laid a complaint with the SA Human Rights Commission against Bongani Masuku, International Relations Secretary - Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), in response to numerous inflammatory, threatening and insulting statements made by him against the Jewish community. On frequent occasions, both in public forums and in writing, Masuku has used overtly threatening language in reference to the mainstream Jewish community because of its support for the State of Israel. Specifically, he has openly stated that COSATU will target Jewish supporters of Israel and “make their lives hell”. SAJBD National Chairman Zev Krengel said that various statements made by Masuku constituted serious breaches of the Prohibition of Hate Speech as contained in The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, nr 4/2000. “The SAJBD firmly supports the right to freedom of expression, but not to the point when it infringes on the fundamental right of others to equality and human dignity as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Calling for the expulsion of and inciting harm against one’s fellow citizens because of their political views crosses the line between legitimate comment and prohibited hate speech, and this is what Mr. Masuku has been guilty of” he said. Masuku has declared that Jews who support Israel are not welcome in South Africa and should be forced to leave. He has called on COSATU’s members to target Jewish businesses and to confront Jews who support Israel wherever they might be, even if this means doing something that, in his own words, “may necessarily cause what is regarded as harm”. He has further threatened that COSATU will take vigilante action against Jewish families believed to have members serving in the Israeli Defense Force. “What he has said could reasonably be construed as an intention on his part to cause harm against South African Jews. It can also reasonably be said to demonstrate a clear intention to promote or propagate hatred against the Jewish community” Krengel said.

Cosatu are a member of the ruling ANC tripartite alliance. A vote for the ANC is a vote for Cosatu.

Update at 30/03/2009

On Friday I asked the Board about the ruling they were hoping to achieve at the SA Human Rights Commission and their response follows.

"The Jewish Board would like to see Musuku strongly censured for his statements, and for them to require him to desist from any further inflammatory statements and hate-speech against the Jewish community".

"We want the HRC to ensure that Jewish South Africans are entitled to express their views, like everybody else in this country."

Previously at IAS

• Bongani Masuku at Wits - "we will make your lives hell"
• Bongani Masuku calls on Jews to leave South Africa
• A message for IAS readers from Masuku
• My correspondence with Masuku

Letter to the bloggers: Whither the single state solution?

A regular reader of this blog, Ruth Bennett, has sent us an email asking if we would publish a letter she has written in defense of a single-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While we strongly disagree with this view, we think that it is not something that can just be dismissed out of hand, particularly when it comes from someone who claims to be affiliated with the mainstream in the South African Jewish community. We need to engage with Ruth’s concerns.

And so in the spirit of open debate that we have been trying to foster, and as a continuation of our crossing swords debates we have decided to post her letter together with my reply. I am sure this will extract an emotional response from other readers. We call on them not to shy away from expressing their views but to try and be respectful. Let’s see if we can play the ball and not the woman here.

---

Exploring the one-state solution

“Everyday Jews, Muslims and Christians mourn the loss of another innocent life in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. South Africa has been held up as an example to the Middle East of how to attain democracy peacefully. What is strange about the use of the South African model is that some pivotal aspects of the nature of change in this country are completely ignored. The most important of which is that upon the establishment of the new South Africa, the country did not fragment like the Balkans states. One nation, one vote, many cultures and people define this country. Yet, a two-state solution is still touted as the only means of resolving the conflict in the Middle East.

I have long believed that the establishment of a one state in which Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all equally recognized is the only real solution. With three major world religions laying claim to the land, surely it is more sensible to establish one state?

Advocates of the one-state solution have been accused of calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Yet, they forget that the one-state solution calls as much for the destruction of the state of Palestine as it does Israel.

If it were so easy to establish two states co-existing peacefully, then surely this would have been created a long time ago? As long as the two-state solution is seen as the only means of resolution, there will always be questions about:

• the boundaries of the Palestinian state: pre-1948 or 1967 borders?
• The settlements in the West Bank
• Control of Jerusalem

These are the issues that prevent any meaningful dialogue and negotiations. As long as these questions remain, there will never be peace in Israel and her people will continue to live in fear.

Why do we fear a single state encompassing Israel and Palestine? Are we trying to protect the “Jewish” nature of Israel? I find this hard to believe when one considers that the vast majority of Jews in Israel are secular. Most of the immigrants, especially from the former Soviet Union are not even considered Jewish by Orthodox standards. Whose Jewish state is this?

For far too long, there has been a blind acceptance worldwide that two states will solve the problem. It won’t, and the terror from both sides will continue.

Before I am labelled a ‘self-hating Jew’, ‘anti-Semite’ and other names so favoured by many readers of this blog, I would like to point out that I am an observant, Orthodox Jew. I am proud of my Jewish identity and heritage. As a descendant of a Holocaust survivor, I feel that I must speak out. It is my Jewish responsibility.

I trust that we will be able to have an intelligent, decent discussion about the option of a unitary state.”

---

Why I oppose a single–state solution

Ruth Bennett’s letter in support of a one-state solution fails to take into account many important aspects of Jewish history and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Firstly, it must be pointed out that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis support a 2 state solution. The peace polls over the years have consistently shown this (see here). Surely imposing a solution that both peoples oppose is not only anti-democratic but is also impractical. An agreement that does not have the support of both parties will never be successfully implemented.

Secondly, a one-state solution denies both the Jewish and Palestinian people the right to national self determination. The fact that both parties are denied such a right does not make this denial more legitimate. When applying a human rights approach to the conflict, which I support, there will have to be some limitations of rights. But the key is to find a solution that reduces the infringements to a minimum. Both people need to make difficult compromises as part of a 2 state solution. Both need to give up their claim to sovereignty over the entire land of Israel. But surely some sovereignty for each party is better than nothing for both.

Thirdly, given the bloody history of Jewish-Arab relations in a unitary state and the extent of the current animosity, a one-state solution is completely impractical. Ruth does not specify the legal framework for the one state solution. But under any alternative, Jews would become a minority in the land of Israel. Without control of the army or police-force how would they ensure their security? The state of minority Christian communities in the region gives us some insight into what the most likely fate would be for a Jewish minority in the land of Israel. Lebanon provides a bloody historical example of the failure of bi-nationalism in the Middle East. The terror inflicted on Palestinian Christians particularly in Hamas controlled Gaza on a daily basis is surely not something any Jew in their right mind would wish to accept.

And the hatred towards Jews is so much worse. Historically, look at the massacre of the centuries old Jewish community of Hebron in the 1920’s by Palestinian forces. More recently, look at the horrific acts of destruction that have been carried out on Jewish religious sites under Palestinian control. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, Palestinians gleefully desecrated the synagogues left behind. There is a serious risk and without the power of a Jewish force to keep them at bay these same elements would destroy much more Jewish property throughout Israel.

Fourthly, Israel has over the last 6 decades become an important vessel for Jewish identity both in the state and in the Diaspora. While Ruth is right that the majority of Israelis are secular, they still have a very strong Jewish national identity. Judaism is not only a religion but also a people-hood. Being secular does not take away from a person’s sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Secular Israelis just express their Jewish identity in a different way. For them being Jewish is going to the army to defend the Jewish state or supporting the Israeli soccer team. For many Jews in the Diaspora, Israel is a source of tremendous pride and an important way for them to connect to the Jewish people. The success of the birthright program is one example. Even for those Jewish critics of Israel, the existence of the Jewish state is one of the only things that keep them involved in Jewish affairs, albeit in a negative sense. Dissolving the state would destroy this link to Jewish indentify for millions of people. This is certainly something that someone, who claims to be interested in the survival of the Jewish people, could not support.

It is tempting for many South Africans to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own experience. While of course there are important lessons that can be learned from the South African experience, importing our solution wholesale is extremely naïve and dangerous. We need to examine the issues that exist in that region and try to address them. The fact that we are still in the process of working out a 2 state solution does not mean that it is by definition defunct. No-one said it will be easy. Issues like borders and Jerusalem are difficult but they can, with some comprise, be solved. They are not the stumbling blocks to peace. Trust and the capacity to implement agreements are the real problems. A one-state solution would solve none of them.

Previously at IAS

• Crossing Swords: Joel Pollak vs. Doron Isaacs

Democracy of Hypocrisy denies Dalai Lama entrance visa

The decisions choosing China over the USA forces you to make...

 I’ve just seen the explanation given by Thabo Masebe, spokesperson for our president, for our decision to deny the Dalai Lamai a permit to enter South Africa. It ranks on my list as the most hilarious explanation ever!

Basically we have denied the Dalai Lamai a permit because we have a soccer tournament to host and we don’t want attention on him to distract from all the good news reporting that we should be getting. Masebe said that the Dalai Lama will be invited again in the future, but “not now”, when the whole world is looking at South Afrca. I swear, I am not making this stuff up. No one, except for the quite ridiculous Thabo Masebe, could make it up.

South Africa bars Dalai Lama from peace conference

South Africa barred the Dalai Lama from a peace conference in Johannesburg this week, hoping to keep good relations with trading partner China but instead generating a storm of criticism. Friday's peace conference was organized by South African soccer officials to highlight the first World Cup to be held in Africa, which South Africa will host in 2010. But because the Dalai Lama isn't being allowed to attend, it is now being boycotted by fellow Nobel Peace prize winners retired Cape Town Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former president F.W. de Klerkas well as members of the Nobel Committee. "It is disappointing that South Africa, which has received so much solidarity from the world, doesn't want to give that solidarity to others," Nobel Institute Director Geir Lundestadtold The Associated Press in Oslo, referring to the decades-long fight against apartheid. An eclectic mix of Nobel laureates, Hollywood celebrities and other dignitaries are coming to discuss issues ranging from combating racism to how sports can unite people and nations. But Thabo Masebe, spokesman for President Kgalema Motlanthe, said a high-profile visit by the Tibetan spiritual leader would have distracted from the conference's focus. "South Africa would have been the source of negative publicity about China," he said Monday. "We do value our relationship with China." South Africa is China's largest trading partner on a continent in which China is

What a disgrace. Once again third world solidarity has trumped a foreign policy based on human rights, integrity and morality. It’s quite obvious that China has pressured South Africa into refusing to issue the visa. Again we have displayed our inability to take an independent stance on world affairs. We boast about doing just the opposite, about opposing America and speaking truth to power and all that other crap, but the truth is that in almost every UN vote we have blindly followed the stance of China and Russia.

And onward we march.

"To be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others" (Nelson Mandela)

Smoking Socks Award: Neutral Humanist slams Israel supporters

Here's our latest smoking socks award winner from a neutral “humanist” praising the Sunday Independent for their bravery in speaking truth to power!

The letter writer makes a strange case justifying his right to be anti-Semitic. The Sunday Independant love it - in fact, it’s a fantastic follow-up to their previous smoking socks award for a letter they had the “courage” to publish entitled “Holocaust figure of 6 million is made up”.

Coverage of ME conflict is courageous I HAVE followed with great interest the raging debate in the Sunday Independent about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The paper must be commended for admirably fulfilling its function of being the vital conduit of democratic freedom of expression. It is one of the few newspapers or electronic media not cowed into suppressing such topics, by the bullying from lobby groups with undemocratic motives. As a humanist I won’t align with either camp. Whether it is a Palestinian bomb killing families in a supermarket, or an Israeli war crime using white phosphorus in a military assault on a civilian area, I am equally saddened by mankind’s inhumanity. I am perplexed by the Israeli supporters’ aversion to criticism which they demonise as anti-Semitic. It seems to me that some Israelis are exploiting the world’s sympathy for their awful historic Holocaust. The major world powers are loath to countenance the slightest criticism of any Israeli wrongdoing or atrocity. If I am sickened by an American outrage like torture in Guantanamo, I can be anti-American. I can be similarly anti-Arab if I detest some of their unsavoury practices, and anti-British if I abhor their slavish lap-dog pandering to American war-mongering. When I am disgusted by the mighty Israeli war machine reducing Beirut’s civilian areas to rubble in weeks of bombardment because two of their soldiers were captured, or see images of their bulldozers flattening homes in Jerusalem’s Arab ghetto, surely I could be justifiably “anti-Semitic.” When the media suppresses such thorny comments, it actually helps to prolong the terrible strife. Hopefully, the more such topics are fully debated, hot heads on both sides might be embarrassed into genuine peace efforts which will give their families the security that can never be achieved on the battlefield.

The letter was so good, it was accompanied with an image that took up the same space that the letter was awarded.

No official organ of the South African Jewish community regards criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Yes, there are individual reactionaries who behave in this manner, but the same can be said of the Muslim community and the charge of Islamophobia - specifically omitted by this letter writer.

The problem is that very often, the criticism is anti-Semitic, often mocking our tragic past by painting us as the new Nazis, provoking a legitimate response which is then used by other "humanists" to allege that we regard any criticism as anti-Semitic. We can't win!

Gaza: World's leading investigators call for war crimes inquiry - open letter

I just came across this story about a group of leading investigators, including Justice Richard Goldstone, who are calling for a commission investigating war crimes into the recent Gaza crisis. If we could expect a fair trial, this would be a good thing. But we know the type of Kangaroo court that will ensue. And onward the horror show shall go.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson and Justice Richard Goldstone among signatories "shocked to core" by recent events A 16-strong group of the world's most experienced investigators and judges have today (16 March) called for a full international investigation into alleged abuses of international law during the recent Gaza conflict. The call, supported by Amnesty International, is made in an open letter (full text below) to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as well as all members of the UN Security Council. The letter comes at a time when a UN Board of Inquiry is expected to report to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, on its initial findings regarding attacks on UN facilities and personnel in the region. The new letter stresses the need for an investigation into "all serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict". It argues that the UN investigation "should not be limited only to attacks on UN facilities." The signatories - who have led investigations of crimes committed in former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Darfur, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, East Timor, Lebanon and Peru - say that they have been "shocked to the core" by events in Gaza. The signatories argue that they "have seen at first hand the importance of investigating the truth and delivering justice for the victims of conflict and believe it is a precondition to move forward and achieve peace in the Middle East." The letter's signatories - who include Antonio Cassese (First President and Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Head of the UN Inquiry on Darfur) and Richard Goldstone (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and Chairman of the UN Inquiry on Kosovo) - urge world leaders "to send an unfaltering signal that the targeting of civilians during conflict is unacceptable by any party on any count." The letter calls for the establishment of a United Nations commission of inquiry into the Gaza conflict that: - Has a mandate to carry out a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict; - Acts in accordance with the strictest international standards governing such investigations; - Can provide recommendations as to the appropriate prosecution of those responsible for gross violations of the law by the relevant authorities. Prof. William A. Schabas, former member of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a signatory to the letter, said: "The international community must apply the same standard to Gaza as it does to other conflicts and investigate all abuses of the laws of war and human rights. The current UN inquiry is no substitute for a full investigation. It is not only the UN personnel that deserve truth and justice, but Palestinians and Israelis themselves." The signatories conclude that: "relief and reconstruction are desperately needed but, for the real wounds to heal, we must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides." ENDS For more information and interviews, please contact: Crisis Action (Brussels): Martin Konecny, 00 32 2 737 1498, 00 32 484 601 283 Amnesty International UK: Neil Durkin, 020 7033 1547, 07721 398984 For the full text of the letter click continue reading

Israel as the new third Reich

The City Press is the Sunday newspaper with the third largest readership in South Africa. Last week’s edition contained an outstandingly repulsive article from Professor Ali Mazrui entitled “Is Israel bent on becoming the new Third Reich”.

I can’t find the article at the City Press, but here’s a link to the same article at another website.

Mazrui claims that the gap between the Nazis and Israelis is fast diminishing and this narrowing distance is the fundamental cause of a phenomenon he readily admits exists today, that is, the new anti-Semitism.

Mazrui neglects to explain just how Israel has become like the Nazis. He doesn’t point to any death camps or forced labour camps. He doesn’t provide examples of any increasing totalitarianism within Israel – no restrictions on the freedom of the press, freedom to associate, freedom to form political movements. No. All he has in his arsenal is the military action taken against Palestinians who unabatedly fired rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population areas. The irony of course, is that it was the Palestinians, led by Haj Amin al Husseini, who corroborated with and openly supported the Nazis during World War 2. Palestinian leader Husseini spent the war years with Hitler in Berlin and wanted to export the final solution to Palestine to once and for all resolve their Jewish problem.

Mazrui doesn’t compare Israel to any other states who have been forced to take military action . He doesn’t even compare Israel to states who take pre-emptive military action. No. By Mazrui’s foul smelling logic, if you defend yourself against the Palestinians, you are a bunch of filthy Nazis. And the Palestinians? They are “intrinsically good” – victims par excellence. Mazrui doesn’t talk about a disproportionate response. There is no “response”. It’s just an unprovoked Israel firing on absolutely innocent Palestinians.

His use of the term “new anti-Semitism” is quite peculiar. He admits it exists, but justifies it by saying it is caused by Israel. In fact, we can easily end this phenomenon, by openly renouncing our support of the only Jewish state in the world. In short, Mazrui believes the new anti-Semitism is justified. But what kind of racial prejudice can ever actually be justified? From this we learn the mocking levels of respect that Mazrui has for the very idea of anti-Semitism. It can be a good or a bad thing depending on whether Israel is involved!

According to historian Bernard Lewis, anti-Semitism is marked by two distinct features: Jews are judged according to a standard different from that applied to others, and they are accused of cosmic evils.

By Lewis’ standards, Mazrui is guilty. In fact, according to the European Union standards, comparing Israel to the Nazis is an example of what constitutes anti-Semitism. It’s one thing to criticise Israel and its policies but to compare it to the worst evils of the 20th century stems from nothing but a deep-seated inveterate hatred.

Mazrui describes a “painful paradox” that emerges when comparing the anti-Semitism of the first half of the 20th century and the new anti-Semitism of the new millennium.

Mazrui claims that whereas Jews where once amongst the world’s most gifted and created peoples, they have descended into a people only famous for their will to destroy. In an effort to invent a premise for this argument (that Jews have turned from creators to destroyers), Mazrui redefines the classical anti-Semitism of the early 1900s as being a hatred of Jews because of their creative ideas. It’s a weak and convenient description allowing Mazrui to concoct the fake paradox that he bases his article on – that although Jews were once unjustly hated for their creative ideas they are now (justly) hated for their destructive and murderous inclinations.

Finally, Mazrui suggests that there is something sinister and unfair about the way the Jewish pro-Israeli lobby operates, forcing normally “honest” Congressmen and Senators from voting against their conscience in what ultimately amounts to a threat to American democracy.

Unfortunately, articles such as this are becoming the staple diet for South African readers. It’s a tide that cannot be stemmed. And of course, it’s not just plaguing South Africa, as these articles can be found anywhere around the world. The difference with South Africa is that there is no pro-Israel/America alternative. It’s the same old drek wherever you look.

Kasrils drumming up anti-Israel hatred in Canada

Former South African minister of totalitarian affairs intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, has been touring Canada for “Israel Apartheid Week”, preaching his mephitic brand of Israel hating fervour across campuses with disregard to truth and decency.

The McGill Daily recently interviewed him about his Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions campaign which has attracted 500 Israeli signatures. You can read it here, stomach cramp inducingly entitled: Lessons from South Africa

Here’s Kasrils on Hamas:

"These are people who are patriots, who are serious, who are human beings and shouldn’t be demonized. If you want to solve a problem in the end, it’s not your friends that you negotiate with, it’s your enemies."

When do you ever hear Kasrils speaking about Israelis as patriots, serious people, human beings, who should not be demonised? Never.

Kasrils continues with some outrageous lies, claiming:

"And Israel has not taken the opportunity of getting together to resolve these problems and why? Because of the Zionist doctrine, they are not interested in negotiation. They want the entire land of the British Mandate to themselves, that’s the reason."

If the Zionist doctrine (is there one Zionist doctrine?) precludes Israel from withdrawing from land then how does Mr Kasrils explain the withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank? How does he explain the security barrier which makes a serious dent to any Israeli who thinks Israel can keep more than 8% of the West Bank? How does he explain the offer presented by Bill Clinton and accepted by Ehud Barak in December 2000 where Israel would relinquish 97% of the disputed territories?

Pathetic as ever.