It's Almost Supernatural

An Ordinary Man

In a small village in Rwanda there stands a church that is no longer a church. The church lies in ruins with weeds growing through the pock-marked walls. The church had been renowned as a safe haven during Rwanda's previous ethnic inspired troubles. When the killings started in 1994 many Rwandans sought cover in the church as they had done many times before. But this time would be different. This time the thousands of Rwandans seeking refuge in the church would be murdered. Murdered by their friends and their neighbours.

Today the church is an official memorial to the genocide. The back wall of the church still has bricks stained by the heads of the children that were smashed against it. The front wall contains a pledge written in 4 languages - 'Never Again.'

Never again.

Two words that once promised so much yet delivered so little. Just 50 years after the Nazi- perpetrated Jewish Holocaust the world stood silent as almost 1 million Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred in an ethnically inspired genocide. In between we had the politically motivated slaughters in Cambodia, the multiethnic slayings in Bosnia, and the independence crushing massacres of the Kurds in Iraq. Today we silently bear witness to new multiethnic horrors in Sudan.

Paul Rusesabagina is no ordinary man. He is the real-life hero of the award-winning movie Hotel Rwanda. Rusesabagina risked his life in order to save 1, 268 people by protecting them inside the hotel where he worked. I recently read his autobiography entitled 'An Ordinary Man'.

An Ordinary Man is a mournful illustration of the horrors of the Rwandan genocide as seen through the prism of a simple (but brilliantly intelligent) hotel manager in Kigali.

Rusesabagina provides a context for the genocide not presented in Hotel Rwanda. It is well known that the two main ethnic groups in modern Rwanda are the Hutus and the Tutsis, but it remains controversial whether these are indeed separate races or just an artificial political distinction created by the former colonists who propped up certain cattle owning clans (the Tutsis) and appointing them as rulers over the more numerous crop farmers (the Hutus). Rusesabagina believes that the distinction between the races is pure invention. He doesn't do enough to convince me of this but he does an excellent job explaining how the colonialist-inspired class distinction between the two groups eventually ignited into the genocide of 1994.

The book is filled with enriching old African proverbs which dispense simple yet powerful wisdom. It also contains many lessons in the psychology of negotiation. The lives of hundreds of people often depended on Rusesabagina finding the right words as he tried to convince interahamwe militias not to kill the people he was protecting. Money, liquor, cunning body language and ego-boosting wit combined to provide the tools that enabled Rusesabagina to negotiate with evil and live to tell the story.

The Rwandan genocide is a classic case of world ambivalence to the suffering of others; of placing diplomatic niceties above human rights. The bizarreness of the indifference is highlighted when the leader of the UN troops in Rwanda, Canadian Romeo Dallaire, requested permission from his superiors to raid Hutu arms caches. The UN denied the request. Dallaire was told that although the stockpiling of weapons violated the peace accords, raiding the cache went beyond the scope of the UN mandate. He was told to take his concerns to Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana - perhaps the last man in the world who would care.

The US and France come in for significant condemnation. Rwanda must certainly be the major regret of President Clinton's administration. The US declined multiple requests for help and even refused to jam the airwaves preventing the hateful RTLM radio station from airing its broadcasts which helped the militias to coordinate their murders.

The French were even worse. Worried about English-speaking rebels taking over their neocolony, they maintained close contact with their French speaking Hutu allies in the Rwandan government throughout the genocide. Unbelievably, the French did send a peacekeeping mission to Rwanda as the genocide was ending. The mission, sent for 'humanitarian' reasons, was dispatched to assist the genocidaire militias who were being repelled by the rebel forces fighting to end the genocide! The French created a scenario which allowed the genocidaires to look like victims instead of aggressors! The French have since embarked on a campaign of genocide revisionism.

(Not mentioned in the book but relevant to this blog is that Israel's participation in the relief efforts amounted to its biggest medical mission in its entire history. Read about Israel's relief efforts here.)

When the US finally decided to act they sent $320 million in aide to Rwanda; 16 times more what it would have cost to have jammed the hate radio which played such a part in allowing the genocide to reach its horrific proportions.

Rusesabagina is today a staunch critic of Rwanda's rebuilding efforts. He bemoans the slow pace of the criminal justice system. At the time that he wrote the book only 25 top government officials had been tried in the UN International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha.

Today Rwanda tries to deal with the criminal prosecutions by blending traditional notions of justice known as gacaca (justice-on-the-grass, as Rwandans call it) with a modern court apparatus. Rusesabagina calls these attempts a total failure. The traditional 'justice-on-the-grass' system was never meant to deal with anything as grave as genocide; it was designed to solve cases of missing goats and stolen bananas - it was meant to end not in punishment but reconciliation. However much trust you may have in the wisdom of common man, it is foolish to expect a village of laypeople to mete out real justice for something as horrific as mass murder. 

Rusesabagina is also critical of the new Tutsi-dominated Rwandan government, feeling that the mistakes of the past are being repeated. He slammed the recent elections, in which president Paul Kagame (leader of the rebel forces) won 95% of the vote, as undemocratic. His criticism of Paul Kagame (he compares him to the typical 'African Strongman') has led to a situation where he is no longer welcome in Rwanda, and is in fact afraid to return. In his last chapter he writes "Rwanda is today a nation governed by and for the benefit of a small group of elite Tutsis. . . . Those few Hutus who have been elevated to high-ranking posts are usually empty suits without any real authority of their own. They are known locally as Hutus de service or Hutus for hire."

You would think that Rusesabagina's outlook on the world is gloomy and cyncial; but this is not so. Despite all he has witnessed, he still believes in a positive natural state of man. "Human beings were designed to live sanely and sanity always returns. The true resting state of human affairs is not represented by a man hacking his neighbour into pieces with a machete. That is a sick abberation. No, the true state of human affairs is life as it ought to be lived."

Tragically, we have still not learnt the lessons of the past. Today, in Darfur, another genocide creeps along as diplomatic egos trump the right to life. Our own South African government opposed a recent resolution that will send a joint AU and UN force to Darfur simply because the resolution included a threat of sanctions.

Never again? If only.

Previously at IAS

• Lessons from the Rwandan Genocide

Update at 20/07/2007

• Following a comment from a Rwandan living in Kigali, I thought I should add that there is opposition to Rusesabagina's negative outlook on the rebuilding efforts in Rwanda. Here's an article in the Guardian from blogger Jen Brea which encapsulates the achievements made by the New Rwanda.

• In addition, here's an article on how the economy in Rwanda's gorilla region is growing. Rwanda shares a section of a conservation park that is home to the mountain gorillas made famous by researcher Dian Fossey and the movie "Gorillas in the Mist." Rwanda is apparently a model for other war torn regions on how to ensure that valuable wildlife persists during and after a war. Rwanda reaps rewards of wartime nature conservation

Mbeki Fiddles While Zimbabwe Burns

I am in the process of reading that vile book by Ronald Suresh Roberts, Fit to Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki. It's going rather slowly: there is just so much I can stomach at a time. Its entire logic is based on a conspiracy theory that international capital, local liberals/neo-colonialists and the West, who control the world, are engaged in a campaign to ensure that native leaders like Mbeki fail at every turn. If the word liberal were replaced with the word Jew, it would be the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The worst part is that it probably reflects the views of our President as cartoonist (brilliant, except when it comes to the Middle East) Zapiro implies. 

Last night I finished reading his chapter on Zimbabwe. It actually has very little to do with Zimbabwe and is much more of a personal attack on the character of renowned anti-Apartheid activist Helen Suzman. Her outspoken criticism of human rights abuses committed by Mugabe's regime and condemnation of President Mbeki's seeming apathy on the issue is denounced as racist. Kasrilsspeak at its worst!

What little is devoted in the chapter to the situation in Zimbabwe is a justification of South Africa's quiet diplomacy. Roberts' basic argument is that it has reduced the amount of death and torture inflicted by the Mugabe regime on its own people. Obviously getting rid of the Mugabe regime would stop it all together but Roberts just doesn't seem to get that. It's like arguing that Panado is the best drug to fight cancer because it may momentarily relieve a patient's pain.

Clearly the events of the last 2 weeks across our northern border have demonstrated the futility of such a policy. Mugabe thumbed his nose at South African mediation efforts over the weekend when no ZANU PF representative pitched at scheduled peace talks. And Zimbabwe's economic crisis has spun out of control since Mugabe's introduction of compulsory price cuts. There are reports of ubiquitous shortages of basic goods such a meat, bread and petrol.

This ridiculous legislation has been backed up by crack downs on those who have refused to comply. 30 company executives have been arrested for hoarding goods and flouting the price cuts. Among those rounded up were executives of a leading clothing retailer (Edgars), two directors of Zimbabwe's main food distributor and fast-food chain, and the chief executive of the largest producer of pork products.

I guess Roberts and his ideological ilk would respond that international capital is finally getting what it deserves.

So where does this all lead? Ironically ancient Western history, much deplored by Africanist ideologues, may in fact provide the answer. In 284 AD Diocletian became Emperor of the declining Roman Empire. Five decades of costly wars, internal conflict and politically motivated confiscations of property had caused widespread impoverishment. In response he adopted that often tried and failed strategy of debasing the coinage (in today's terms printing more money). The result — extreme hyperinflation.

Like Mr Mugabe, Diocletian believed he could legislate his way out of this worsening crisis. He passed a royal edict fixing the prices of over a thousand goods and threatened the death penalty to merchants who overcharged. Instead of curbing inflation, the edict's price controls drove goods onto the black market and created chronic shortages. The resulting civil unrest eventually forced Diocletian to withdraw this policy. In the end he actually managed to turn the Empire around (if only for a relatively short time) by focusing on improving economic fundamentals such as revamping the monetary and fiscal systems.

If we learn from Rome's experience, all is not lost in Zimbabwe. But it will take a tremendous amount of political will to turn things around. South Africa could achieve this in weeks. An ultimatum to Mugabe, leave office or we cut off the power (South Africa supplies Zimbabwe with most of its electricity) would do the trick. Ironically Apartheid Prime Minister BJ Vorster exhibited far more scruples than our democratic government has yet to show when he adopted a similar approach to bring down Rhodesia's illegal white minority regime. 

If South Africa does not act decisively now, then, like in Diocletian's Rome, widespread civil unrest will be the catalyst for change in Zimbabwe. And Mbeki's legacy will come to resemble that of another Roman Emperor for fiddling while Zimbabwe burned.   

Barrier Review - Part 2

This is the second of a 2 part review of the book "Barrier – the seam of the Israeli Palestinian conflict"

• Read Barrier Review Part 1

Kershner makes it clear that for the Israelis the barrier is "less an expression of choice than a measure of last resort." Suicide bombers had killed and maimed plenty of Israelis and "posed an existential threat to the Israeli way of life."

In one chapter Kershner tells the story of Kibbutz Metzer, explaining the despair and anguish which caused the once idealist Metzer kibbutzniks to support the building of the barrier.

Kibbutz Metzer is a communal farm in an area of central Israel where Israel's waist is less than 20km east to west. A small hill separates the kibbutz from the Palestinian village of Qafin. Metzer was started by pioneering leftwing Zionists committed to communal farming based on the principles of social justice, equality and peace. Metzer is located in what is known as the triangle, an area in Israel with an overwhelming majority Arab demographic. The kibbutz made political activism its hallmark and took it upon itself to show that Israeli Jews and Arabs can live together in harmony. Peace rallies and joint Israeli and Arab May Day rallies became part of the ethos of the kibbutz. Their efforts to form special relations with Arab villages culminated in the formation of a joint football team with the Israeli Arab town of Meisar

After the '67 war an invisible curtain between Metzer and the Palestinian village Qafin came down. Fresh from battle, the Metzer reservists hiked into the recently conquered West Bank to visit Qafin. Palestinian villagers in Qafin hung white flags from their rooftops, waiting to be conquered by the Zionist army. To their surprise, it was not conquering soldiers but amicable Metzer kibbutzniks who came wandering into their village.

The kibbutzniks, uncomfortable with their new role as occupiers, were keen to show a friendly face. They promised to supply the Palestinians with anything they needed and offered them work in the kibbutz. Over the years the two communities developed a relationship of good neighbourliness, mutual respect, harmony – and crucially - a sense of security that allowed the kibbutzniks to sleep peacefully for 35 years.

But things changed in 2002 when the intifada was reaching it goriest heights. On November 10 a 19 year old Palestinian named Sirhan Sirhan made his way over the hill separating Metzer from Qafin. He crept across the barrier-free green line and crawled into the kibbutz.

Powered by conviction and extreme pride he turned his gun towards a woman strolling in the fields with her boyfriend.  There he shot and killed his first victim, Tirza Damari aged 42.

Tirza's boyfriend fled in panic but was unable to get help in time to stop the massacre that was to follow. Sirhan Sirhan crept forward with new vigour. His next victim was the kibbutz secretary Yitzhak Dori. Sirhan then made his way to the nearest home.

He entered the small living structures where he found a terrified Revital Ohion aged 34, and her 2 sons, Noam who was 5 and Matan who was 4. Revital and her two sons were huddled together on the bed with Revital pleading for their lives. Sirhan shot them dead as Revital tried to throw her body over her two boys.

A threatening dark and painful cloud still hovers over the kibbutz.

Kershner introduces us to ne of the kibbutz directors named Ben Naftali. At 59 years old he has lived through all of Israel's wars and like many kibbutzniks he has made the left his ideological home. He has made impressive contributions to far left human rights organisations like Betselem, helping them to establish on the ground networks in the triangle. As a strong believer in a practical grass roots approach to peace making he has always encouraged dialogue with Palestinians that Israel refused to speak to.

Kershner remarks that the barrier should be the antithesis of everything that he stands for. But as she then explains, "his is a world of shattered illusions". The 2^nd intifada has forced him to radically re-evaluate his positions. He has always opposed the occupation and now feels that Israel's best option is to just get out and to erect an impenetrable barrier. Sirhan Sirhan and the numerous other terrorist attacks have replaced his feelings of hope with the despairing views that negotiations are hopeless. He feels that Israel should bring about a Palestinian state by unilateral separation. (I wonder if the reduction in successful terror attacks from the West Bank since the construction of the barrier has changed his views regarding negotiations.)

Despite the kibbutzniks opposition to the idea of barriers an unstoppable barrier of blood has changed their positions. Ironically, before the Sirhan attack they even participated in a joint demonstration against the fence with the villagers of Qafin. (They opposed the route whilst the Palestinians opposed the fence. The protest worked – Israel moved the fence which initially penetrated by 1km and now does so by 300m.)

Grown men are crying on both sides of the barrier. Kershner argues that Israel needs to ensure that the barrier becomes part of the solution; not part of the problem. This means making painful decisions regarding its route and implementation.

Perhaps the barrier is already part of the solution. Some supporters of Israel now find themselves in the peculiar position where they are defending a structure that has broken their dreams in the West Bank.

Many opinion makers mistakenly portray the symbolic effect of the barrier with a superficial comparison to the Berlin wall. These comparisons are both misguided and myopic. The symbolic effect of the barrier is its ability to condition Israelis for the territorial concessions that they may ultimately be forced to make. Israelis are getting used to the idea of 'what is west of the barrier is Israel and what is east is Palestinian.' If only it could have the same effect on the Palestinians.

Update at 2007-10-07

• Guide to the Perplexed has some photos of the barriers, including one from Gilo. This reminded me of an earlier post I did when I went on a tour of the security barrier in Israel. The section describing the barrier in and around the Gilo area can be found here: Bringing order to Gilo
• Also on the topic of barriers and therefore withdrawals, see an account at Guide to the Perplexed of a Jerusalem Film Festival film which tells the story of the evacuation of Gush Katif "through the eyes of an elderly couple struggling to come to terms with the fact that they have to leave."

Barrier Review - Part 1

This is the first of a 2 part review of the book "Barrier – the seam of the Israeli Palestinian conflict"

Last year I read a moving book by Isabel Kershner called “Barrier – the seam of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.” The book takes on the complex task of analysing Israel’s anti-terror barrier which, whilst drastically reducing the number of successful terror attacks from the West Bank, has also caused much pain and hardship for the Palestinians.

The book is filled with mournful anecdotes from both sides who have suffered so much - academics, military fence planners, Israeli victims of terror attacks, kibbutzniks, Palestinian farmers and businessmen, Israeli anti-wall activists and the parents of Palestinian terrorists. The conversations combine to illustrate the tragic reason for the barrier's existence as well as the hardships that it creates. It is a human account of the barrier as seen through the eyes of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians who have been affected by terror and the consequences thereof.

Although highly critical of the barrier, its bureaucratic planning and its route, the book ultimately justifies the existence of the barrier (if not the route in certain places) for one simple reason – it has been successful in thwarting terrorism and has thereby reduced the number of anti-terror raids that Israel has needed to launch in the West Bank. 

The most problematic part of the barrier is the Seam Zone. The barrier has created various pockets in which Palestinian villages have become stuck between the barrier and the green line – a type of no man’s land known as the Seam Zone initially affecting some 10 000 Palestinians. For these Palestinians the barrier is more than a simple inconvenience. It has fundamentally changed their lives.

Palestinians in the Seam Zone need green permits to stay in their houses. They also need other permits in order to cross the barrier to get to agricultural lands that they may own on the eastern side of the fence inside the West Bank.

One such affected hamlet is Khirbat Jubaraa. It houses 3500 Palestinians and sits between Qalqilya and Tulkarem. The kids in Khirbat Jubaraa go to school on the eastern side of the fence and have to wait for the gates to open. In 2003 15 days of school were lost because of terror attacks or alerts of impending attacks. In response to this Israel funded buses to take the kids from their houses to their schools in door-to-door fashion. (In South Africa last year, the number of school days lost was measured in months not days because of a bus-driver strike. This year our school children have lost almost 30 days of school due to the recent public sector strike.) The Israeli Supreme Court however has since ruled that the barrier needs to be moved so that Khirbat Jubaraa is placed on the eastern side of the barrier. I wonder if the bus system will endure.

Kershner interviews Palestinians whose lives have been made better and worse by the barrier. The story is often bizarre because of the special lengths that Israel has gone to improve the situation of the Seam Zone Palestinians. Many of the these Palestinians now enjoy better utilities than they had prior to the construction of the barrier (electricity supply to villages that have never known electricity as well as new roads) but there are still the unfortunate ones whose situations are much worse.

Israel desperately needs to find a solution to the Seam Zone problem. The Supreme Court is dealing with numerous petitions to have the route of the barrier moved (the Supreme Court has already ruled in favour of route changes which should bring the number of Seam Zone Palestinians down to less than 5000.) Innovative thinking will be required but the only enduring solution (offering these Palestinians full Israeli citizenship?) would form part of a broader end of conflict settlement which is very far away.

• Read part 2 of this review detailing how idealist left wing Israelis have come to support the barrier.
  

Celsius 7/7

Just before leaving for a much needed holiday, a politically influential friend of mine in England sent me Michael Gove's latest book Celsius 7/7.

To be honest I was not that enthusiastic about the gift. I was 2/3 of the way through rereading George Orwell's 1984; Melanie Phillip's Londonistan had been gathering dust on my bed side table and I was actually looking forward to some political time off. Nevertheless, I made time to finish Gove’s book. It was a wise choice. Celsius 7/7 is one of the best books I have read all year. It was some much needed chicken soup for an ailing neo-con soul. At a time when even Republicans seem to be cutting and running from the Bush doctrine, Michael Gove offers a brave and reasoned endorsement to stay the course.

Michael Gove is an up and coming British Conservative MP. When David Cameron was elected as the leader of the Conservative party in December 2005, Gove was appointed as the party's housing spokesman in the team shadowing the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In addition to being a politician, he is also one of Britian’s leading writers and thinkers on terrorism. He was founding chairman of Policy Exchange, Britian’s foremost right-of-centre think tank and a founding member of the Hendry Jackson Society, an academic body which advocates liberal values in foreign policy. He writes regularly for The Times.

The title of his latest book is an obvious play on Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. And it proves to be an extremely adapt counter metaphor. Celsius as opposed to Fahrenheit, is a logical and concise temperature scale. And so with the book. Michael Gove sets out with reasoned yet succinct arguments (as you would expect from a leading Oxford debater) the threat that Islamists and their fellow travellers on the Far Left pose to the future of Western civilisation.

There were many aspects of the book I found fascinating (its distinction between Islamists and Islamic fundamentalists for one) but by far the most exciting from my perspective was its remarkable understanding of the importance of Israel in the war on terror. Gove argues that Israel is all too often vilified as the black sheep of the family of democratic nations. Its existence is mistakenly seen as the root cause of the global Jihad and as such is pressured into making dangerous concessions or forced to show foolish restraint even by its closest allies. This is a tragedy for both Israel and the West. For as Gove explains ‘Israel is an integral part of the West, a vessel for its values, an example of its virtues and it is hated not for what it does but for what it is’.

Celsius 7/7 argues that winning the war against on terror requires the West not only to strengthen Israel but in fact to emulate it. In its yearning to live as a democratic nation state within secure borders; in its daring use of military force to ensure the safety of its citizens and in its moral clarity as to the nature of the threats it faces, Israel holds the key to Western survival. Unfortunately these values are not the vogue in much of the free world these days. We live in an age that prides itself on the dismantling of the nation state and its replacement with transnational structures; where the use of military force is viewed as innately wrong and moral relativism abounds. Thus Israel is denounced by many particularly on the political Left as an anachronism.

The Jewish state’s dogged adherence to these values has allowed it to flourish in some of the harshest terrain in the world. And this unprecedented success is why Israel is so hated and its existence continually threatened. As Gove explains ‘for all those whose narrative of the last 60 years places the West in the dock, finds capitalism and imperialism guilty of the greatest global crimes of our time, and lays the woes of the developing world at the door of the developed, the condition of Israel is a living refutation of all they stand for.’

Gove’s understanding of Israel’s strategic value (and also threat) is exceptional. It is far superior to many Israeli parliamentarians, foreign ministry professionals and Zionist lobbyists. Moreover, he displays a grasp of the current threats facing Western civilisation that could only be called Churchillian. If Gove’s clarity and resolve is remotely representative of the new Tory leadership in Britain, then all of us that wish to win the war on terror should do all we can to get them to power.

Unholy Alliance

For the last week I have been receiving some much needed rest at the coast. Thus my recent blogging dearth. The time out did however give me a chance to catch up on some of my reading.

Last year for my birthday, one of my friends misguidedly gave me Michael Moore’s latest anti-American rant as a present. I immediately swapped it for David Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, which in the end turned out to be a rather agreeable gift.

David Horowitz underwent a remarkable political transformation. From being a prominent member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later rejected Marxism and is now a leading conservative intellectual.

In Unholy Alliance, Horowitz exposes the bizarre love affair between the far Left and Islamic Fundamentalism. On the surface this relationship seems absurd for radical Islam represents the antithesis of a progressive ideology. Islamists oppose the separation between church/mosque and state, abhor gays, oppress women, discriminate against non-Muslim minorities and relish in the use of the death penalty (particularly beheadings). So why would any self-respecting Leftist ever throw their lot in with these guys?

Horowitz convincingly argues that the far Left’s hatred of the ‘capitalist’ West is at the heart of the answer. The Left has undergone an interesting mutation over the last century. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union they supported the violent overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement with a socialist utopia. But after the horrors of the Soviet Union’s proletariat ‘paradise’ were exposed, many Leftists were forced to discard the second part of their agenda. Thus all that has remained is a nihilist ideology hell bent on the destruction of the West.

Modern Left-wing radicals do not concern themselves with the morality of the means only of the end result. Thus Leftists unquestioningly support ultra conservative Islamic extremist so long as their goal is the annihilation of the West. The Lefts romance with Cuba’s long time dictator Fidel Castro is another example of this phenomenon. The exponential rise of the cult of Chavez is perhaps the most recent illustration of Leftists blind support for anything or anyone anti-American.

While many on the Left have denounced President Bush for his use of phrases such as ‘axis of Evil’ for being child-like and simplistic, their world view is equally if not more one-dimensional. They see America as the ‘great Satan’ and anyone who opposes it, no matter how abhorrent, as righteous. This sentiment is encapsulated by Nicholas De Genova, a Colombia university professor who openly called for a million Mogadishus and America’s defeat in the war on terror, saying that ‘a world in which there is peace and justice is a world where the US would have no place.’

Horowitz in detail examines how this nihilist anti-Western ideology has infused many of the different factions within the Left-wing camp. He exposes its influence on the anti-War movement, the pro-Palestinian lobby, academia and even mainstream elements with the Democratic Party.

Horowitz argues convincingly that there are now two Americas: an America that embraces its heritage and purpose (to promote liberty) and an America that has seceded from both. As Horowitz so succinctly puts it

The secessionists are persuaded that America is the adversary of what is decent and good in the world, that its heritage is one of inequality and injustice, and that its purpose is expressed in an arrogant will to dominate and oppress…. Consequently, the secessionists want to make a separate peace with America’s enemies, even in the midst of a War on Terror… In conducting their internal war against America’s war on terror, they reveal a loathing—which is really a self-loathing—for their country and its citizens.

Winning this global struggle against radical Islam will require more than just crushing Al Qaeda and spreading democracy in the Middle East. The insurgent element of the Left that wishes to overthrow Western civilization from within also needs to be defeated.

Seeking Mandela

I did promise that once I had finished reading Heribert Adams and Kogila Moodley’s new book Seeking Mandela I would blog about it. Many of our readers will remember that this book was the catalyst for last months ‘debate’ on the one state solution at Constitutional Hill.

I actually finished reading this book weeks ago but have at every opportunity put off writing this review. Why you ask? Well quite honestly I don’t know where to begin. This book is such a jumble of confused information and misinformation that I don’t know how to succinctly make sense of it.

I have decided to begin at the beginning with the title – “Seeking Mandela”. This title implies that the authors adopt the school of thought that strong leaders are the major forced behind political progress. Well they make it extremely clear in their introduction chapter and through out the book that they do not. They believe that even in South Africa, Madiba magic was only a small part of the key to a peaceful end to apartheid. But hey, Seeking Mandela is catchy so they stuck with it. This need of the authors to obfuscate their true views in order to appease readers is a constant flaw throughout almost every chapter of the book.

In essence the book attempts to answer the question “is Israel an Apartheid state?” The authors looked at 6 aspects (Economic Interdependence, Religion, Third-party Intervention, Leadership, Political culture and Violence) in order to find an answer. In almost every aspect considered they found immense discrepancies between Apartheid South African and Zionist Israel.

Economic Interdependence
While Apartheid South Africa was extremely dependent on Black labour, Israel does not require many Palestinian workers. In fact it is the Palestinian economy that is dependent on Israel providing Palestinians with jobs. The need for Black labour forced Whites in South Africa to negotiate with Black unions. In Israel/Palestine (hate that construction but they use it) no such situation exists.

Religion
Christianity was a unifying factor in South Africa. In the Middle East Judaism and Islam compete for sovereignty (for example in Jerusalem).

Third Party Intervention
South Africa ended Apartheid without direct third party intervention in the negotiating process. Israeli/Palestinian negotiations have always taken place as a direct result of American pressure. There is no disputing how intricately involved the Clinton administration was for example in the Oslo process.

Leadership
While de Klerk and Mandela both had widespread support for making compromises, Israeli and Palestinian politics are more fragmented. The Israeli premiership changed 4 times during the Oslo process and Hamas always threatened Fatah rule through its military strength.

Political Culture
Whites and Blacks had every day contact during Apartheid. Whites understood that they had little to fear. In fact Whites trusted Black nannies to even look after their children. Israelis and Palestinians in contrast have limited contact and fear pervades much of their attitudes of each other.

In South Africa there was a clear distinction between who were the oppressed and who were the oppressors. In the Middle East both Israelis and Palestinians view themselves as victims. The moral revulsion that most Whites felt for Apartheid does not exist amongst Israeli Jews for Zionism.

Violence
The ANC’s armed struggle was most characterised by sabotage of infrastructure and attacks on military targets. Palestinian armed groups deliberately target civilians while Israel often assassinates Palestinian civilian leaders.

So what would you conclude from that analysis? I say it’s pretty clear that Israel/Palestine is very different to Apartheid South Africa. But no. After going through ten’s of pages painstakingly highlighting the differences, the authors remark that the stark similarities between the two situations particularly the Bantuisation of the Palestinian territories makes the Apartheid analogy seem reasonable.

The final part of the book is dedicated to finding a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. And once again inconsistency after inconsistency. The authors claim that neither solution (the one state or the two state) is morally superior. But, they launch into a diatribe condemning the notion of an ethno-religious state particularly a Jewish one. That horrible “A” word, anachronism, is all over the place. But just when you think that they are going to jump into the one state camp—they endorse a two state solution arguing that one state isn’t practical. Then they back track and argue that the 2 state solution will be a stepping stone to eventual post nationalist one state solution bliss from the Jordan river all the way to the Mediterranean sea. Who can keep up with all the zigzagging?

Contradictions aside, this was an extremely difficult book for me to read. While highlighting many differences between Israel/Zionism and South Africa/Apartheid it is extremely critical of the Jewish state (even its right to exist). The Authors seem to live in a parallel universe where the Muslim Judicial Council is moderate and Ronnie Kasrils is a Jewish peace activist. The Holocaust is their only possible justification for ‘Zionist colonialism’. But even then the authors question whether the fact that Jews had nowhere else to go gave them the right ‘to expel the Palestinian people from their ancient homeland’. Seeking sanity rather than Mandela would perhaps have been a more apt title.

This book is certainly not on my recommended reading list. I wouldn’t wish the sleepless nights this book has caused me on anyone. However, the book did challenge me to question my own positions particularly on the morality of ethno-religious states. Does, for example, the concept of a Jewish State mean that non-Jews living in that state are by definition secondly class if not non-citizens? I hope in the coming weeks, time willing, to post my defence of this controversial idea of a Jewish and democratic state.

Out of Step

The aptness of the title of Jack Bloom’s new book (Out of Step) was illustrated by the vicious review it received in the Star Newspaper yesterday.

Jack Bloom is the DA chief whip in Gauteng and responsible for their health and education portfolios. In addition to being active in South African politics, Mr Bloom is also an avid Jewish Human Rights campaigner. He, through letters and op-ed pieces, has been at the forefront of the struggle for more balanced reporting on Israel in the South African Media. At times, particularly in the early days of the Intifada, he seemed like a ‘lone voice’ in this very difficult struggle. His neoconservative views on the Middle East, from the Iraq war to the Palestinian Intifada, have certainly placed him out of step with South Africa’s foreign policy agenda, which all too often seems to be in lockstep with Islamic fundamentalists and the extreme Left.

The review claims that Bloom’s book is a ‘disorganised mish mash, which is likely to be used to light fires.’ Not exactly flattering.

This harsh criticism of the book stems from the fact that ‘it s not so much a defence of Israel as an attack on those who dare suggest there may be other opinions.’ Bloom is accused of ‘frothing about writers such as Independent Newspapers Robert Fisk or the former editor of the Sunday Independent John Battersby.’ Rightfully so I would say, but the Star feels that these renowned anti-Israel journalists have had ‘a long professional acquaintance with the Middle East and that each remains as interested in the fate of the Palestinians as in the fate of the Israelis’. Ya right!

But perhaps the most stirring condemnation is for Mr Bloom’s perceived lack of even handedness which the Star feels ‘destroys an argument’s validity’. Must remember that for the next time Robert Fisk writes a column. Even handedness the Star argues ‘is what distinguishes a politician from a statesman and by that marker Bloom has a long road to travel.’ (Steve adds, compare that to this glowing review The Star gave a one sided book calling Israel an Apartheid state)

I have not yet read the book and so can not defend it. Mr Bloom is having a book launch on Monday 13 February at which I intent to buy the book. Then I will be able to express a more informed opinion. That said I am expecting it to be a worthwhile read. Like Barry Ronge with movies, I have most often found that doing the opposite of what the Star advices has served me rather well. Sometimes it’s useful to be out of Step.

OUT OF STEPLife of a PoliticianPolitics and Religion in a World at War by Jack Bloom MPL Introduced by Journalist, Author and TV Presenter Denis Beckett "Jack's book gives me new respect for lonely heroes in local politics, and new dread of holy bigotry in global politics" Denis Beckett Jack Bloom will speak on the topic: "Is the World at War?" Monday 13 February 2006 Beyachad Centre 2 Elray Street, Raedene 17h30 for 18h00 Secure Parking Reservations Tel: (011) 645-2500, Fax: (011) 645-2559 Autographed copies will be on sale at R100 (discount on R160 retail price)

From Beirut to Jerusalem

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is one of the most respected Middle East journalists of our time. His seminal book "From Beirut to Jerusalem" traces his journey from the late 70s to the late 80s as the New York Times correspondent first in Beirut (from 1979-1984) and then in Jerusalem (from 1984-1988). The book is divided into two main sections…Beirut and then Jeursalem.

From Beirut to Jerusalem is one of the classic pieces of Middle East literature. The defining feature of the book is the way Friedman's riveting narratives both report and explain the complex nature of the Middle East.

The first section, Beirut, blends riveting anecdotes of life in Beirut with a thematic detailing of the problems that engulfed Lebanon. Beirut is described as an impossibly complex place with rival tribes that, in Friedman's pessimistic view, will probably never live peacefully together.

The Lebanon on the 1980s is compared to the romantic version of Beirut that existed prior to the 15 year civil war. Through the comparisons of ordinary Lebanese citizens we understand just how tragic life in Beirut became in the 1980s. Corruption, mistrust, danger, and a stark sense of humour defined the life that Friedman found in Beirut.

The section is Olympic in its greatness and achieves a masterful blend of mixed and contrasting emotions which replicate the life he found there. People in Lebanon became so conditioned to the fighting that passers-by on one street would witness a raging gun battle while shoppers browsed around the corner. After a car bombing in Beirut, the most frequently asked question is not "Who did it?" or "How many were killed?" but "What did it do to the dollar rate?" Likewise, "How is it outside?" refers not to the weather but to the security situation.

Friedman's section on Jerusalem is a far more complex affair. Friedman takes on various subjects concerning Israel: The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, the conflict between the different types of Jews who live in Israel (one of the best chapters involves interviews with the 4 different types of Jews in Israel – secular Zionist, Haredi, modern Orthodox Zionist, and Religious Messianic Zionist), the relationship between Israel and the media and the relationship between Israeli Jews and American Jews. All these subjects are artfully bound together in a way that shows how none of them are independent of the other.

As a young Jewish man growing up in America Friedman viewed Israel as a mythical, heroic and iconic place of perfection. His travails through Lebanon and Jerusalem however forced him to remove the rose tinted glasses that he has seen Israel through ever since the triumphant victory in the 6 day war. Friedmans highly emotional connection to Israel is the problem that his analysis suffers from. Friedman expects too much from Israel. He is too emotional about Israel to give an objective and neutral analysis on its many challenges and problems. This leads him to become overly critical of Israel in general and Orthodox religious Jews in particular.

He readily admits as much in a chapter entitled Under the Spotlight. In this chapter Friedman discusses (and defends) the exaggerated coverage Israel receives in the press relative to other conflicts in the world. (He describes an American newspaper in 1988 making a bigger fuss over an Israeli soldier breaking a Palestinian rioters arm than of the fresh reports that Saddam had just used poisonous gas to kill thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq.)

But for Friedman this all takes place partly because of the fascination the world has with the super story that they can all relate to…that Israel today is the modern continuation of the stories from the Bible that the West are so enamoured with.

Friedman admits that he expects more from the Israelis than he does from the Arabs. To him it's because he is a Jew, and therefore expects more from his team. This is why he is so quick to criticise every wrong move that Israel ever makes. Israel is criticised more in the book than her Arab neighbours that have tried so many times to attack and destroy her. But Friedman explains his analysis. He understands the difficult situation that Israel faces, as she tries to fight a war in a fair and legal manner (though he points out that it sometimes is only a pretense), even though her enemies are not playing by any rules except Hama rules. (Hama rules is a term he coined to explain the wild rules of the Middle East. In 1982, in order to quell a rebellion by the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama Syria, PM Basher Assad mowed down the entire town killing almost 25 000 people in one week.)

Friedman judges the Israelis by a higher standard because of his emotional ties to Israel. But he also soberly explains how the whole world judges Israelis by a higher standard. Because of this Friedman explains how lucky the Palestinians are that they are in a conflict against the Jews; as opposed to some other nation. It is because they are up against the Jews that their voice will always be heard and that attention will always be focused upon them.

"When the Palestinians are not victims of Jews, but of other Arabs, or when they themselves are victimisers, the West is simply not interested in their fate. That becomes clear from even the most cursory reading of newspapers during the past few years. When Israelis were indirectly responsible in the massacre of Palestinians as the sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982, the story was front page news for weeks. When Lebanese Shiites were directly involved in killing Palestinians in the very same camps from 1985-1988, it was almost always back page news – if it was reported at all. This despite the fact that some 3000 Palestinians were killed during the three years of fighting over the camps."

Friedman’s emotional entanglement causes him to misread the larger context of the conflict and this is readily seen by reading his advised solutions to the conflict. He details the way he thinks the conflict can be resolved but takes a very naïve approach on the 4 main issues – Jerusalem, Security, Territory, and the Refugees. Friedman thought that Israel could readily end the conflict simply by offering the Palestinians a state. On each of the above issues Friedman's solution adopts a formula that the Palestinians today would outrightly reject. Friedman thought that the power balance between the two sides would cause the Palestinians to accept whatever Israel put on the table.

Despite this, his story is remarkably told. His criticism is generally constructive and interesting. The book really does take you on a journey from Beirut to Jerusalem. It is filled with clever descriptions and metaphors ("Middle East diplomacy is a contact sport"). Though it is now somewhat dated, it nevertheless remains one of the most compelling Middle East reads available.

At times it frustrated me, at times it challenged me, and at times it changed my views on the Middle East. But it always kept me hooked.

Steve

The Case for Democracy

Book Review - The Case for Democracy - Natan Sharansky

It’s not often that the president of the United States of America engages in book promotions. So when in the beginning of this year President Bush described Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy as a must read, I felt it was my civic duty (as a strong supporter of America’s new neo conservative foreign policy) to oblige. I have just finished reading this poignant treatise on the power of democracy and freedom to overcome tyranny and terror in the Middle East and would like to share a few thoughts.

Natan Sharansky needs no introduction as a human rights campaigner. Unlike most of today’s armchair human rights activists (among them Amnesty International and the United Nation), he spent 9 years in prison for his public opposition to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Empire. This experience of being a dissident in one of the world’s least democratic states gives Sharansky incredible insight into the workings of despotic regimes and tangible means to defeat them.

Sharansky argues that the Realist foreign policy school of thought (so prevalent in the American state department prior to 9/11) is in fact one of the greatest dangers facing international peace and security. Western governments in recent years with the spate of bombings in New York, London and Madrid have learnt that propping up dictators does not promote international stability but actually fuels terrorism. It is interesting to note that the majority of the high-jackers on 9/11 came from Middle Eastern countries with pro America public polices. Sharansky explains that dictators in order to stay in power need to play double speak. They need Western technological and financial support while at the same time need an external enemy to justify their oppression at home. Tragically for the last half century Western governments have been funding the anti-western hate-fest that is the Arab street.

Sharansky argues that Israel has been no exception to this phenomenon. During the 9 years he served as a cabinet minister in successive Israel governments, his pleas to make peace with the Palestinian conditional on democratic reform fell on deaf ears. The Oslo Accords embodied the realist approach to peace and security. It was encapsulated by Prime Minister Rabin’s remark that Arafat would be able to fight terror more effectively than Israel because he did not have to be bothered with the shackles of a Supreme Court and human rights activists. What the Israeli ‘peace’ camp failed to realise is that strengthening Arafat by providing him with guns and money allowed him to create a terror state on the West bank and in Gaza. He perhaps personified the double speak of a dictator by talking about peace in English for his western donors, while spewing the most vile anti-Semitic hated in Arabic to justify his repressive policies towards his own people.

Democracy and freedom argues Sharansky are the cure to this terrorist scourge. In the entire history of the world a free society has never waged war again another free society. In fact it is remarkable to think that Fascist Japan and Germany who fought a world war against the West are today democratic and some of our staunchest allies. Even Stalin’s evil empire, is today in the form of democratic Russia, a close friend. And so too a free Middle East could one day be a partner in promoting global peace and prosperity.

Although I fully endorse Sharansky’s belief in the power of democracy and freedom, I regret that he did not provide a ‘road map’ for Middle Eastern transformation. He does mention how Western public and financial support for the dissidents in the Soviet Union finally lead to its implosion and encourages this policy for the Middle East. But he provides no information about who these Arab dissidents are, what progress they have made, or how we can support them. In fact one of the biggest problems in post war Iraq is the lack of a broad based Iraqi liberation movement that could take power. Without home grown democratic Arab political parties, freedom in the Middle East will only survive under the auspices of neo-Western imperialism.

So while rightfully castigating the Realist foreign policies of Western states, Sharansky unfortunately fails to provide a practical alternative. If we want the Bush foreign policy revolution to prevail, neo-cons will need influential Arab democrats. Rather than spending our time decrying all the anti-Western hate that flows out the Middle East, we should be searching frantically for the much fainter voices of Sharansky-like Arab dissidents.

Mike