It's Almost Supernatural

Joel Pollak to Run for Congress

Our friend Joel Pollack has just publically announced his intention to run for a seat in the US Congress.

You can see him announce it here on fox news: The announcement on Fox news

He has also put up a website www.pollakforcongress.com. I encourage people to sign up and offer support.

Joel is smart, principled, capable and deeply committed to human rights and the safety and security of all people in the United States and the state of Israel. America needs more people like Joel in Washington DC!

Joel's Facebook page has all the details of his campaign. You can also follow him on twitter at www.twitter.com/joelpollak

Good Luck Joel!

In Defense of Nadav Tamir

Israel's consul-general in New England, Nadav Tamir, has been is serious hot water over the last few weeks for a memo he authored that criticized the current Netanyahu led government’s confrontational stance towards the Obama administration (see FM fumes over Boston Consul's remarks).

He warned that "The atmosphere of confrontation between the Israeli government and the Obama administration puts the American-Jewish community, which is so important to us, in a difficult position. Many of them are distancing themselves from the State of Israel because of this conflict."

Having spent a fair amount of time recently in the United States, I think sadly Tamir is dead right. It is time Israel and the rest of the Jewish world wakes up to the fragile nature of American Jewish support, particularly among the youth.

In general meeting young American Jews, particularly the non-Orthodox variety, has been a profoundly disturbing experience for me. For many, being Jewish is as significant as being left handed or having brown hair and perhaps eating Gefilte fish. Their knowledge of and connection to the Jewish people, its traditions and culture is pathetic. So often I get the question, “are there really Jews in South Africa”? And this is from tertiary educated people.

They do not feel anti-Semitism and threats to Jewish identify in the same way many other Diaspora Jews do. There are no guards outside synagogues. When one explains that many communities are forced to establish security organizations to protect themselves and their institutions they seem shocked at the thought. This lack of any real anti-Semitism coupled with their poor Jewish identity leads many to question the need for a Jewish state. One person recently put it to me that it would have been far better if all the Jewish refugees that have found safe haven in Israel over the decades had just come to America. When I tried to explain the desire for national self determination and the benefits of being a free people in your own land like having Jewish holidays as national holidays, I got a strange look. If you know how many young Americans Jews go to university on Yom Kippur, you would understand how out of touch my example was.

Support for the Democratic Party, and particularly for Obama, is for many equivalent to Judaism. I sometimes have to pinch myself when people speak of enshrining their Jewish values through their work in pro-choice, anti-gun, pro affirmative action or anti-climate change activism. And if one looks closely at the history of Reform and Conservative Judaism in America this makes a lot of sense. The laws and traditions were quite literally rewritten and recreated to comply with modern Liberal thinking. They owe much more allegiance to these principals than some piece of land thousands of miles away.

Nadav Tamir gets this. I have had the good fortune to hear him speak to a large group of young Jews in Boston and was thoroughly impressed. His message is not the rah rah type of Zionism that we in the rest of the Jewish world may be used to. He understands his audience and connects with them and connects them to Israel through their ‘Jewish values’.

Rather than scold Nadav, the new government in Israel should listen to his warnings. The old style blanket American Jewish support for Israel will not continue indefinitely. As more and more of the next generation take on roles in the Jewish community and the broader American society, Israel will have to change its message and its actions if it wishes to maintain its special relationship with American Jewry. People like Nadav are key to bridging this potential and dangerous divide.

Rights and Wrongs in East Jerusalem

The outcry over Israel’s eviction of two Palestinian families in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah has been deafening. “Provocative”, “contrary to peace”, “violations of Israel's obligations under the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan” ... Is this criticism fair? Is it balanced? I think the international community has missed the point on this whole issue.

Contrary to its portrayal in the media, this was not a political act. It was a legal one. The Israeli Supreme Court, renowned for its professionalism and impartiality, has ruled that the property does not belong to the Palestinians who lived there. It was purchased during Ottoman rule by Jews. After 1948, when the Jordanians gained control of that part of the city, they took over these plots under the Enemy Property Law. In 1956, 28 Palestinian families that had been receiving refugee assistance from UNRWA were selected to benefit from a relief project, in which they forfeited their refugee aid and moved into homes built on this formerly Jewish property. There is little dispute that the evictions were legal in terms of Israeli law.

A democratic state must adhere to the rule of law. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, no matter how controversial, it must be implement. The international community cannot and should not expect the government of Israel to short circuit, the independence of its judiciary no matter how heart breaking the images of Palestinians thrown onto the street maybe.

But what they can demand is that Israel applies the rulings of the Supreme Court equally. The international community should be asking if Sheikh Jarrah why not the tens of illegal outposts in the West Bank that the Supreme Court has called on the government to dismantle. Why is it that alternative accommodation is sought for the illegal squatters in Migron before they are evicted but no such care is taken for these Palestinian families? There certainly does seem to be a double standard. One that is unacceptable and Israel should be called out for.

Rethinking the US-Israel Relationship

An Israeli friend of mine, Yarden Gazit, has written an interesting article on Ynet calling for the Jewish state to re-evaluate its dependence on the United States (find it here). 

For some time, in think tanks and universities across America, there has been a lively debate underway about the potential costs of the country’s strong support for Israel. The Obama administration seems to have somewhat bought into this analysis and engaged in unprecedented public criticism of Israel. But no such debate is underway in Jerusalem.

Diversification is an important hedging strategy. Yet Israel has for too long placed all its eggs in the US basket. It is vital that the new Likud government exert more energy on strengthen its relationships with emerging powers like China and India. Yarden points out that Israel supports almost all US foreign policy decision blindly even when they contradict or have no relevance to their own strategic goals such as the supporting the blockade of Cuba. Other strong US allies like Australia and Canada do not show nearly the same level of deference to US demands.

Diversification has become all the more necessary since the financial crisis. Given the enormous amount that the US now needs to borrow from the rest of the world, particularly from China, to stay afloat, US power has been severely weakened. Moreover the unilateralism of the Bush years is over. Obama is unlikely to take positions that stray too far from the international consensus as we have already seen in his approach to the Settlements and Jerusalem.

I also think China but more so India share many common values and interests with Israel. First and foremost, their relationship to the Jewish state is free of the historical baggage of much of Christendom. Also these nations have no religious claims or minorities in the region. They are far more independent. There is also a common basis for respect in that we are all great ancient civilizations that have contributed much over many thousands of years independently to humanity. A strong case could be made for the impact our three peoples could have in the future if we cooperate. The pursuit of knowledge and technological progress coupled with a strong sense of culture and tradition could be a very solid foundation for a relationship.

China has a history of saving Jews during the Holocaust and support for the Zionist movement, whilst India and modern Israel, both the victims of terrorism, share a lot of common understanding about the world we live in today. On reading the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey, I was struck by how out of synch Israel and India are from the rest of the world. Both strongly support US efforts to fight terrorism and would like to see more troops in Afghanistan. On the economic front too, both countries show a remarkably high respect for the free market and free trade but a desire to protect their culture from foreign influence.

Yarden has started an important debate on Israel’s future relations with the rest of the world. I think it is extremely important people in the Jewish blogosphere carry it on.

Zuma Continues Illiberal Foreign Policy

South Africa voted to disband the United Nations Human Rights Council investigation into war crimes in Sudan, last week in Geneva. I really can’t say it’s a surprise. South Africa’s international support for tyrants and their human rights abuses from Zimbabwe to Burma over the last few years are all well documented. But many influential commentators had hoped that Zuma may change course. This is obviously not to be the case.

What is interesting is that not all African countries followed South Africa’s lead. Mauritius and Zambia bravely voted for continued scrutiny of Sudan’s human rights violations, while Angola, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal all abstained.

After the resolution was thankfully passed and the investigator retained, the Ugandan representative in a rare display of disunity chastised fellow African countries that had sided with Sudan. He declared “From the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda, we are always reminded that never again should we allow these events to happen through inaction or political expediency”. He praised the Council’s resolution on Sudan, saying it “reasserted the credibility of the Council” and thanked Council members who “have acted with courage on their convictions.”

Given our own history it seems unbelievable that it would be necessary, but President Zuma and the ANC would do well to listen to these wise words.

(Hat hit UNWATCH)

Tony Leon’s ‘racism’ — a Jewish pathology?

  Former leader of the Opposition in South Africa Tony Leon has become embroiled in an ugly mud slinging match over the suitability of controversial Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe for a future seat on the constitutional court. Leon, no stranger to being called a racist for his outspoken criticism of ANC policy will probably not be surprised by the latest attack from the Justice for Hlophe Alliance (see Leon should apologise for Hlophe remarks - JHA). But South African Jewry should be outraged.

Leon, on account of being Jewish, is accused of trying to import the racist discourse of the Arab-Israeli conflict into South African society. Absurdly, almost a third of the response issued by the Justice for Hlophe Alliance deals with the views of an extremist fringe in Israel towards its Arab citizens. Not only did Leon not refer to the Middle East or Jewish related issues in his original article, but the issue has nothing even to do with minority rights. Somehow Leon’s use of the term “fifth column” to describe Hlophe and his supporters in relation to the constitution has been deemed to be racist Jewish language common to right wing nationalist parties in Israel. The irony of course, is that Leon began his piece elegantly explaining that the origin of the term is actually the Spanish civil war.

Now love Leon or hate (I personally am in the former camp), agree with his criticism of Hlophe or condemn it, his ethnic-religious affiliation should have no bearing on the debate. The fact that he is Jewish or that the term “fifth column” has been used by people on the political extreme in the Jewish state is just not relevant. So why was it used? For the same reason the Nationalist Party ad nauseum assailed Helen Suzman for her Jewish roots. It is a classic political trick to prey on popularist anti-Jewish sentiments in an attempt to discredit and silence the critic.

The South African Jewish Community, in particular the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, cannot let this incident go unchallenged. We cannot let the Jewish origin of public figures be used as a tool to bash them. Remaining silent would only serve to legitimise this tactic. I understand that the leadership of the community may be nervous to wade into this fiery debate, particularly given the strong support Hlophe seems to have within the ANC. But there is a need to show some backbone here and stand up and defend Jewish rights. Otherwise we will always be de facto second-class citizens in this country.

Learning to Live with a Likud Government

The new Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu poses an interesting challenge for South African Jewry. Despite the broad pro-Israel support among the vast majority of South African Jews, there are major internal disagreements over Israeli policy in the territories. This came to the fore in this week’s fiercely critical editorial and opinion piece in the South African Jewish Report.

There is no doubt that a large and influential block exists within South African Jewry that still supports the idea of Greater Israel and the settlement movement. But there are also many who now understand the necessity of a 2 state solution and the painful concessions that entails. Of course this includes traditional leftwing Zionist organizations like Habonim but official umbrella bodies like the South African Jewish Board of Deputies have also, publically at least, adopted this position. So what is the community now to do when the government of Israel refuses to explicitly support the 2 state solution?

When I was formally involved in communal affairs during the Sharon years, it used to be common practice, if not principal, that umbrella Jewish organisations like the South African Zionist Federation, the Jewish Board of Deputies and the South African Union of Jewish Students support the Israeli government of the day. The logic to this position goes something like, if we accept that Israel is a democratic society and the government is a true reflection of the will of the Israeli people, who are we as South African Jewry to argue with their choice? Given that we don’t fight in the army and/or pay taxes we should not be determining Israeli policy.

On the other hand, these organisations are answerable to the entire South African Jewish community. If there is strong and widespread opposition to a certain Israeli policy or even to the entire government among South African Jewry, should democratic organisations not reflect that? Perhaps some sort of poll or even contested political election may be necessary.

But for me, more important is how we as a community respond to each other. I hope we can use this opportunity for some reasoned debate within the community. That means not only that we should be open to providing a forum for criticising Israeli policy as the South African Jewish Report has done this week, but space should also be given to those who would wish to support the current government.

Israel faces many difficult dilemmas. The issues are very emotional for many of us including myself. But I hope that we can carry on a debate based on the facts and not the people. Steve and I have both been extremely busy the last few weeks. But I hopefully will have a bit for time on my hands in the next few months. I hope that IAS, as we have done in the past, can serve as a vehicle for the type of reasoned debate I am talking about.

Israeli Army Prosecutes Delinquent Soldiers

Abuses of power take place on all sides during all wars. The distinguishing feature of a state is how it handles these. What critics of Israel fail to understand is that its democratic nature provides internal institutional mechanisms to punish and prevent the excesses of a few wayward soldiers. To this end, there is a story in Haaretz last week about an IDF soldier who was arrested for stealing a credit card from a home in the northern Gaza strip during the recent war against Hamas and using it to withdraw 1,600 Shekels.

Of course this is a disgusting act. Using war as a cover for stealing private property for no justifiable reason other than self enrichment, should be prohibited. It goes against the moral code of the IDF and the Jewish people. It is disappointing of course to know that even one such act took place. We need to examine why it happened. But most importantly Israel has made it clear not only by its words, but by its actions, in arresting the guilty soldier that such behavior will not be tolerated.

What I find remarkable about the whole story is how well the institutional control mechanism within the IDF functioned. The article reports that a Palestinian residing in the northern Gaza Strip lodged a complaint with the army after the war that his credit card was stolen during Operation Cast Lead. He presented them with his credit card statement revealing a number of products had been purchased in Israel with it. In light of the seriousness of the complaint, the military prosecution ordered the Military Police Investigation unit to open probes in which they would take evidence in order to examine the claims. The unit found the Palestinian’s claim to be accurate, found the guilty party and arrested him.

It is firstly amazing that the Palestinian man chose to report the theft in the first place. From what we read in the newspapers, the IDF is a Palestinian child killing machine. Why would any sane Palestinian have believed that he would get justice from it? Not over a death but a few hundred dollars? And we know how those Jews like their dollars, just ask South Africa’s former Foreign Minister. Secondly, why the evil IDF would even have bothered to follow up on the complaint. And then thirdly, when finding guilt, actually go to the trouble of arresting the soldier and not just crying security concerns. This incident demonstrates that Israel’s critics have missed a thing or two about the morality of its army!

This is obviously only one swan, but it is does carry with it the hope of summer. Those who really care about Palestinian and Israeli wellbeing would be advised to take note. This is not Yugoslavia or Rwanda or even Faluja or Kabul. There is no need to impose an outside trial on the IDF and Israeli politicians for war crimes. Its courts and police investigation units will do it for you where necessary. If Judge Goldstone and co really wanted to make a difference, rather than spending their summer on a witch hunt, they should come to Israel to offer their expertise in strengthening these types of internal institutions.

Judge Goldstone vs the State of Israel: How Does the Defendant Plead?

This week, investigators from the tirelessly anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council are meeting in Geneva to plan their fact finding mission into human rights abuses committed in the January Gaza war. But leading the team is the widely respected South African Jewish Judge, Richard Goldstone. In the last few weeks he has been instrumental in increasing the scope of the inquiry to include Palestinian violations of international law as well—a remarkably unique situation for a UNHRC commission. Thus, this investigation cannot just be dismissed as an anti-Israel witch hunt out of hand. Israel faces a very serious dilemma: to cooperate or not to cooperate.

Goldstone, in my opinion, should not have accepted the appointment. Not only should judges be independent when dispensing justice but they need to be seen as impartial. While I do not doubt Goldstone’s professionalism, I don’t believe, given his Jewish affiliation, that his ruling will ever be seen as impartial. If he finds against Israel, Zionist will say he was trying to overcompensate for his Jewishness. If he finds for Israel, Arabs will say that he has sided with his co-religionists over the truth. The Palestinian leadership in Gaza is already making these claims. According to the Los Angeles Times, one Hamas official complained to al-Arab television that Goldstone, because he is Jewish, ‘will no doubt side with the Zionist enemy.' And to be honest, they have lots of ammo to back up their claim. Not only ix Goldstone a Jew, but he also has strong ties to the state of Israel. He is a trustee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a president emeritus of World ORT.

Goldstone claimed in an email exchange with Joel Pollak of Guide to the Perplexed that ‘an independent and even-handed inquiry into the Gaza events is necessary and in the interests of peace in the Middle East’.  I am afraid no matter what he does his commission will not be able to achieve this noble goal. His ethnicity and associating with the state of Israel effectively rules this out. But he has accepted the post and Israel has had to decide how to deal with the investigation with him as its chair.

Early reports out of Jerusalem seemed to indicate that Israel would boycott the investigation. A letter was purported to have been sent to Goldstone through the Israeli embassy in Geneva informing him and the council that Israel believed it was "impossible to cooperate with the committee" in its inquiry. Anything spawned by the vociferously anti-Israel UNHRC was deemed by the Jewish state to be hostile and illegitimate. To be honest, I understand their point. Why is it that Israel is under investigation for war crimes and not the numerous perennial human rights abusers? Israel is a democratic country with a fiercely independent Supreme Court to deal with any of the potential abuses that may have taken place, so why does it need the UNHRC to intervene? In fact, the army has conducted its own investigation and found no evidence of international legal violations by the IDF.  No, this investigation is certainly not fair and the likelihood of an honest result is by no means guaranteed, but I still think Israel must comply. Whether we agree or not, the commission has legitimacy in the eyes of most of the world. And boycotting it will sadly not discredit its findings when they are released. Israel’s only hope of limiting the international, political and legal fall-out is to make public all the evidence it has and address all the commission’s concerns. If it does not cooperate, not only will it be found guilty of war crimes, but it will be seen even by some of its supporters as if it has something to hide.

There is no doubt the playing field is not even but that is no reason just to throw the entire game. It just means that Israel has to play harder. Their evidence must be more reliable, their legal arguments smarter and their PR response more eloquent. Given its history, I have faith that this is a challenge that the Jewish state can surely rise to!

Live from Durban 2: The Show Goes On

Former SAUJS chairlady, Caylee Talpert, gives us another update about the events of the last few days at what must be one of the most Orwellian events of the decade, a United Nations anti-racism conference that has given a platform to some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet; a conference where all Jewish students were temporally banned on account of the actions of some Jews; and where real victims of genocide like Darfuris had to protest in the hope of getting some attention.

---

The Show goes on! A show is pretty much exactly what over the past week the Durban Review Conference has become. Whilst at times very entertaining, unfortunately I don’t think I walked away from “Durban Two” with much more than I would have, had I had spent the week at the Cannes Film Festival and I don’t think the victims of racism would have known any difference either for that matter.

Despite a fully planned schedule, Day 2 of the conference (Tuesday) started off fairly quietly for the students. First we were forced to remain in the “Welcome Centre” where we were based as a result of security threats. However even after we were “released” we still could not enter the UN as we had lost our accreditation as a result of the two clowns that ‘stole the show’ during Ahmadinejad’s speech the day before. The fact that these students were actually accredited as part of the French Jewish Students Union and not the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) like the rest of us, didn’t seem to make a difference, after all Jews are Jews.

Once we were eventually allowed back in (and not before the media had reported on the Jewish Students losing their accreditation), we attended a few side events. Some proved enlightening with human rights heroes like Ellie Wiesel, Erwin Cotler and Alan Dershowitz addressing the audience (all organised by Jewish organisations); but others such as the one on “Human Rights, Discrimination and Islamaphobia”, organised by Interfaith International and Al Hakim Foundation, were not so enlightening. (Although NGO events like these where accusations of ‘the Zionists controlling the world’ and committing the ‘gravest violations in the 21st Centaury’ are a regular occurrence and hardly a newsworthy event for those more familiar with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s daily activity.)

The day ended with a Darfur Rally to try and put this horrific Genocide on the conference’s agenda. The Rally comprised largely of Jews, Darfuris and a couple of international students. Despite around 200 people and two hours spent chanting ‘Al Bashir, Criminal’ or ‘UN listen up, stop the Genocide in Darfur’ lead by the Darfuris, there was little news coverage. I guess after a day spent on Ahmadinejad, Darfur just isn’t that interesting anymore, after all its already been going on for 6 years and the deaths of over 500 000 people and displacement of 2.5 million others is just another tragedy taking place in Africa, far away from the imposing structure of the UN building with its well manicured lawns and massive halls. Yet another example of the indifference and myopia of a world where Genocide has become ‘old news’.

Wednesday we were again forced to stay away from the UN after the ‘Frenchies’ decided to hand out red noses in the council and again we were all found guilty by association. Instead we attended a series of lectures in the morning by human rights activists from around the world. This event, organised by a coalition of NGOs showcased the real heroes in the fight for human rights, (such as Nazanin Afshim Jam, an Iraqi born women who now runs the organisation “stop Child Executions” or Ahmed Diraige, a former governor of Darfur). Surely it is these people and not the likes of Ahmadinejad who should have been given the official platform at a conference dedicated to fighting racism and intolerance.

The afternoon brought an Israel conference organised by the multitude of Jewish NGOs that had come to defend Israel and Human Rights and decided to make use of the wealth of dynamic people who were already at the conference. The highlight for me was a panel on humanitarian projects carried out by Israel or Israelis both internally and around the world. We heard from Gal Lousky, CEO of Israeli flying Aid that provided humanitarian relief in countries all over the world, many of which are hostile to Israel; Dr Sion Houri from the “Save a child’s heart” program whose main recipients are children in the developing and especially Arab world and the stories of an Ethiopian Jew, a Sudanese Refugee and a Bedouin academic. For me, it was nice to be reminded why I initially got involved in the fight to defend Israel. While this was undeniably an Israeli publicity exercise and the audience largely Jewish, I think sometimes we forget about these things and may even begin to hold Israel to the unrealistic standard that the politicised International bodies do.

I now study in Israel at Hebrew University and one of the things I both love and hate about studying there is its openness and the freedom it offers to subscribe to any views. Much of my time I spend looking at the problems in Israeli society which, as I’m learning, seem to become more numerous by the day. Yet, at the same time, I am proud that this is what I am being taught. That I am not being subjected to a rose-coloured version of the country I love so much and that myself and other Israeli students are being empowered with the knowledge to do something about Israel’s problems. As Allan Dershowitz puts it, “in life there is always a simple answer and it’s always wrong!” Because life is complex and filled with nuances and ambiguity, simple answers just don’t exist especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has its own problems that cannot be ignored but unless you are willing to make Israel your home, you can only hold it to a standard that you would expect of every other state in the world. This equality among the nations of the world is all that we ask from the UN Human Rights Council. From my experience of the last few day at this UN sponsored ‘anti-racism’ circus it unfortunately seems that such equality for the Jewish state is still being denied.