It's Almost Supernatural

Israel: A divided house

Our coverage of the Israeli elections this year has been relatively mute. With the war with Hamas and its fall out for Jews worldwide, we have had plenty other stuff to write about. Even so the race has been anything but inspiring. We have in previous years come out strongly in support of Kadima. Their political platform is still probably closest to our position but their performance under Prime Minister Olmert has been dismal. Thus it was hard to get excited about them continuing to run the country. My only real preference was for a strong national unity government that could make the difficult but necessary decision to address the many challenges facing the Jewish state from a nuclear Iran, to peace with the Palestinians to the financial crisis.

If I had been forced to bet, like most, I guess I would have put my money on Netanyahu to be Prime Minister. For months he has been the clear favorite in the polls. I do confess that I did check out the odds on the political gambling site www.intrade.com but after being badly burned on North Carolina in the American election last year decided to hold onto my money. I good decision I guess seeing that the exit polls and with most of the vote count in Kadima is surprisingly leading Likud by 1 seat. Tzipi Livni’s odds to be the next prime minister have sky rocketed (they were at 15% on Monday; they are now at 45%). Anything is possible in Israeli politics but if you look closely at the numbers it’s hard to see how she can put together a stable government.

Netanyahu is no fool. He knows that if she fails (which is likely) he will be Prime Minister and thus will not join as a junior partner. That leaves Labour and Lieberman. But their combined total with Kadima would come to only 56 seats. Livni and Shas have made it clear that neither would want to work together. Shas would also have a hard time sitting in a government with Yisrael Beiteinu. Meretz has also ruled out sharing power with them. So that leaves the non-Zionist religious party United Torah Judaism (UTJ) or the Arab/non-Zionist parties. In the current political climate the latter are a non starter. So the only real chance Livni has is the 5 mandates of UTJ which would bring her total to a flimsy 61. Perhaps with enough money for their yeshiva programs and with promises of increasing the child support grant, she may be able to buy them off. But could Lieberman, a champion of the anti-religious, accept such a thing? I doubt it. This outcome, if even feasible, would produce a very unstable equilibrium in Israeli politics.

Of course the other alternative is that Netanyahu is tasked with forming the new government. Kadima, realising that their hopes rest on his failure, would be crazy to join. Without Kadima, he does have a right wing/religious coalition of 65 mandates. But once again the ability of Yisrael Beiteinu to sit in a government with Shas and UTJ is questionable. Labour, instead of Yisrael Beiteinu is then his only alternative. Only if Barak is seen to be keeping Lieberman out could he possibly prop up such a right wing religious government. Even then with only 63 odd mandates, this government would be a prisoner of instability and inaction.

Israel is a house divided and it’s a political disaster for the country. We have achieved the worst possible result. The only way out is what for the 2 major political parties (Likud and Kadima) to put their personal interests aside and work for the good of the country. This will require a national unity government with the sharing of power. A rotating Prime Ministership, as was the case in the 1980s with Peres and Shamir, is the only option. It will take real leadership on the part of both Livni and Netanyahu. I hope that they have it. We are going to need both of them if Israel is to become whole again and function.

Here’s an interesting table showing the difference in mandates between 2006 and 2009. Interestingly, the left and center combined have lost a total of 16 seats and the right, led by resurgence in the Likud, have gained 15. Arab parties gained one.

Kristallnacht in Caracas

Late Shabbat evening, 15 heavily armed men stormed the main Sephardi Synagogue in Caracas. Torah scrolls were damaged, prayer books ripped apart and anti-Semitic graffiti like ‘death to all’ and ‘Jews get out’ was strewn on the walls. The administrative officers were also broken into and official documents and computer hard drives stolen. The group also called for Jewish people to be expelled from the country.

This attack against the Venezuelan Jewish community is not an isolated incident. Over the last two years anti-Semitism in the country has sky-rocketed as the relationship between Israel and the Venezuelan government has worsened. In particular, since the outbreak of the recent war in Gaza and the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, the government controlled media has been spewing anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has reported that there is a well-orchestrated campaign on TV, radio, print and Internet media owned by the government, openly questioning Israel’s right to exist. There has also been the publication of such anti-Semitic materials as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a group of pro-government journalists is urging the population to boycott of businesses owned by Venezuela Jews.

More frightening, a system 'plan of action' was published in a pro-government digital newspaper, Aporrea.org, for mobilizing the society against Venezuela’s Jewish community and Israel. The plan calls for among other things:

• Publicly denouncing by name, the members of powerful Jewish groups in Venezuela, names of their companies and businesses in order to boycott them
• Avoiding products, stores, supermarkets, restaurants, and where Kosher food is sold which either belongs or has links with 'Zionist Jews'
• Shouting pro-Palestine and anti-Israel slogans at Jews on the street
• Inviting anti-Zionist Jews living in Venezuela to publicly express their disassociation from 'Zionist war crimes' and the imposition of artificial State of Israel on Palestine
• Nationalisation of companies, confiscation of properties of those Jews who support the Zionist atrocities of the Nazi-State of Israel, and donate this property to the Palestinian victims of today’s Holocaust
• Sending all type of aid to Palestinians including weapons
• Organizing an international conference about the creation of the theocratic - Nazi state of Israel as a genocidal European colony, and about the myths and facts of the alleged Jewish Holocaust or Holohoax (a blackmailing industry)
• Support the dissolution of the artificial State of Israel

Understandably, many in the small Venezuelan Jewish areas (about 20 000) now fear for their personal safety. One of my good friends who grew up and whose family still live there relayed to me yesterday the level of anxiety his grandmother a Holocaust survivor was feeling. Crying hysterically on the phone after hearing the news of the synagogues desecration, he tried to reconcile her by telling her to remain at home. She replied it is happening all over again. They know where we live, that’s what happened in Germany last time. They took us from our homes. Nowhere is safe now.

Many may read about the plight of Venezuela’s Jews and dismiss it as a consequence of living in an unstable Latin American country, with no relevance to them. But this analysis would be mistaken. Contrary to the perception among the mostly ignorant Anglo-Jewish world, Venezuela is the oldest democracy in South America (since 1958). Moreover, it has historically been remarkably tolerant towards Jews. It was one of the few countries after the Holocaust that opened its doors to Jewish immigration. This explosion of anti-Semitism in recent years has come as a shock to the community and is contrary to what they believe to be the values of the country.

For South African Jews in particular, Venezuela’s horrible experience should resonate strongly. Our community is also currently experiencing the early stages of a similar phenomenon. We too have been targeted by pro-Palestinian groups for a Jewish boycott (see Muslim anti-Semitism takes a leaf from the Nazis), have government ministers sprouting classical anti-Semitic canards, so far without censure (see Deputy Minister's anti-Jewish remarks on YouTube) and are being placed under tremendous pressure by civil society to denounce Israel. A recent, Pew research report found that South Africans tend to have the most negative views of Jews of all non-Muslim nations surveyed - though this has been challenged.

Now is the time for us to show solidarity with the Jews of Venezuela. The leadership of our community should at a minimum issue a press statement in support and call on our government (which has strong ties with Chavez) to denounce these acts.

In these difficult times I think it is important for all of us to keep in mind the poem "First they came..." by Pastor Martin Niemöller.

First they came... Pastor Martin Niemöller When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Below is a CNN video on the desecrated synagogue. If the video isn't showing, try the BBC version here.

On the Holocaust, free speech and singling out Israel, South Africa again in the authoritarian camp

Former head of the Official Opposition in South Africa, Tony Leon, has written a brilliant speech-cum-article warning that the South African government is on a collision course with the new Obama administration over the ANC’s increasingly illiberal foreign policy.

But those in positions of authority in the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs have failed to take heed. Once again, South Africa has shown its pro totalitarian leanings at the United Nations: this time during the Durban II Drafting Committee Meeting. Not only did the South African representative seek to minimize the Jewish aspect of the Holocaust in the text to be presented at the Durban Racism Review Conference but also supported Israel being singled out for unique criticism and tried to help limit the ability of the press to report on the preparatory meeting.

The last United Nations Racism Conference held in Durban in 2001 was marred by an unprecedented outpouring of anti-Semitism. There has been growing concerns that the follow-up session (known as Durban 2) to be held in Geneva this year would be a repeat performance. Thus the South African Jewish Board of Deputies has sought, and it was thought achieved, a commitment by the South African government to do its part to stop the conference from being hijacked. Yet South Africa’s behavior at the preparatory meeting last week would seem to contradict this promise.

Human rights NGO UNWatch, an authority on all things relating to Durban 2, has just issued a report on the nefarious happenings at the latest preparatory meeting. They summarize the meeting as follows:

‘With countries commenting on each proposed article (of the Draft Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference), the session was dominated by a vehemently anti-Western agenda, with Islamic and Third World countries equating counter-terrorism with racism, calling to restrict free speech in the name of Islamic sensitivities—the so-called “defamation of Islam”—and focusing on the practice of slavery in the West but barring mention of the slave trade in the Arab world and elsewhere. Worst of all, Iran and Syria used the forum to engage in Holocaust denial, while many countries demanded new provisions to condemn Israel as a racist and criminal state...’

South Africa sadly featured prominently. When discussing proposed Paragraph 29, which provides that the Holocaust must never be forgotten and mentions that it resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, South Africa, representing the entire African Group, asked that the paragraph be cut down to simply ‘Recalls that the Holocaust never be forgotten’, removing all Jewish references. This proposal was heartily supported by Holocaust denying Iran and Syria. The Syrian representative welcomed the removal by saying that ‘I don't think we should get into a kind of statistical debate. As far as I know that there is no agreement on the consensus on the percentage of those who perished in the Holocaust.’

South Africa too played an important role in ensuring that only Israel would be singled out for condemnation. When the European Union requested that the paragraph on Palestine be deleted, South Africa was one of the countries who objected. Our rationale was amazing. South Africa said that the Palestinian issue was an important issue of the 2001 Durban Racism Conference, and thus should be an important issue of the Review Conference. Following that same logic perhaps, seeing that anti-Semitic cartoons and the notoriously anti-Semitic book the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were handed out at the 2001 Conference, we must make sure the same happens at this year’s conference. Rather than restraining those forces in the non-democratic world who would like to divert attention from their own appalling human rights records but making the sole focus of Durban 2 Israel and Jews, the South African government seems to be cheering them on.

Interestingly, while South Africa was eager to have Israel singled out for criticism, it did not feel the same way about fellow African states. It together with Nigeria advocated the deletion of a paragraph that “deplores militias to oppress ethnic populations” out of concern that this might be seen as condemning some African countries. This same level of hypocrisy was applied to the slave trade. While our representatives sought the deletion of references to the trans-Saharan (Arab) slave-trade, at the same time they urged provisions relating to the trans-Atlantic (Western) slave trade and the need for reparations to be emphasized.

Finally in a shocking display of contempt for press freedom, South Africa together with Pakistan and Egypt, called for two journalists to be expelled from covering the proceeding out of fear they would engage in ‘selective interpretation’ of the discussions. This took place as the debate on defamation of religion was getting underway. In what can only be described as Orwellian, South Africa together with its totalitarian friends are trying to make the case that limiting the right of people to criticize religion, particularly Islam, is somehow not illiberal but actually a position for free speech. They argue that they are fighting against the abuse of free speech. With such a view is it any wonder they kicked the journalists out?

Tony Leon concludes his piece by asking ‘do we want to be remembered for the distance our policies have travelled from Nelson Mandela's 1994 promise that "human rights will be the light that guides our foreign affairs?" Or will we seize the moment to reconnect our own constitutional commitments to equality, human dignity and liberty - to our voice and votes in world forums.’

South Africa has once again made its position clear. We proudly stand not with equality, human dignity and liberty but instead always hand-in-hand with our totalitarian friends at the United Nations.

Palestinian Ambassador to SA Blames Hamas

The Palestinian ambassador to South Africa declared last week before parliament’s portfolio committee on foreign affairs that Hamas was mostly to blame for the recent crisis in Gaza.

In a surprisingly frank admission Ambassador Halimeh accused Hamas of ‘betraying the Palestinian cause by spreading disunity among Palestinians and giving Israel an excuse to go to war’. He cited Hamas’ violent coup in Gaza as the cause of internal Palestinian discord and described Hamas’ refusal to extend the recent truce with Israel as ‘a strategic mistake’ and complained that ‘the Palestinian people in Gaza are paying the price for it’.

Some of the South African Parliamentary committee members were not exactly thrilled by this honest submission. Job Sithole, the committee chairman and an African National Congress lawmaker, retorted that Hamas had won a democratic election to rule the territory. Other members of parliament accused Halimeh of speaking only for the Fatah faction and not for the Palestinian Authority as a whole, which the ambassador denied.

In another statement that can only have irked these anti-Israel parliamentarians even more, the Palestinian ambassador told the committee that the one-state solution to the Middle East crisis, although attractive to Palestinians, is simply not possible. "After 60 years we realise that it is not going to work," Halimeh said.

Israel’s new ambassador to South Africa, Dov Segev-Steinberg, also made a submission. He accused South Africa of having a ‘one-sided’ approach towards the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and argued that if it adopted a ‘more balanced attitude’, the country could help in bringing peace to the Middle East.

But all of this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The committee came out strongly against Israel and called for a review of diplomatic ties between the two countries. ANC MP Mewa Ramgobin expressed the view that ‘South Africa cannot say trade, trade and more trade with Israel while this holocaust goes on in Palestine. We need to review our own stance in continuing to sell arms to Israel. We need to review our diplomatic ties’.

So now it would seem that South Africa’s political representatives see themselves as more Palestinian than the Palestinians. Whose interests do they think they are really representing? Certainly not South Africas.

Jonathan Berger and 'agendas of hate'

Wow! I am so relieved that Jonathan Berger has issued a clarification explaining that his shoddy post on the Mail and Guardian Thought Leader blog was not meant to imply that Steve and I have used the Gaza crisis to promote our 'agendas of hate'.

But I guess that since I am still a supporter of the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD's position on Israel, I am 'primarily responsible for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism'. I wonder which of the Apartheid enforcers ('PW, FW, Vlok, Malan and the rest' ) that Berger compares the leadership of the organized Jewish community to represents me. Like PW, I do have my Rubicons but finger wagging and lip licking is not really my public speaking style. I would not say I am a military/law and order kind of guy, so that would rule out Malan and Vlok. I would hope FW, but in reality sadly I, together with most of our readers, probably only fall into 'the rest' category.

Jokes aside, likening the Chief Rabbi and the elected leadership of the Jewish community to people who were responsible for thousands of deaths and untold suffering, is completely unacceptable. Not only is the comparison totally false but given the almost universal loathing for these people (minus FW perhaps) it serves to seriously damage the reputation of the Chief Rabbi and the heads of the SAJBD. If I were Berger, I would take a good long look in the mirror before accusing others of promoting 'agendas of hate'.

South African Jewry pressured to denounce Israel

 In 1961 following Israel´s vote at the United Nations to condemn the racist policies of the Apartheid regime, then South African Prime Minister H. F. Verwoerd presented the local Jewish community with an ultimatum: either publicly castigate Israel or face the wrath of his not-exactly pro Jewish government. To their eternal shame the then leadership of the Jewish community chose the former. Almost half a century later South African Jewry is being pressured into making a similar choice. Local South African Muslim organisations this time have attempted to pressure the Jewish community into denouncing Israel´s actions in Gaza. But this time the current leadership of the community has remained united and firm in its support for the Jewish state´s right to engage in this self defensive war in Gaza.

A strong joint statement, released last week by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, South African Zionist Federation and the Office of the Chief Rabbi, states unequivocally that the local Jewish community is 100% behind Israel. It reads as follows:

“The South African Jewish Community firmly supports the decision of the government of Israel to launch a military operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Bearing in mind the inevitable loss of life which occurs in every military conflict, we share with the citizens of Israel the heavy heart with which they have embarked upon this operation. Israel has done everything in its power to avoid the situation in which it finds itself, including the dismantling and evacuation of all Jewish settlements in Gaza over three and a half years ago. Israel's gesture of peace, however, has been met by a barrage of thousands of missiles which have rained down upon the villages, towns and cities of southern Israel. Hamas's decision to fire, without provocation, approximately 80 rockets per day into Israel after the expiry of the recent cease-fire forced the Government of Israel to take the necessary steps which every civilised state is required to do in order to protect its own citizens from further terror and attacks. We hope that the Israeli Defence Force is able to carry out its mission with the minimum loss of life and casualties. The Jewish Community of South Africa calls upon the South African Government as well as the ruling African National Congress Party (ANC) to act in a balanced and constructive manner towards the conflict in Gaza. We hope that the Government and the ANC use their special relationship with the Palestinian leadership to persuade them once and for all to enter into peaceful negotiations with Israel. These negotiations will hopefully lead to the fulfilment of what the South African Government and the ANC have repeatedly stated is the desired outcome for the region, namely the achievement of a two-state solution which allows Israelis and Palestinians to live peacefully side by side with one another. The leadership of the South African Jewish Community understands thatmany citizens of South Africa have strong ties to participants in the Gaza conflict, and we urge the communities in question to join the Jewish Community in ensuring that the conflict in the Middle East is not imported into South Africa and is not allowed to disrupt the excellent relationships which exist between all of the communities and peoples of South Africa.”

I have no doubt that this statement has the support of the vast majority of South African Jewry, not out of some sense of religious solidarity but out of a deep belief that the state of Israel, on balance in this conflict, has the moral high ground. The vast majority recognise that this is a defensive war aimed at preventing rockets being fired indiscriminately on Israeli population centres. The vast majority understand that Hamas and not Israel, is squarely to blame for its cause. The vast majority also know that the high civilian death count is not an indication of Israel´s disregard for Palestinian lives but of Hamas´ sick tactic of using their own people as human shields.

Certain Muslim organisations in South Africa have responded by denouncing local Jewish leaders. In particular Chief Rabbi Goldstein has come in for serious attack. These groups have called for him to be removed from the prestigious National Religious Leaders' Forum comprising clerics from all the major faiths. Muslim Judical Council spokesman Nabeweya Malick said his organization was questioning Goldstein's position and "whether he holds the necessary moral and ethical authority to be part of this noble forum."  *Worse still, these Muslim organisations have been coordinating with Far Leftwing Jewish groups to organise a petition against the mainstream South African Jewish response (See full clarification on this here). They have managed to garner so far about 160 signatures. This action is clearly an attempt to show the broader South African community that despite the Jewish leadership’s stance, there are still some `good South African Jews’.

In the face of these despicable tactics against the local Jewish community, the leadership, to their credit, has remained steadfast in its support for Israel. They organised a prayer rally on Sunday where over 2000 people attended. In addition, today in the Cape Times the South African Jewish Board has hit back at its Jewish detractors and reiterated its support for Israel.

This new tactic of Israel’s enemies of targeting the local Jewish community is an extremely dangerous development. Being forced to tow the Hamas line should never be made a litmus test of our patriotism or morality. The New South Africa is supposed to be based upon the notion of diversity and the tolerance for different views. Many may not like our political positions on the conflict but that does not reduce our right to hold and express them freely. This insidious tactic does not only pose a threat to us, but also to South Africa`s democratic institutions.

Update

We have been asked to either remove or edit our claim that there was coordination between Nathan Geffen's "not in my name" style letter and various Muslim groups such as the PSC. The reason this claim was made is because the Voice of the Cape website predicted the petition before it was publicly released. The VoC website wrote:

According to Dr Farid Essack of the Palestine Solidarity Group in Cape Town, moves were afoot to produce a statement from within the community that would counter the SAJBD statement.

How Israel can win the Peace

Historically the Jewish state is said to be renowned for winning wars but losing the peace. So if, hopefully, this military operation in Gaza goes well, what type of peace should Israel sue for?

In my estimation there is a continuum of post conflict solutions to the Gaza problem (all assuming a resounding defeat of Hamas), ranging from the reimposition of the Israeli civil administration in Gaza to some sort of international mandate to handing over control to Abu Mazen and the PA. I personally think the latter is the ideal but just don’t know how practical it is. Would the PA have the capacity to subdue the last remaining remnants of Hamas’ rag tag army? And even if so would they be prepared to do it? There would be a real risk that Fatah would be seen as Israeli puppets.

The next best in my opinion is the international mandate. There has been some talk about European monitors at the Gaza border posts. But I think this is far too unambitious. The war with Hezbollah has set a precedent for UN troops to police former rocket launch sites and arms smuggling. I would like to see something much more substantial and much more Arab and Muslim in nature. I propose that a UN force together with some sort of international civil administration be imposed on the strip. They would need to clean up the last vestiges of Hamas and insure no more rockets are fired at Israeli civilians. They would also need to provide some form of government in Gaza until Abbas is strong enough to take control. Countries like Egypt and Jordan would need to play a major role. The PA should also be included as a partner in this initiative.

This option obviously has its downsides. Which countries would be willing to send troops to police as unruly a place as Gaza? Also would they do an effective job? The results in Southern Lebanon have not been very promising. Hezbollah is said to have completely rearmed under UN noses. But I definitely think it is worth a shot.

The last option of a return to Israeli military occupation would be horrendous. It seems unlikely that the people of Gaza would ever accept them as overlords. This would result in a perpetual rebellion in which many Israeli soldiers and Palestinians could potentially lose their lives. It would weaken the PA and dash all of hope of an independent Palestinian state. But having Israeli soldiers permanently on the ground would most likely stop the rockets.

None of the post conflict options are easy. Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Barak must have known this going in. Lets hope their peace planning has been effective as their military campaign (so far). All this death and destruction must not be in vein.

Note:

I will be in Colombia on holiday for the next few weeks. Steve is also away. So expect blogging to be a bit slow. I will try update as much as I can. Please feel free to post relevant information or opinions in the comments.

South Africa Israel Relations Still Holding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising Antisemitism in South Africa?

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

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

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

addressed. Below is Jocelyn Smith’s findings:

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

Shedding More Heat then Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jocelyn Smith
Development Analyst

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

Zuma verses Zapiro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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