It's Almost Supernatural

The Smoking Socks Award: Holocaust figure of 6 million is a lie

I’ve stayed away from the letters pages of our Sunday newspapers for a while now and I think I’m better off for it. This week, however, I made the mistake of paging through the Sunday Independant and I came upon this piece of drek of a letter from AK Mia: Holocaust figure of six million is made up.

Worldwide it is accepted by all and sundry that more non-Jews than Jews perished from Nazi pogroms against non-Aryans in Europe. No accurate or reliable figures are available on the exact toll of deaths from Nazi atrocities but after years of trial and error the miraculous figure of 6 million Jewish dead (a figure sacrosanct to Jewish people and the West) was rammed down the world's throat and, as if this was not enough, it is now considered blasphemous vis-a-vis Jews and even criminal in many European quarters ( France, Germany, Poland, Austria and the Netherlands ) and Israel - all places where freedom of speech/expression is entrenched into law to raise even the most innocuous question on the authenticity of the miraculous figure. Does the spectre of a university lecturer in France being axed from his post for daring to offer an alternative view on 9/11 that it was a joint US/Israeli operation and not a Muslim one - as conventional wisdom will have us believe - now introduce a new technique in the battle to win over minds and hearts by disseminating only the material we want the world to hear and read about and shutting up all dissenting voices by any means fair or foul? And this not in a banana republic or Third World countries with tin-pot rulers. Small wonder that this new tactic is directed at saving face for Americans and Jews. AK Mia

Here’s a sterling response from Don Krausz, chairman of the Association of Holocaust Survivors in Johannesburg:

A.K.Mia’s letter of 8-3-09 headed “Holocaust figure of six million dead is made up” refers.

Why does he not deny the Holocaust in totality? Because when we Jews were either taken to the gas chambers or shot in situ by the Germans and their collaborators, a few hundred thousand survived. It was not the figure of Six Million that was miraculous as Mia states, but that there were any survivors at all. Those survivors tended to return to their previous homes in the usually forlorn hope that members of their family would do the same. When hardly anyone else came back they were left with the question: WHERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE?

How does one arrive at Six Million? The vast majority of victims came from Europe. There they would have had to participate in periodic census takings, listing their religion. A village that had housed a Jewish population of, say, 60%, would be without Jews next time the census came around. Where were all the Jews? The locals would be able to direct the census officials to nearby mass graves.

How would one corroborate the statements of the villagers? Germans are very methodical people and would provide headquarters with the statistics of those murdered. That documentation is open for inspection to this day.

I am sure that the above cannot be too complicated for A.K.Mia to understand.

Why would countries such as France, Germany, Poland, Austria, the Netherlands and Israel legislate that denial of the Holocaust or aspects thereof was a criminal offence?

Because the perpetrators were recognised as criminals and those that supported the atrocities by denying them or aspects thereof ipso facto had to be of a criminal disposition as well.

The Holocaust is recognised the world over for the atrocity that it was. Why should the A.K.Mias of this world express doubts about it? The answer may lie in the previous paragraph.

When a university lecturer in France loses his job for opining that 9/11 was a joint US/Israeli operation and Mia quotes this individual in support of his fantasies then I begin to understand the legislation against such hate-driven lies.

Don Krausz – chairman. Association of Holocaust Survivors in Johannesburg.

Independent online libel

  I'm at work and just have enought time to put a link to this outrageously libellous article from the Independent groups popular website - iol.co.za - Israel committing systematic mass murder

There's more, read it all here.

Update:

Some fisking from Shaun in the comments:

“systematic mass murder on a grotesque scale perpetrated by one of the most tyrannical regimes on Earth.”

According to the UN amnesty International, and a variety of other independent organizations, who are known to be unsympathetic toward Zionism, Israel is not even listed as among the worlds top 30 Nations with a questionable human rights record. Interesting though, a number of these top spots are monopolized by a South Africa’s top allies and trade partners.

“people can now witness first-hand babies being shot point blank by the brutal Israeli Defence Force (IDF), women being systematically raped by Jewish soldiers”

In fact, a recently documented study (highly critical of Israeli policies in the Territories) proved that there were no cases of Palestinian Woman being Raped by IDF soldiers. Got to love the way he Quotes the Netrui-Karta rabbis, just in case we want to call him an anti-Semite. Can somebody please call this accurate journalism; I relish the idea of a dialogue on this issue.

Cartoons for Hamas

Here’s a cartoon from the Times with an old theme that will be repeated again and again.

The first part of the cartoon shows Hamas retaliating against Israeli aggression by lightly wounding the Jewish child. The Jewish child of course deserved it – an eye for an eye.

Then, hundreds of little religious Jewish boys smash the Palestinian child, inflicting damage completely out of proportion to the threat posed by the sweet Palestinian boy.

And that leaves us where we are now, according to Jeremy Nell whose cartoons appear in the Times.

The grand theme of cartoons like this is, “Support Hamas, help keep the Jews locked in bomb shelters”.

Another side-theme worth nothing is that there is nothing religious about the little Hamas boy. He looks completely secular (and therefore progressive, enlightened, flexible, modern etc). The Jews however, are irritating, stubborn, religious aggressors. They are the ones with the fundamentalist religious problem, not the Islamists of Hamas.  

Sunday Times Editor Makhanya: Israel is most oppressive state in the world!

During the years that this blog has been following the South African media’s reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we have become inured to some pretty dreadful stuff. But every now and then, there is the type of rancorous opinion piece, so wretchedly bilious that it leaves one completely perplexed.

I am referring to the editorial by Mondli Makhanya in this week’s Sunday Times: Hold Israel to the same standard of civilised conduct as other lands.

The irony of course, is that we also wish that Israel would be held to the same standard as other nations are. In fact, that is all we ask.

It’s no surprise that the benighted Sunday Times editor, Mondli Makhanya, has come out with such a polemical editorial. Makhanya was a delegate on last year’s haughtily entitled “SA Human Rights Delegation” to Israel. After the trip, Makhanya described Israel as evil. Actually, the record will show that even before his trip to Israel he had already referred to Israel as “evil” in the context of an editorial on Robert Mugabe! He had also previously described Israel as one of the world’s most oppressive regimes.

This time Makhanya goes one step further and calls Israel “the world’s most oppressive state”. I think the Jewish leadership needs to challenge Makhanya on this. We should appeal to the Press Ombudsman to ask Makhanya to substantiate his claims.

The independent Freedom House has collected a detailed taxonomy of facets that can be used to represent the degree of freedom in the countries of the world. Perhaps they should contact the Sunday Times’ smug editor because according to him, their rankings are way off the mark.

In 2008, Freedom House compiled a report on the world’s most repressive societies entitled “the worst of the worst 2008”. The report analyses two groups of oppressors – the worst of the worst and then another group that is very close to being in the worst of the worst. Israel is not in either group. In fact, Israel is rated as one of the most free countries in the world. Not even the Israeli run occupied territories (rates as “not free” I do concede) appears in the report.

For interests sake, the first group includes: Russia (Chechnya); China (Tibet); Uzbekistan; Turkmenistan; Sudan; Somalia; North Korea; Libya; Cuba; and Burma (Myanmar). The next group includes: Morroco (Western Sahara); Zimbabwe; Syria; Saudi Arabia; Laos; Eritrea; Equatorial Guinea; China and Chad. Iran narrowly misses out.

The editorial is outstandingly bad and is filled to the brim with faulty reasoning and malignant hate. It reads like the bible of bewilderingly stupid accusation against Israel. Below are some of its diatribes that belong in the above-mentioned bible.

• The failure to differentiate between civilian and terrorist casualties

"About 400 of the Palestinian territory’s people had been killed, and more than 2000 had been severely injured during what must rank as one of the most heartless military operations in recent years."

• Indiscriminate Bombings

“Israel’s response to these attacks was, as always, wanton destruction of everything that lay before it. Civilians, including children, were not spared, as the indiscriminate airborne attacks intensified.”

Indiscriminate? How on earth can one conclude that the bombings have been indiscriminate when almost 85% of the casualties have been terrorists? The IDF has even setup its own channel on YouTube where it uploads videos of its strikes to show people like Makhanya that they are striking terrorist compounds and are not indiscriminately bombing Gaza. Many videos show continued explosions after the Israeli strikes, proof of the large number of ordinances stored at the targets. Unfortunately and regrettably, many civilians have been killed or injured. We must not callously set aside the suffering of the Palestinians, but this would not be necessary if the Palestinians would stop firing rockets into Israel.

What amazes me with this accusation is the way the accusers ignore the degree to which it is betrayed by the numbers. Indiscriminate bombing would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The Gaza strip is a tiny densely populated area. Israel has in its arsenal, state of the art weapons systems which could raze the entire strip in a matter of hours.

Yaacov Lozowick, chief archivist at Yad Vashem, puts it well "In the week of air-attacks, the IDF proved it had excellent intelligence, and in many cases targets hit from the air kept on exploding for a number of minutes after they were hit, as the ordinance stored there exploded. More significant, the IDF has figured out how to separate the civilians from the weapons: call the neighbors and give them ten minutes warning. The numbers prove how efficient this has been: prior to the ground invasion, more than 600 targets had been destroyed, fewer than 500 Palestinians killed, and fewer than 100 of those were civilians even by Palestinian and UN reckoning. Of course, there remain the pictures of civilians surrounded by devastation, but they're alive, and it wasn't Israel that stacked bombs in their cellars." Is that indiscriminate? (via MJ Totten)

More amazing, it is the Palestinians that repeatedly and indiscriminately target civilians. They hide their intent from no-one and openly celebrate when they are succesful. They also intentionally target and kill other Palestinian civilians believed to be "collaborators" or, just believed to be "Fatah members". Latest reports showed that Hamas had killed 35 Fatah members in cold blood since operation Cast Lead began. Add to that the number of suspected "collaborators" killed and you realise that the number of Palestinian civilians killed by Hamas is close to the number killed by Israel. But Israel expresses regret at, and tries to avoid civilian casualties. Hamas kills them intentionally and with impunity. And, I have to conclude, with the support of people like Makhanya who fail to speak out against it.

• Ignoring years of Israeli restraint

Makhanya calls the military operation “one of the most heartless military operations in recent years”. This schoolboy analysis ignores the relative restraint that Israel has shown in recent years. Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza strip in 2005, leaving nothing behind. Hamas, instead of building chose to destroy and has fired over 6000 rockets and mortars into Israel since the withdrawal. Israeli responses to the rocket attacks have been limited and instead of trying to cripple Hamas they have negotiated truce after truce.

• Ignoring Palestinian (including intra-Palestinian) violence

Would it be so difficult to condemn the firing by Hamas of rockets and mortars into Israel? What about condemning the internal Palestinians violence? Last week Hamas killed 35 Fatah members in cold blood. In fact, since the Israeli offensive began, 75 Fatah activists have been shot in the legs whilst others have had their hands broken. All this without any trials or investigations. Where is the outcry?

• Pretending that Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza

A further 1.5 million were in need of humanitarian assistance as a result of the attacks and an ongoing blockade by Israel.

Again, Makhanya is deceiving his readers. Each and every day Israel is allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza. The MFA website lists the exact number of truckloads of aid that have been allowed to enter the Gaza strip each day and these figures are not contested by the aid agencies. Since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead some 400 truckloads of humanitarian aid have been transferred at the request of the international organizations, the Palestinian Authority and various governments.

The “blockade” at the Nahal Oz crossing requires some elaboration. Nahal Oz has repeatedly been hit by terrorist attacks (some examples). On the one hand, Makhanya complains about the fuel blockade at Nahal Oz, but on the other hand he belittles the effects of the Hamas aggression even though it prevents the safe entry of fuel into Gaza through Nahal Oz. Every day, Israel has scheduled to open the Nahal Oz crossing for transferring fuel, but every day Hamas terrorists have shot mortars at the crossing, forcing Israel to close it. (Sourced from Elder of Zion)

• Imputing hidden and sinister motives to Israel's operation

"Since last Saturday, the people of Gaza have been subjected to non-stop bombardment by the Israeli military, ostensibly in retaliation for rocket attacks by Hamas militants." (My emphasis)

Such is the narcotic effect of Makhanya’s belief in his “Israel is evil” mantra that he even denies the motive for Israel’s offensive in the Gaza strip, imputing more sinister hidden motives.

• Downplaying the Hamas aggression, or David versus Goliath

“Israel’s response to the “provocation” amounted to a steroid-pumped heavyweight boxer arriving to fight an anaemic midget armed with steel-lined boxing gloves.”

• Casting Israel as the real terrorist

“It’s just the brutishness and the brazen arrogance with which Israel carries out its terror that has become worse.”

• Israel's conniving Western support, or Israel's control of the West?

“And Israel has every right to be brazen and arrogant about the inhumane manner in which it treats Palestinians. It knows it has the world powers on its side and, no matter how low it sinks in its immorality, it will always be protected by the major powers. The Western world’s unquestioning loyalty to the state of Israel will ensure that the world’s most oppressive state will continue to behave in an inhumane manner for decades to come. For only when the powers that really matter tell Israel in unequivocal terms that the evil that it perpetrates is unacceptable will Tel Aviv wake up and realise that it has to behave in a manner expected of those who live in this century.”

No matter how low Israel sinks in its immorality, it will always have the support of the Western powers? Is Makhanya suggesting that Israel exerts control over the Western world? Makhanya here steps awfully close to the age-old canard of Jewish control of the world. In fact, he seems to agree with Hamas!

“With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.” (Hamas covenant, article 22)

• The inevitable disclaimer

“In our country, we have many apologists for the Israeli state who treat any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic diatribe.”

His mephitic editorial of course carries the usual protection against anti-Semitism by charging that his opponents label everything as anti-Semitic (which we don’t, although of course there are the crazy exceptions). He fallaciously suggests that by predicting the charges of anti-Semitism, he cannot be guilty of it, even if he thinks the Zionists control the entire Western world.

• Incorrect reading of international law

“The state of Israel has every right to defend itself against aggression and to secure its citizens. But no state has the right to do that at the expense of the human rights and right to life of innocent civilians.”

Not so. According to international law, the presence of civilians in or around a military objective does not change its nature as a military objective. A military target remains a legitimate military target, even if it is located in a civilian area. "Civilians do not enjoy absolute immunity. Their presence will not render military objects immune from attack for the mere reason that it is impossible to bombard them without causing injury to the non-combatants." (Oppenheim's 'International Law'). According to international law, terrorist organizations that hide behind civilians bear the primary responsibility for civilian casualties.

The level of bias, lies and sensationalism in this editorial is unacceptable. When the editor calls Israel the most oppressive state in the world - a claim that cannot be supported by any evidence and that flies in the face of respected independent freedom monitoring institutions – we should stand up and protest.

Update

Mike Berger has sent a letter to the Sunday Times in response to this editorial. View it at his blog, Solar Plexus, where you can also view his excellent letter that was published in the Cape Times last week.

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…

The Star issues an apology for Jenin lie

In April this year, our benighted former Minister of Totalitarian Affairs Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, unleashed one of his typically rancorous anti-Israel pieces in the Star newspaper. The article was accompanied by 3 images claiming to illustrate the bloody path that Israel has chosen to embark on.

One of the images claimed that there had been a “massacre” in Jenin and another claimed that Israel had perpetrated a bloody massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. The third image depicted some of the carnage that resulted in the recent war with Hizballah in Lebanon, a war started by Hizballah.

The media team of the South African Zionist Federation took the incident to the Press Ombudsman and the Star has today, issued an apology, but only for the reference to a massacre in Jenin.

It’s a small victory for us, but it some sections of the ruling should cause us to question the neutrality of the ombudsman.

The image of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre gave the distinct impression that Israel carried out the massacre. That was a lie, so why no correction?

The Ombudsman writes:

A more careful reading of the Kahan report implicates Israel much more deeply than Ms Goldman accepts. For example: “The Chief of Staff, together with the people accompanying him, went to the Phalangists' headquarters, where, according to his testimony (p. 210), he ordered the Phalangist commanders to effect a general mobilization of all their forces, impose a general curfew on all the areas under their control, and be ready to take part in the fighting.” And: “Brigadier-General Yaron spoke with the Phalangists about the places where the terrorists were located in the camps and also warned them not to harm the civilian population. He had mentioned that, he stated, because he knew that the Phalangists' norms of conduct are not like those of the I.D.F. and he had had arguments with the Phalangists over this issue in the past.”

Even though the Ombudsman notes that (1) Israel didn’t actually perpetrate the massacre, and (2) Israel warned the Phalangists not to harm the Palestinian civilians, he still rules against the Zionist Federation’s complaint.

The Ombudsman ends his analysis of the photos with this piece of certain knowledge:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Kasrils on the source of the violence it is true that Israel has been on a bloody path. The intention of the newspaper in using these pictures was to illustrate that path.

It may be correct to say that Israel has been on a bloody path in so far as the Arab nations have forced her hand – but Kasrils uses the phrase to suggest that Israel has single-handedly and unprovokingly caused all of the bloodshed. This is the pig-headed opinion that the Ombudsman has decided to side with.

Today’s edition of the Star published the apology along with the entire ruling by the Ombudsman. The apology reads:

Apology: In an article in The Star on April 7, we carried an analysis by Ronnie Kasrils entitled “A Call to Confront the Past” in which the writer examined what he regarded as terror conducted on the part of Israel to induce the Palestinians from the land of their birth. A complaint was directed to the Press Ombudsman by the Zionist Federation, and a ruling has been made. We apologise for inaccurately describing the events at the Jenin Camp between April 3 and April 18 2002 as a massacre.

You can read the entire Press Ombudsman hearing here: The South African Zionist Federation vs The Star and the Cape Argus

Related

• The Sunday Independent clarifies its stance on Jenin

Israel Government Press Office snubbed by Mail & Guardian

Daniel Seaman, director of the Israel Government Press Office, was recently in South Africa. Part of Seaman's job is to assist the foreign press as they endeavour to cover Israel.

I attended a talk he gave at Sydenham shul a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed with the man. I had first heard about him whilst reading Stephanie Gutmann's 'The Other War' where she describes him as part of a new young guard of press spokesmen who understand the new media rules and the power of the image. Seaman has played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the dismantling of the France-2 Muhammad al-Dura lies.

I heard from a friend that the Mail & Guardian had offered Seaman space for an opinion piece on the South African 'Human Rights' Delegation. That was 2 weeks ago. Yes, I know, what a shocker, the piece has still not been run. I doubt it ever will be so I took the liberty of sourcing the article - it appears in its entirety below.

Israel Government Press Office Spokesperson's response to SA 'Human Rights' delegation The disappointing reality that clouds the vast majority of so-called fact-finding delegations is that so few of them, intentionally or otherwise, pursue their missions with the specific aim of establishing the facts. Generally, these collectives are drawn to the same cause by virtue of the backgrounds, perspectives and philosophies that bind them in the first place. Almost inevitably they arrive at conclusions that comfortably fit the parameters of their mindset, for to go against the existing paradigm would require an enormous leap of will. No region, conflict or issue displays this more succinctly than that which has dominated the Middle East for the past sixty to seventy years - that of Israel/Palestine. One would have hoped that by now the better understanding of the sheer complexity of issues, coupled with the geopolitical realities and other global factors, should have made the airing of simplistic conclusions an anachronism. But, if anything, the passing of time and the increased complexity of the impasse has achieved the opposite. Generally, delegations tour the region in a matter of days, meet some well-chosen spokesmen whose views are generally reflective of their own and come to the "right" conclusions. Sadly, few delegations appear over- endowed with the fortitude, patience or insight to take the next step, that of hearing all sides of the story in a context reflective of reality. And so it was with the South African human rights activists who recently visited our region, predictably focusing on Palestinian areas and largely experiencing the conflict through Palestinian eyes. In order to exhibit some sense of balance a meeting took place with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Other interaction with Israelis (as listed on the itinerary) was reported on selectively, if at all. The more negative the perspective, the greater the exposure. Here, the delegation experienced some extreme Israeli views that have little reflection on the overwhelming mass of Israeli thinking. For example, I single out Baruch Marzel, a local political rabble-rouser who represents no one in Israel but himself, and an insignificant handful of radical settlers who see the world in his extreme terms. He is hardly a spokesman for greater Israel. Similarly, Zackie Achmat, a highly respected AIDS activist focused on Hebron as an example of everything that is wrong about Israel. He failed to acknowledge that Hebron is a highly problematic area that presents its own unique challenges and simply does not reflect the heart of the problem. Therefore, I can only conclude that while the delegation might have been exposed to another perspective this was not their area of focus. From the comments aired upon their return, if was painfully obvious that they had found what they sought and that little more had penetrated their experience beyond the underlying premise of Israel as the brutal oppressor and the Palestinians as the weak, tragic victims of this oppression. Surprisingly, even the inclusion of two SA High Court Judges in the group failed to evoke their interest in the democratic and judicial processes that underpin Israeli society. One would have hoped that a recognition of the fact that Israel has established a successful democracy under extreme stress in a region which has been less hospitable to democracy than any part of the world, was largely ignored amidst obligatory visits to the security barrier - predictably labelled a land-grabbing apartheid wall - visits to roadblocks which were viewed as "worse than anything they had witnessed or seen in South Africa under apartheid", while turning Nelson's eye to the fact that virtually none of this existed until the Palestinians launched a murderous wave of suicide-bombings which redefined the game and changed the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians for the worse. For this, Israel was not to blame. No more so than by pulling out of Gaza is it to blame for the avalanche of rockets that have since landed on its territory. "Pregnant" women were found carrying explosive belts around their waists instead of babies in their bellies while ambulances and clearly designated "media" vehicles were found to be smuggling explosives and weapons. Freedom of movement can only be based on trust and trust is sorely lacking. However, this appears to have by-passed the delegation. Far easier to fall back on the well-accepted but tired rhetoric of Israel's abuse of human rights. Prompted by their exposure to families who lost loved ones as a direct result of the conflict and resultant groups that actively promote peace, dialogue and common sense, the delegation formed the erroneous impression that if only Palestinians and Israelis would listen to one another, a solution to all these problems could be found. While any move towards mutual understanding is commendable it is simplistic and fundamentally erroneous to suggest that it is the only answer. Dialogue is a wondrous thing when you have a willing partner with whom to speak. When faced, however, with one committed to your total destruction it demands a redefinition of the rules. Being a democracy in the true sense of the word, Israel is open to visits by delegates who are serious about contributing towards finding solutions to its complex problems. However, when all too often they are tainted by simplistic pre-conceived conclusions it is more of a hindrance than a help.

Aish Hatorah SA have brought out Itamar Marcus from Palestine Media Watch. I'll be attending Aish's gala dinner tomorrow night and hope to bring some coverage of Marcus' talk.

The obsessive anti-American spin

I don’t know what to make of the Sunday Times lately. Their editor experiences an intellectual miscarriage every time he comments on Israel. On the other hand, his willingness to take on the ANC, almost extends the voice of opposition politics in SA to the masses. They certainly are the guardians of some exceptional local journalism. But unfortunately they also allow space for ideologically bothered bigots.

Bearing the flagpole for this category is none other than Mohau Pheko.

Pheko’s latest column, entitled “Fighting in Georgia provides clarity on US’s true intention” is a wretched reminder of the mental gymnastics people will play in order to create an anti-Western spin on world events. There is simply no discernible logic in this opinionated trash.

Pheko’s vulgar hatred follows the usual obsessive anti-Western approach. Take the latest conflict: cast the US (or Israel) in the starring role as the greedy aggressor. Minimise the roles played by the actual protagonists: set the pro-Western party as a puppet controlled by the evil American forces and then ascribe to the US the deaths caused by the more revolutionary party. Finally, set a greedy love for oil as the prime factor motivating American behaviour. And always maintain that every conspiracy theory you suggest is “obvious”.

Pheko borrows:

“Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House.”

Pheko clumsily mumbles on about Russia’s vast oil and gas reserves. She doesn’t fill the gap in her logic with anything linking the US to this meddling; she simply suggests that the existence of the resources alone is the link she needs.

Of course, no anti-Western conspiracy theory is complete without the inclusion of Israel:

“It gets even murkier according to an AP press report saying that former Israeli generals serve as advisors to the Georgian military.”

This war has now made many things obviously and unquestionably true.

“It has been said that at times wars provide clarity. This is unquestionably true in this case. After the fighting in Georgia this past week, everyone knows that Washington is willing to sacrifice thousands of innocent civilians and plunge the entire region into chaos to achieve its geopolitical objectives and greed for oil.”

Jean Francois Revel once described ideology as a mechanism for rejecting facts when they threaten to force a re-examination of cherished dogma. He continued, “and it invents facts when necessary to the survival of the dogma.”

Pheko is a slave to obsessive ideology. She doesn’t need facts...just similar articles.

I try to play the ball and not the woman, but take a look at the extensive amount of “borrowing” from other articles, like this one by Mike Whitney entitled (and again note how obvious the conspiracy theory is purported to be) "of course its the oil again, stupid".

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of some excerpts

Pheko 16/08/08	Mike Whitney 11/08/08
Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. It is obvious that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili could not have launched a massive military attack unless he had received unambiguous orders from his bosses at the White House. Military experts report that an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support especially if it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympic games in Beijing. Saakashvili owes his political career to American power brokers and US intelligence agencies.	Washington's bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he'd be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it's perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance. (sic)
Where natural resources are concerned, Russia’s hand is very strong: it reportedly holds 6.6% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 26% of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it accounts for 12% of world oil and 21% of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.	As far as natural resources are concerned Russia’s hand is very strong: It holds 6.6 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves and 26 percent of the world’s gas reserves. In addition, it currently accounts for 12 percent of world oil and 21 of recent world gas production. In May 2007, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer.

The Sunday Times readers deserve better.

The Lofty Goals of the Human Rights Delegation to Israel

The recent South African ‘human rights delegation’ to Israel continues to attract enormous attention in the South African public space. Talks at private homes and at universities, air-time on the radio, and editorials and opinion pieces in newspapers have ensured maximum exposure of the delegates' opinions. As a propaganda piece, the mission continues to excel. In terms of fomenting a greater understanding of the conflict, apart from a few astute exceptions (most notably Justice Edwin Cameron), the mission was, in my opinion, a miserable failure.

I spoke to a couple of people who attended the address by the delegation at Wits University last week. The address, they said, brought nothing new to the debate; instead it just rehashed the old Israel-bashing rhetoric to which we have become so accustomed.

The view from people who attended a private invite-only address at a residence in Houghton last week was slightly more positive, thanks mainly to Justice Edwin Cameron. It seems that different messages are disseminated depending on the audience – at least in terms of the selection of speakers. Edwin Cameron is selected for a private predominantly Jewish audience; whilst Mondli Makhanya (Israel is evil!) is selected for a far wider public audience.

Yesterday, the Cape Times did well to provide two opposing views regarding the delegation. Nathan Geffen’s article (“we have a duty to speak out”) was overshadowed by a masterful article by Joel Pollak who, whilst volunteering for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel last year, went on many of the tours that the delegation experienced (“South African mission went wearing blinkers and predictably found what it was looking for”).

I found Geffen’s article profoundly absurd. He writes as one of the three primary organisers of the tour and sets about explaining the lofty goals of the mission. Geffen subtly claims that the delegation has been successful in its mission to “create space, in the South African Jewish community, for views critical of the occupation.” He goes on to say that “It has not been easy in the past to express dissent in the community without vilification.”

I disagree. First off, there is lots of “space” in the Jewish community for criticism of the occupation. This year at Limmud, Gershon Gorenberg, author of the seminal book on the occupation, entitled “The occupation, the untold story of Israel’s settlements”, will be speaking. The Jewish community has previously hosted other outspoken critics of the occupation working to bring about its end, most notably former anti-apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid.

I have myself on numerous occasions expressed criticism of the occupation without being subjected to this community vilification:

Just prior to the disengagement from Gaza I penned an article in the quarterly Mizrachi (Orthodox Zionist) magazine. I criticised the occupation and came out in strong support of the withdrawal from Gaza. My views were certainly not supported by the majority of the Mizrachi community, but I was far from crucified. The only notable opprobrium I received was that the editor of the magazine highlighted that the views expressed were my own and not those of the Mizrachi synagogue. Vilification indeed!

But it gets worse. Geffen first claims that there is no space for criticism of the occupation in the Jewish community and then proceeds to describe the positive manner in which the delegation has been received by the community, noting the significant coverage they have obtained from the leading Jewish weekly as well as the rational and civil debate they have had with the Jewish leaders. Geffen escapes from this obvious contradiction by assuming that it’s his delegation that has made this discourse possible!

Just because events A and B both occurred does not imply that A led to B. It’s a really foolish and condescending conclusion. Perhaps Geffen feels that it’s just not possible that community institutions have previously engaged in rational debate on Israel – no, his mission has suddenly and miraculously brought civil debate to the Jewish community. Well bravo! He ignores the debates within the Jewish community where Hussein Solomon, Benjamin Pogrund, Dennis Davis, Bassem Eid etc have argued against the occupation; he ignores the addresses at the Jewish Board's annual conferences by Mosioua Lekota and Andrei Zaaiman who both stridently spoke out against the occupation. I have to conclude that Geffen is either ignorant of communal affairs or just chooses to ignore everything that doesn't fit his conclusion.

I will be the first to agree that a large majority of the community needs to be challenged regarding its positions on Israel and the occupation in particular. But recent visits from Israelis and Palestinians working towards fostering real ties between Arabs and Jews, from Israelis like former apartheid activist Benjamin Pogrund and Palestinians like Bassem Eid are evidence of a creeping enlightenment of views within the community. A delegation where leading members describe Israel as pure evil does not create space for new debate – it stifles it, marginalises the community, and shoves us back to previous defensive positions!

Most absurd, however, is that Geffen also claims that the delegation set out to try and improve the ties between the Jewish and Muslim communities in South Africa. I don’t buy it.

They blame only Israel for the problems; they lecture only the Jewish community about softening their positions; they investigate only Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights. Everyone knows about the importance of the perception of fairness in conflict resolution. Geffen knows this. Yet, without any attempt to appear fair, he has the audacity to claim that they wanted to improve relations between South African Jews and Muslims. Who is he trying to kid?

Currying favour with one community and lecturing the other does not bring the two sides closer. It polarises the communities. It presses only the Jewish community to change its views, - not through debate but through public pressure! He calls on the Jewish community to better understand the suffering of the Palestinians (here I have to agree) but makes no similar demands of the Muslim community!

Furthermore, Geffen’s comparison between the positions adopted by the organs of the Muslim community and the organs of the Jewish community reflects complete naiveté and ignorance. In fact, he describes the failures of the Jewish community as far worse than those of the Muslim community. I challenge Geffen to actually read what the organs of both communities say. (Here Nathan, read this rhetoric from the Muslim Judicial Council and then find me similar utterances from a local Jewish communal institution).

Another telling hypocrisy is in the way Geffen describes the trauma suffered by both sides. The suffering caused by the occupation is described in human terms – it causes tremendous hardships and suffering. His description of the incessant rocket fire on Sderot however, lacks this human aspect – its failure is described in tactical terms; not as causing immense suffering to the Israelis living there, but as undermining the Israeli left and strengthening the Israeli military.

I have to conclude that the Human Rights Delegation has failed in terms of achieving at least two of their three stated objectives. Instead of trying to help the Palestinians by sharing their state-building experience, they have focused on lecturing the South African Jewish Community. If there will be any good to come from this delegation, it will be that they return to the Palestinian territories, for a longer period of time, in an effort to help the Palestinians build the insititutions that will be so vital to a future Palestinian state.

• For a really good take on the Human Rights Delegation make sure you read Joel Pollak’s article which appeared alongside Geffen’s column. You can read the full text of Pollak’s article at his blog Guide to the Perplexed.
• Michael Trapido has also weighed in with his view - read it at his Thought Leader blog: SA human rights delegation needed here.

The branches in this Forrest only grow on one side

Drew Forrest’s puerile column in last week’s Mail & Guardian raises my disappointment with the self styled ‘human rights delegation’ that visited Israel two weeks ago - David and Goliath Revisited.

Forrest has always been one of the leading anti-Israel journalists in South Africa and has always been very forthright in the way he has put his one-sided views across. Judging from the stance he has previously taken, it would have seemed that there is very little left for him to learn. I have to wonder what the organisers of the Delegation hoped to achieve by including him on the team. I very much doubt whether a single one of Forrest’s views was challenged on the tour.

Forrest writes about a visit to watch some Israeli anarchists and a small band of Palestinian demonstrators protest against the construction of the Israeli security barrier. His take is so simplistic - he sheds the conflict of any complexity and reduces it to a simple David versus Goliath battle.

It is a shameful metaphor. His myopic take on the conflict restricted his ability to think further than he could see; and all he could see was outnumbered Palestinian civilians hurling rocks at shielded Israeli soldiers.

It’s quite fitting that Forrest, writing on behalf of the human rights delegation, refers to the ICJ ruling on the legality of the barrier. He describes this ruling as “part of the bigger picture.” Hopefully Forrest can one day join a delegation of human rights activists that will visit the countries that formulated the ruling against Israel. It was delivered by China, a country that would never allow a visiting delegation intent on uncovering its many flaws. Others that helped make the case such as Sudan, Cuba and Saudi Arabia are hardly world champions of human rights themselves.

Make no mistake the security barrier does harm the interests of the Palestinians affected by it. Many dunams of Palestinian land will and have been confiscated. Some Palestinians will end up in a type of twilight “neither-here-nor-there” seam zone, where they will live not in Israel and not on their own farming land – their lives to be controlled by entry and exit permits (in these situations however their compensation is usually pretty substantial).

I absolutely support the Israeli Supreme Courts’ upholding of certain Palestinian petitions which has forced the IDF to redraw the route of the barrier in areas where there hasn’t been a valid security reason for its entrenchment onto Palestinian lands. But I expect better analysis. Surely some weighing up of whether the inconvenience to the Palestinians is proportionate to the security needs of the Israelis. Instead we are given an account which just assumes (without investigation) there is no proportionality – Israel is the Apartheid Goliath and the Palestinians are innocent bystanders always acted upon, never themselves actually acting.

Forrest lends much praise to the young Israeli anarchists who organise the protests against the construction of the barrier. Perhaps Forrest never learned of the many successful petitions that have been brought to the Israeli Supreme Court forcing changes to the route of the barrier. Surely legal counsel trumps raw anarchy? Perhaps not, but this question of tactics is not even remotely investigated. There is no praise for the lawyers who have fought and won many of these petitions – praise is exclusively awarded to the Israeli anarchists who dangerously provoke Israeli soldiers attempting to prevent the construction of the barrier through force rather than the courts.

Forrest, like many other delegates on the human rights tour, downplays the threat posed by the wave of suicide attacks that forced Israel into building the barrier in the first place. (He describes them as a ‘distant event’. Is he mad? He conveniently ignores the Palestinian bulldozer attack that occurred just days before he arrived in Israel.) The suicide blasts did (and still do) pose an existential threat to the Israeli way of life. Israelis were scared of visiting restaurants, of travelling in busses, of visiting nightclubs. The attacks allowed the terrorists to veto any chance there was of a resumption of peace talks.

Nowhere does Forrest explain the last-resort-nature of the barrier – for God’s sake Drew, the barrier isn’t an expression of Israeli choice! In more than 4 years of violence over 1000 Israelis were killed in suicide attacks. During the same period 3,300 Palestinians were killed in retaliatory raids. The barrier has resulted in fewer deaths on both sides. Furthermore, the barrier means that the many illegal Israeli settlements on its Eastern side are effectively being relinquished and will never be part of Israel proper – it signals the withdrawal of territory!

You wouldn’t think it from Forrest’s column, but grown men are crying on both sides of the barrier. Both sides are littered with Davids and Goliaths. It’s a pity that Forrest is unable to convey this, especially after actually visiting the area.