An Open Letter to Zackie Achmat
From Victor Gordon
Dear Mr. Achmat, I refer to an interview you recently granted to the online Daily Maverick (30 May 2012).
The interview was prompted by the announcement by Minister of Trade & Industries, Rob Davies following the representations made to his department by your organization, Open Shuhada Street, calling for the re-labeling of products manufactured, in what you term, the “occupied Palestinian territories”; your objection being that they claim to be “Made in Israel.”
Having followed and supported your inspirational efforts, through the Treatment Action Campaign to counter the consequences of the lies promoted by former President Thabo Mbeki which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of AIDS suffers, I would have thought that, familiar as you undoubtedly are with the tragic spin-off’s resulting from deliberate misinformation, ignorance and downright stupidity, you, of all people, would appreciate how dangerous a strategy of this nature can be when abused and applied irresponsibly.
Yet, Mr. Achmat, to my dismay I have watched you apply the very same subterfuge to, not only the rather trivial issue of the labeling of goods arguably manufactured in Israel, but in promoting the BDS campaign that you openly regard as a king-pin in your fight to bring Israel to its knees. Clearly, if equivalence with the anti-apartheid campaign waged againstSouth Africais the source of your motivation, there can be no other intent.
In the introduction of your interview, your host, Khadija Patel refers to you as “a champion of human rights”. Without minimizing the very good work you have accomplished, I would regard someone deserving of that title as having the insight to acknowledge that any conflict – particularly one as complex and lengthy as that between Israel and the Arabs, should be seen in a broader context than simply labeling Israel as the eternal villain and the Palestinians as the long-suffering victims. The very word “conflict” suggests two sides at loggerheads, creating the diversity of views that exists in the first place. To simply and consistently ignore the position ofIsraelin favour of that of the Palestinians is not only disingenuous but plainly dishonest.
However, as it is my intention to directly address some of the points you have made in your interview I shall proceed in the hope that you will afford me the courtesy of reading them as I have extended to you.
ZA: “I support Boycotts, Disinvestment and Sanctions against Israel”.
When questioned by Patel as to whether you regard BDS as the best way forward for Palestinian solidarity, you explained that there are other ways available as well … “raise money for political prisoners … raise money to help with education and distributing information … and to bring people together to resist the last case of European colonialism in the world, which continues to expand.”
While I have no real problem with the first two examples the third requires some clarification. How the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland after an exile of centuries can be regarded as the “last case of European colonialism in the world” is simply beyond comprehension.
It is quite clear that while a great number of the pioneers that arrived inPalestinefrom the mid eighteen hundreds onwards, originated fromEurope, the reasons why are somewhat more complex than a simple act of colonialism.
Quite obviously, had the Jews not been expelled from their ancient homeland to start with following the destruction in 70AD of Jerusalem by the Romans, they would a) not have had to seek refuge in a variety of European countries in the first place (where they were generally accommodated under sufferance), nor b), would they have sought to return to their place of origin (Palestine) in order to escape the persecution they suffered at the hands of their hosts.
Throughout this interminable exile, however, there remained a Jewish presence throughout, in the region ofPalestine, to varying degrees. To call this act of return “colonialism”, Mr. Achmat, is no only an incredible stretch of the imagination but an deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform. At best I would suggest that perhaps you are simply unaware of the true history ofPalestineand its Jews and suggest that a good history book or two covering the region and this period would prove invaluable. (Tip: Try to avoid Left-wing, revisionist writers.)
Taking this further, I question whether your assertion of this being ”the last case of European colonization” implies that the creation of the Sovereign State of Israel was in itself no more than a simple act of colonialism, despite it being the legal creation of the United Nations in 1947 by the process of partition. If so, this must be the first and only case of the creation of a sovereign state with the assistance of the UN, through such a process.
If, however, you infer to the so-called ‘occupation’ of regions of theWest Bank
(the vast majority of which falls under the authority of the Palestinian Authority), then we open an area of debate that, in accordance with International Law, places this territory firmly under the ownership of the Jewish State. This is in direct contrast to the oft stated accusation – generally with no attempt at substantiation, that Israel alone is usually guilty of flouting International Law.
To support this claim of Israeli ownership of the region of Palestine, I refer you to the following summary (http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/id350.html) based on the seminal 700 page work by Howard Grief, “The Foundations and Borders of Israel”, being the result of ten years of intensive research. Whether you will accord this the attention it deserves will depend on how sincerely you wish to understand the true facts behind the establishment of the State of Israel as I respectfully suggest that you might not be familiar with the San Remo Conference and the critical resolution that arose there-from. This has never been abrogated to this day.
This resolution set off a legal chain-reaction that irrefutably establishedPalestineas the Jewish Home Land, further adopted and confirmed by both theLeague of Nationsand subsequently, the United Nations itself. The steps taken and agreed upon at the very highest international level clearly confirm that the entire region ofPalestinewas destined to become the Jewish National Homeland. That being the case, accusations of colonialism, land-grabbing and illegal ‘occupation’ become redundant. I urge you to study what is in fact a clear-cut case of historic deception and hypocrisy.
“Colonialism” (about which we inAfricaare all too familiar), has several definitions, the most apt (in terms of your focus) being,
“A method of absorbing and assimilating foreign peoples into the culture of the imperial country, and thus destroying any remnant of the foreign cultures that might threaten the imperial territory over the long term by inspiring rebellion.”
AsIsraelhas never had the slightest intention of meeting any of these requirements, I contend that, if anything, it is the Arabs who wish to colonizeIsrael, displaying their true intent by attacking her on five occasions, each aimed at eradicating her as a sovereign state and subjecting her population to either death or dominance. The latest threats fromIranonly serve to support this view.
WereIsraelbent on a policy of colonialism it is hard to understand why she would have respected the armistice lines that gave ‘de facto’ definition to so-called “borders” from 1948 to 1967, only to offer to return all conquered territories in exchange for peace following the 6-Day War. How also can you explain why a colonial power would hand over toEgyptthe entire Sinai, replete with rich oil wells and then withdraw unilaterally fromGazain 2005? Also, it is a strange colonial occupier indeed that, on two separate occasions, offers to return 95% of the West Bank and a substantial portion ofEast Jerusalemin return for a guaranteed peace with her neighbours, only to be rebuffed on each occasion.
Mr. Achmat, I ask you to kindly make some sense of all this as viewed through your unique prism.
DM: “What was your reaction to Minister Davies’ announcement that goods originating from the West Bank would have to be relabeled?”
ZA: “I was absolutely delighted. … We hope people will boycott and divest … All the other campaigns have been more general … What happened at the University of Johannesburg was very important. There is, though, very little understanding of what BDS is … It’s the least we can do for the people of Palestine.”
Indeed, Mr. Achmat, it is the LEAST you can do, and for a very good reason. By climbing onto this anti-Israel bandwagon while doing the “least”, you establish your credentials with those who carry similar convictions – the Left, biased academia, those devoid of any real knowledge other than the slogans they pick up from the media and other uninformed sources, disenchanted Left-wing Israelis etc. The “Least” is all so easy, takes little effort while the rewards are substantial.
Were you desirous of doing something truly meaningful to assist the Palestinians you might consider following the path of someone like Khaled Abu Toameh, the Palestinian journalist who continually risks his life in an effort to influence and inform his brothers about the manner in which they are being misled and abused by both corrupt leaders and fellow Arabs into believing that Israel is the eternal enemy and that peace with the ‘infidel’ is an abrogation of Jihadist belief.
That, sir, would be something meaningful and beneficial … but think how unpopular you’d be.
DM: You’ve mentioned what happened at the Johannesburg University where academics voted in favour of severing ties with Israel’s Ben Gurion University. … Last week an Israel diplomat, who was set to address a gathering at University of KZN was forced to withdraw from the event after academics in Durban raised objections. .. Do you see the South African government playing a greater role from here on?
What I find curious from your answer, Mr. Achmat is that you, referred to earlier in this interview as “a champion of human rights” do not appear to be at all disturbed by this blatant suppression of freedom of speech in a country bound by a constitution that protects this and other freedoms. Neither do you appear to acknowledge that these very freedoms are equally enshrined inIsrael’s democracy while absent in the vast majority of Arab countries, as well as under the rule of Hamas.
It appears to have eluded you that the very freedoms that you would no doubt fight to the death to defend (were they aimed at the suppression of Gay rights or the rights of victims of HIV), you now treat in so laissez faire a manner. This selectivity places a serious question on your understanding of, and commitment to, the very concept of human rights.
The irony is that the diplomat referred to had come to speak at U-KZN about nothing more confrontational than drip-irrigation techniques and other Israeli technology which could be of much assistance to the rural areas of this country. Politics was not on the agenda.
As far as the pyrrhic “victory” gained by the UJ against theBenGurionUniversityis concerned, it is hollow indeed when the door has been left conveniently open to enable the local researcher to continue working in co-operation with his Israeli counterpart.BenGurionUniversityhas little, if anything, to gain from this co-operation.
You further commented;
ZA: “I think in two, three years, five years, we’ll have a serious movement that will – locally and globally – be able to isolate apartheid Israel”
Of course, this is what its all about! The dishonest strategy of labelingIsrael an apartheid state is the crux of your entire effort. The fact that the accusation is riddled with misinformation and plain dishonesty is quite besides the point – the object of the exercise, as we well know, is to denigrateIsrael to the degree that her pariah status will rob her of any legitimacy amongst the family of nations. If successful, through this strategy the eventual result would be the dissolution of the Jewish state, despite your protestations in previous statements that you support the principle of two sovereign states existing side by side in peace and cooperation. That being the case, Mr. Achmat, this is hardly the way to go about it.
The validity of the accusation of apartheid has been refuted again and again by academics, jurists and journalists (amongst others). Palestinian activist Bassem Eid, for one (who visitedSouth Africaonly months ago) called it utter nonsense. But what is so disappointing, Mr. Achmat is that a man of your integrity places so little value on truth and plain common sense.
Some months ago you wrote an article in which you attempted to support your contention regardingIsrael’s culpability vis-à-vis the practice of Apartheid. What we were presented with was a number of points that had little to do with Apartheid (as we know it) but everything to do with incidents of racism which occur in every other country in the world. However, that is hardly the issue as your delegitimisation strategy calls for the accusation of “apartheid” to stick no matter the validity of the accusation. This deception is practiced in the knowledge that few will question whether South African-brand Apartheid really applies toIsrael, or not. The general conclusion will undoubtedly be, “If the shoe fits, wear it!”
DM: “In Israel … the right-wing media as well as members of the Israeli government … accuse the South African government of racism and anti-Semitism. How does a BDS advocate respond to such criticism?”
ZA: “Whenever we raise criticism against the state of Israel we are called things like “jihadists”… Such people undermine, minimize and ridicule the real anti-Semitism people face in different parts of the world … There is a real anti-Semitism that exists and we don’t face up to it. All of us have to stand together on this, just as we stand against racism … It is our duty to fight anti-Semitism … but the abuse of anti-Semitism to support the occupation and Israeli apartheid makes a mockery of the people who died in the Holocaust … We are so angry, legitimately angry, with what Israel is doing but we dare not ignore opportunities to build alliances to isolate Israeli apartheid.”
Mr Achmat, your concern about the ravages of anti-Semitism is touching. However, forgive me for saying that I find it extremely difficult to believe a word you say; for if the scourge of anti-Semitism troubled you sufficiently you would not play the part you do in stoking the fires that feed it.
Anti-Semitism is not only the hatred of the individual Jew, it is the loathing of everything he stands for; religiously, socially or ethnically. Above all, it is the hatred of his independence as optimized through the undeniable success of his independent homeland,Israel, and its unique institutions. It is also manifested in a deep-seated resentment of the Jew’s proven ability to defend himself and take care of his own interests. His very power in the region is a cancer that, in the minds of the ‘Jihadists’, must be removed at all costs.
Instead of a subsidence of anti-Semitism since the Holocaust we have witnessed the resurgence of this evil to levels unprecedented in the last 65 years. The only comfort the Jew has in this hostile environment, is the existence of his haven of security –Israel. Were there no anti-Semitism there would be no need for this Jewish state.
If, Mr. Achmat, you were serious in claiming, “It is our duty to fight anti-Semitism” you would not be doing what you are doing. You would hardly be accusingIsraelof a non-existent policy of apartheid were it your true intention to oppose anti-Semitism. Neither would you be calling for Boycotts, Disinvestment and Sanctions which are not only aimed at weakening Israel’s ability to survive but would harm the very interests of those whom you claim to be helping – the Palestinians. I contend that your offer to fight anti-Semitism is hollow and devoid of any sincerity. With you at my side I would have little confidence in my hopes of survival.
For you, Mr. Achmat, a non-Jew, who has no connection with the Holocaust other than the odd book you might have read or a film you might have viewed, to tell Jews that
“(their) abuse of anti-Semitism (in order) to support the occupation and Israeli apartheid makes a mockery of the people who died in the Holocaust ..”. is the very worst insult. You, Mr. Achmat, have no conception at all of the suffering that Jews experienced during those dark days, nor for the previous two thousand years. Your comments are trite, insulting and sanctimonious.
The accusation that Israelis “abuse anti-Semitism to support the occupation” loses sight of the fact that the so-called ‘occupation’ only exists BECAUSE of the anti-Semitism that emanates from those regions. It is hatred of the Jew as taught in Palestinian schools, where Jews are referred to as “pigs and apes” that has made anti-Semitism as ubiquitous in this region as it is.
As for the accusation that “Israeli apartheid makes a mockery of the people who died in the Holocaust”, the insinuation that “after what happened in the Holocaust, you should know better” is meaningless and simply idiotic whenIsrael has faced annihilation since the day of its birth and continues to do so with the present Iranian threat of nuclear attack.
The question is, “know better in what regard?” Should Jews simply fail to defend themselves in order to satisfy the morally hipocritic demands of those seated in armchairs thousands of miles from the point of danger? Can you possibly understand, Mr. Achmat, that it is in order to give some meaning to the slaughter of six million Jews, Israel defends her citizens from those committed to repeating this destruction. This is not a source of shame for Israel but rather one of pride.
You comment further;
ZA: “We are so angry, legitimately angry, with what Israel is doing but we dare not ignore opportunities to build alliances to isolate Israeli apartheid.”
Perhaps, sir, you could direct just some of that anger at the Palestinians and their Arab brothers who turn their backs on every opportunity to address any overtures to peace and keep the sores of squalled refugee camps festering after six decades.
DM. “What is the responsibility of an activist?”
ZA. The first responsibility … is what someone said at a public meeting for Haneen Zoabi – the Palestinian who is a member of Israel’s Knesset … (activists) must get involved in international solidarity work. For me the choice is Palestine and Israel – and its for personal reasons because there are two warring religious factions in this country who are trying to make this a religious issue instead of an issue of freedom and human rights. The struggle for freedom by the Palestinian people and Israel’s continued struggle to dominate the whole of the Middle East is a core issue of our time.”
For a reader of your interview who knows little about human rights as practiced inIsraelyour admission that Haneen Zoabi – an Israeli Arab – is a member of the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) will come as something of a shock. Not only is this lady a Member of Parliament, she is openly hostile in her actions and attitude towards her own country. Why the good lady prefers to stay inIsraelwhen she could as easily move to Ramallah is interesting. Could it just be thatIsraelis a nice place to live one’s life, whether Jew, Arab or Christian?
Your admission, Mr. Achmat, that your chosen area of activism is Israel/Palestine is also strange in view of the good work you could be doing in persuading Syrian President Assad to stop slaughtering his citizens. The latest figure exceeds 12,000. Again it is of interest that the usual suspects, normally so vocal about Israel’s so-called ‘excesses’ have little or nothing to say about this tragedy though it is being played out before their very eyes. Here I include former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Zwelinzima Vavi, former US President Jimmy Carter, Professor John Dugard and you, youself, Mr. Achmat – just to name a few. Where are the demands for the recall of our ambassador toSyria? Where are the marches to the Syrian embassy or some banners of protest, at the very least? But then, as I have already remarked –Israelis so much easier to bash and so much more fun.
Your contention that “this is not a religious issue” is hardly supported by the hatred directed at Jews by Islamists throughout the region – a region not renown for religious tolerance. Were it only an issue of “freedom and human rights” I have little doubt that a solution could have been found many years ago.
Finally, Mr. Achmat, your reference to “Israel’s continued struggle to dominate the whole of the Middle East” would be laughable were it not so sad. If someone with your intellect can make a statement like that and maintain a straight face in doing so what hope do we really have in finding any form of solution. Please explain how a country the size of the Kruger Park measuring 300 miles from north to south, with a population of 5,5 million Jews and 1,5 million Arabs can “dominate the whole of the Middle East”, a region that boasts a combined population of 375 million Arabs and Muslims.
I await your kind response.
Sincerely,
Victor Gordon
Media Team Israel 