Victor Gordon Op-Ed

AN OPEN LETTER TO HEIDI-JANE ESAKOV

 

Dear Ms. Esakov,

I refer to your letter titled”Do not speak in my name, Rabbi” in response to the Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein’s open letter to Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Mr. Ebrahim Ebrahim.

While your sentiments appear to portray the voice of logic and reason and will no doubt be accepted as such by the vast number of readers (in fact I find myself in some agreement with a number of points you have raised) –  what disturbs me is your penchant to rely on little more than well-worn rhetoric with little or no attempt to place the majority of your assertions in any form of context. I firmly believe that debate without context is a meaningless exercise designed to serve as little more than propaganda.

Nor do you make any effort to apportion even  the slightest blame at the feet of the Palestinians while discussing a conflict that goes back to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 (and further) – a conflict wrought with complexities both nationalistic, religious, historic and emotional . In fact, your perspective offers but one innocent victim (the Palestinians) and one vicious villain(the Israelis). This in itself should raise a red flag indicating that your approach is not only simplistic but tainted with a bias that renders your analysis of Dr. Goldstein’s letter suspect, to say the least.

I had cause to attend the press conference at DIRCO addressed by the Deputy Minister at which he attempted to clarify his original statement “discouraging” South Africans from visiting Israel. He explained that the rationale behind this directive was the identification of Israel by the “entire world” as  “an occupying power” and that  “Israel was guilty of doing things that were unacceptable”.  Yet, in your letter you quote Mr. Ebraim’s modified statement which came a day or so later in which he changed the directive to refer to “high-profile and government institutions” only. The difference is obvious as is your inference that the later “more reasonable” version is the original.

I contend that were no protest forthcoming, his original directive would have remained as such and would have not been spun to appear more conciliatory.

When I asked the Deputy Minister whether any other countries had ever been singled out for similar treatment, despite having questionable human rights records, the Deputy Minister admitted that Israel was the only one, the reason being that “this conflict had been going on forever.”  I contend that this is hardly a reason for so drastic and exclusive a directive as it is obvious that, were peace available for the picking, Israel would have harvested the crop as far back as 1948 and was not the party to choose the route of conflict instead of conciliation. It is safe to say that if anyone would be aware of the interminable duration of this conflict it would be the parties involved who hardly need reminding by our Deputy Minister.

Your assertion that Israel oppresses the Palestinians under “a brutal and humiliating military occupation” once again falls back on an emotive choice of words with questionable validity.  But before we can address the basic issue of an “occupation” it must be determined whether Israel’s presence in the West Bank is an “occupation” at all.

According to the San Remo Resolution of 1920 which gave legal effect to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and which has never been abrogated since its endorsement by the League of Nations in 1922, followed by the United Nations in 1947; the entire region of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”) is in fact Israeli territory. This would quite obviously nullify any dispute about the matter. Until I am presented with an argument counter to that presented by Howard Grief in his seminal  714 page work, “The Legal Foundations and Borders of the State of Israel under International Law”, I for one will (as do international jurists of the highest standing)l regard Israel’s presence as  legal in all respects.

It should be noted that the self-same San Remo Resolution brought Iraq, Syria and Lebanon into being as well as the Jewish Home Land, and any abrogation of this resolution would result in the eradication of the legal recognition  of these countries as well, under international law.

As for the assertion that Israel is guilty of a “brutal” occupation, perhaps this should be seen in the light of facts and not emotive allegations designed to whip up anti-Israel  sentiment  which generally emanates from one side only. The mental picture conjured up by the word “brutal” is obviously deliberately chosen to achieve this purpose.  One not only sees the jackboot but smells it.

Thus, I contend, Ms. Esakov that to simply dish out clichéd allegations against Israel with no attempt at placing them in any form of context is both misleading and dishonest.  Is the “brutality” to which you refer an ongoing daily occurrence which forms part of general policy (as the extermination of Jews was in Nazi Germany) or do you refer to isolated instances of unacceptable behavior on the part of individual soldiers or even IDF units? If this might be so, do you see this in the context of negative interaction between the Palestinians and the Israeli soldiers with action and reaction typical of a highly charged conflict situation of this nature,  or do you see only Israel’s heavy-handedness against people who are purportedly  doing absolutely nothing to provoke such reaction?  If so, video recordings of these clashes clearly suggest that both sides might be equally complicit in stoking up the flames of violent interaction. (See: http://www.memri.org   or www.palwatch.org  or www.camera.org  or www.honestreporting.com)

It would also be interesting to know whether the coldblooded murder in their beds of five members of the  Fogel family, three of whom were children, by Palestinian terrorists who were lauded at home for their “heroic action” including the decapitation of the two month-old infant,  elicited from you any words of protest;  never mind  the action of the “martyr”, Samir Kuntar who also received a heroes welcome following his release in exchange for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers. Mr. Kuntar’s claim to fame was to bash in the head of 4 year old Einat Haran after making her witness the murder of her father moments before.  Do these actions  also qualify as “brutal” in the Esakov lexicon?  If so, have you ever publicly expressed  your dismay?

Were Israel to be guilty of a “brutal” occupation it is hard to explain why she sends hundreds of tons of goods, fuel, food and medicines into the “occupied” territories on a daily basis and why Israeli hospitals treated over 100,000 Palestinians during the period 2011-12. It is even harder to reconcile why, some months ago,  Ismail Haniyeh, the senior political leader of Hamas who openly calls for Israel’s destruction, arranged for his brother-in-law to have major surgery at the Beilinson Hospital in central Israel  for a life-threatening heart condition.  Is this not a flagrant dismissal of principle?

How does one also explain how, under brutal” occupation, the GNP of the West Bank has shown such impressive growth over the past 2 years while the population figures remain stable in the face of oft repeated allegations of “ethnic cleansing”?  I have also yet to see an emaciated Palestinian on a TV news broadcast despite the continual accusations of Israeli-inspired shortages of food and other essentials.  In fact the stone-throwing ability of the youth remains constant and extremely impressive.

The claim of excessive Israeli brutality is also not borne out in reports by Palestinian journalists like Khaled Abu Toameh,  who has been reporting from Ramallah for the past 20 years.  The picture he paints of Palestinian life in the “occupied” territories is vastly different from that described by journalists traditionally hostile to Israel, many of whose accuracy has regularly been found wanting. (See www.honestreporting.com or http://www.memri.org  and www.camera.org.  See also “the Jenin massacre that wasn’t” or the “Mohamed al Dura hoax”)

As far as the so-called “right of return” of the Palestinians to Israel proper is concerned, if,  Ms. Esakov, you can explain how the absorption of 4.5 million Palestinians can be achieved without having the ultimate effect of destroying the Jewish character of the only existing Jewish Homeland, I wish to hear it. Can it be denied that the inevitable result would be the creation of two Islam- dominated states existing side by side (and eventually morphing into one)  instead of guaranteeing the maintenance of a single Jewish State neighboring a single Palestinian state  as originally envisaged?  If this is the inevitable consequence of “the right of return”,  how can we speak of ever achieving  a “just and equitable solution”?

You have deliberately mislead your readers, Ms. Esakov in stating that (Israel) “enforces a loyalty oath forcing citizens to swear allegiance to Israel as a Jewish democratic state”. This has not been passed into law by the Knesset  and has yet to be ratified, if ever.  It is regarded as highly contentious and has come up against a great deal of opposition within Israeli society. It is exactly this demonstration of democracy that makes Israel unique in the Middle East but which garners little or no recognition from its critics.

However, it would be interesting to have you explain how an Israeli loyalty oath would differ from the oath new citizens are compelled to take when receiving American citizenship where these new citizens, including atheists embrace the religious identity of the country – “Under God”.

Closer to home, the Palestinian Authority, in its constitution for a Palestinian state, stipulates that Islam will be its official religion while the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference make no bones about the fact that Islam is the core of its identity. Some go so far as to put “Islamic” identification in their official names — i.e. the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania; and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

While Israel’s proposed “loyalty oath” would be a declaration of loyalty to, and recognition of, the Jewish character of the Jewish State it does not compel new citizens to identify with Judaism nor does it preclude adherents to other religions from practising their beliefs.  To claim that 20% of its population (the Arab Israelis) are excluded “by definition” (a “Jewish democratic state”) is also misleading in that by recognizing that the raison d’etat for the existence of Israel as a “State for Jews”, this has never excluded non-Jews from full citizenship, nor  prevented them from practicing their own religion nor living according to their specific culture.

 

How, Ms. Esakov do you reconcile Saudi Arabia’s lack of tolerance towards Christains in this regard and the “honour killings” that remain rife in Pakistan where  943 women were murdered in 2011 alone?   Have you considered, Ms. Esakov, expressing your assumed abhorrence against this practice outside the Pakistani Embassy or, at the very least, on the pages of the media?

 

While I cannot agree that 20% of the Israeli population are excluded from “full citizenship” I am compelled to concede that, in some respects,  Israeli Arabs do not enjoy “equal” citizenship. When placed in context this is unacceptable yet understandable.  As observed by emertis Professor Phyllis Chesler,  the fact is that the Israeli government has failed to allocate equal  funds for Arab community development leaving many roads in Arab villages unpaved and electricity and water compromised. There are other issues as well that cannot be denied nor overlooked,  some which the Israeli Supreme Court have ruled against, enforcing change as a result.  However, much work is still to be done to claim the existence of a fully fair and equitable society.

However, Chesler contends that when viewed in context,  reasons do exist – the main one being Israel still being  in a state of  war with the vast Arab Islamic “nation” for the past 65 years and more.  The wish of the latter to see the elimination of the Jewish state from their midst is the overriding rationale behind the mistrust that exists between Arab and Jew, preventing  the accommodation of peaceful co-existence.  It is this negative atmosphere that has largely contributed towards a reluctance to share equally all Israel’s benefits with an Arab population whose overall loyalty is regarded as suspect and whom, in many cases still identify with Israel’s enemies despite enjoying the benefits of full Israeli citizenship.

Call it a state of mind bound up in suspicion and mistrust – but it takes little more to instill an unwillingness to solve problems that, morally, have little right to exist. However, by no stretch of the imagination can this be defined as “apartheid”  in any real sense.  Discrimination, yes – as it no doubt exists in every other country in the world – but “apartheid, colonialism or racism” – no. None of this justifies the violence and hatred unleashed against the Jewish state over the past several decades.

If as you say, Ms. Esakov, it is possible to visit Israel and “have the plight of the Palestinians photo-shopped out of your experience”,  it is equally possible to visit the West Bank and also have the plight of the Israelis photo-shopped out of that experience.  The difference is that while visiting Israel you will not come across Israelis indoctrinating their children in state schools and on state television that Jews are apes and pigs who deserve to be killed (see: http://www.memri.org); neither will you find Israelis gleefully dancing in the streets and handing out sweets to celebrate the murder of Palestinian children or an attack by a suicide bomber; nor will you find Israeli leaders attending rallies at which suicide bombers are lauded as heroes and football stadiums named after terrorist killers. You will also not hear of political victors (Hamas) throwing their opponents (Fatah) to their deaths off the roofs of tall buildings.  Neither will you find Israel willfully launching 10,000 rockets into “occupied” territory (as was forthcoming from Gaza) despite withdrawing from that region in 2005, while placing 90% of all West Bank Palestinians effectively under PA control in terms of the Oslo Accords and going so far as to arm the new PA security forces to the teeth – arms that were quickly turned against their donor. Israel’s military actions have always only been in response to attacks on her civilian population and/or her territory.

What you undoubtedly will find is Israel’s willingness and determination t do whatever she must to ensure the protection of her citizens, Jews and Arab, which her critics will predictably and inevitably label as “disproportionate force”.

All the other points on which you have focused – the establishment of refugee camps, the demolition of houses,  the arbitrary house raids, the checkpoints, the imprisonment of Palestinian children and the squalor of certain areas within Palestinian towns and cities, are all the direct result of an unwillingness by the Palestinian to recognize the existence of the Jewish State or to live next door  to it in peace, security and good neighborliness.  The wholesale theft of donor funds by corrupt leaders has also played a major part in this neglect.  Were this misguided policy to end, so would every point that you have made.

In conclusion, I feel sure that Chief Rabbi Goldstein would agree that “human rights violations and discrimination committed in the name of Jews” must be a hateful and unacceptable concept. How could it possibly be otherwise?  However, equally unacceptable are human rights violations and discrimination when practiced AGAINST  Jews whether for reasons ideological or religious. Neither is it “a  case of placing Jewish rights above those of Palestinians – or anyone else’s”,  but recognizing those rights where and when they exist and not attempting to denigrate them nor “photoshop” them off the agenda.

It would be mindful to acknowledge that the only way that any meaningful progress can be made to bring this intractable conflict to an end is to ensure that honesty and fairness are applied equally to all sides and that wild statements be replaced with wise and sober council.

 

Victor Gordon

Victor Gordon to The Business Day

Sir,

 

(Ref: “Rabbi in the minority” 23/8)  Drawing our attention to the writer’s claim that Chief Rabbi Goldstein’s view is in the minority within the South African population reminds me that those who thought that Hitler was a dangerous moron were, for the major part of the war, also in the minority. The numbers involved are no proof of the ability of the masses to think for themselves.

 

What earned support for Hitler was the same abuse of propaganda that has swung the “majority” behind the sort of statements made by the signators of this letter. One has only to examine one line of their statement which claims that “the Zionist occupation of Palestine (is) illegal and its treatment of Palestinians (is) inhumane and similar to apartheid.”

 

Those who have examined the seminal 714 page study by Howard Grief, “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law”, might be surprised to discover that international law clearly supports Israel’s claim to hold legal title to the area described as “Palestine” or, more correctly, Judea and Samaria. This is supported by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, followed by the San Remo Resolution of 1920 (which turned the Declaration into a binding act of international law), followed by the British Mandate in 1922  followed in turn by the recognition of all members of the League of Nations in 1922 and finally by the UN itself in 1947.

 

Since then nothing has changed and nothing abrogated. It is this same genesis that brought both Syria and Iraq (Mesopotamia) into being.

 

This negates the oft repeated (but rarely clarified) claim that the so-called “occupation” of the West Bank is illegal under International Law.

 

As far as “Israel practices apartheid” is concerned, anyone with  an obligation to present the true facts will understand that a country as democratic as Israel (see: www.freedomhouse.com) cannot possibly incorporate a policy of apartheid. The two systems are anathema and simply cannot co-exist. While there are undoubtedly acts of discrimination within Israeli society (as in every other country in the world) it is quite simply a lie to refer to them as “apartheid”.

 

While Israel’s detractors run off to drag up the 30 to 40 discriminatory laws that they have identified within Israeli society, they are almost all tied to the security of the country and would not exist were the Palestinians willing to quench their futile quest to eradicate the Jewish State from their midst. It’s as easy as that.

 

Quoting Desmond Tutu and many Jewish intellectuals, academics and activists in support of the writer’s argument means little when these self-same bastions of humanity remain silent in the face of the slaughter that has enveloped Syria. While concentrating on the “inhumane conditions” under which the Palestinians supposedly exist (largely self inflicted by corrupt leaders and uncaring Arab brothers) they appear indifferent to the many other instances of inhumanity and starvation that swamp our world. Despite the allegations of Israeli callous inhumanity I have yet to see an emaciated Palestinian on our TV screens.

 

Moness Shapiro to Business Day

I, like Ms Esakov, am a product of a Jewish education where I was taught a love for Israel and the importance of Zionism.  Like Ms Esakov’s, my education too was sadly lacking.   I have been very fortunate though, as an adult, to have discovered great historians who have supplemented my education.  Historians, such as, among others, Martin Gilbert, Paul Johnson, Ephraim Karsh and Michael Oren elucidate the history of the area for all those thirsty for knowledge and the truth.

 

Did you know Ms Esakov, that in excess of 800,000 Jews were forced to flee Arab lands that they had lived in for centuries, in retribution for Israel’s establishment?  Martin  Gilbert has recently published a book “ In the House of Ishmael”  where he documents the Jews in Arab lands.   You will read of occurrences there that will make even your blood run cold. Of course we don’t hear of these refugees today because, unlike the Arabs who were made to languish in refugee camps by their host Arab countries, the Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israeli society.   Do you think we should call for a right of return for these Jewish refugees also Ms Esakov?

 

Of course, Ephraim Karsh, will explain to you in his book “Betraying Palestine” that there were Arabs expelled in 1948 as there are peoples expelled in every war.  But he will tell you also of the call of the Arab leaders for their people to leave and return once the Jews had been vanquished.    You may even read two quotes in his book, that for me sum up the tragedy of the conflict, both from September 1948:  “Sooner or later the Jewish State would disappear.  The war would flare up again, the Arabs would destroy the State of Israel,”  Abdel Rahman Azzam ,the Arab League’s Secretary General;  and : “At the moment there are apparently no Arab factors ready to reach an agreement with the Jews.  But should the possibility arise… I’ll be prepared to ask the government and the Jewish people to content themselves with much less… For in my view there is hardly a price that is not worth paying for peace,”  David ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel.

 

But let’s forget the history, and turn instead to modern times, times within our recollection.  You must be aware Ms Esakov, that until Oslo in 1992(the start of the peace agreement for which we had yearned for some 50 years) and the return of the PLO to the West Bank there were no checkpoints or security fences or blockades and that Jews and Arabs traveled freely between Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (known for centuries by the Jews as Judea and Samaria).  They shopped together and worked together. These measures came into being only once terrorism reached such enormous proportions that Israeli citizens (Jews and Arabs) had to be protected.

 

You mention that gross human rights violations and discrimination committed in the name of Jews is hateful to you, and so it should be.  I will tell you though what is just as hateful to me – that you did not in your letter, nor in anything you have ever written, make mention of human rights violations committed against Jews and the Jewish state.  Do you not believe that the call from Iran to wipe Israel from the face of the earth is a human rights violation worthy of mention by you; do you not believe that the stabbing of a four month old Jewish baby asleep in his cot is a human rights violation of the highest order and do you not believe that a continual barrage of rockets fired against Israeli citizens is a human rights violation?  It perplexes me that you do not see Israel’s neighbours’ refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a human rights violation.  I cannot fathom that you do not see Hamas’s Charter, calling for the killing of all Jews as a human right’s violation.  You see you would have so much more credibility if you saw both sides of the coin.

 

And therein lies my problem (and I think the Chief Rabbi’s) with the Minister’s call for people to defer from visiting Israel.  There are many countries in the world where there are gross human rights violations, and if one were to be honest, far greater than those found in Israel.  To single out the one Jewish state as he did, and I’m afraid as you do, is discriminatory and racist.

Victor Gordon addresses Ebrahim Ebrahim

Some days ago Chris Gibbon, on the 702 Midday Show, interviewed the Deputy Minister of the Department of International Relations and Co-operation, Mr. Ebrahim Ebrahim, about  “discouraging”  South Africans  from visiting that well-known pariah state, Israel.

 

When Chris asked why a similar attitude had not been adopted towards China’s occupation of Tibet, the Deputy Minister immediately countered with the explanation that, (conveniently), South Africa did not recognize Tibet!

 

“But” … said Chris, trying to push the point. “No!”, said the Minister, blocking the attempt, “We don’t recognize Tibet!”.

 

What an utterly  brilliant solution to all the world’s problems!

 

Could our government, I asked myself, not just stop recognizing  every country that created difficulties when it came to foreign relations and simply acknowledge the existence of only one of the two parties concerned?  If, for example, we ceased our recognition of Israel and just allowed ourselves to believe that it never existed – then “boom!!  – no Middle East problem!  All that would be left to worry about  would be a Palestinian “state”  that existed, but did not actually exist, and a hole in a map where a Jewish state used to exist but (thankfully to some),  no longer does.

 

The simplicity is mind-blowing and I can kick myself for not thinking of it sooner.

 

Thank you, Mr. Ebrahim x2,  you are indeed a genius.

Don Krausz to The Star

Shame! The Media Review Network must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel to have submitted a letter such as this. Can’t it even instruct its new recruits that terms such as “noble crusade” bring back bad  memories to the faithful?

 

The rest of the letter is true to form. Intransigent Netanyahu, violated UN resolutions, land grabs in Palestine, Israeli atrocities, have I left anything out?

 

Neither is it surprising to have Nukeri “applauding and fully endorsing our government’s policy on isolating Israel and discouraging South Africans from visiting it.”

 

I wonder whether Tiny knows that S.A. has a constitution, let alone has ever glanced at it. In a  recent letter to the SABC Online Magazine, Bev Goldman pointed out that we are guaranteed freedom  of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement and freedom of  association under this model of a constitution, of all of which Deputy Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim attempts to deprive us to the applause and endorsement of Tiny.

 

We are reminded of the military assistance that Israel gave to the Nationalists. We are not told of who supplied the far more vital oil and fuel without which the S.A. forces would have ground to a halt. Neither are we told that Israel was created by a majority vote in the United Nations or that it was immediately attacked by its Palestinian and nearly all its Arab neighbours in a declared war of annihilation.

 

I find Tiny’s use of the phrase “illegal occupation of Palestine” amusing. Under our Constitution’s freedom of speech one can say anything with out having to prove that it really is so. I can say that the earth is flat or  the moon made of green cheese, but without proof those statements are meaningless and only the brainless will accept them.

 

I would recommend that Tiny and his fellow savants investigate just what the Balfour Declaration entailed and who and what was involved in the San Remo Resolution of 1920.

 

THE SAN REMO RESOLUTION TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 22 OF THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, BECAME THE BASIC DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE WAS ESTABLISHED.

 

THIS LAID DOWN THE JEWISH LEGAL RIGHT TO SETTLE ANYWHERE IN PALESTINE. IT ALSO CONFIRMED THE RECOGNITION GIVEN TO THE HISTORIC CONNECTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITH PALESTINE AS THEIR NATIONAL HOME.

 

Mr. Nukeri, there is no illegal Jewish occupation of Palestine.

Victor Gordon to The Saturday Argus

Deputy Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim should take heed – Stop opening your mouth, sir, as you appear unable to do so without putting your foot in it.

 

In his revision of what he supposedly said, against what he supposedly meant to say, against what he supposedly meant, vis-à-vis South Africans visiting Israel, he now explains that, “it the democratic right of every South African to visit any country of their choice.”  “However”, says he,  “we have expressed concern by high-profile and government institutions visits to Israel as it gives legitimacy to Israel occupation of Palestine land (sic)”.

 

The Deputy Minister could undoubtedly benefit from lessons in both English grammar as well as coherent expression as his statement makes little sense.

 

Why a visit to Israel by either any member of the ‘great unwashed’ or some “high-profile” official should give legitimacy to “Israel’s occupation of Palestine lands” is difficult to fathom. Does that mean that a visit to Pakistan or India to negotiate trade agreements gives either country legitimacy in its dispute over Kashmir in which almost 100,000 have been killed?  Or would an official visit to Saudi Arabia carry with it our approval of the subjugation of women’s rights; or a trade visit to Iran constitute the acceptance of that country’s attitude towards gays and lesbians who face the death penalty?

 

According to unnamed departmental colleagues, it is the Deputy Minister’s age that is to blame. It would appear that he has passed his sell-by date. If that is the case it is clearly of little benefit and even a danger to this country to prop up an incumbent in so important a role if he displays flashes of dementia.

 

The truth is, Mr. Deputy Minister, you have made it quite clear that there is one rule for Israel and another for every other country no matter how evil its regime or policies. And for that to be so, there is one reason and one reason only – Israel is the Jewish home land.

 

Where the shoe fits ….

 

 

Allan Wollman in response to Deputy Minister Ebrahim

Imagine if over 40 people were gunned down by the Israeli military. Imagine the outrage of the world. Imagine the Arch with his purple robes blazing with indignation at such an atrocity. Imagine his fellow elders condemnation of such a foul deed. Imagine the screaming headlines on all the news networks devoting unprecedented time to such an event! 
 
Yet four full days since that tragedy at the Lonimin Marakana mine our Icon has yet to even voice an opinion. Someone so quick to vent his anger when an opera company announced it was to simply visit Israel. His fellow Elders so quick to pounce on Israel yet so silent in the face of our disaster.  In fact there was more outrage expressed by those international networks about the sentencing of a Russian pop band than there was about the South African police brutality. 
 
Just days before those tragic events, we had our Deputy Minister of International Relations calling for us not to visit Israel. Perhaps Israel should now lead the call not to visit South Africa due to the brutality and lawlessness prevailing here. International Affairs so quick to withdraw our ambassador from Israel just days after the Mavi Marama flotilla incident, surely Israel would be acting within the same set of norms by recalling her ambassador?

Bev Goldman to SABC Online Magazine

Deputy Minister’s statement on proposed visits to Israel

 

 

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of association – all of these tenets entrenched in South Africa’s democratic Constitution which has been hailed across the world as one of the most respected, the most sophisticated, the most admired.

 

Yet it is a cabinet minister who chooses to ignore – no, to override – these freedoms and deliver a statement which is prejudicial, anarchic, inflammatory and intemperate.  Could it also be a true reflection of his own agenda vis-à-vis the Jewish people which he has tried to hide behind the veil of his anti-Israel sentiments?

 

International Relations Deputy Minister Ibrahim Ibrahim has called for South Africans to refrain from visiting Israel “because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people”.  He has blustered on about Israel being an “occupying power” without mentioning that part of Cyprus is occupied by Turkey; that the Western Sahara is occupied by Mauritania; that part of Georgia is occupied by Russia.  And in an interview on Radio 702, he dismissed China’s occupation of Tibet, stating that our government recognises only one China.  So much for the oppressed people of Tibet, who will never receive any of the largesse from our government that is regularly given to dictatorial “underdogs” across the continent. 

 

Israel is not an occupying country.  After its defensive war in 1967, a war that drove the Jordanians out of the West Bank, Israel was legally entitled to occupy this  territory and did so until 1995, when for strategic and safety reasons, it retained only a few areas.  Since then Israel has consistently called for negotiation and for the Palestinians to recognize it as a state and to agree on the setting of safe and secure borders for both peoples, but the Palestinians take no heed of that; and without those guarantees, there cannot be a viable peace process.

 

What of the regular calls by our government for dialogue and negotiation between parties embroiled in the myriad of conflicts around the world?  Yes, we now head the august African Union and our presence will be heard and felt across the continent as we attempt to bring the parties around one table to discuss, consult, argue and hopefully come to some resolutions.  But this is certainly not the government’s priority as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned.  No, in this case, a one-sided condemnation of Israel, totally decontextualised, is the driving force. 

 

It appears that the Deputy Minister is keen on donning the dictatorial mantle himself, by choosing to dictate which countries our citizens should or should not visit.  From his perspective, the South African populace is neither mature nor responsible enough to make its own decisions as to certain of its travel destinations.  Go to Syria – no problems there.  Visit Libya, or Tunisia – great holiday destinations.  See the pyramids of Egypt, and admire the vastness of the Sinai desert.  But don’t go to Israel – Israel is the pariah of the world – because Israel is a Jewish state, the only Jewish state in the world, the only true Middle East democracy surrounded by 22 hostile Arab states, some of which, members of the UN, openly and without fear of contradiction, regularly call for her destruction and threaten the safety and lives of her citizens.

 

And please dismiss the benefits to mankind that have come from Israel – the technological, medical, scientific and agricultural innovations that are part of the everyday lives of every South African. There are many of them – they are invaluable in today’s fast-moving world – they affect so much of how we operate – but let’s rather choose not to use them because they originate from Israel.

 

It is nothing less than totalitarian for a government minister to prescribe where citizens should go, other than to give travel warnings for their safety.  It is inconceivable that in a democracy, such strictures should be enforced and encouraged.  Where is his respect for the democratic values we all hold so dear?  And will he deny that attacks on Israel today are related to individual attitudes towards the Jewish people?  The minister knows – or should, in his position – that South African Jews, whose loyalty to South Africa is unquestioned and absolute, simultaneously have a unique spiritual connection to Israel, a connection dating back almost four thousand years when God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

 

The Deputy Minister’s singling out of Israel – which echoes equally divisive comments made recently in a public forum in Cape Town by his co-minister Marius Fransman, who commended the government for imposing an economic-travel ban on Israel and supporting the abhorrent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign – is discriminatory and smacks of the worst kind of double standards.  Why is Israel held to a higher standard than any other country?  Why does the Deputy Minister deliberately ignore the terrorism and continual rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel?  Why does he tacitly support the anti-Israel extremism which is the byword of Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah?  Why is he so focused on Israel to the exclusion of all other conflict areas?  Is it vengeful or retaliatory? 

 

In the words of ACDP leader and MP Reverend Kenneth Meshoe, “The ACDP … calls on Deputy Minister Ebrahim to keep what appears to be anti-Semitism and a personal vendetta against Israel to himself. “  

The press statement from the SA Zionist Federation, the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and the Chief Rabbi of SA reads:  “Mr Ebrahim’s statements are indicative of a highly discriminatory and disproportionate obsession with the Jewish State.”

The Christian Friends of Israel write, “We emphatically denounce your statement and the implications thereof,  We find it discriminatory, anti-Semitic and inflammatory.”
And from the Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, Dov Segev-Steinberg, comes the following:  “The South African government has at last shown that its true intention is to boycott Israel, and instead of using the South African way of dialogue to promote peace, this  is completely the opposite.”

 

The Jewish community is outraged and appalled by the Deputy Minister’s words, which contradict South Africa’s official policy of having full diplomatic ties with Israel.  Instead of working as a broker in the peace process, South Africa is now seen to be partisan and one-sided, with Mr Ibrahim willfully and consciously obfuscating the truth about the Middle East while mouthing empty and meaningless rhetoric to bolster whatever his own agenda is.

 

This week Ambassador Segev-Steinberg extended an invitation to His Majesty, Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini, to visit Israel next year. Not only did His Majesty accept the invitation, but he promised to use his official visit to explore ways to intensify the cooperation between South Africa and Israel, and especially between the Zulu people and the Israeli people.  His decision to accept the invitation was praised by the NFP Leader and mayor of Zululand, Ms Zanele Magwaza- Msibi as well as by the Amazulu team players and fans who were present at the ceremony.

Will the deputy minister place a ban on the King’s plans?  And how will he deal with the inevitable fallout from the huge Christian community whose members stand proudly with the State of Israel and who will not be dictated to as to the countries they should and shouldn’t visit?  As freedom of movement and association are to be circumscribed, so too will freedom of religion and of speech.  Where to then from here, South Africa? 

Victor Gordon to The Business Day

 

 

A directive was issued on the 14 August by Deputy Minister of International Relations and Co-operation, Mr. Ebrahim Ebrahim advising South Africans not to visit Israel.

 

At a press briefing, the Deputy Minister explained that this did constitute a ban on South Africans traveling to the Jewish State (if such a ban could ever be constitutional), but an expression of our government’s opposition to Israel’s supposed actions against the Palestinians in the disputed territories. No mention was made of any unacceptable excesses perpetrated by the Palestinians including neither unabated acts of terror nor the continual firing of rockets at Israeli towns which prompt Israel’s “actions” in the first place.

 

When asked whether a similar directive had ever been issued against any other country, including those with horrendous records of the abuse of human rights, the Minister admitted that Israel was alone in this regard. The reason he offered was that it was necessary to send that country a “strong message” as the conflict had been “going on forever”.

 

One can only wonder how strong a message should be sent to Syria or the DRC.

 

Perhaps the rationale was lost on the Deputy Minister that not only would Israel love to end this never-ending conflict and experience real peace for the first time in 65 years, but that conflicts that “go on forever” do so because of their complexity with the only chance of finding a solution residing in a willingness to promote dialogue and a full understanding of the issues involved. Boycotts and bans offer little resolution despite the Minister explaining that the directive would not apply to those wishing to visit Israel in order to “promote the peace process”.

 

The obvious question is, on what basis would the department determine whether any particular visit would form part of that peace process and to whom would it apply? Considering that our government appears to have placed itself firmly on the side of the Palestinians what chance would it have of making any positive contribution to furthering the elusive peace it claims to support?

 

When asked whether South Africa sees itself playing any part in future negotiations as an “honest broker”, the Deputy Minister expressed his doubts in view of the lack of success experienced by the USA, the Quartet and others.  However, none of these bodies have seen fit to discourage their citizens from visiting the only democracy in the Middle East and at least trying to make some positive contribution to finding the route to peace.

 

Not only is the Deputy Minister’s explanation sanctimonious, it is sickeningly hypocritical.

Allan Wolman to The Business Day

The South Africa Deputy Minister of International Relations call for South Africans to refrain from visiting Israel “because of the treatment and policies of Israel towards the Palestinian people” is indeed commendable. In fact if this is his standpoint shouldn’t he call for South Africans not to visit all countries whose policies and treatment of the Palestinian and other peoples are far worse than that of the only country he single out? Shouldn’t his call be consistent?

The fact that there are countries whose human rights record read like a horror story, whose actions pose a threat to world peace doesn’t seem to appear on his radar.

The Minister however stated his reason for singling out only one state was that the “conflict has been dragging on forever”. Indeed it has, but is it only Israel who is ‘dragging the process”? Doesn’t it take ‘two to tango”?

Is the Deputy Minister discounting the three previous occasions that Israel had made substantial and painful concessions to the Palestinian leadership with the support of the U.S., the E.U. and Saudi Arabia amongst others for a peaceful settlement and a viable Palestinian state? Therefore one need ask who is “dragging this process out”

Perhaps his call has an ulterior motive – perhaps he is discouraging those able to see that country for what it is – perhaps he is afraid that those decision makers might see a different Israel to what he sees? Could it be he is afraid of the truth about that incredible country? Could it be that he doesn’t want opinion makers to form their own opinions? What is he afraid of?

Are we is South Africa now mirroring the Soviet era when people’s thoughts were controlled by the state and prohibited from visiting countries that the regime deemed undesirable?