Don Krausz to Sunday Independent

 The Letters Editor

            The Sunday Independent.

 

            Deputy Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim’s article “Ebrahim lobbies for peace at the UN” refers.

 

Ebrahim begins his article by referring to the S.A.Government’s policy of supporting a “two-state solution (in Israel) with the states living side by side in peace and security.” He does not tell us when the government formulated this policy. If it was before 2008/9, then implementing that policy would have been problematic for that was the period when the Hamas in Gaza was firing more than 10,000 rockets at civilian settlements in Israel proper. On a smaller scale that aggression from Hamas continues to this day. Now why did Ebrahim not mention that?

 

He and others refer to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. International conferences dating back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration and attended by the USAand major European countries allocated Palestine to the Jews as a homeland. (cf. San Remo Conference 1920).

 

Ebrahim refers to settler violence. That may well have been in response to murderous attacks on Jews such as the murder of the Fogel family of parents and three infants in the settlement of Itamar recently. The three-month old baby had its throat cut. Didn’t Ebrahim mention that?

 

We are informed of the “inhuman” conditions in Gaza. I wonder whether Ebrahim has been to Gaza? One person who reported from Gaza not too long ago was Tom Gross, a journalist with the Guardian. He wrote and I quote: “In Gaza too, the shops and markets are crammed with food and goods – see, for example, the photos from the Gaza-based newspaper Palestine Today.” (6-1-2010)

 

Ebrahim wails about the obstacles that Israel imposes on the Palestinians: The wall, the checkpoints, the bypass roads. That security wall only covers about five percent of the border, the rest is wire. It has reduced the incidence of suicide bombing by at least 90%, thus saving about 1,000 Israeli lives. The checkpoints have all but eliminated the smuggling of armed terrorists bent on murder and their explosives into Israel. The bypass roads have almost stopped the incidence of drive-by shootings. Has Ebrahim not mentioned that? No?

 

What he has mentioned is the Security Council and his hopes of enabling it to meet its obligations around the world. Now that is good news, for that council and some of the other UN bodies were so biased as to be useless. At a time when genocide was being committed in Chechnya, Rwanda and Darfur, and gross human violations in Africa, China, Tibet and North Africa, the UN was pre-occupied with Israel which has a population of 7 million including one and a half million Arabs and refugees. The latter seem to be in no hurry to escape from their hell.

 

Israel has been responsible since 1948 for 46,000 deaths including those who fell in six wars. She has suffered 223 condemnations.

Nigeria caused 1 million deaths – 0 condemnations. N.Korea: 2 million deaths – 10 condemnations. Sudan: 2.25 million deaths – 45 condemnations. Cambodia: 3 million deaths – 14 condemnations. Syria up to 2011 approximately: 4000 killed and counting – 0 condemnations.

China unknown millions killed – 0 condemnations. Iran and others too numerous and painful to mention – 0 condemnations.

 

Out of 175 UN Security Council resolutions 97 were directed against Israel. Out of 690 General Assembly resolutions 429 were against her.

 

Yes, Mr. Ebrahim, there is much work to be done.

Felicia Levy to Sunday Independent

Shannon Ebrahim, (Sunday Independent 23 September) uses her obituary to Arab Palestinian, Ali Halimeh, to distort historical facts in her veiled effort to deligitimise the State of Israel.

 

She refers to the establishment of Israel in 1948 as both the “nakba” (catastrophe) and the “Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.” Both these descriptions reflect not only her enmity towards Israel, but also her malevolent, twisted portrayal of history.

 

The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, recommended the establishment of a Jewish state alongside (yet another) Arab state in the territory then referred to as Palestine. The only ‘catastrophe’ is that while the Jewish Palestinians accepted the UN plan, the Arab Palestinians not only rejected the opportunity to establish an independent state, but decided then and since to direct all their energies at destroying Israel- arguably the biggest stumbling block to Arab Palestinian independence. The ‘catastrophe’ is that today, the Palestinians could have been celebrating 65 years of independence. They could have been competing with Israel, not on the battlefield or at the United Nations, but rather in contributing positively as Israel does, in all areas of human development- medicine, agriculture, science and technology.

 

Of course, there has never been a land known as Palestine governed by “Palestinians.” The sparsely populated territory referred to as Palestine, with a total population of around half a million people was under Turkish control for 400 years from 1517- 1917: it was under the Mandate of Britain from 1918-1947. Much of the Arab population migrated into Palestine from the surrounding Arab countries in search of employment with the promise of a higher standard of living during the Mandate period. “Palestinians” are Arabs indistinguishable from Arabs throughout the Middle East with reference to culture, language and religion. Acknowledging that the vast majority of the Arab Palestinian population in 1948 was made up of migrants from the surrounding Arab countries, the United Nations, was compelled to define a Palestinian refugee not as someone who was born in Palestine, but as a person whose place of residence was Palestine for a mere two years between 1946 and 1948.

 

Unfortunately, the credibility of ‘analysts’ such as Ebrahim, is undermined, not by their expression of controversial viewpoints, but rather by their deliberate manipulation and falsification of historical facts in order to support their political agendas.

Monessa Shapiro to the Mail & Guardian

Shaun de Waal’s critique of the two films ‘Five Broken Cameras’ and ‘Roadmap to Apartheid’ is more a personal treatise of the situation than an objective critique of the merits and demerits of the two films.   Surely the latter is what is required of a good film critic?  That being said de Waal raises some points that require answers.

 

De Waal believes that the fundamental problem to the Israel/Palestine problem is the building of Israeli settlements.  Simplistic to say the least and indicative of his lack of knowledge and understanding of the area.  Had settlements been the problem, then there would have been no problem.   In 1947, when the remaining Jewish area of Palestine was partitioned by the United Nations into an Arab state and a Jewish state the Arabs could have had their own state but they refused and went to war against the fledgling Jewish state.   This was long before there was a single settlement or even the thought of a Palestinian people.  In 1967, after the 6-Day defensive war, Israel tried to negotiate the return of land with Egypt, Jordan and Syria (the 3 countries from whom she had captured the territories).  The offer was met with the now infamous 3 no’s at Khartoum:  ‘no to peace, no to negotiations and no to recognition of Israel’. Barak offered the Palestinians their own state in 2000 – the whole of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank with land swops for the remaining 5%.  Olmert went even farther in 2006.

 

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and took with it every single Jew but left behind an infrastructure worth billions to make way for the beginnings of a viable Palestinian state.  Mr. de Waal, you must be aware of the outcome.  But a question that vexes me, and possibly you, Mr. de Waal, as a freethinking liberal know the answer.  Why should the settlements pose a problem to an independent Palestinian state?   Why was it necessary to remove every Jew from Gaza in order to make it palatable for the Palestinians?  Why should, whatever area is agreed upon, not be able to become a Palestinian state with Jews and Arabs living side by side in it? Surely Jews should be able to live in a Palestinian state as Arabs live in Israel, as equal citizens with full religious freedom?  That is what should be.  The reality is that the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews, and Mahmoud Abbas has made it quite clear that no Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state.   Offend your liberal sensitivities Mr. de Waal?  It certainly offends mine and everything for which I stand.

 

You talk about the ‘green line’ as the border of Israel.  Wrong – the ‘green line’ is the armistice line – the line where the respective countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Israel) agreed to stop fighting in 1949.   United Nations Resolution 242 recognises it as such and calls on the parties to formulate safe and secure borders and to withdraw to them – it does not call on Israel to withdraw from all the territories and return to the armistice lines. Unfortunately it takes two parties to negotiate safe and secure borders.  As you see from the above the Arab cry from 1967 (and even before) has been “No” to negotiations and “No” to the recognition of Israel.

 

Perhaps a visit to Israel would prove to you that all Israeli citizens: Jews, Arabs and Christians, Blacks and Whites drive cars with yellow number plates.  At this juncture let me say that I find your association of the yellow number plates with the yellow stars that Jews were forced to wear during the worst period of their history, and your allusion to Nazis most offensive, as do all Jews.  And whilst we would not burn flags or murder because of it, it does touch very raw nerve-endings.   That the movie makers saw the irony in it I have no doubt – for you to repeat it unfortunately puts you in a similar category.  That aside, let’s consider the reason for these recently built highways.   Terrorism reached such enormous heights during the Second Intifada that Israelis were not even safe driving on roads.  Cars were continually being stoned and ambushed so the government decided to build these roads to protect the lives of all Israeli citizens.   I wonder whether you are aware that until the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993 and the transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority of Gaza and the West Bank there were no check-points, security fences, special highways or blockades; and that Jews and Arabs traveled freely between Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (known for centuries as Judea and Samaria).  It was with the major increase in terrorism emanating from these areas after Yasser Arafat’s return that Israel found the need to impose these measures to protect their citizens (Jews and Arabs alike).

 

Ariel Sharon’s supposed quote dates to 1973.   In 1979 the Israeli government returned the Sinai to Egypt after removing all the Jewish settlements that had been built there, in order to make peace.   And Ariel Sharon himself, in his attempt to start the peace process rolling removed every Jew from Gaza in 2005 and handed it to the Palestinians in the hope that they would start building their own state.   He believed that the West Bank would follow soon after. So whilst he may have said that, that the movie quotes him as saying, the fact is that he obviously realized the folly of his statement and in the interests of peace changed his mind.

 

The Israel/Palestine problem is complex and hugely problematic.   To simplify it into one oppressor and one victim is to obfuscate history and facts.  Quite obviously, the movies, as vehicles of propaganda, needed to do this.   For you, Mr de Waal to blindly regurgitate their content without any questioning and contextualizing is both immoral and irresponsible.

Monessa Shapiro to Sunday Independent

Cry the beloved world. Cry beloved mankind.  Have we all gone mad? Is there
not even a semblance of morality and justice left in the world?

Last week an American Ambassador and three of his staff were murdered in
cold-blood, and yesterday 8 South Africans were among 12 murdered in a
suicide bombing and your newspaper saw fit to carry as a headline:
³Collateral damage. South Africans victims of fury sparked by Anti-Muslim
movie.²  When innocent human beings are willingly, knowingly and in a
premeditated act killed by other human beings, are they simply Ovictims of
fury¹ or have they been murdered?  Why are our editors and journalists too
scared to say it like it is?

To blame a movie for the blatant murder of people is to excuse that murder,
to temper it. The tone of both your headline and article is one of
acceptance; conciliatory.  It is time that our journalists and politicians
have the courage to stand up for the value system that we have treasured for
so long. It is time that the anger and abhorrence that we all feel is
communicated not over coffee, but publicly and boldly for all to see and
hear.

Don Krausz to The Star

An American produced a film which is alleged to contain insults against the prophet Mohamed.

There is outrage in the whole Islamic world. Innocents have been murdered, consulates burned down and American flags destroyed by hysterical mobs. A statement was made on TV tonight that more Americans must be killed. I watched a spokesman claim that the USA and Israel are to blame.

 

It has now been suggested that in order to avoid repetitions of such insanity nations must prevent the insulting of religions. That in itself raises questions. The first is psychiatric. How does one cure a condition prevalent amongst more than a billion people that become homicidal and violent if their prophet is depicted in a cartoon? Or described in terms that are less than flattering? After all he died fourteen centuries ago.

Assuming that such prohibitions are legislated worldwide, does that then mean that Moslem countries will be obliged to prosecute their own clergy and censor their press? Anti-Semitic cartoons are a staple of the Egyptian press. Coptic Christians have been persecuted there for centuries. And when the Islamic pulpits state that Jews and Christians are descended from apes and pigs, will those clergy be hauled before the courts? Will said Jews, Christians, apes and pigs be entitled to sue for damages?

Will the Taliban be taken to the International Criminal Court not only for their disgusting treatment and persecution of their females, but also for destroying centuries old statues that are holy to Buddhists? And when said Taliban again rules in Afghanistan as seems likely, will the country and its people be subjected to boycotts, disinvestments and sanctions?

 

To the best of my knowledge there is not a people in the world that does not have a religion. They all have their own deity/ies and probably prophets and worship accordingly. How can any sane, thinking person state that his or her religion and god/s is/are the only true one/s? There are seven billion people in the world today. Can we really say that only about one billion are right and all the others infidels who ought to be destroyed?

Aren’t we all supposed to be God’s creatures?

Rhoda Kadalie in Die Burger

Rhoda Kadalie in Die Burger 11 September 2012

 

Some weeks ago Moira Levy, a former Idasa employee, renounced her Jewish roots in response to Israel’s alleged ill-treatment of its African immigrants. As is customary, the self righteous Left vociferously joined the chorus condemning Israel. Embarrassingly, last week’s Sunday Times reported a litany of alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by Bosasa, a private security firm, against refugees at the Lindela Repatriation Centre in Gauteng. The litany includes a poor diet, bug-infested rooms, lack of soap and toilet paper, beatings, racism, cramped sleeping conditions, and even deaths.

Lawyers for Human Rights claim that they tackle about ten cases of violations a week while about 30 cases are on the court roll every week. Many detainees have allegedly been held for more than the prescribed period; and apparently

Home Affairs is deporting people who are already on the system.

 

The point is this. The Left is quick to condemn Israel, when matters at home should shame us into silence. SA supports dictator, Robert Mugabe, who drove more than 3 million Zimbabweans out of his country. Destitute and jobless, Zimbabweans are spread around the world seeking better fortunes elsewhere. Swazi King Mswati with his Bentleys and Rolls Royces is bankrolled by the South African taxpayer and in addition, these dictatorships enjoy electricity supplies from Eskom because they cannot supply it themselves. As the epicentre of the HIV/AIDS pandemic we have much to be humble about, not to speak of the recent Marikana massacre. While we nestle in the bosom of China with its history of human rights abuse and occupation, we dare to condemn a country that has made numerous attempts to meet its opponent half way. Instead of using our expertise at political negotiations to help Israel and the Palestinian territories sort out its deadlock, Israeli-bashing has become nothing but a euphemism for anti-Semitism.

 

Hundreds of refugees are pouring across Israel’s borders seeking refuge from the tyrants SA supports. Around 60 000 Africans live there illegally and in contrast to SA, the Israeli government has offered those who agree to leave voluntarily, a free airline ticket and a grant of 1,000 Euros. We fail to understand that every country has immigration and refugee challenges. The question is: how are these resolved? Here our self-appointed watchdogs single out Israel for condemnation while Middle Eastern despots ruthlessly crush democratic uprisings, butcher their own people, and violate the human rights of protesters, the rights of women, gays, and Christians and send waves of émigrés across their borders.

 

That SA refuses to understand this and continues to single out Israel for criticism shows what a two-faced lot we are. Bashing Israel has become a self-promotion industry and the disinvestment campaign is its marketing tool. We should be attracting Israelis to our shores as the ideal foreign direct investment destination for Israelis. With its huge growth potential and features that set it apart from other African countries, SA’s large Jewish community with its numerous Jewish institutions and a rich cultural life has a vested interest in maintaining cordial relations between the two states.

 

The book, Start-Up Nation, reveals that the per-capita venture-capital investment in Israel is 2.5 times that in the U.S and 30 times that in Europe. Israel attracts as much venture capital as Britain, France and Germany combined and it has more companies listed on Nasdaq than any other country outside the US and its economic growth has been faster than the average for developed economies in most years since 1995. Between 1980 and 2000, 7652 patents were registered in the U.S. from Israel.

 

Is this penis envy or what?

 

Rhoda Kadalie

Don Krausz to The Star

11 September 2012

 

Imraan Buccus has drawn our attention in today’s Star to the tragedies with which the month of September is associated. First and foremost 9/11, which is closest in our memory. The day when religious fanatics chose to murder 3,000 innocent civilians to the greater glory of God. The day when the good citizens of Gaza danced on the rooftops of their houses and in their streets when they received the news of 9/11.

 

My day of remembrance is 9/16, 1942, the day when a Dutch policeman and a German soldier smashed into our house in Rotterdam and removed us to Nazi concentration camps. 107,000 Jews from Holland were arrested in the subsequent months. Only 5,450 survived to return to the Netherlands. Included in the six million Jews and countless others that perished in that terrible war were my father and forty members of his family.

 

Mention is made (approvingly?)  of Archbishop Tutu for refusing to share a platform with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The latter’s fault? He joined the USA in helping to destroy a monster who had the lives of tens of thousands of his own Iraqi and Iranian citizens on his conscience, plus the Kurdish men, women and children that he gassed and Kuwaitis slaughtered.

 

Has the venerable Arch ever expressed regret for the millions of Armenians, Russians, Jews and other innocents brutally murdered during the past century? True, he did visit Yad Vashem, the Jerusalem museum to the six million victims of the Holocaust where he opined that Jews must learn to forgive.

 

Imraan Buccus describes Saddam as a brutal dictator with the blood of thousands of Iranian children on his hands. He does not condemn the Iranians for using children as cannon fodder. He is also of the opinion that the manner of this monster’s death will remain an indictment on society. Surely the only indictment for which society is liable is permitting Saddam Hussein to live long enough to perpetrate his atrocities?

 

I find it preposterous for an intellectual like Imraan Buccus to single out one or two individuals as examples of the horrors and abominations committed during the past century. Surely one would expect him to apply his learning and acumen to advise lesser individuals of the lessons to be learned, of how to counteract the hatred, intolerance and fanaticism that lie at the root of the atrocities.

 

We all know that nations lack morality and only have interests. Buccus has chosen theUSA for his condemnation. I and millions of Europeans and Asians know that if it had not been for the sacrifices made by the USSR, the USA and Britain, we would have suffered a ghastly death at the hands of the political and religious fanatics of this past century.

 

Rodney Mazinter to The Warwick Hotel

Paul LeBlanc, General Manager
Warwick New York Hotel
65 West 54th Street, NYC, New York 10019, USA

Dear Mr. LeBlanc,

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will visit New York for the United Nations General Assembly next month. The Warwick Hotel has agreed to host Iran’s leader, who many consider to be the world’s modern day Hitler.

Ahmadinejad’s, oil rich nation is on the path to nuclear power. He is fast approaching the means of making a nuclear weapon. He vows to wipe Israel off the map and to destroy the USA and all it stands for, while claiming to be a “peacemaker”.

Last year, at the same time that the Warwick was providing luxury accommodations to the Iranian delegation, Ahmadinejad was delivering a speech before the General Assembly in which he despicably claimed that the U.S. orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks, condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and denied the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad’s remarks were so objectionable that members of the U.S., EU, Canadian and other Western delegations were compelled to walk-out of the meeting in protest.

How can a respected New York hotel welcome this mastermind of terror?

The iconic Warwick New York Hotel is rolling out the red carpet. Surely there is a world beyond profit and decisions taken ostensibly in any company’s shareholders’ interests.

It is immoral to host a modern day Hitler.

I urge that the Warwick New York Hotel cancel Ahmadinejad’s reservation immediately in the interests of a civilized world and to be counted in future as one who has struck a blow for decency and civilization everywhere.

Felicia Levy to The Mail & Guardian

The organisation advocating the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel must be pretty desperate to have placed a full page colour advertisement costing around R90,000 in the Mail and Guardian (Friday 31 August) whose readership by and large, is sympathetic to its cause. Perhaps this seemingly irrational behaviour may be explained by the fact that the BDS campaign has essentially failed and is in dire need of support. After all, despite the global economic depression, Israel’s economy continues to grow- essentially due to an increase in exports. The 2011-2012 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index, ranks Israel’s economy at 22 in the world; South Africa’s at 50  and the United States of America at 5. (www.weforum.org/gcr).

One can’t help but wonder what our future academic leaders were thinking (or smoking) when the University of the Witwatersrand SRC decided to join the BDS campaign by adopting an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities, places three of Israel’s Universities within the top 100 in the world while the University of the Witwatersrand is ranked in 301-400 range. Israel’s Hebrew University is ranked 121 by The Times Higher Education World University Rankings with Wits being ranked within the 251- 275 range. By all accounts, Israel’s academic institutions are amongst the finest in the world. All are more than willing to share in their research and development programmes in all spheres of technology, agriculture and human development which undoubtedly would be of great benefit to South Africa. Many of Israel’s academics are sympathetic to the Arab Palestinian cause, and all universities encourage open political debate across the political spectrum. While the BDS campaign may view the academic boycott of Israel by Wits as a “victory”, many South Africans must surely see this as “shooting ourselves in the foot!”

 

Don Krausz to The Mail & Guardian

On 31 August  the Mail & Guardian published an advert for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions organisation in South Africa. This organisation is strongly anti Israel and attempts to destroy any contact between Israeli institutions and products and South Africa, irrespective of whether such products, lectures, information and probably medicines and medical technology are beneficial to our country and its citizens.

 

The organisers of the BDS movement justify their hostile actions on the basis that they believe Israel to practice Apartheid. On 29 August the Students Representative Council of the University of Wits unanimously passed a resolution adopting the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

 

This is not the first time that this institute of higher learning has taken such a step. Israel became famous for making the desert bloom and introducing revolutionary irrigation methods. The most renowned of its institutions in that field is the University of Beer Sheva, right on the edge of the Negev Desert. South Africa also has problems with lack of water and invited a professor in that science to come and lecture. Wits in its wisdom cancelled the visit. The prof would have been an Israeli and the water that he proposed to use may well have been of Palestinian origin.

 

One assumes that this SRC is within its legal rights to do so. That still leaves the question as to whether they are factually and morally right. Does Israel practice apartheid?

Apartheid as practised in South Africa ended in the early nineties, eighteen years ago. Do these young students of the SRC have any personal memory of it? Would they recognise it if they came across it? Have they ever been to Israel and seen it for themselves?

 

I experienced South African Apartheid and later lived in Israel for some four and a half years. Recent visits confirmed my early memories and impressions. There quite simply is no semblance of South African apartheid in Israel and I challenge any critic to prove me wrong, whether it be Tutu, Kasrils, Mondli Makhanya or Heidi-Jane Esakov.

 

It is true that a number of universities have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the BDS fanatics. Which self-respecting person today would admit to being a Nazi?

Yet during the Hitler period in Germany world-renowned universities expelled their Jewish faculty and students and renounced what they termed Jewish Science. Great teachers such as Einstein and Franck in physics, Haber, Willstaetter and Warburg in chemistry were fired or retired. The SRC of its day ensured that no Jews were permitted onto their sacred premises.

 

The cost of such failure was great. After six years of Nazification the number of university students dropped by more than half – from 127,920 to 58,325. Academic standards fell dizzily but at least they no longer had to endure Jewish (or Israeli) science.