Don Krausz to The Star

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s (YAB) article headed “How did modern Islam become so intolerant?” (26-2-13) refers.

 

Let’s first assess just how reliable the lady’s facts are. She writes for the Independent and last November stated:

“It is exactly 95 years since Lord Balfour, the then Foreign Secretary, informed Baron Rothschild that Britain would back a new Jewish state on Palestinian territory as demanded by Zionists, some of them terrorists who had attacked British targets.”

 

I am quoting Simon Plosker who commented: “A bizarre claim considering that there were no Zionist attacks on British targets in 1917.” He also queries her use of the phrase “Palestinian territory.” After all, there had never been any sovereign Palestinian state throughout history.

 

YAB refers to the “bearded Jihadists” who were convicted in Birmingham last week for “meaning to cause bloody mayhem.” She goes on to quote “smart Muslim undergraduates” at top British universities who suggest that the denial of Palestinian rights by Israel lie at the root of these terrorist attempts.

 

She then states that she sympathises with this viewpoint and has thus answered her own question.

 

Since the end of the 19^th century Jews have suffered innumerable murderous attacks at the hands of Arabs and so called Palestinians. That term was derived from the name imposed on the land by the conquering Roman Empire in the year 135 CE. Before it was known as Judea. The Greek Philistines had been the worst enemies of the Jews and the Romans in revenge for the Jewish Revolt renamed the territory Philistia. From this emerged the name Palestine.

 

YAB condems the hatred, intolerance and sheer bloodymindedness of modern day Moslems, but she does not have to seek far for causes. What motivates Syrian Shia and Sunni to slaughter 70,000 men, women and children in their own land? Hatred, intolerance. In Westbank and Gazan schools little children are taught that their purpose in life must be to kill Jews and other infidels.

 

And how can it be otherwise when just one Sura in the Qu’ran, 8-12, states: “Thy Lord inspired the angels:

I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers; Smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them!”

 

Victor Gordon: An Open Letter to Marthie Momberg

AN OPEN LETTER TO MARTHIE MOMBERG

From  Victor Gordon

 

Dear Marthie,

I am aware of the letters that have passed between you and Rodney Mazinter as well as that written to you by Mike Berger.

You might believe that this barrage of counter opinion is becoming somewhat relentless, but, if so, the rationale behind it is perfectly understandable as it is glaringly obvious that your stance, while undoubtedly sincere, simply fails to  reflect the true situation in Israel/Palestine, despite you undertaking your own personal investigation. This is for one dominant reason –  it is devoid of THE most critical component – context.

Allow me to focus my attention on the 6 principles as expressed by you yourself, and which you claim, guide you as a Christian.

1. The first is the issue of attitude, and therefore the question “What do we do to one another now? My choice is an approach of inclusivity, pluralism and human dignity and human rights … and therefore justice for ALL. I work with Jews who say that when the proclaim “Never Again” they mean it for all peoples, including the Palestinians. You can read their full statement here:http://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/never-again-unconditionally/

I have carefully read the statement to which you refer. It is indeed a noble one encompassing sentiments to which I myself subscribe. What I find disturbing is the emphasis placed on Palestinian suffering, human dignity, human rights and the implications of “Never Again” while paying no more than lip service to Israeli claims to the self-same considerations. 

It acknowledges, in the very first line, that this statement originates from “Jews, with our own painful history of oppression”, and stands as a commitment to  “speak out against human rights violations committed by the State of Israel – in our name – against the Palestinian people.”

In issuing this statement  the clear implication is that, for some obscure reason, Israel is somehow committed to the never-ending subjugation of the Palestinians and their eternal oppression.  Have you, Marthie, ever wondered how this could possibly be – how so vicious a doctrine could apply to the very people who gifted the civilized world with the very precepts of morality?

When we talk about “Judeo-Christian” values, the very foundation of both Jewish and Christian civilization, we are saying that without this corner-stone we would, in all probability, still be stuck in the darkest of ages, striving to find  a way to free ourselves from the shackles of ignorance.

Surely Marthie, it goes without saying that the vast majority of the world’s 14 million Jews long for peace with the same passion as do you and your fellow activists. If the Jews are such intolerant oppressors would Israel not have had enough reason over the years to inflicted hell and damnation on her Arab neighbours and seek their complete demise? Instead, in the spirit of the Oslo Accords, Israel handed the newly formed PA police force 40,000 semi-automatic rifles with which Yasser Arafat undertook, by treaty, to maintain peace and eliminate terrorism, only to have these guns turned on their benefactor within weeks.

You speak of a search for “human dignity” and “human rights” as though they are the exclusive domain of the Palestinians, but ignore the fact that Hamas executed their PA opposition in Gaza by throwing them off the tops of buildings. Further, you ignore Hamas dragging dead bodies of so-called “collaborators” behind motorcycles through the streets of Gaza City, then audaciously suggest that Israel is an abuser of “human dignity” and “human rights”!  How do you reconcile so warped a rationale?

Still further,  you claim to believe in the noble precepts of “inclusivity, pluralism and … justice for ALL”, yet nowhere in your blog-site (to which you directed us above) do you challenge Israel’s claim to be a fully fledged democracy (as verified by the internationally recognised, ‘Freedom House’).  Marthie, you can’t have it both ways:

“Inclusivity” means the inclusion of ALL facets of the Israeli population, both Jews and Arabs, all of whom enjoy the same universal rights. Even the Palestinians from the “oPt”, who, although not citizens of the State of Israel and therefore do not qualify as such, nonetheless enjoy medical attention (180,000 treated in Israeli hospitals during 2012 alone), limited entrance to Israeli universities, work opportunities within the borders of Israel (15,000 permits have been issued to Palestinians to enter Israel daily) while they are continually delivered of tons of humanitarian aid in the form of food, medicines and a variety of essential commodities. As you well know, Israel continually supplies electricity, clean water and administrative assistance to the so-called “occupied areas” despite the ongoing rocket and terrorist attacks. How many other countries would do the same under similar circumstances?

“Pluralism” means a system of power-sharing amongst political parties. Considering the presence of Arab political parties and the Arab MK’s serving in the Knesset, how can you possibly claim that Israel has failed in this regard?

As for “Justice for all”, the total independence of Israel’s judiciary and its accessibility to every facet of Israeli society (including Palestinians who have successfully challenged many rulings in Israel’s Supreme Court) nullifies your claim that this is denied to all except Israeli Jews. In truth, the threat to judicial independence that has developed here in South Africa should be of far greater concern to us all.

You have invited us to read the statement issued by those South African Jews who support your sentiments on: :http://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/never-again-unconditionally/  I have done so and it offers nothing new other than to parrot the same worn-out assertion that Israel is the villain, the Palestinians are the victim and that they, as caring Jews, cannot possibly accept this “travesty of justice”. Further, they underline that the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and SA Zionist Federation, who rightfully represent the greater part of South African Jewry, do not speak in their name.

Of course they don’t – no more than President Obama, who only received 52% of the vote, doesn’t speak on behalf of all Americans. Neither, on moral issues, does the ANC and President Zuma speak for me. Certainly the SAJBD and Zionist Federation are not unique in this regard.   Assuming that only a dictator speaks for an entire nation (whether they like it or not), there will always be those who do not agree with the supreme leader nor wish to be represented by him. I therefore concur with your reservations. 

2.“I respect international law.”

Well, of course you do and I knew from the moment I started reading your letter that somewhere the words “international law” would appear. They always do; except that no one ever explains to which aspect of international law they refer, nor how Israel is guilty of flaunting it.  Perhaps you will rise to the occasion and quote chapter and verse.

Meanwhile, I refer you to Howard Grief’s seminal work, “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law”, a meticulously researched 714 page, in-depth analysis of the question of whether Israel is guilty of flaunting international law by her presence in the West Bank (she no longer occupies a single inch of Gaza).

Grief’s completely logic-based conclusion that Israel is well within her legal rights, does not depend on statements from the Old Testament nor those that (surprisingly) emanate from the Koran (both claiming that The Almighty gave his chosen people the Land of Israel in its entirety), but on a clear understanding of the legal process that started in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration and ended (after a number of clearly delineated and indisputable steps) with UN Resolution 181 which established the Jewish State of Israel by a process of partition in November 1947. In fact, no other state has had its creation entrenched in so definitive a legal process.

I look forward to your refutation.

3. I am not anti-Semitic (if I were, I would have been “against” Palestinians for they too are Semites.) I have great Jewish friends and colleagues and I am most definitely also not against Jews.

Come on Marthie!  While I am not accusing you of being anti-Semitic (as, quite obviously, from the company you keep some of your best friends are Jews), anyone who argues that a qualified anti-Semite would also “be against Palestinians as they, too are Semites”, must assume that  we’re all idiots! 

When the world talks about “anti-Semites” that world is fully aware of the race to which they refer – and it does NOT include Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians etc. It’s the one – the ONLY one, to have ever been packed into gas chambers for a process of planned extermination and incinerated into mountains of ash. I don’t recall that being the fate of any other “Semite”. While a Semite is any of the descendents of Shem, (which includes both Arabs and Jews), to use this as a defence against a possible accusation of harbouring an antipathy towards Jews is as misleading as claiming that Genocide is the wilful murder of 6 million people as well as  the murder of one hundred.  Anyone using this argument demeans oneself and removes the little bit of credibility they might have had.

4. I am not a “force that continuously fuels conflict”.

      I agree, Marthie.  You are not big enough, significant enough or powerful enough to be a “force that continuously fuels conflict.”  You are certainly no tyrant … but, having said that, anyone familiar with the “butterfly effect” is aware that your sincere, though misguided views can do some harm by possibly influencing those non-thinking and uninformed individuals who remain content to have their opinions formulated for them. That in itself makes you a nuisance. While you are not that “force” to be feared, you do add some fuel to the barrage of anti-Israel rhetoric and that has some potential to become a dangerous force of its own. You do nothing to clarify an already complex situation but hide behind a façade of reasonableness while surreptitiously undermining Israel’s credibility.

5. My opinion is not based on what the media says, but on what I witnessed and continue to see. (By the way, my colleagues and I compiled a report for Save the Children which entailed visits to several schools in the oPt and in-depth interviews with pupils and teachers, so I know exactly what is taught and what is not). I also respect rulings by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations as well as applicable laws. See, for example,www.ochaopt.org

      I haven’t visited several schools in the “oPt” nor have I had “in-depth interviews with pupils and teachers”. This, you claim has given you a water-tight insight into what is taught in Palestinian schools and what is not. How then do you reconcile the collection of incidents (many school-based), sourced over the past 20 years by the organization, “Palestinian Media Watch” and reported in their recently published 264-page  book, “Deception”?  There are an average of 5 incidents per page providing a rough total of 1325, all meticulously documented with the source, date and, in many cases the website where the incident can be viewed. There is also an abundance of footnotes and references. (See:  www.palwatch.org)

      While I respect the fact that you visited “several schools” and undertook “in-depth interviews with pupils and teachers”, it is hardly likely that any of these elements would roll out their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda for your viewing pleasure. Surely you can’t be that naïve? I therefore dispute your claim to know “exactly what is being taught and what is not” and prefer to go with those who monitor this on a daily basis in fluent Arabic.  If you noticed a map of Israel on one of the walls did it possibly occur to you to check whether Israel’s existence is even acknowledged? Probably not.

      As far as the rulings of the International Court of Justice is concerned I will begin to respect it when it can make a ruling with regard to the erection of a security barrier while acknowledging that its true purpose is not ”apartheid” but  simply to prevent terrorists from killing innocent Israelis. While they choose to ignore this obvious fact, I choose to reserve my judgement.  The same applies to the blatant bias exhibited by the International Criminal Court which labels certain Israelis as War Criminals while turning a blind eye to those tyrants who slaughter their own citizens by the thousand, as in Syria, China, Sudan etc.  We have still to hear a single word of condemnation uttered against Hamas for its murderous excesses against its own people, not to mention Israeli citizens.  When it comes to the UN, which, with its automatic massive majority comprising the Arab states, the Non-aligned Movement and most of Europe and Asia, has successfully (and predictably)  adopted over 40% of all resolutions against Israel alone, how can Israel be expected to regard these resolutions with any seriousness?  Would you?

6. I agree that Israel should not be singled out. Why then did Israel become the first country ever to boycott the UN’s Human Rights Council? You can read it here: https://marthiemombergblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/israel-boycotts-the-uns-review-of-its-rights-situation/. Israel violates the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law in systemic, institutionalised ways on a daily basis. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then please read the many reports and fact sheets on the United Nations’ website : www.ochaopt.org.

      If you agree that Israel should not be singled out why do you then hasten to do so? As far as your question, “why did Israel become the first country ever to boycott the UN’s Human Rights Council?” is concerned, I have endeavoured to answer this under Point 5 … except that this particular organ of the UN is even worse. In the very first months of the existence of the Human Rights Council (instituted by Kofi Anan after he concluded that the Human Rights Committee that preceded it was so hopelessly pre-occupied with Israel, and had reached so intolerable a level of anti-Israel bias, that its existence could no longer be justified), the new, “revamped”  Council passed 11 resolutions, ALL of which were directed against Israel!!  So much for UN justice!  Has the situation improved since? – hardly;  the bulk of the Council’s  resolutions are still aimed solely at Israel.  Syria, with over 70,000 of its citizens murdered by Bashir al-Assad to date, has suffered the ignominy of ONE SINGLE RESOLUTION!  How then, Marthie, can you even ask this question?

      Finally, I have read the articles on the UN website and find the exact same bias therein as exists within its chambers. Is there any reason why it should be different?

7. Why BDS? Because it is the request of Palestinians, because it is non-violent, and because we know it helped to end an oppressive system in SA. BDS SA works closely with Jewish South Africans who respect human rights and international law. I support non-violent resistance.

      The threat to Ahava is a threat to the jobs of 120 workers, a good number of whom are Arab. Losing their jobs will obviously not effect any of you local activists who won’t  turn a hair, nor will you go without a meal or find yourselves short of ready cash. Activists seldom do.

      You claim that BDS is at “the request of the Palestinians.”  As you are so adept in securing the opinions of school teachers and pupils, Marthie, how many Palestinians have you canvassed with regard to the potential loss of their jobs? Dozens, hundreds, thousands?  How sure are you that boycotts will remain non-violent seeing boycotters not only shout “End Ahava!” but harbour amongst them those who also shout “End the Nazi Jewish State!” 

      Do you really believe that Israel is a carbon copy of apartheid South Africa and that what worked here will automatically work there?  Israel’s birth  and South Africa’s apartheid regime started at roughly the same time (1948). While South Africa, with all its resources, population (at the time) of some 40 million and its vast territorial expanse,  peaked after some 35 years before starting a steady decline into ignominy.  Israel, with no resources, a population (then) of 600,000 (now 6.8 million), having fought 6 major wars and countless skirmishes of varying magnitude and with 60% of its originally allocated land no more than desert, is an industrial giant and world leader in high technology, medicine, pharmaceuticals and military hardware.  In the face of this don’t you feel somewhat silly to be calling for the boycott of refined mud for application to the faces of rich women striving to remain young?  Surely you have better things to do with your time?

8. I am not guided by the behaviour of extremists or fundamentalist or by anyone who upholds a position of exclusion.

      The final point – the one you claim to be guided by.  Without hesitation I accept your contention to “not be guided by the behaviour of extremists or fundamentalists nor anyone who upholds a position of exclusion”.  Sadly, Marthie, this doesn’t ring entirely true as your unmitigated support for BDS, for example, plays into the hands of, not the moderates who seek solutions through dialogue and negotiation, but those who seek the destruction of Israel through the weakening of its economy, the demoralisation of its population and the subsequent concomitant reduction in its ability to defend itself. By attempting to isolate Israel still further you appear to believe that this will compel her to seek accommodation with her enemies from a position of weakness and that, having reached that status,  she will place herself in the hands of those who have never sought her hand in friendship but have actively striven for her total destruction.  Do you. In all honesty believe that this scenario is realistic?

      You speak of those who uphold a position of exclusivity, yet you, a confirmed and devoted Christian, choose to ignore the deteriorating plight of Christians in the Middle East where hundreds of thousands have either been driven from their homes while Islam threatens their very existence. Already, thousands have been killed. If you are unaware of this I suggest that you research the facts and figures. It’s frightening.  Ironically, Marthie, the only region in the entire Middle East in which Christianity thrives and the number of Christians has increased is … Israel … but why don’t I find that difficult to understand?

      Marthie, I sincerely hope that you have read my observations in their entirety as I firmly believe them to be measured and accurate. I also firmly believe that the actions of the BDS movement are misguided and counter-productive with no moral nor realistic foundation. 

      Sincerely,

      Victor Gordon

     

      I reserve the right to distribute this letter to whomever I wish. Meanwhile, your response would be most welcome.

 

Victor Gordon to The Times

THE TIMES

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Refer: ““Probe Assad for War Crimes”

Am I the only one left astounded at the hypocrisy of this report or are there others out there who  might also wonder if any level  of  common sense still exists?

We  learn that the UN  Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, stated  that Syrian President,  Bashar al-Assad “should be investigated for war crimes and called for immediate action to end the killing, up to and including military intervention.”  This came after an astounding 70,000 Syrians had been killed in 22 months of fighting.

Asked if Assad should be investigated for war crimes Pillay said, “He’s not but he should be.” … “There should be a referral by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court. I would describe Assad’s actions as evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes against his own people.”  “Should be?” …  “I would describe Assad’s actions as evidence …?”  Is that the best Pillay can do?  After 70,000 deaths what more “evidence” does the good lady require?

At the very least, should Pillay not be energetically pushing for a resolution of condemnation  at the Human Rights Council at the very least and not the insipid suggestion that Assad “should be” investigated?

Against this we have the unstoppable zeal displayed by this very same organization when it comes to condemning any action of self-defence adopted by Israel, including being targeted by several thousand rockets from Gaza.  The resultant 140 Palestinian deaths that occurred in the last Gaza campaign, most of which were Hamas fighters, aroused a fury of disapprobation.  Perhaps it should be noted that over 50% of all resolutions passed since the inception of the Human Rights Council have been  directed against Israel alone.  Nigeria, with over 1 million violent deaths, has not been the target of a single resolution.

Surely we aren’t such fools;   but if we are, then we deserve to be served by the corrupt and hopelessly inept committees, councils and officials that we have.  Heaven help us.

Victor Gordon to The New Age

 

Refer: “Israel is no different from SA”  11/2/2013

 

 

It would appear that New Age has assumed  the mantle of mouthpiece for the anti-Israel  BDS movement. Be it Heidi-Jane Esakov, Muhammed Desai, et al, they all appear to experience little difficulty in having their anti-Israel sentiments published and prominently displayed.

Desai’s current offering, “Israel is no different from SA”,  dwells on the usual and well-worn clichés that Israel practices a form of “apartheid” far worse than anything experienced in South Africa.

To back up his claim he cites all the usual suspects, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Winnie Mandella, Ahmed Kathrada, Denis Goldberg, Kader Asmal, the UN Human Rights Council, the SA Human Sciences Research Council plus others, all of whom  can be relied upon to parrot the same accusation: “Israel is guilty of human rights abuses”;  “ignoring international law” and the rather impressive sounding, “institutional discrimination”.

However, in his entire page, Desai  makes no attempt whatsoever to clarrify any of these accusations other than to ensure that readers are left with the clear impression that Israel’s  guilt is beyond any doubt. Predictably, not a word is said about Palestinian excesses and atrocities.

Let readers not be fooled – this is the technique employed by anti-Israel propagandists who go out of their way to make the claim that, of course,  the well-being of Israelis is close to their hearts, while all Israel needs is their version of “tough love”.

In truth, anyone claiming that the Palestinians have been consistent in their efforts to negotiate with the Israeli government while doing nothing to stoke up the flames of conflict, is either myopic or simply dishonest.

Desai states that there are three demands that Israel needs to respect in order to have the BDS campaign terminated.  The first is for Israel to end the “illegal occupation” where he ignores the fact that since 2005 Israel no longer has the slightest presence in Gaza,  while her presence in the West Bank was formulated by the Oslo Accords and ratified by Yasir Arafat.

 In short,  there is nothing illegal about Israel’s limited presence in the West Bank and I challenge Desai to prove otherwise. Simply saying that her “occupation”  is illegal does not make it so.

The second stipulation is that Israel should allow Palestinians to return to their homes.  This is quite simply not going to happen as the absorption of over 4 million Muslims poses an obvious threat to the future existence of the Jewish State, in more ways than one.  Few know that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) proposed that the former Arab population be permitted to return provided it undertook to live in peace with its neighbours only to be rejected by the Arabs themselves.

The final stipulation is that Israel ensures full equality for Palestinian citizens but fails to acknowledging the obvious problem that the Palestinians are not,  and never have been,  citizens of Israel. Those Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 War of Independence (now numbering 1.3 million) certainly meet that criteria and enjoy full civil and political rights, in every possible respect.

While it is unfortunate that such luminaries such as Stevie Wonder and Stanley Jordan cancelled their plans to perform in Israel, I have no doubt that Israelis will survive their loss.  They have far greater issues on their minds.

Perhaps the BDS campaigners should ask themselves why Israel’s trade with Europe has never been healthier while Putin’s recent visit to Jerusalem did not occur to  focus on the “thorny” issue of staging a pop concerts.

Get real!  What Israeli expertise has to offer, the world is not prepared to ignore. 

Mike Berger to Politicsweb Part 3

What the anti-Israel axis keeps hidden (III)

Mike Berger

06 February 2013

 

Mike Berger says the reality of virulent anti-Jewish incitement in Middle East is suppressed in SA and Western media

 

I’ll start this third and concluding article in this series with a brief review in point form:

 

• Israel is the target of an Arab-Muslim-Western Left axis.
• The main front in this war is the anti-Israel demonisation project which also serves to divert attention from the Islamist threat and dysfunctional societies of the Middle East and North Africa.
• The propaganda theatre is integrated with all other strategies – military, economic, diplomatic to weaken, isolate and demoralise Israel (the BDS strategy) as a prelude to its destruction.
• Finally, this project depends on fellow travellers in the media and academia who propagate the “approved narrative”.

 

The first principle of “Total Propaganda” is that it is flexible, all-pervasive and relentless. Thus Israel is accused of every crime under the sun as the opportunity arises. Since nothing must disturb the “approved narrative”,  discordant facts and evidence must be excluded from public view. In what follows we are going to touch on (since that is what space permits) some of what is systematically filtered out of the media narrative.

We all accept that there are many “moderate Muslims” who wish to practice their religion in accordance with modern democratic practices and in peace with other religions and peoples. But it is equally true that radicalised Jihadist forms of Islam hold enormous sway in many parts of the Muslim world, including especially the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Asia. Besides this totalitarian religious movement, most Arab countries are characterised by backward, corrupt and oppressive political systems serving narrow power elites.

These societies finally erupted in the firestorm of revolt and violence called the Arab Spring by a Western media desperate for good news from the region. But in the last three years, at least 90 000 deaths have resulted, mainly in Syria with substantial contributions from Libya, Egypt and the Yemen. This number, enormous as it is, is dwarfed by the 11 million – and rising – Muslim deaths since 1948, less than 0.5% due to Israeli-Arab conflicts and 90% due to intra- Muslim conflict.

There is no indication that, in the near future at least, the “Arab Spring” uprisings will result in democratic and tolerant regimes. Islamist or similar theo-fascist factions are dominant in Egypt and are significant threats in Syria, the Yemen, Tunisia and of course across broad swathes on North Africa at least.

Horrific mortality figures are only part of the story. In international survey after international survey Arab-Muslim states range from poor to disastrous on human development indices and political freedoms. Honour killings, stonings and murder of homosexuals are still rife in the Islamist regions of the Muslim world. Such information does occasionally penetrate into our media, but they carefully refrain from connecting the dots so as not to ruffle the “Approved Narrative”. Nevertheless, it is entities such as these which dominate the UN and which are the primary drivers of the war against Israel. 

But the best-kept secret of all is the flood of virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement in Palestinian and Arab-Muslim societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in a recent New York Times article said “As a child growing up in a Muslim family, I constantly heard my mother, other relatives and neighbors wish for the death of Jews, who were considered our darkest enemy. Our religious tutors and the preachers in our mosques set aside extra time to pray for the destruction of Jews.”

She is referring to the unmentionable in South African media. Who in South Africa is aware of the recent flurry of international reports (only after a Forbes reporter dragged it into the light of day) on the 2010 remarks by President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt to the effect that “We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews,” … (Egyptian children) must feed on hatred…The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him“.  Morsi went on in a TV interview to remark “…these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.”

In South Africa such language is termed “hate speech” and is curtailed, but it is the staple diet amongst Israel’s neighbours. It is not confined to the margins and whispers in dark corners. It is part of the mainstream discourse on TV programmes, in mosques and even as part of childhood indoctrination. Here is just one example from “Muslim Woman Magazine” and broadcast by Iqraa, the popular Saudi-owned satellite channel.

Presenter: “Do you like Jews?”

Three-year-old: “No.”

“Why don’t you like them?”

“Jews are apes and pigs.”

“Who said this?”

“Our God.”

“Where did he say this?”

“In the Koran.”

Not to belabour the point, is it any surprise that polls in Arab-Muslim societies show that anti-Jewish prejudice to run at over 90% of the population. In the words of Michael Totten, an experienced reporter on Arab-Muslim affairs:  “The first time I went to Egypt, also in 2005, I met the same kinds of people I met in Lebanon. Cosmopolitan, liberal-minded individuals who were like Arab versions of me. …But my experience in Lebanon prompted me to ask a question of my liberal Egyptian friends that seems not to have occurred to some of the other journalists and Western internationalists who have been there. I asked these Egyptian liberals, “how many Egyptians agree with you about politics?” The answer stopped me cold: five percent at the most.”

My focus in this series has been on the systematic misrepresentation of Israel in the Middle East by a deeply compromised media and liberal elite. In such a climate of denial, the propaganda campaign of BDS activists finds ready purchase, especially amongst a population conditioned by their own history and narrative.

I have not dealt with the complex and real iproblem of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Firstly, it is inseparable from the wider context outlined in these 3 articles and it it is probably true that most Israelis don’t believe they have a viable peace partner for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, many still do hope that diplomatic initiatives can bridge what seems insurmountable differences and agendas between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. I personally have no firm opinion on such matters, nor as a South African citizen should I have.

Politics there largely centres on a multitude of domestic issues and on what is the most appropriate response to the intractable foreign policy dilemmas which Israelis face daily. But Israel, with all her human flaws, is one of the truly remarkable, and indeed heroic, achievements of national reconstruction of modern times – perhaps of all time. It has enormous resources of political commonsense and creativity and has much to offer South Africa were we but willing.

For those who wish to engage more deeply with these issues my blog, Solar Plexus, will attempt to provide a forum for a variety of  views, debate and relevant information. Hopefully realism will succeed where wishful thinking and denialism has failed.

Mike Berger

This is the third in a three part series of articles.

Response from UK Sunday Times to Victor Gordon

Dear Mr Gordon

I am grateful to you for writing to The Sunday Times and expressing your views so clearly. I’d like to apologise at the outset for the offence caused by Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon published last Sunday.

Its publication was a terrible mistake. The timing – on Holocaust Memorial Day – was inexcusable. The associations on this occasion were grotesque. As someone who understands the history and iconography in this context, I appreciate fully why publication has caused such offence and I apologise unreservedly for my part in that.

I sought an urgent meeting with leading members of the Jewish community, and am pleased to say that we got together on Tuesday evening. It was a frank but constructive meeting. Mick Davis, Chair of the Jewish Leadership Council, accepted my apology on behalf of the group and told the press afterwards that the community “now looks forward to constructively moving on from this affair”.

I hope you will find this reply reassuring, I thank you again for your correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Martin Ivens
Acting Editor

 

 

On 27 January 2013 17:43, Victor Gordon <vgordon@icon.co.za> wrote:

Sir, 

Your cartoon by Gerald Scarfe is undoubtedly one of the most disgusting , anti-Semitic offerings I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. That  a publication of the standard of the Sunday Times can stoop to such depths of depravity and insensitivity by not only publishing this blood libel but doing so on Holocaust Remembrance Day,  is proof that there is something deeply disturbing within the British psyche that requires serious consideration.  You have nothing to be proud of.  May I suggest that you read Melanie Philips latest book, “The World Upside Down” to gain some perspective on how far Britain has slid down the sewer.

 

Victor Gordon

Pretoria

South Africa

 

Victor Gordon to The New Age

NEW AGE

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

 

Refer:  “Elections give occupation a facelift”  1/2/13

 

I have no problems with Heidi Jane-Esakov’s measured analysis of the dynamics behind the Israeli election result. It has been similarly reflected in dozens of other articles by analysts steeped in the intricacies of Israel’s complex political system which is in drastic need of reform.

Where we part ways is with her view that “the question (facing) the Israeli political elite is, not how to find a just and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue, but how best to maintain the occupation and further an Israel expansionist agenda without disrupting the flow of everyday life for Israelis.”

Further she says, “Israeli indifference (to a viable Palestinian state) … is borne  of a system that has allowed Palestinians to be excised out of their (Israeli’s) lives and daily consciousness.”

I have yet to find a reasonable explanation of why Israel would wish to maintain an occupation of a territory where she is obviously unwelcome  while  standing to gain so little from doing so, considering to what degree it has earned her the wrath of the world.

When one points out the obvious – namely that the occupation (or what’s left of it) is necessitated by security concerns vital to her very survival, this very cornerstone of the equation is simply ignored and dismissed as irrelevant .  It is obviously a lot easier to by-pass the obvious and place the blame for all ills at Israel’s door.

With the knowledge that Hamas would take control of the West Bank the moment Israel were to withdraw (as happened in Gaza),  Israel would face the daunting reality of having her main cities within easy firing range of even the most rudimentary enemy missiles, while her international airport will quickly become a wasteland.

As for the Palestinians having been “excised out of their (Israeli’s) lives”, what does she base this on? How, I ask, seated in Johannesburg,  is she able to claim anything about Israeli consciousness with any semblance of authority?  In fact, this is one of the main problems – sweeping claims so easily made  about  attitudes and  issues based on mere generalizations.

If Heidi-Jane were honest she would acknowledge that the Palestinians have been given ample opportunity to change the game in their favour by stopping their interminable violence and make peace with their Jewish neighbours.  It’s really as simple as that – and that is no generalization.

Chuck Volpe to The Business Day

In his piece (Barbarism with impunity still a terrible scourge) Pallo Jordan draws parallels between the West’s colonial crimes and the Holocaust. While he is correct in holding the West to account for colonialism he should add that Western civilisation also found the antidote for its errors in the abolitionist and human rights movements.

But Mr Jordan should put aside the telescope and look closer to home. In the last half century, the heart of darkness has not been colonialism but the ’cocktail of disasters’ which is independent Africa (Kofi Annan’s words)  – the macabre buffoonery of Idi Amin, Sekou Toure and Bokassa; the madness of Samuel Doe and Charles Taylor; the use of child soldiers, mass rapes and civil wars; cannibalism in the Congo; genocide in Darfur, Rwanda and the Great Lakes. In the matter of bestiality, the former colonial subjects have easily equalled their former masters.

Speaking of the Holocaust he lists Jews as just one of a number of peoples targeted by the Nazis and then, as a parting shot, refers to what he calls Israel’s quest for “lebensraum. ”

He should know better than to apply this Nazi term to the Jewish state. Besides being positively tasteless and deeply hurtful (he should turn his mind to terms Blacks find repulsive), it is a wholly unfitting analogy (as if one could compare the construction of buildings to the industrialised murder of men, women and children.)

Historians accept that the annihilation of the Jewish people was a central war aim of Hitler. While Slavs and others may have been classified as ‘untermenschen’ they were not targeted for total annihilation as were the Jews. The Holocaust was a Jewish tragedy; to universalise it by calling it a human tragedy is surely trite and further gives the impression of historical revisionism.

The Holocaust came about by excluding Jews from the universal category of ‘humans’. Now Jordan, with ineffable irony, undermines Jewish experience by placing this core Jewish event in the same universal category from which flesh and blood Jews were formerly excluded.

Before one struts the moral stuff it pays to check the mirror.

Don Krausz to The Business Day

 

To the Letters Editor, Business Day.

 

Pallo Jordan’s article of today under the heading “Barbarism with impunity still a terrible scourge.” refers.

 

It used to be commonplace for anti-Semites to accuse Jews of every sin under the sun. Somehow they could be capitalist bloodsuckers and murdering communists all at the same time. They could be awarded 22.66% out of the world’s total of 684 Nobel prizes despite constituting only a fraction of 1% of the earth’s population. They could earn 26% of the total prizes awarded in the fields of medicine and physiology and still be accused of using the blood of little Christian children for their Passover ceremonies. The hatred engendered by these falsehoods enabled anti-Semites to inflict the Holocaust upon the Jewish people in which six million Jews were brutally murdered including one and a half million children. This atrocity, one of the worst in all human history, shocked the world and temporarily silenced the Jew haters.

 

Thereafter such sentiments were seldom uttered in polite society until the State of Israel was established. Then, thankfully, one was once more allowed to give vent to one’s unnatural and illogical hatreds provided that it was directed at the Israelis for their crimes against the Palestinians.

 

And so we find Pallo Jordan describing the Holocaust as “the goriest testimony to the depravities that racism can incite.” But don’t let this upset you. At the end of his article he is back on safe ground. He writes of Israel grabbing Lebensraum, a term popularised by the Nazis. He speaks of “fanatical Zionists occupying land belonging to Palestinians and their resistance being suppressed by the Israeli Defence Force.”

 

Heaven forbid that he should mention that this same territory of Judea and Samaria was allocated to the Jews of Palestine at the San Remo Conference and further endorsed by the total membership of the United Nations. Or that these same Palestinians attacked their Jewish neighbours in May 1948 with the help of the well-equipped armies of the surrounding Arab states., inflicting 6,000 dead, equivalent to South Africa suffering the loss of 500,000 of its citizens on the battlefield.

 

We are still being reminded of the Palestinian refugees that are confined to camps in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and maintained with UN largesse. Never do we hear of the Jews that were expropriated, made stateless and expelled from the Arab countries after those countries were defeated by the army of Israel. Most of them fled to Israel where they have been completely rehabilitated and absorbed.

 

Is Pallo Jordan prepared to suggest compensating them for the assets and belongings of which they were robbed?