Allan Wolman to The Star

Dr Firoz Osman writing in today’s The Star comments that “France won’t accept anti-Semitism yet it tolerates cartoons offensive to Muslims.”

 

For Dr. Osman’s information France also tolerates cartoons that are as offensive to both Jews and Christians alike, but he conveniently omits that from his narrative.

In fact if he were to dig a bit deeper he might find that this same publication has published far more cartoons that are offensive to Jews than any other faith but that has not spurred any fanatic to go out on an orgy of murder.

 

The good doctor then goes on to cite a number of examples of where French society has censored or taken action at what they deem offensive of distasteful but none are promulgate in French law other than the publication of “material that promotes the use of drugs, hatred based on RACE or gender, insults the national flag and national anthem, or questions the Holocaust’”. He therefore presents a rather weak argument in his criticism of French norms.

 

Osman quick to mention Frances support for war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc. – Yes indeed and interesting that he mentions Syria where the death toll has reached staggering proportions of over 200,000 killed and almost 7 million refugees – Is France responsible for this human tragedy Dr. Osman? Or are religious fanatics behind this catastrophe. Interesting indeed that he also mentions Iraq where thousand murdered in the most grotesque manner by ISIL all in the name or religion yet both regions have been spared the vicious satirical venom that Charlie Hebdo publishes! One must wonder what then raises ire of these people?

 

Nowhere in his entire missive does Osman condemn the killings of those journalists in Paris or the cold blooded murder of the four Jews who had absolutely nothing to do with “French hypocrisy” (that Osman insinuates), or any publication or anything that could be construed as offensive to anyone, other than the fact that they were Jews. And that’s exactly the point – only because they were Jews were they murdered in cold blood and for no other reason.

 

But who would argue with a million Frenchmen (and most world leaders) when Dr Feroz Osman presents such a compelling case

 

 

Victor Gordon to the City Press: Je Suis Humanite

CITY PRESS VOICES

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Refers:  “Je suis hamanite’”

For someone bearing the elevated title of “Communications and public affairs consultant” Faizal Dawjee should know better while lamenting the tragic deaths all too many journalists covering various regions of war. Where, he asks are the expressions of outrage that followed the murder of the 12 cartoonists in Paris?

While, of course, it is sad that so many journalists are killed in the course of heroically providing the general public with a few minutes of information ( generally forgotten within minutes), it should be acknowledged  that these brave reporters who operate in circumstances of acute danger, do this of their own choosing.

But what is particularly irksome is Dawjee singling out Israel and  labelling it with the responsibility for “killing 17 journalists”  during the 50 day war in Gaza. However, predictably, he provides no proof to back up Israel’s culpability leaving us to assume that Israel deliberately targeted and murdered all 17 of these reporters.  There is no door left open to the possibility that many of them could have been killed by either of the warring parties in the course of battle.

On 19 January, Counter Current News (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/these-17-journalists-were-killed-by-israel-in-gaza/) published a list of the 17 journalists killed, claiming that just four appeared to be as a result of two Israeli actions and are now under investigation. Nowhere are the other 13 attributed to Israel and, under the circumstances of war, could have been the result of action from either side.

Perhaps Faizal Dawjee could undertake some fact-checking before making such outrageous claims.

Don Krausz responds to Firoz Osman

The Letters Editor,

The Star.

 

Dear Sir,

 

RE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR  RACIAL PROVOCATION?

By Firoz Osman – 13/01/2015

 

I wonder which Muslims Firoz Osman, Executive Member of the Media Review Network, actually represents? Mahmoud Abbas, aspiring head of the non-existent State of Palestine is openly condemned for participating in the March of the Heads of States that protested the slaughter of the innocents in Paris recently. Yes, innocents! Blood is and must be valued as thicker than ink. Condemned by the Hamas, the Muslim rulers of Gaza!

 

The very people that over years launched 14,000 missiles and counting into residential areas of Israel proper. Terrorising, killing, maiming and traumatising thousands of civilians and children going and coming from work and school. Victimizing the survivors for the rest of their lives, thousands of whom only had FIFTEEN  SECONDS in which to find shelter for kith and kin before impact. Who now cry to the whole world of the losses they suffered when Israel finally struck back in defence of her citizens. “Sir, he hit me back!!”

 

MURDER!! Osman calls the Israeli neutralization of the terrorists who launched those missiles.

 

Osman condemns France for being complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of “innocent Muslims” in Moslem countries like Syria. Excuse me, but I thought that in such Muslim lands it was the Moslem Sunni butchering the Moslem Shia and vice versa! What, not Israelis doing the dirty work? I think Osman is slipping up.

 

Islamophobia he calls it.

 

Many times I have been disgusted by utterances proclaimed from pulpits, written on walls of religious places of worship and taught to tiny schoolchildren of the duty to hate and to perform Jihad against “infidels.”

 

Some years ago Time Magazine produced an issue in which they interviewed a “suicide bomber” in full regalia. He was asked whether he expected to meet his Deity after he had committed his vapourisation. “Most definitely!” he said. “And what do you think you will be asked?” “How many infidels did you kill?” he responded…

 

It is estimated that there are some eight billion people on this planet of whom one and a half billion are Muslims. That leaves six and a half billion potential candidates for Jihad.

Most religions teach that human beings were created. So I wonder how the creator feels

about a religion that sets one of its primary goals in the obliteration of most of his handiwork?

Monessa Shapiro to The Star

Not much could be as barbaric and abhorrent as the recent terrorist attacks in Paris murdering 17 innocent people, all in the name of Islam.   Not much.    But in his attempt to excuse this atrocity and explain it away Firoz Osman (Freedom of Speech or racial Provocation) has reached levels of depravity as low as those of the murderers.

Reasons and excuses abound and of course France and the West are, according to Osman, culpable.   One wonders whether in his quest to defend such acts he is able too, to justify the 2000 people slaughtered by Boko Haram in Nigeria in the last 10 days alone.  “Wiped out like insects” your newspaper headed the article!   What about the 200 schoolgirls kidnapped and enslaved last year by Boko Haram?   Perhaps he will even find ‘valid’ reasons for the beheading of Christian children by ISIS, and the wiping out of entire Christian communities, or would he accept ISIS’s view that the refusal to convert to Islam is punishable by death?

What of the kidnapping, torture and subsequent murder of 23 year old  Ilan Habimi in Paris in 2006, the cold-blooded murder of 3 children and a teacher at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulose in 2012, the gunning down of 4 people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in 2014?  You don’t need to do much soul-searching as to the reasons behind these dastardly attacks, Mr Osman.  They’re all Jewish.  But then that is justification enough, is it not?

Victor Gordon to the Pretoria News: Freedom of Expression

PRETORIA NEWS

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Refers:  “Freedom of expression a double-edged sword”

 

I concur with Naushad Omar. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of expression without either the application of self censorship or limits defined by law designed to prevent hurting the sensitivities of others. In South Africa that limit is defined by “hate speech” which clearly delineates how far one can go before violating that which others might regard as sacred.

As a Jew I take exception to Holocaust denial or other anti-Semitic  sentiment  and can appreciate the disquiet that Muslims experience when confronted by silly cartoons or any other depiction of the Prophet Muhammad that is hurtful or insulting. Not only is it completely unnecessary but also demeaning in all respects.

As Naushad Omar wisely said, “Denying the Holocaust is a lie; similarly depicting the Prophet in a cartoon based on lies is also a lie”

Had he focused on this aspect alone, Omar would have earned my unequivocal support. However, by paragraph 4, Omar could no longer resist dragging Israel  into the equation  with a succession of baseless accusations like;  “in the US there are many Muslims languishing in jail for expressing themselves verbally and in writing which (was) against the ruling pro-Zionist paradigm”.

Only Omar can know what this accusation is supposed to mean and on what it is based – and how many Muslims have been allegedly  jailed for this alleged offence in, of all countries, the USA, which boasts total freedom of expression and of the press.

What Omar ignores  is that, while denial  of the Holocaust, or poking fun at Jesus,  may elicit an outcry from those who feel offended,  violent protests are few and far between. It is this that makes the actions of some Muslims unique and not the fact that they merely (and justifiably) express their anger.

While Omar acknowledges the scourge of anti-Semitism, he appears indifferent to the fact that, of the millions of shops in Paris which  Amedi  Coulibaly could have chosen to attack, he headed for a kosher deli which catered for an almost  exclusively Jewish clientele. Naively, I would have thought that this realisation might have brought  Omar a measure of disquiet.

Allan Wolman to The Star

While almost every major newspaper around the world has the tragic Paris killings of Wednesday 7 January as their front-page lead story our world-class African city’s leading newspaper has relegated this major news story that has monopolized TV and print media, to page 6 of this morning’s early edition.

Clearly the new editor of the Star must be dancing to the puppet strings of his bosses at Independent Newspapers where another agenda is obviously at play.

 

It’s no coincidence that in the same edition the editor saw fit to devote the entire opinion page to the Palestinian bid to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) and naturally complete with those ever-graphic photographs of the destruction of homes in Gaza (could that main photo be of the destruction of one of the thousand homes that Egypt destroyed in Gaza, looks very much like that – who would know the difference?). This report coming only a day after this same newspaper printed an opinion piece by Robert Fisk on the very same subject – One must question again why the editor and his puppet masters are pushing this particular issue?

 

This must leave some glaring questions from your readership why on a number of occasions The Star has given ample space in their opinion pages to The Media Review Network, a pro Palestinian lobby group but when an opposing lobby group has requested the same courtesy their requests have gone unanswered? Again one can only speculate?

 

It is most interesting to note that while the debate about the Palestinian bid for ICC membership is current no commentator has yet exposed the root of modern day terrorism. Who invented modern day terrorism, and who perpetuated this scourge for the past 35 years and more? Cast your minds back to the 1970’s when those very Palestinians, today seeking justice in the worlds courts, instigated a spate of airline hijackings resulting in thousand killed, Rome, Athens, Tel Aviv airport massacres, Entebbe hijacking, the Munich Olympics terror murders and the list is endless. Then Palestinian terror evolved into a new dimension – the suicide bomber that still plagues the Arab world on a daily basis.

 

If any country or aspiring country should be hauled before a court of law it must be the Palestinian Authority for the greatest crime of all – teaching their children to hate! Little Palestinian children are fed a diet of hatred from the Disney character on their TV sets promoting suicide bombers as hero’s to their classrooms where these little children are encouraged to strive to become those bombers and glorifying death instead of aspiring to a life of promise and potential – Is this not a gross crime against humanity?

 

Allan Wolman responds to Robert Fisk (the Star)

Robert Fisk in The Star 6^th January begins his commentary by saying “Throw an old dog a bone and sure enough he’ll go chasing after it” – and here the old mongrel is Fisk himself, as predictable as Pavlov’s dog, never letting an opportunity slip by without “chasing that old bone”, taking a swipe at Israel (and the U.S.). This time it’s about the Palestinian request to join the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The only true statement Fisk makes is when he states that Abbas “rules a state that doesn’t even exist” and of course in his eyes its Israel’s fault. In fact every wrong in the Arab world and beyond, according to “this old dog” is Israel’s fault.

If as Fisk dreams that the Palestinians were ready to shoulder “all the burdens of statehood,” why don’t they take step one and sit down to negotiate seriously what statehood requires, starting with the basic requirement of recognizing the country they should be negotiating with. But that subject has been covered so many times; even Fisk should have grasped it.

The amusing thing about this old hound is “Palestinian suffering” that consumes his every pant. And indeed they have suffered (not nearly as much as their brother’s just a stone’s throw across the border in Syria) but that suffering is self inflicted by their corrupt leadership who have enriched themselves beyond belief and of course their huge support group at the UN and other NGO’s who sponge on public (mainly US) funds living the life of Riley cavorting in luxury hotels and first class travel. Why would these people give up their privileged lifestyle for a peace settlement and a sovereign Palestinian State?

Oh how Palestinians are suffering in the West bank where their lifestyle far surpasses their Palestinian brother in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

How many universities in Lebanon or Syria admit Palestinians? How many world-class hospitals treat Palestinians in those countries? How many gays live freely in those countries or anywhere else in the Arab world?

Yes give that dog a bone for inversion, subterfuge and consistency – guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks

Victor Gordon to the Saturday Citizen

SATURDAY CITIZEN

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Refers:  “The legal status of the State of Israel”  3/1/15

 

One wonders what prompts the Gordon Keith’s of this world to put pen to paper about the subject of Israel when they obviously know so little.

To place a question mark over the legality of the State of Israel  displays total ignorance of the fact that, throughout modern history, Israel is arguably the most legally created nation state to have ever been brought into being. He would well benefit from reading the 744 page analysis by eminent jurist, Howard Grief, “The Legal  Foundation and Borders of Israel under International  Law”,  or simply Youtube lectures by either Prof. Eugene Kontorovich  or Prof. Jaques Galtier, both recognised authorities on this subject.

If Keith can get beyond his obvious prejudices he will undoubtedly learn from this exposure.

May I also ask what exactly, Keith means by the “Zionist” state of Israel?  While, quite obviously, his use of the term is disparaging, my question is “why”?  What is it about Zionism, the aspiration of Jews to have a single homeland of their own in a land to which they have been connected for thousands of years, that pushes all his negative buttons?

Finally, on what does he base his assertion that “a large percentage of Semitic Jews … who live in Palestine/Israel are anti-Zionist”?  What constitutes “a large percentage” and on what does he base his figures?  If it’s the group that makes a lot of noise (like the insignificant handful in South Africa who support BDS) then I concur that they do indeed bleat somewhat loudly. However, when it comes to assessing  their impact it is somewhat pathetic  as shown by a recent survey undertaken of the members  of the public who supported the BDS campaign against Woolies, as opposed to those who did not. 94% supported Woolies.

As for the Khazars (or “people of Eastern Europe”) being responsible for starting the ANC,  Keith should Google “ANC” to avail himself of the true origins of the ANC in 1912 (then the South African Native National  Congress) which had absolutely nothing to do with “people of Eastern Europe” – Jews.

As Keith himself says – “Wake up!”