Mazinter and Fisher respond to Suraya Dadoo

Letter to the Sunday Argus by Rodney Mazinter

To ensure that Israel remains the national state of the Jewish people, Suraya Dadoo belongs in the camp that demands that Israel must withdraw to the 1967 lines. Then suddenly when the country passes a basic law to ensure exactly this, Dadoo cries out in protest and accuses Israel of Apartheid (Sunday Argus July 20).

Why does Suraya Dadoo not write about Apartheid dictatorships elsewhere? Why are there no articles about the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection across the Middle East and North Africa? Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam? Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of dictatorship in Syria? Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel? 

 Why is there no outcry by Dadoo against Islamic fanaticism? Why do we not read about Israel’s right to exist? Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism? And importantly: Why is Dadoo obsessed with one of the most solid democracies, Israel, that has suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? 

 And then, to the concept of freedom, in every pro Palestinian forum one hears vehement cries: “We want freedom for the people!” Not true. The Dadoo’s of the world are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never moved to write when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the debasement of the press. 

 Letter to Sunday Argus by Pat Fisher

It has now become apparent as to what transpires in the strategy and planning meetings of BDS or any of the other anti-Israel activist bodies that proliferate throughout the world. Apartheid! That is the watchword. Twist the facts to put Israel in the dock.

This is exactly what Suraya Dadoo does in the article “Israel’s apartheid project destined to fail” (Sunday Argus 29 July).

The irony of the difference between Israel and apartheid is completely missed or ignored. The apartheid analogy will not stand up to scrutiny in any fair minded examination of Israel’s system of government. Dadoo obviously believes this is irrelevant in the campaign to destroy a fully paid up member of good standing at the United Nations.

Martin Luther King said this: Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

Rhoda Kadali said: The equivalence simply isn’t true. Israel is not an apartheid state. …Whereas apartheid was established through a series of oppressive laws that governed which park benches we could sit on, where we could go to school, which areas we were allowed to live in, and even whom we could marry, Israel was founded upon a liberal and inclusive Declaration of Independence. Israeli schools, universities and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs. An Arab citizen who brings a case before an Israeli court will have that case decided on the basis of merit, not ethnicity. This was never the case for blacks under apartheid. 

Victor Gordon:Restore SA, Israeli ties – marchers” by Virgilatte Gwangwa

Refers:  “Restore SA, Israeli ties – marchers”  by Virgilatte Gwangwa

Why is it so difficult  for journalists to proffer truth instead of misinformation when reporting on anything to do with Israel?  Is it wilful or simply lazy journalism,  preventing  reporters from going the extra mile to cover the story accurately from all sides.

In an article covering the march of several thousand organized by The South African Friends of Israel,  Virgilatte Gwangwa claims that the SA ambassador was withdrawn from Israel in protest after “Israeli soldiers attacked and left more than 50 Palestinians dead in May. Israeli soldiers shot at a crowd protesting against the US government moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the right of return to their homes in Israel.”

With no context provided,  one gets the impression that Israel soldiers took it upon themselves to embark on a turkey shoot and summarily killed 50+ innocent civilians.  Had Gwangwa investigated before committing  pen to paper,  he might have mentioned that of the 61 Gazans shot, Hamas themselves admitted that 50 of them were their own fighters.

He might have also discovered and revealed that this was no peaceful protest against the relocation of  the US embassy, but a carefully planned attempt by Hamas to storm the border fence with four groups comprising 40,000 in order to gain access to the towns and settlements in southern Israel with the aim of killing  as many Israelis as possible. This was openly stated by Hamas in the lead-up to the riots that subsequently occurred.

Had Israel stood by and allowed this to happen casualties would have been far higher as the subsequent mass invasion would have had to be stopped.

What was also openly voiced prior to the attack was a clear warning by P.M. Netanyahu that this would not be tolerated and that Hamas was playing with fire. In true Hamas fashion, children were brought to the front and callously exposed to the utmost danger.

It might have also occurred to Gwangwa that Gaza, which has been independent since 2005, had no reason to protest against moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, being nowhere near that territory.  Had the rioting occurred in the West Bank and East Jerusalem it might have made some sense but this was not the case.

Please Mr. Gwangwa, do your homework, treat your subject fairly and get your facts straight.

Monessa Shapiro to The Sunday Independent

In reply to a letter by me in your newspaper, Ellapen Rapiti states that hand in hand with freedom of speech goes responsibility.  Is Rapiti therefore saying that only comments in line with popular thought, can be deemed responsible?  Why should an alternate point of view be construed as hate speech?

Freedom of speech means just that – the right of the individual to say what he pleases even if his view goes against all that is held sacred.   And Naidoo’s comments did just that.  I fail to see how her support of Israel and the unmasking of what Hamas is and what it is doing to its people can be construed as hate speech and an incitement to violence.

What is violence though – a passive violence – is the manner in which Naidoo’s sentiments were quickly squashed, her bullying into submission.  If Rapiti’s views and support of the manner in which Naidoo was manipulated are representative of South Africans, then we, as South Africans, are on a slippery slope to fanaticism.

Victor Gordon to The Daily Maverick

THE EDITOR

Referring to: “Standing for justice means defending even those in our society who seem to have all the advantages”

By Farid Esack• 28 June 2018

Sir,

Referring to Prof. Farid Esack’s article which focused on the so-called “Higgins Affair”, I found  intriguing  Esack’s choice of a particular quote from the Qur’an in his call for a more just society – particularly when focused on racism. This verse (4:135), which adorns the outer wall of the UN in New York reads:

(Translation by Mohsin Khan): “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well­ Acquainted with what you do.” 

This powerful call for justice coupled with the threat that a deliberate avoidance of justice or the distortion of truth will not escape the attention of Allah, appears to resonate differently with Prof Esack depending  on which hat he wears.  Putting aside its pertinence vis-à-vis the “Higgins Affair”, one cannot but wonder if it occurred to the professor that his close association with the vehemently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel  BDS movement  – a movement that supports the destruction of the State of Israel – might fall foul of these noble sentiments.

Later on,  Prof. Esack insists that past accusations he has faced of anti-Semitism are “baseless and the source of much annoyance.”  No doubt they are – but the fact remains that someone as closely associated with an organization firmly committed to the destruction of the Jewish state while  chanting “Kill the Jew” at a public performance  by an Israeli musician at Wits, has but a flimsy leg to stand on.  After 2000 years of intense exposure, Jews have learned to recognise anti-Semitism when they confront it.

Coupled with this is the incessant barrage of lies, misinformation and uncontextualised half-truths forthcoming from BDS, devoted to painting Israel as the perpetual villain and the Palestinians, the eternal victim. Never are Hamas and their ilk taken to task for their ongoing excesses and continual attempts to kill as many Jews as possible, as called for in their charter.

While Prof Esack speaks of “a principled crowd who will fight the lies about my (his) supposed anti-Semitism”  (which has resulted in his experiencing  an annoying  negative reaction at some universities abroad),  he forgets that there exists a far larger unprincipled crowd that, with the encouragement of BDS have exhibited a like reaction to those invited to speak on Israel’s behalf.

What’s good for the goose …

One only had to witness BDS’s hijacking  of Shashi Naidoo  (who audaciously voiced her support for Israel),  to fully comprehend their power and tactics. Surely Prof. Esack who sat next to Naidoo and oversaw her tearful statement, should understand that part and parcel of the sentiments expressed in Verse 4:135 of the Qur’an (calling for the ever present application of justice and the curbing of one’s personal prejudices),  demands freedom of speech despite it not necessarily conforming with one’s own views. In the case of Naidoo who was clearly deprived of this democratic right, Esack and his cohort Mohammed Desai, have something to answer for, assuming they have the sensitivity to recognise their transgression.

Their offer to accompany Naidoo on a “fact finding” trip to the region will undoubtedly ensure her exposure to one solitary side of the conflict with no time devoted to Israel where their claims of the practise of apartheid  would easily be seen for the lie that it is.

Prof Esack questions whether  Islamophobia or Judeophobia (an academic substitute for Jew-hatred) are forms of racism, given the argument that racism is only valid when whites carry the guilt. Blacks are supposedly immune from this practise.  Yet Jews (the subject of Judeophobia) are inclusively  white, brown, black and olive, dispelling the notion that racism applies to black victims alone.

While Esack bemoans the fact that to be labelled an Islamophobe or Judeophobe  (anti-Semite) presents an accusation that is liable to “stick” to the accused whether deserving  or not, he ignores BDS’s scandalous practise of labelling Israel, recognised by Freedom House  as a democracy in the fullest sense, as “apartheid Israel”.  Here both truth and common sense are happily ignored.

To return to the Qur’anic text referred to by Prof Esack, he would be well served by following its wise council,  for if this quotation should  be taken seriously one must ask how it can possibly be that a country (Israel) born from a base of the most stringent  principles of ethics and  morality;  a people who gifted mankind with the underlying precepts of Judeo-Christian doctrines  can be so thoroughly rotten that an organization like BDS, based on lies and deceit, can become its accuser while ignoring the genocides ongoing in Syria and Yemen?

Indeed, Prof Esack,  “Allah is Ever Well­-Acquainted with what you do.” 

Don Krausz to The Star

Attention: The Letters Editor,
The Star.

Dear Sir/ Madam,
Re: Kailene Pillay’s article: Young Palestinian journalist, 4/7/2018.

The letter in today’s Star in connection with Janna Jihad (!) Ayyad regarding Palestine and the conditions for a child living there, reminds me of an encounter that I had in the Ravensbruck concentration camp in 1944. An attractive German girl aged about 18 was brought to our barrack.

I was a Jewish boy and 13 years old and was to discover that my father and
40 close members of my family had been murdered by the Nazis. This girl and I took a liking to each other and became friends. In the course of our many conversations it became clear that she was an admirer of Hitler. It was not appropriate to enquire after the reasons that had brought her to this concentration camp where 50,000 women and 20,000 men were to die without there being a gas chamber at that time.

German nationals were sometimes incarcerated as hostages for loyalty of their family members or even if they were not sufficiently accommodating to their Nazi boyfriends.

She was most enthusiastic about Hitler and would relate the many “miracles”
that he had performed in order to put Germany back onto its feet after WW One. And all the while she was expounding these beliefs in a concentration camp where under the prevailing conditions of work, food and treatment the lifespan was measured in months.

I remember standing with her at one of the windows of our barrack overlooking the camp and risking asking her a question: “What would Der Fuhrer (Hitler) have said if he saw what we were looking at? She stared at me. “Why,” she said, “He would never have allowed it!”

This brings us back to Janna Jihad Ayyad. As her second name, Jihad, implies, she also has been brought up to see nothing wrong in her indoctrination. Jihad means armed insurrection, and in the Middle East can include the murder of children, suicide bombing of youths at discotheques and of people attending religious gatherings, or deliberately driving vehicles into pedestrians.

She may be quite uninformed that when the State of Israel was declared in
1948 in territory that had had a Jewish population for thousands of years, the local Palestinians aided by five neighbouring Arab states attacked the Jewish States, inflicting 6,000 dead and 30,000 wounded in a Jewish population of 600,000 according to the British Encyclopaedia. Five major wars were to follow, all of which the Arabs lost. Gaza had been occupied by Israel in one of these wars and a flourishing export trade  developed with Europe. In 2005 Israel withdrew all its troops and settlers from Gaza, abandoning its infrastructure, synagogues and trained Palestinian workforce who were thus able to continue their commercial activities. The grateful and jubilant Gazans responded by destroying the hothouses and synagogues abandoned by Israel and instead switched to the manufacture and importation of missiles, 14,000 of which were then launched over succeeding years at civilian settlements in Israel. When this bombardment reached a peak of 80 missiles a day, Israel invaded Gaza.

We are constantly reminded of Palestinian losses and suffering which is blamed on Israel. Where are the statistics and the losses/damage reports due to the bombardment by 14,000 missiles at civilian settlements? What Palestinian spokesperson has ever referred to the 24,861 Jews killed and
35,356 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1920? My home was destroyed by bombing during WW2 and I know what it is like to be bombed day and night.

Israel sent its troops to the border to protect the civilian settlements behind them. How do you expect these young soldiers to react when confronted by masses of howling, stone- and Molotov cocktail throwing people, intent on overrunning them and breaking through to the Jewish settlements?

Rodney Mazinter to The Cape Times

The Editor

Dear Sir

While the world tries to outdo itself to find ways to defame Iarael for its defensive actions on its border with Gaza, it does nothing to relieve the real tragedy for the Palestinian people playing itself out in Syria.

According to Syrian reports over the weekend explosions in the central sector of Al-Quneitra, caused by regime shelling, resulted in many wounded.

It was left to a complex, humanitarian and medical operation run by Israel on its border with Syria to provide essential aid to victims of Bashar al-Aassad’s ongoing attack on his people. Aid was extended to Syrians fleeing hostilities who are living in tent camps throughout the Syrian Golan Heights. Syrian civilians are living under poor conditions in these camps near the Israeli border, often lacking access to water, electricity, food, and other basic necessities.

As part of the operation 300 tents were transferred by Israel along with 13 tons of food, 15 tons of baby food, three pallets of medical equipment and medicine, and 30 tons of clothing and footwear. Since 2013, over 3,500 civilians who were injured in Syria have received medical treatment in Israel.

In addition, since 2016, as part of Operation Good Neighbour over 1,300 Syrian children suffering from various illnesses and ailments have received one-day treatment in Israel’s clinics to offset the significant shortage of medical infrastructure, doctors, and medical supplies. They are given life-saving humanitarian aid while Israel maintains a non-intervention policy in the conflict.

The Mazor Ladach field clinic, established by the IDF and international aid organisations in the southern Golan Heights, has provided medical treatment to approximately 6,000 Syrian civilians suffering from various conditions since its opening in August 2017.

During Operation Good Neighbour, 1,524 tons of food, 947,520 litres of fuel, 7,933 baby nappies, 54 tons of baby food, 24,900 boxes of medicine and medical equipment, 775 medical equipment units, 250 tons of clothing, 13,920 hygienic products, and 300 tents have been provided to Syrians since June 2016.

Nobody can satisfactorily explain why if Israel is intent on killing civilians it should bother to provide such exemplary humanitarian assistance to an enemy.

Allan Wolman to The Sunday Times

Writing in The Sunday Times Roshan Dadoo criticizes the Department of International relations for not following up on the ANC’s resolution at it’s December conference to downgrade its embassy in Israel.

Only this weekend president Ramaphosa jetted off to an AU conference in Mauritania. According to Wikipedia “In 1981, Mauritania became the last country in the world to abolish slavery, when a presidential decree abolished that practice. However, no criminal laws were passed to enforce the ban. In 2007, ‘under international pressure’, the government passed a law allowing slaveholders to be prosecuted.” It took that country another 26 years to pass a law enforcing the abolishment of slavery. Notwithstanding that law thousands of Haratine (dark skinned Afro-Mauritanian) people still live under slavery as laborer’s, child brides or domestic servants and its estimated that more than 20% of the population is still enslaved by their lighter skinned Arab masters with no possibility of freedom. And our country maintains diplomatic relations with this country

Only last week the South African government hosted a delegation from Iran, a country the calls daily for the annihilation of another member state. A country that hangs gays publicly from cranes as homosexuality is punishable by death. A country that sanctions the stoning to death of women accused of adultery by the person who has actually raped her. A country that has the highest rate of executions of people under the age of 18 years. And this is South Africa new best friend.

But The likes of Dadoo and many from the ANC call for not only the downgrading of their embassy in Israel but severing relations with the Jewish State. With over half a million people murdered in Syria by its demented president our government makes no call to censure that country and continues its diplomatic ties with that immoral regime. Yet its’ Israel – the only democratic country in the Middle East that South Africa want to cut ties.

With morality turned on its head one can only wonder what Dadoo and others hell bend on the destruction of Israel will conjure up next?

Allan Wolman to The Star

Saif Soofie (The Star 2 July) asks some questions of Prince William in the wake of his recent visit to Israel and Palestine and chastises him for not condemning Israel for a host of accusations that do not warrant comment as they been contested time and again in the columns of this and its sister newspapers.

 Instead of criticizing Britain, Soofie should be thankful that firstly and due to pressure from the Arabs Israel’s original size in terms of League of Nations and U.N. Partition plan was considerably reduced. Secondly and as a result of the Arab intransigence, countries like Jordan and Iraq were ‘borne’ and generously supported by Britain

 However Soofie needs to be a bit more honest in his report while he estimates Britain’s arms sales to Israel of the past five years at $450m (that’s $90m per year) this figure was was eclipsed by one single deal to Saudi Arabia of over $5 billion for weapons that will probably be used against Yemen in its ongoing war with that country. To date the death toll in Yemen is running at hundreds of thousands of lives and the U.N. has described this situation as the worst humanitarian crisis in 50 years. Soofie calls the deaths of 50 Palestinians who by their own admission were Hamas operatives all trying to invade Israel, a massacre. What then would he then call the slaughter in Yemen and Syria?