Many proponents of the Jewish religion often appear insular and introverted. They seem to possess an air of superiority arising from the decidedly non-Jewish notion of the Jews being G-d's 'Chosen People'; a phraseology remarkably absent from traditional Jewish texts. It is my belief that this mistaken perception is a result of a type of religious fanaticism which, possibly found in other faiths, is totally foreign to Judaism. The truth of the matter is that both a national and universal outlook can be found within Jewish writings.
First, a little background is necessary. Judaism is unique from other religions in that it is based on the idea of a covenant (bris) – a working agreement between two parties. G-d made two covenants with the Jewish people, one with Abraham and another at Mt. Sinai. However, prior to this, He made a covenant with Noah, applicable to all mankind. In this, He set out seven basic laws (from which many more may be derived) as to how man should live his life. The laws, commonly referred to as the Noahide laws, are a prohibition from murder, idolatry, sexual immorality, theft, eating the limb from a living animal and cursing G-d and the positive instruction to establish a court justice system.
Consequently, Judaism, unlike many other religions, does not require one to be a Jew in order to be a recipient of reward (or to be saved from eternal damnation). This is clearly stated in the tosefta: “the righteous of the nations have a share in the world to come”. Who is considered to be amongst the “righteous of the nations”? All who accept upon themselves the Noahide laws and adhere to them. In fact, the Talmud states that “A non-Jew who engages in Torah [the seven laws] is compared to the high priest.”
So what of today's Gentiles? In particular, how do we view the adherents to the major religions of our time?
The sources that I have brought to this point have basically found universal acceptance in today's Judaism. However, my aim in what follows is to show a legitimate view within the Torah landscape; it should be known that there are other opinions on the matter.
The Meiri (1249-1310) writes:
“All who hold to the seven Mitzvot are treated equally in the law with us and there is no favouritism for us. It goes without saying that this is so for the nations who are disciplined in the ways of religions or civilization.”
If the Meiri had such a favourable opinion of the nations in the 13th century, I find it obvious that the nations of today, who grant rights and freedoms that have never been seen before, should certainly be regarded as favourably. However, there is no need to take it from me, as the Maharatz Chayes (1805-1855) has explicitly stated:
“The seven Mitzvot are the natural laws which both Christians and Mohommedans apply in their courts.”
Similarly, Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin a modern day authority (1881-1973) claims that:
“The overwhelming majority [of people today] are in the category of a resident alien [an even higher category than a Noahide].”
The question as to the level of our involvement in the wider world still needs answering. I posed this question while in yeshiva to Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, one of the world's leading halachick decisors. He told me that Moses stopped a fight between a Jew and an Egyptian, he stopped a fight between two Jews and he also stopped a fight between two non-Jews. The issues of broader society are clearly something in which we must participate. He obviously didn't tell me the exact balance one should have between internal and external issues.
Maimonides (1135-1204) deals directly with this question, he states:
“It appears to me that in regard to respect and honour and also, in regard to charity, a resident alien is to be treated as a Jew … our Sages commanded us to visit the Gentiles when ill, to bury their dead in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor, for the sake of peace. For behold, it is said: (Psalms 145:9) 'God is good to all and His mercies extend over all His works,' and it is further stated (Proverbs 3:17) : 'Its [the Torah's] ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are those of peace.'”
In conclusion, the introverted ways of many Jews appear to be in contradiction with traditional Jewish sources. While not sacrificing our unique and rich identity and culture we should still play an active role in the bettering of society. To ignore the large problems, especially in this country, that do not necessarily plague the Jewish community, would simply be wrong, in my opinion.
Dani Freiduis writes in personal capacity his views do not necessarily reflect those of SAUJS or its members.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Yet another view of our Israeli/Palestian guests - Benji Shulman
The last two blog posts on the visit by Benjamin Pogrund and the Palestinian ambassador have caused much controversy. However they both suffer from common deficiencies that tend to plague debate on the Middle East. Reading the one blog you might think that Mosiach had arrived at Wits, signed the Oslo accords and implemented them all in one hour. Reading the other there is desperate nihilism about the whole thing that is very hard to stomach. It almost suggests that somehow not only does everybody hate us all the time, but that they will continue to do so forever.
Between these two poles messianism and depression there has to be something missing. I would argue that if we are going to be really Zionist about the whole thing than we need to add a solid dose of pragmatism, something that has sustained the Zionist movement pretty much since the enterprise began.
By way of example let’s look at the most enduring peace event in the Middle East, peace between Egypt and Israel. This was not achieved between some liberal hippy Egyptian and his pinko Jew friend. Anwar Sadat was an extreme Egyptian nationalist with solid anti-Zionist background and uncomfortable support for the Nazis. Menacham Begin was a militaristic right wing Zionist who was survivor of the holocaust. Now how does this work?
After Egypt’s third failure to wipe Israel off the map, Sadat realised that he had two options. He could either piss the rest of his GDP against an Israeli tank column or he could make peace with the Jews. He chose the latter. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t warm and it was not out of love but it has held and it has held in a region where things like this often don’t.
But Begin was no roll over. Although overjoyed at the opportunity was the process extremely difficult. He didn’t get wrapped in whose land it actually was but rather focused on the prize. Peace and recognition. Sadat’s wife records extreme frustration saying that Begin went on and on about the Holocaust. For even inch of Sinai that Begin gave away so Sadat learnt every psychological twist to being a Jew.
This has something to teach as Jews. On the one hand we can’t be hypocrites, for years we have bemoaned the fact that no one on the other side will talk to us. The Palestinian ambassador is prepared to speak to us we should let him and we should engage and learn from him. I promise you now this is not great PR for him. A less brave man in his condition could easily have ignored the Jews or just met them in private. He did not as the one blog suggested come out in the favour of a one state solution. He said he would prefer it but that he sees two states as being the only option right now. This Ambassador has a long history of being moderate and I pray that we see more voices like him. However the PA itself is suddenly more inclined to talk. Not because they love us but because they are running out of options. They have tried terror, suicide bombings, support from the Arab states and denunciations in the UN. But they are losing ground, they are not so welcome in the west who see them as corrupt, the Islamic fundamentalists see them as only step above Zionists, as usual they are being betrayed but their Arab neighbours and they have lost control of their leftist solidarity allies.
Like Sadat before, peace with the Jews and their own state next door is looking like the only option that they have left. We daren’t miss this opportunity to help them out with their problem. But as Begin showed us and the Palestinian ambassador reminded we don’t need to lose ourselves over this. We don’t need to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians, the PSC do a good enough job as it is. Israel is thankfully the more powerful player these days. But make no mistake, the people who got us into this mess were rejectionist Arab leaders and they need to be reminded at every opportunity that we get. We have rights to that land also and floating them out onto the Mediterranean will not help our cause.
To describe Israeli policies in such draconian terms as the one blog has done and then say it is to support Israel, is not only counterproductive, it is ridiculous. It does nothing to inform proper debate and erodes our ability as Jews to make the careful and dangerous decisions that we will need to secure our rights as citizens of the world.
Benji Shulman writes in personal capacity and these views do not neccesarily reflect those of SAUJS
Between these two poles messianism and depression there has to be something missing. I would argue that if we are going to be really Zionist about the whole thing than we need to add a solid dose of pragmatism, something that has sustained the Zionist movement pretty much since the enterprise began.
By way of example let’s look at the most enduring peace event in the Middle East, peace between Egypt and Israel. This was not achieved between some liberal hippy Egyptian and his pinko Jew friend. Anwar Sadat was an extreme Egyptian nationalist with solid anti-Zionist background and uncomfortable support for the Nazis. Menacham Begin was a militaristic right wing Zionist who was survivor of the holocaust. Now how does this work?
After Egypt’s third failure to wipe Israel off the map, Sadat realised that he had two options. He could either piss the rest of his GDP against an Israeli tank column or he could make peace with the Jews. He chose the latter. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t warm and it was not out of love but it has held and it has held in a region where things like this often don’t.
But Begin was no roll over. Although overjoyed at the opportunity was the process extremely difficult. He didn’t get wrapped in whose land it actually was but rather focused on the prize. Peace and recognition. Sadat’s wife records extreme frustration saying that Begin went on and on about the Holocaust. For even inch of Sinai that Begin gave away so Sadat learnt every psychological twist to being a Jew.
This has something to teach as Jews. On the one hand we can’t be hypocrites, for years we have bemoaned the fact that no one on the other side will talk to us. The Palestinian ambassador is prepared to speak to us we should let him and we should engage and learn from him. I promise you now this is not great PR for him. A less brave man in his condition could easily have ignored the Jews or just met them in private. He did not as the one blog suggested come out in the favour of a one state solution. He said he would prefer it but that he sees two states as being the only option right now. This Ambassador has a long history of being moderate and I pray that we see more voices like him. However the PA itself is suddenly more inclined to talk. Not because they love us but because they are running out of options. They have tried terror, suicide bombings, support from the Arab states and denunciations in the UN. But they are losing ground, they are not so welcome in the west who see them as corrupt, the Islamic fundamentalists see them as only step above Zionists, as usual they are being betrayed but their Arab neighbours and they have lost control of their leftist solidarity allies.
Like Sadat before, peace with the Jews and their own state next door is looking like the only option that they have left. We daren’t miss this opportunity to help them out with their problem. But as Begin showed us and the Palestinian ambassador reminded we don’t need to lose ourselves over this. We don’t need to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians, the PSC do a good enough job as it is. Israel is thankfully the more powerful player these days. But make no mistake, the people who got us into this mess were rejectionist Arab leaders and they need to be reminded at every opportunity that we get. We have rights to that land also and floating them out onto the Mediterranean will not help our cause.
To describe Israeli policies in such draconian terms as the one blog has done and then say it is to support Israel, is not only counterproductive, it is ridiculous. It does nothing to inform proper debate and erodes our ability as Jews to make the careful and dangerous decisions that we will need to secure our rights as citizens of the world.
Benji Shulman writes in personal capacity and these views do not neccesarily reflect those of SAUJS
Ya ma se Boycott - Josh Schewitz
The proposed boycott of Ahava Dead Sea Products is based on hatful assumptions. Open Shahadah Street is an extreme fringe organisation that is not concerned with peace so much as it is concerned with the destruction of the Jewish state. The Boycott campaign or BDS of Israel is not by any stretch concerned with a peaceful resumption to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. By its actions and words the BDS campaign has been shown to be a proponent of the destruction of the Jewish State. Boycotts of Israel are aimed at the delegitimization of the Jewish State as a whole. The boycott campaign aims at anything Israeli and in some cases anything Jewish. Organisation such as Open Shahadah street`s request for divestment and boycott of the Israeli company Ahava should be opposed in the strongest terms.
Here are some statements by BDS campaigners: Ronnie Kasrils, a former anti-apartheid activist turned anti-Israel activist, has made the objectiveclear: "BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." Ahmed Moor, another prominent BDS activist has it even clearer: "So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state". ( i am not going to expand on the basic Human right that Zionism encompasses. It is the subject of a essay in the future.)
Boycotts of Israel go against the actions and needs of the Palestinians themselves. Currently the Palestinian Authority does approximately 3 billion dollars worth of trade each year with Israel. The Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa recently spoke at a South African Union of Jewish Students Event. This is contrary to the education boycott that organisation that claim to represent the Palestinian people impose internationally. The Palestinian lobby in South Africa urged the Palestinian Ambassador not to accept the saujs invitation to a debate based on the same accusation that are being used to try manipulate your company. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Women and minorities have more rights in Israel than in any other middle east state. Israel has the freest media and the most open political system in the middle east. In Israel women have exactly the same rights as men, something foreign to the region. Kalid Abu Tomoe, an Arab Israeli journalist works for the Jerusalem post because he cant work as a journalist in any other middle east nation without being subject to anti-freedom restrictions on his writting. He has said on many occasions that he would rather live in the Jewish
Israel than in any other Middle East nation.
Ismail Khalid a Bedouin Israeli diplomat says that he is proud of the achievements of his young country. He says there are problems but for a country that is only 60 years old Israel has done tremendously well. Especially taken in light of the type of regimes that populate the Middle East at the moment. Ismail Khalid says Israel can be proud of its democracy, human rights record, technological advances as well as many other achievements.
The accusations of apartheid are totally unfounded and based on irrational hate rather than proper intellectual discourse. Both Khalid Abu Tomoe and Ismail kalidi will vigorously fight the irrational claim of apartheid. Israel is committed to a peaceful negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arabs. Israel is currently sitting at the negotiating table waiting for the Palestinians to sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution. Israel has time and again made concrete steps to end the conflict and live in peace. These include, among others, the 1968 appeal for a land for peace deal. The Arabs rejected with the infamous three no`s of Khartoum. Israel faithfully signed the Oslo accords of 1993 and kept its part of the deal. Israel removed its soldiers and began the process of handing over control of the western bank of the Hashemite kingdom to the Palestinian authority. The response from the PA was vastly increased terrorism, further hate education of Palestinian youth and continued promotion of armed resistance. Again in 2000 Prime Minster Barak offer 97% of the west bank and land transfers to make up the other 3%. Yassir Arafat declined and initiated the 2nd intifada. The current situation of check points and restrictions of entry to Israel for Arabs is a direct result of the terror campaign launched in 2001. Israel has shown time and again its willingness to dismantle checkpoints and easy restrictions is proved by the removal of checkpoints as soon as security situations improve. The recent activities in Gilo are a real indication of Israel’s willingness to remove security barriers when security situations improve. There is a direct relationship between terrorism directed as Israeli civilians and security measures that are restrictive.
Israel desperately wants peace. Israel understands the requirements to achieve peace but is at this time unable to find a partner for peace. Israel will continue to sue for peace in the hope that a Palestinian leader will emerge with the courage to make peace with the Jews.
Josh Schewitz writes in his individual capacity and does not neccesarily represent views of SAUJS
Here are some statements by BDS campaigners: Ronnie Kasrils, a former anti-apartheid activist turned anti-Israel activist, has made the objectiveclear: "BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." Ahmed Moor, another prominent BDS activist has it even clearer: "So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state". ( i am not going to expand on the basic Human right that Zionism encompasses. It is the subject of a essay in the future.)
Boycotts of Israel go against the actions and needs of the Palestinians themselves. Currently the Palestinian Authority does approximately 3 billion dollars worth of trade each year with Israel. The Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa recently spoke at a South African Union of Jewish Students Event. This is contrary to the education boycott that organisation that claim to represent the Palestinian people impose internationally. The Palestinian lobby in South Africa urged the Palestinian Ambassador not to accept the saujs invitation to a debate based on the same accusation that are being used to try manipulate your company. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Women and minorities have more rights in Israel than in any other middle east state. Israel has the freest media and the most open political system in the middle east. In Israel women have exactly the same rights as men, something foreign to the region. Kalid Abu Tomoe, an Arab Israeli journalist works for the Jerusalem post because he cant work as a journalist in any other middle east nation without being subject to anti-freedom restrictions on his writting. He has said on many occasions that he would rather live in the Jewish
Israel than in any other Middle East nation.
Ismail Khalid a Bedouin Israeli diplomat says that he is proud of the achievements of his young country. He says there are problems but for a country that is only 60 years old Israel has done tremendously well. Especially taken in light of the type of regimes that populate the Middle East at the moment. Ismail Khalid says Israel can be proud of its democracy, human rights record, technological advances as well as many other achievements.
The accusations of apartheid are totally unfounded and based on irrational hate rather than proper intellectual discourse. Both Khalid Abu Tomoe and Ismail kalidi will vigorously fight the irrational claim of apartheid. Israel is committed to a peaceful negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arabs. Israel is currently sitting at the negotiating table waiting for the Palestinians to sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution. Israel has time and again made concrete steps to end the conflict and live in peace. These include, among others, the 1968 appeal for a land for peace deal. The Arabs rejected with the infamous three no`s of Khartoum. Israel faithfully signed the Oslo accords of 1993 and kept its part of the deal. Israel removed its soldiers and began the process of handing over control of the western bank of the Hashemite kingdom to the Palestinian authority. The response from the PA was vastly increased terrorism, further hate education of Palestinian youth and continued promotion of armed resistance. Again in 2000 Prime Minster Barak offer 97% of the west bank and land transfers to make up the other 3%. Yassir Arafat declined and initiated the 2nd intifada. The current situation of check points and restrictions of entry to Israel for Arabs is a direct result of the terror campaign launched in 2001. Israel has shown time and again its willingness to dismantle checkpoints and easy restrictions is proved by the removal of checkpoints as soon as security situations improve. The recent activities in Gilo are a real indication of Israel’s willingness to remove security barriers when security situations improve. There is a direct relationship between terrorism directed as Israeli civilians and security measures that are restrictive.
Israel desperately wants peace. Israel understands the requirements to achieve peace but is at this time unable to find a partner for peace. Israel will continue to sue for peace in the hope that a Palestinian leader will emerge with the courage to make peace with the Jews.
Josh Schewitz writes in his individual capacity and does not neccesarily represent views of SAUJS
Monday, August 23, 2010
Another view of our Israeli/Palestinian guest - Rafi Eliasov
Recently SAUJS hosted the Palestinian ambassador in a discussion panel on recent events in the Middle East and prospects for peace. I will firstly begin by analyzing the broad deficiencies of the event and then analyze the content of each speaker.
Broadly speaking, essentially I think SAUJS was hosting a speaker in favour of a one state solution, counter to its mandate and constitution as a Zionist organization. While the event has been labeled, by some SAUJS members as ‘assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved’, I think the event did not represent the ethos of SAUJS and failed to provide a balanced perspective on the issues. While it is essential that SAUJS as an organization empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their plight is continually emphasized both by the national media and by on campus organizations such as Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. It is therefore, in my opinion, our responsibility to add balance to this aberration.
According to Mr Pogrund both parties agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions and then immediately set numerous conditions that must be fulfilled in order for negotiations to begin. While this is indeed true for the Palestinians who demanded a recognition that the 67’ borders would be the basis of the negotiations and a freeze of settlement building, this is untrue of Israel . Not only did Israel repeatedly agree to immediate and unconditional negotiations, but it imposed a moratorium in order to appease the Palestinians , this unprecedented step yielded little in return. Additionally Mr Pogrund repeatedly identified settlements as the major obstacle to peace. While settlements are no doubt unhelpful to the situation, as stated above Israel discontinued their expansion. What Mr Pogrund failed to address was the anti-Semitism created by the Palestinian national movement that precipitated a segmented society. This stigma, which condemned Palestinians to death for merely associating with Jews, has existed since the days of Haj Amin Al Husseini. Palestinian organizations such as the ‘Black Hand’ and ‘the Lightning’, executed Palestinians with ties to the Yishuv this served as an example, with the goal of creating an utter state of segregation between Jews and no-Jews. This ideology is the basis on which no Jew can live in a future Palestinian state and Israel is forced to withdraw its civilians and dismantle settlements.
Ultimately the perception that Arafat was a visionary, portrayed by his Excellency the Palestinian ambassador is undermined by fact. Not only did Arafat reject the Clinton Parameters (a far reaching proposal that encompassed massive compromises by Israel), but he also pillaged and horded international funds intended for the Palestinian people . Likewise the portrayal of Netanyahu as an uncompromising peace partner is similarly false. It was Netanyahu who concluded the Hebron protocols, which led to autonomy for the PA in this controversial city. Additionally the Wye River-Memorandum, which gave the PA additional territory in the West Bank was condoned by Netanyahu. Netanyahu has continued that trend, to the possible disgruntlement of his consistency by lifting road block , improving the Palestinian economy and stopping settlements.
While dialogue is indeed useful, I would rather SAUJS ensure that its constituency receives a balanced education on these issues. While the Palestinian Ambassador should be applauded for attending the event, it is the base racism of those who condemned him for speaking to Jews that is the root of the Middle East conflict. In future if we host a speaker whose views are contentious, we as an organization should endeavor to ensure that two divergent opinions are expressed as appose to two similar and contentious opinions as was the case at this event. This is true when an event is portrayed as a debate or where speakers are portrayed as representing the two sides of the issue.
Rafi Eliasov writes in his personal capacity. This article does not represent the views of SAUJS.
Broadly speaking, essentially I think SAUJS was hosting a speaker in favour of a one state solution, counter to its mandate and constitution as a Zionist organization. While the event has been labeled, by some SAUJS members as ‘assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved’, I think the event did not represent the ethos of SAUJS and failed to provide a balanced perspective on the issues. While it is essential that SAUJS as an organization empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their plight is continually emphasized both by the national media and by on campus organizations such as Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. It is therefore, in my opinion, our responsibility to add balance to this aberration.
According to Mr Pogrund both parties agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions and then immediately set numerous conditions that must be fulfilled in order for negotiations to begin. While this is indeed true for the Palestinians who demanded a recognition that the 67’ borders would be the basis of the negotiations and a freeze of settlement building, this is untrue of Israel . Not only did Israel repeatedly agree to immediate and unconditional negotiations, but it imposed a moratorium in order to appease the Palestinians , this unprecedented step yielded little in return. Additionally Mr Pogrund repeatedly identified settlements as the major obstacle to peace. While settlements are no doubt unhelpful to the situation, as stated above Israel discontinued their expansion. What Mr Pogrund failed to address was the anti-Semitism created by the Palestinian national movement that precipitated a segmented society. This stigma, which condemned Palestinians to death for merely associating with Jews, has existed since the days of Haj Amin Al Husseini. Palestinian organizations such as the ‘Black Hand’ and ‘the Lightning’, executed Palestinians with ties to the Yishuv this served as an example, with the goal of creating an utter state of segregation between Jews and no-Jews. This ideology is the basis on which no Jew can live in a future Palestinian state and Israel is forced to withdraw its civilians and dismantle settlements.
Ultimately the perception that Arafat was a visionary, portrayed by his Excellency the Palestinian ambassador is undermined by fact. Not only did Arafat reject the Clinton Parameters (a far reaching proposal that encompassed massive compromises by Israel), but he also pillaged and horded international funds intended for the Palestinian people . Likewise the portrayal of Netanyahu as an uncompromising peace partner is similarly false. It was Netanyahu who concluded the Hebron protocols, which led to autonomy for the PA in this controversial city. Additionally the Wye River-Memorandum, which gave the PA additional territory in the West Bank was condoned by Netanyahu. Netanyahu has continued that trend, to the possible disgruntlement of his consistency by lifting road block , improving the Palestinian economy and stopping settlements.
While dialogue is indeed useful, I would rather SAUJS ensure that its constituency receives a balanced education on these issues. While the Palestinian Ambassador should be applauded for attending the event, it is the base racism of those who condemned him for speaking to Jews that is the root of the Middle East conflict. In future if we host a speaker whose views are contentious, we as an organization should endeavor to ensure that two divergent opinions are expressed as appose to two similar and contentious opinions as was the case at this event. This is true when an event is portrayed as a debate or where speakers are portrayed as representing the two sides of the issue.
Rafi Eliasov writes in his personal capacity. This article does not represent the views of SAUJS.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A view of our Palestinian Israeli guest- By Ilan Solomons
It’s not often that an event hosted by the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) makes it onto websites like Al-Jazeera.net Arabic, Electronic Intifada and Maan News to name just a few. Well our recent event made headlines on these sites. SAUJS is an organization which seeks to constructively engage on a range of issues whether they are relating to Jewish identity, South African and African Affairs, or even the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is because SAUJS is founded on 3 core values Jewish Identity, South Africa and Zionism. The last principle is something which makes our connection to this conflict that exists thousands of miles away from South Africa such an important part of daily SAUJS activities.
SAUJS is defined as broadly as an apolitical organization but this does not by any means make us politically naïve or unconscious. We send tours to Israel every year, we have our leadership training there, our highest values are to make Aliya and become a part of Israeli society. We have a close relationship with the Israeli Embassy in South Africa and all of the above is generally regarded as common knowledge. What is not such common knowledge are our relationships with the Palestinian people and their diplomatic missions.
Before I go into this topic let me just also state that SAUJS also has relationships with Israeli human rights organizations which are generally very critical of policies and practices of the State of Israel. The most famous one being Benjamin Pogrund who is the former editor of the Rand Daily Mail and who moved to Israel and founded the Yakar Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem. He is a veteran of the Zionist-Left and is very much critical of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian territories and the human rights abuses that occur in the Territories, and other policies which infringe upon the rights of Arab-Israeli’s, which is why he has been so involved in Israeli-Palestinian and Jordanian dialogue through the Yakar Centre. He is devote Zionist but just as devoutly anti-Occupation
Now back to the issue of our relationship with the Palestinians. SAUJS has been engaged in meeting with Palestinian peace activists in the territories, SAUJS has hosted Bassim Eid and Benjamin Pogrund on a previous occasion. We have unfortunately only very recently begun engaging directly with the local Palestinian Diplomatic Mission in South Africa. Although this is viewed as contraversial move by some to meet the PLO/PA SAUJS realized that we had found someone in Palestinian Ambassador who shared our view of creating meaningful dialogue between the Jewish community and the Palestinian people.
That we have major differences it goes without saying that the Ambassador is not in favour of Zionism or the concept of a Jewish State – as apposed to the existence of State called Israel where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others live together as equals – this goes without saying, I just am stating this because many of the internet sites have labelled him a ‘Zionist collaborator’ and ‘an agent of Zionism and of the Zionist entity AKA Israel’, this is incredibly insulting to any Palestinian no-less to a Palestinian diplomat, who views Zionism as the reason for them being without a state and many still languishing in refugee camps throughout the middle-east. What we do agree on is the need for dialogue and as the Ambassador has said many times he would rather us to shout at one another than shoot at one other.
I have personally arranged for the Ambassador to speak to Jewish Youth groupings, and have helped facilitate a special relationship between our movement and parts of the Jewish community. I truly hope this will help bring balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an official Palestinian view point – that is opposed to the radical views espoused by groups like the PSC, Afro-Middle Centre(AMEC) and the like!
The actual discussion between the Ambassador and Pogrund which was held in the Dorothy Susskind Hall in John Moffat building on Wits Campus was entitled “ Assessing Current Diplomacy towards building Peace in the Middle East”. It was moderated by Professor Larry Benjamin from the School of International Relations. What both participants agreed on was that the growth illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were destoying efforts to establish a viable independent Palestinian State along side the State of Israel. They also agreed that America was not doing enough to bring a peace settlement and that it was important for both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, to take bold and courageous steps to bring about a just and equitable solution!
I believe that as a movement we should be committed to seeking a fair and broad understanding of the tragedy that has befallen the people of Palestine and Israel. I think that we have too often been guilty of responding to groups like the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC), by countering their propaganda with our own form of Hasbara. I believe that we should be committed to defending Israel from unfair criticism and liable, but I also believe that through initiatives like the discussion between an imminent Israeli human rights activist and a representative of the Palestinian Authority we are assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved.
In conclusion I just would like to state that the PSC was approached to co-host this event but they refused to do so. SAUJS however will continue to engage them in the hopes that we can work together to show a fuller picture of situation and co-operate in the interests of peace between the State of Israel and the Future State of Palestine. We welcome partnerships with various groups and organizations and look forward to expanding dialogue with all campus groupings, civil society and other institutions!
If you would like to know more about the event or SAUJS or anything that was mentioned in this article please feel free to contact me at liaison@saujs.co.za.
Ilan Solomons writes this blog in his personal capacity and does not represent the views of the organisation.
Chutzpahonline is a forum for debate of individual SAUJS members. Please see our terms of use for more information. If you would like to contribute on this or any other topic please email media@saujs.co.za
SAUJS is defined as broadly as an apolitical organization but this does not by any means make us politically naïve or unconscious. We send tours to Israel every year, we have our leadership training there, our highest values are to make Aliya and become a part of Israeli society. We have a close relationship with the Israeli Embassy in South Africa and all of the above is generally regarded as common knowledge. What is not such common knowledge are our relationships with the Palestinian people and their diplomatic missions.
Before I go into this topic let me just also state that SAUJS also has relationships with Israeli human rights organizations which are generally very critical of policies and practices of the State of Israel. The most famous one being Benjamin Pogrund who is the former editor of the Rand Daily Mail and who moved to Israel and founded the Yakar Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem. He is a veteran of the Zionist-Left and is very much critical of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian territories and the human rights abuses that occur in the Territories, and other policies which infringe upon the rights of Arab-Israeli’s, which is why he has been so involved in Israeli-Palestinian and Jordanian dialogue through the Yakar Centre. He is devote Zionist but just as devoutly anti-Occupation
Now back to the issue of our relationship with the Palestinians. SAUJS has been engaged in meeting with Palestinian peace activists in the territories, SAUJS has hosted Bassim Eid and Benjamin Pogrund on a previous occasion. We have unfortunately only very recently begun engaging directly with the local Palestinian Diplomatic Mission in South Africa. Although this is viewed as contraversial move by some to meet the PLO/PA SAUJS realized that we had found someone in Palestinian Ambassador who shared our view of creating meaningful dialogue between the Jewish community and the Palestinian people.
That we have major differences it goes without saying that the Ambassador is not in favour of Zionism or the concept of a Jewish State – as apposed to the existence of State called Israel where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others live together as equals – this goes without saying, I just am stating this because many of the internet sites have labelled him a ‘Zionist collaborator’ and ‘an agent of Zionism and of the Zionist entity AKA Israel’, this is incredibly insulting to any Palestinian no-less to a Palestinian diplomat, who views Zionism as the reason for them being without a state and many still languishing in refugee camps throughout the middle-east. What we do agree on is the need for dialogue and as the Ambassador has said many times he would rather us to shout at one another than shoot at one other.
I have personally arranged for the Ambassador to speak to Jewish Youth groupings, and have helped facilitate a special relationship between our movement and parts of the Jewish community. I truly hope this will help bring balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an official Palestinian view point – that is opposed to the radical views espoused by groups like the PSC, Afro-Middle Centre(AMEC) and the like!
The actual discussion between the Ambassador and Pogrund which was held in the Dorothy Susskind Hall in John Moffat building on Wits Campus was entitled “ Assessing Current Diplomacy towards building Peace in the Middle East”. It was moderated by Professor Larry Benjamin from the School of International Relations. What both participants agreed on was that the growth illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were destoying efforts to establish a viable independent Palestinian State along side the State of Israel. They also agreed that America was not doing enough to bring a peace settlement and that it was important for both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, to take bold and courageous steps to bring about a just and equitable solution!
I believe that as a movement we should be committed to seeking a fair and broad understanding of the tragedy that has befallen the people of Palestine and Israel. I think that we have too often been guilty of responding to groups like the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC), by countering their propaganda with our own form of Hasbara. I believe that we should be committed to defending Israel from unfair criticism and liable, but I also believe that through initiatives like the discussion between an imminent Israeli human rights activist and a representative of the Palestinian Authority we are assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved.
In conclusion I just would like to state that the PSC was approached to co-host this event but they refused to do so. SAUJS however will continue to engage them in the hopes that we can work together to show a fuller picture of situation and co-operate in the interests of peace between the State of Israel and the Future State of Palestine. We welcome partnerships with various groups and organizations and look forward to expanding dialogue with all campus groupings, civil society and other institutions!
If you would like to know more about the event or SAUJS or anything that was mentioned in this article please feel free to contact me at liaison@saujs.co.za.
Ilan Solomons writes this blog in his personal capacity and does not represent the views of the organisation.
Chutzpahonline is a forum for debate of individual SAUJS members. Please see our terms of use for more information. If you would like to contribute on this or any other topic please email media@saujs.co.za
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Jewish students protest recall
Jewish Students to hand over memorandum to Deputy Minister Ebrahim Ebrahim over decision to recall Ambassador to Israel at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO)
Meeting convenes at 13:00
The recent activities regarding the Flotilla from Turkey that attempted to breach the Israeli blockade on Gaza have caused worldwide condemnation and criticism directed at the State of Israel. The ramifications of this incident for Israel have been dire and cannot be underestimated. The situation was made worse by the recent decision of the South African government, in a form of protest, to recall our ambassador to the State of Israel – the only country to do so since Turkey.
While we regret the deplorable loss of life that occurred during the incident – we fully recognise Israel’s right to defend her borders and citizens. Much debate has arisen surrounding Israel’s decision to intercept the ship, however we feel that the decision made by our government to recall Ambassador Ismail Coovadia is of an extreme nature, premature and biased.
We hereby call on the South African government to retract its decision and to respect Israel’s right to defend herself and treat any decisions towards the State with the same fairness and judgment that is awarded to any other country.
It is in light of the above that we, the South African Union of Jewish Students, cannot remain silent in the face of such severe hypocrisy and injustice. We call on the South African Jewish community as well as all concerned citizens who disagree with the actions taken by our government to join us in protest outside the Department of International Relations and Cooperation on Tuesday 8 June at 13:00, 460 Soutpansberg Road, Rietondale, Pretoria.
Joining us in solidarity will be members of the following groups:
African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) represented by MP Steve Swart
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
Congo For Peace
Christian Friends For Israel
Rabbis of various congregations
The Biafran National Congress
Bridges for Peace
The Rwandan Students Survivors of Genocide of South Africa (RSSGSA)
The Redeemed Christian Church of God
The Zionist Youth Council of South Africa
Independent Churches from various ministries
For more information contact either Benji Shulman (SAUJS National Media Officer) 084 499 6411 or Stephanie Hodes (SAUJS National Chairperson) 083 435 2498
www.saujs.co.za
Meeting convenes at 13:00
The recent activities regarding the Flotilla from Turkey that attempted to breach the Israeli blockade on Gaza have caused worldwide condemnation and criticism directed at the State of Israel. The ramifications of this incident for Israel have been dire and cannot be underestimated. The situation was made worse by the recent decision of the South African government, in a form of protest, to recall our ambassador to the State of Israel – the only country to do so since Turkey.
While we regret the deplorable loss of life that occurred during the incident – we fully recognise Israel’s right to defend her borders and citizens. Much debate has arisen surrounding Israel’s decision to intercept the ship, however we feel that the decision made by our government to recall Ambassador Ismail Coovadia is of an extreme nature, premature and biased.
We hereby call on the South African government to retract its decision and to respect Israel’s right to defend herself and treat any decisions towards the State with the same fairness and judgment that is awarded to any other country.
It is in light of the above that we, the South African Union of Jewish Students, cannot remain silent in the face of such severe hypocrisy and injustice. We call on the South African Jewish community as well as all concerned citizens who disagree with the actions taken by our government to join us in protest outside the Department of International Relations and Cooperation on Tuesday 8 June at 13:00, 460 Soutpansberg Road, Rietondale, Pretoria.
Joining us in solidarity will be members of the following groups:
African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) represented by MP Steve Swart
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
Congo For Peace
Christian Friends For Israel
Rabbis of various congregations
The Biafran National Congress
Bridges for Peace
The Rwandan Students Survivors of Genocide of South Africa (RSSGSA)
The Redeemed Christian Church of God
The Zionist Youth Council of South Africa
Independent Churches from various ministries
For more information contact either Benji Shulman (SAUJS National Media Officer) 084 499 6411 or Stephanie Hodes (SAUJS National Chairperson) 083 435 2498
www.saujs.co.za
More from the AJC
To the Free Gaza Movement
David Harris, AJC Executive Director
June 6, 2010
According to your website, you describe yourselves as a "human rights movement."
You proclaim: "We respect the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, tribe, religion, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship or language."
And yet nowhere is there evidence of your respect for the human rights of Israelis, who've been the targets of massive human rights violations by Hamas and other terror groups operating freely in Gaza.
Are human rights indivisible, or only permitted for the groups you preselect?
Actually, you answer that question at a deeper level when you assert that: "We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.... This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual."
In other words, not only do Israelis, who want nothing more than to live free of missile and mortar attacks from Gaza, have no such right, but the country in which they live has no right to exist. That's precisely what your formula means.
So much for being a "human rights movement" and respecting "the human rights of everyone."
Clearly, if it's not about pointing the finger at Israel – or, should I say, giving Israel the finger – then you're simply not interested.
When Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967 and imposed draconian military rule, where were you to protest and organize flotillas and "humanitarian convoys"?
When in 2005 Israel left Gaza to determine its own destiny – for the first time in its history, I might add – where were you to encourage investment and job creation?
When Hamas violently ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in 2007, where were you to express support for the PA?
When Hamas opted to follow a dead-end strategy to turn Gaza into a pariah state and terrorist redoubt, where were you to press for a truly "free Gaza"?
When Christians were attacked in Gaza by jihadists, where were you to demonstrate solidarity with the victims?
When Egypt sealed its border with Gaza and, later, announced the construction of a steel wall along the frontier, where were you?
And when officials today live lavishly in Gaza and humanitarian supplies are siphoned off to privileged groups and gangs, where are you?
No, it's only about Israel. Nothing else matters. Your agenda is obvious. Your motives are transparent. And surrounding yourselves with a few convenient Jews doesn't make you any more credible.
But if you still want to persuade the world that you're a "human rights movement," here's an idea.
June 12th is the first anniversary of the rigged Iranian elections.
Here's what one human rights group had to say on Iran: "Iran's latest presidential election on June 12, 2009, took place against a backdrop of discrimination, worsening repression of dissent and violent unrest. Amnesty International continues to document serious human rights violations, including detention of human rights defenders and other prisoners of conscience, unfair trials, torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in custody and the application of the death penalty. Iran has one of the highest number of recorded executions of any country in the world.... Furthermore, Iran executes more people than any other country in the world except for China. Iran is also the only country in the world that continues to execute juvenile offenders."
Moreover, the group reported: "Iran is now witnessing sweeping restrictions on the use of communications technology, including telecommunications, satellite broadcasts and internet access, a ban on peaceful demonstrations, armed attacks on students in university premises, as well as the arbitrary arrest of political activists, students, journalists, and human rights defenders, many – if not all – of whom are prisoners of conscience."
There will be a global day of action on June 12th demanding an end to human rights abuses in Iran. You're missing from the sponsoring groups. How could that be? After all, you define yourselves as a "human rights movement."
Surely, the fact that human rights defenders in Iran – your presumed compatriots – are in jail should mobilize you, not to mention state-sanctioned murder of minors.
Oops, I forgot. Israel isn't involved. That disqualifies Iran from consideration.
In fact, if you truly were a human rights movement, and based on your well-honed methods, you'd be organizing another flotilla as we speak.
You'd recruit your "activists" to be on board. You'd proclaim your solidarity with the dissidents, the prisoners of conscience, and those on death row. And, come what may, you'd head for the Iranian coast. Luckily for you, you'd discover that Iran has 1100 miles of shoreline along the Persian (or is it Arabian?) Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Actually, you've got another option as well – logistically easier and cheaper to boot.
Lo and behold, Turkey shares a 310-mile land border with Iran. Given your cozy ties with the Turkish government and Turkish "humanitarian" groups (who, by the way, could use some education about Gandhi before being deployed again), why not plan to cross the frontier in convoys loaded with supplies for Iran's human rights activists? And don't forget to bring the signs to unfurl in front of the media you'll invite: "Free Iran," "End human rights oppression in Iran," "Women deserve equality," "Gays have rights," "Stop capital punishment," "We remember Neda," "Ballots, not bullets," "No more torture," "Persecution of Baha'i must end."
But you don't give a hoot about the well-being of millions of Iranians, whose human rights are being massively violated. You wouldn't take a single day off from your relentless anti-Israel campaign to assist the Iranian people.
Why is it that a self-proclaimed "human rights movement" doesn't care about the fate of Iranians desperately in need of outside support? Why would you never think about taking your show on the road to Iran, whatever risks might await you? Why is that you and your Turkish friends wouldn't spend a moment on the subject?
Alas, the reason is obvious. Israel isn't involved. You can't pin the blame on Jerusalem. Those waiting for you on the border don't wear an Israeli uniform (and don't abide by the same strict code of military conduct, either).
So what does that make you?
Nothing more than a Hamas booster club seeking Israel's disappearance, while posing as a "human rights movement."
David Harris, AJC Executive Director
June 6, 2010
According to your website, you describe yourselves as a "human rights movement."
You proclaim: "We respect the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, tribe, religion, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship or language."
And yet nowhere is there evidence of your respect for the human rights of Israelis, who've been the targets of massive human rights violations by Hamas and other terror groups operating freely in Gaza.
Are human rights indivisible, or only permitted for the groups you preselect?
Actually, you answer that question at a deeper level when you assert that: "We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.... This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual."
In other words, not only do Israelis, who want nothing more than to live free of missile and mortar attacks from Gaza, have no such right, but the country in which they live has no right to exist. That's precisely what your formula means.
So much for being a "human rights movement" and respecting "the human rights of everyone."
Clearly, if it's not about pointing the finger at Israel – or, should I say, giving Israel the finger – then you're simply not interested.
When Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967 and imposed draconian military rule, where were you to protest and organize flotillas and "humanitarian convoys"?
When in 2005 Israel left Gaza to determine its own destiny – for the first time in its history, I might add – where were you to encourage investment and job creation?
When Hamas violently ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in 2007, where were you to express support for the PA?
When Hamas opted to follow a dead-end strategy to turn Gaza into a pariah state and terrorist redoubt, where were you to press for a truly "free Gaza"?
When Christians were attacked in Gaza by jihadists, where were you to demonstrate solidarity with the victims?
When Egypt sealed its border with Gaza and, later, announced the construction of a steel wall along the frontier, where were you?
And when officials today live lavishly in Gaza and humanitarian supplies are siphoned off to privileged groups and gangs, where are you?
No, it's only about Israel. Nothing else matters. Your agenda is obvious. Your motives are transparent. And surrounding yourselves with a few convenient Jews doesn't make you any more credible.
But if you still want to persuade the world that you're a "human rights movement," here's an idea.
June 12th is the first anniversary of the rigged Iranian elections.
Here's what one human rights group had to say on Iran: "Iran's latest presidential election on June 12, 2009, took place against a backdrop of discrimination, worsening repression of dissent and violent unrest. Amnesty International continues to document serious human rights violations, including detention of human rights defenders and other prisoners of conscience, unfair trials, torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in custody and the application of the death penalty. Iran has one of the highest number of recorded executions of any country in the world.... Furthermore, Iran executes more people than any other country in the world except for China. Iran is also the only country in the world that continues to execute juvenile offenders."
Moreover, the group reported: "Iran is now witnessing sweeping restrictions on the use of communications technology, including telecommunications, satellite broadcasts and internet access, a ban on peaceful demonstrations, armed attacks on students in university premises, as well as the arbitrary arrest of political activists, students, journalists, and human rights defenders, many – if not all – of whom are prisoners of conscience."
There will be a global day of action on June 12th demanding an end to human rights abuses in Iran. You're missing from the sponsoring groups. How could that be? After all, you define yourselves as a "human rights movement."
Surely, the fact that human rights defenders in Iran – your presumed compatriots – are in jail should mobilize you, not to mention state-sanctioned murder of minors.
Oops, I forgot. Israel isn't involved. That disqualifies Iran from consideration.
In fact, if you truly were a human rights movement, and based on your well-honed methods, you'd be organizing another flotilla as we speak.
You'd recruit your "activists" to be on board. You'd proclaim your solidarity with the dissidents, the prisoners of conscience, and those on death row. And, come what may, you'd head for the Iranian coast. Luckily for you, you'd discover that Iran has 1100 miles of shoreline along the Persian (or is it Arabian?) Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Actually, you've got another option as well – logistically easier and cheaper to boot.
Lo and behold, Turkey shares a 310-mile land border with Iran. Given your cozy ties with the Turkish government and Turkish "humanitarian" groups (who, by the way, could use some education about Gandhi before being deployed again), why not plan to cross the frontier in convoys loaded with supplies for Iran's human rights activists? And don't forget to bring the signs to unfurl in front of the media you'll invite: "Free Iran," "End human rights oppression in Iran," "Women deserve equality," "Gays have rights," "Stop capital punishment," "We remember Neda," "Ballots, not bullets," "No more torture," "Persecution of Baha'i must end."
But you don't give a hoot about the well-being of millions of Iranians, whose human rights are being massively violated. You wouldn't take a single day off from your relentless anti-Israel campaign to assist the Iranian people.
Why is it that a self-proclaimed "human rights movement" doesn't care about the fate of Iranians desperately in need of outside support? Why would you never think about taking your show on the road to Iran, whatever risks might await you? Why is that you and your Turkish friends wouldn't spend a moment on the subject?
Alas, the reason is obvious. Israel isn't involved. You can't pin the blame on Jerusalem. Those waiting for you on the border don't wear an Israeli uniform (and don't abide by the same strict code of military conduct, either).
So what does that make you?
Nothing more than a Hamas booster club seeking Israel's disappearance, while posing as a "human rights movement."
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
David Harris on the Gaza issue
Strutting from Tehran to Damascus, from Beirut to Gaza
You can practically picture them strutting.
In Tehran, for example.
Initially shaken by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the awesome display of military prowess, Iran, with American soldiers on its border, had to wonder if it might be the next target.
Seven years later, the Iranians believe they've turned the tables on Washington.
Seven years of more and more centrifuges. Seven years of nuclear deception. Seven years defying UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions and reports. Seven years of dividing the international community. Seven years of buying time. Seven years of business as usual with much of the world. Seven years of unrestricted participation in the UN, Olympic Games, World Cup, World Economic Forum, and, this year, the Munich Security Conference. Seven years of calling for a world without Israel, interfering in Iraqi affairs, and baiting the United States. Seven years of trampling on the human rights of its own people.
And in Damascus, too.
Like Iran, Syria in 2003 had to be sweating bullets. After all, U.S.-led coalition troops were just across the border in Iraq and the possibility of active measures against Syria must have crossed the mind of President Assad and his handlers at least once or twice.
Not long ago, Syria faced isolation for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, and for allowing jihadist mercenaries to cross the border into Iraq to wage war against U.S. troops, conspiring with North Korea to build a secret nuclear plant, cozying up to Tehran, providing hospitality for Hamas, and shipping arms - its own and Iranian - to Hezbollah.
Today, by contrast, Syria can't find enough hotel space for all the Western guests rushing to engage the Assad regime. Of course, each of those guests proclaims an earnest desire to "turn" Syria from hostile to harmonious behavior, even as business deals are being discussed. But the lack of success until now - other than the "apparent" willingness, at long last, of Damascus to acknowledge Lebanon's sovereign independence - hasn't put a brake on the traffic.
And in south Beirut, home of Hezbollah.
Things didn't look so good in 2006. Hezbollah triggered a war with Israel. But when the war ended, Hezbollah was still on its feet, despite the battering it took.
Since then, UNIFIL forces notwithstanding, Hezbollah has not only rebuilt its military arsenal and then some, but has also worked its way back into the Lebanese government, with a virtual veto on decision-making. So, Hezbollah gets to be an integral part of the state, while, simultaneously, running a state-within-a-state, threatening Israel at every turn and operating its sleeper cells throughout Latin America and beyond. And it has avoided inclusion on the EU terrorism list, thanks to certain European countries that argued such a move would be counterproductive (to what?).
Add to that Lebanon's current seat on the UN Security Council, where it deals with issues like Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It simply boggles the mind to think about Iranian-backed Hezbollah's direct and indirect influence on the exercise of power.
Yet, as with Iran and Syria, there are those infinitely hopeful Westerners who believe that engaging Hezbollah can yield benefits. To date, however, the only beneficiary is Hezbollah, which acquires legitimacy from such contacts without earning it.
And, not least, in Gaza.
As I write these words, several members of the "Free Gaza Movement" have been killed on the high seas after provoking a violent confrontation with Israelis seeking to board one of the six ships. It was tragic. Families and friends are mourning their deaths. It was also entirely avoidable.
By its own admission, the flotilla was making a political, not a humanitarian, statement. Israel had offered to transport the supplies over land, but that didn't serve the organizers' purpose. Nor did a request to carry a message to kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held by his captors in Gaza for nearly four years. Nor, it turns out, were all the passengers exactly Mother Teresa wannabes or Gandhi's disciples.
The goal was to break the Israeli blockade and thereby enable the free shipment of anything - yes, anything, including weapons - to the terrorist enclave.
For ruthless, cynical Hamas, the more bloodshed, the better. There may be crocodile tears in public from Hamas leaders for the fatalities, but down deep it's something else. After all, once again the situation puts Israel, not Hamas, in the hot seat.
Think about it.
Here is Hamas, an Iranian-funded, jihadist group anchored in the Muslim Brotherhood. Through its blood-curdling Charter, available for anyone to read, it calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic, Shari'a-based state.
Hamas has been declared a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union. Apropos, FBI director Robert Mueller testified before Congress about its active - and dangerous - presence in the United States.
Hamas poses a clear menace to Egypt, which has closed its own border with Gaza and is now building a 10-kilometer steel wall there.
Hamas ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in June 2007, after bloody clashes then, and earlier, resulted in several hundred fatalities.
It runs summer camps for children that teach jihad, martyrdom, and martial skills, and condemns UN-run summer camps for mixing boys and girls and allegedly allowing kids, well, to be kids.
That very same Hamas, which brought isolation to Gaza by sticking to its guns, so to speak, and refusing the three conditions for engagement set by the Quartet, has now become the object of sympathy and concern, as evidenced by the flotilla and its admiring backers, including, most notably, Turkey.
And yet it is Israel, seeking to exercise its right of self-defense against a group bent on its destruction, and not the group itself, which today provokes howls of protest. This is also precisely what happened after Israel's patience wore thin in December 2008, and it decided it could no longer accept daily missile and mortar strikes from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
A world gone wobbly at the knees - increasingly incapable, it seems, of distinguishing between the arsonist and the fireman, the despot and the democrat, the provocateur and the victim, or simply fearful of the consequences of obvious truths - once again reveals itself.
Where is the Winston Churchill for our time - the leader who, with clarity and courage, lifts the fog, shines the spotlight, defines the stakes, and summons us to our senses?
You can practically picture them strutting.
In Tehran, for example.
Initially shaken by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the awesome display of military prowess, Iran, with American soldiers on its border, had to wonder if it might be the next target.
Seven years later, the Iranians believe they've turned the tables on Washington.
Seven years of more and more centrifuges. Seven years of nuclear deception. Seven years defying UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions and reports. Seven years of dividing the international community. Seven years of buying time. Seven years of business as usual with much of the world. Seven years of unrestricted participation in the UN, Olympic Games, World Cup, World Economic Forum, and, this year, the Munich Security Conference. Seven years of calling for a world without Israel, interfering in Iraqi affairs, and baiting the United States. Seven years of trampling on the human rights of its own people.
And in Damascus, too.
Like Iran, Syria in 2003 had to be sweating bullets. After all, U.S.-led coalition troops were just across the border in Iraq and the possibility of active measures against Syria must have crossed the mind of President Assad and his handlers at least once or twice.
Not long ago, Syria faced isolation for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut, and for allowing jihadist mercenaries to cross the border into Iraq to wage war against U.S. troops, conspiring with North Korea to build a secret nuclear plant, cozying up to Tehran, providing hospitality for Hamas, and shipping arms - its own and Iranian - to Hezbollah.
Today, by contrast, Syria can't find enough hotel space for all the Western guests rushing to engage the Assad regime. Of course, each of those guests proclaims an earnest desire to "turn" Syria from hostile to harmonious behavior, even as business deals are being discussed. But the lack of success until now - other than the "apparent" willingness, at long last, of Damascus to acknowledge Lebanon's sovereign independence - hasn't put a brake on the traffic.
And in south Beirut, home of Hezbollah.
Things didn't look so good in 2006. Hezbollah triggered a war with Israel. But when the war ended, Hezbollah was still on its feet, despite the battering it took.
Since then, UNIFIL forces notwithstanding, Hezbollah has not only rebuilt its military arsenal and then some, but has also worked its way back into the Lebanese government, with a virtual veto on decision-making. So, Hezbollah gets to be an integral part of the state, while, simultaneously, running a state-within-a-state, threatening Israel at every turn and operating its sleeper cells throughout Latin America and beyond. And it has avoided inclusion on the EU terrorism list, thanks to certain European countries that argued such a move would be counterproductive (to what?).
Add to that Lebanon's current seat on the UN Security Council, where it deals with issues like Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It simply boggles the mind to think about Iranian-backed Hezbollah's direct and indirect influence on the exercise of power.
Yet, as with Iran and Syria, there are those infinitely hopeful Westerners who believe that engaging Hezbollah can yield benefits. To date, however, the only beneficiary is Hezbollah, which acquires legitimacy from such contacts without earning it.
And, not least, in Gaza.
As I write these words, several members of the "Free Gaza Movement" have been killed on the high seas after provoking a violent confrontation with Israelis seeking to board one of the six ships. It was tragic. Families and friends are mourning their deaths. It was also entirely avoidable.
By its own admission, the flotilla was making a political, not a humanitarian, statement. Israel had offered to transport the supplies over land, but that didn't serve the organizers' purpose. Nor did a request to carry a message to kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held by his captors in Gaza for nearly four years. Nor, it turns out, were all the passengers exactly Mother Teresa wannabes or Gandhi's disciples.
The goal was to break the Israeli blockade and thereby enable the free shipment of anything - yes, anything, including weapons - to the terrorist enclave.
For ruthless, cynical Hamas, the more bloodshed, the better. There may be crocodile tears in public from Hamas leaders for the fatalities, but down deep it's something else. After all, once again the situation puts Israel, not Hamas, in the hot seat.
Think about it.
Here is Hamas, an Iranian-funded, jihadist group anchored in the Muslim Brotherhood. Through its blood-curdling Charter, available for anyone to read, it calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic, Shari'a-based state.
Hamas has been declared a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union. Apropos, FBI director Robert Mueller testified before Congress about its active - and dangerous - presence in the United States.
Hamas poses a clear menace to Egypt, which has closed its own border with Gaza and is now building a 10-kilometer steel wall there.
Hamas ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in June 2007, after bloody clashes then, and earlier, resulted in several hundred fatalities.
It runs summer camps for children that teach jihad, martyrdom, and martial skills, and condemns UN-run summer camps for mixing boys and girls and allegedly allowing kids, well, to be kids.
That very same Hamas, which brought isolation to Gaza by sticking to its guns, so to speak, and refusing the three conditions for engagement set by the Quartet, has now become the object of sympathy and concern, as evidenced by the flotilla and its admiring backers, including, most notably, Turkey.
And yet it is Israel, seeking to exercise its right of self-defense against a group bent on its destruction, and not the group itself, which today provokes howls of protest. This is also precisely what happened after Israel's patience wore thin in December 2008, and it decided it could no longer accept daily missile and mortar strikes from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
A world gone wobbly at the knees - increasingly incapable, it seems, of distinguishing between the arsonist and the fireman, the despot and the democrat, the provocateur and the victim, or simply fearful of the consequences of obvious truths - once again reveals itself.
Where is the Winston Churchill for our time - the leader who, with clarity and courage, lifts the fog, shines the spotlight, defines the stakes, and summons us to our senses?
A Credit card: Is it worth it? - Hugue Nkoutchou CFP®
An increasing number of South Africans have credit cards. These include: bank’s credit cards and insurance company’s credit cards. This fact can partly be attributed to financial difficulties. There is a multiple of possible companies that offer credit card. Lastly a vast number of South African’s employees earn very little: A recent study showed that approximately 45 percent of South African’s employees aged 16 and above, in 2007, earned less than R2500 per month. However, for the credit card holders, this means more debts plus interests to be repaid in the future. Although the NCR (National Credit Regulator) is doing a great deal in protecting South Africans by preventing financial service providers to give consumers more credit if they cannot afford to repay; many individuals manage to find themselves in such a situation where they have accumulated a high amount of debts. The later is usually associated with a poor saving behaviour and can partly be contributed to individuals tend to leave beyond their means. A question that arises is whether or not an individual needs credit card? If yes, in which case?
An individual should take a credit to invest in something that increases in value. For example an insurance broker may take credit to buy a car as the car will add value to his life due to the fact that he or she can meet clients easily and thus makes more money. The car in such a situation is considered to be a “working tool”. An employee who earns a fixed salary can take a credit to buy a house as this usually increases in value with time, but should save to buy a car. The idea behind the discussion above is: when one takes a credit, one should make sure the return on the investment (or the money spent) is above the interest paid on the money borrowed. Thus, it is evident that a credit card should only be needed if one should invest that money in something that adds value or for emergency needs (for example, hospital fees) and not for daily expenditures as it is usually the case, for example to purchase groceries and airtime. Rather use a debit card or a cheque account.
An individual should take a credit to invest in something that increases in value. For example an insurance broker may take credit to buy a car as the car will add value to his life due to the fact that he or she can meet clients easily and thus makes more money. The car in such a situation is considered to be a “working tool”. An employee who earns a fixed salary can take a credit to buy a house as this usually increases in value with time, but should save to buy a car. The idea behind the discussion above is: when one takes a credit, one should make sure the return on the investment (or the money spent) is above the interest paid on the money borrowed. Thus, it is evident that a credit card should only be needed if one should invest that money in something that adds value or for emergency needs (for example, hospital fees) and not for daily expenditures as it is usually the case, for example to purchase groceries and airtime. Rather use a debit card or a cheque account.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Financial fitness - Hugue Nkoutchou
Fitness of all kinds is crucial in this day and age. But with a recession on and students well known for not being the most thrifty, financial fitness is increasingly high on the agenda. Hugue Nkoutchou is a SAUJS member at UJ doing his masters in finance and is a certified financial planner. This the first of a series of articles where we will examine this topic.
Planning your monthly budget: what you should know
To budget is to balance one’s income and expenditures. This is usually done on a monthly basis. Budget planning, properly done, can prevent an individual from living beyond his/her means. It is associated with monitoring one’s expenses. The reality is, many individuals are not planning their monthly budget nor keeping track of their expenditures. This fact can partly be attributed to the time and constraints involved in budget planning; individuals’ tendency to mentally keep record of financial activities and lastly the lack of motivation to plan. The latter is a very important factor as the motivation to plan is needed in order to start the process of budgeting. An increased number of individuals are acknowledging the fact that budget planning is vital. The question that arises is why are they not budgeting?
Budget planning usually follows an individual desire to save money for a purpose. Alternatively, an individual may track down expenditures in order to save money for something that really matters to him or her. From the above discussion, it is evident that one should have a goal to create the motivation to plan. But this should be a medium to long-term goal for the motivation to be enough to encourage one to start a budget. For example, a student may plan his or her monthly budget to save money to buy a car in two years time; a salaried person may start a budget plan in order to track down expenditures in order to provide for their children’s education, and so forth.
In practice, budget planning can be done following several steps. Typical budget planning can be summarized as follows:
Step one: Historical data is needed to have a good estimation of what your average monthly expenditures are. Track all expenditures for, at least, the past 3 months. This tracking can be done by keeping all invoices or writing down money spent without having an invoice in return. If one wants to work things out quickly, it will be a very good idea to use an Excel spreadsheet. If this is the case one should first use two columns: item name and current expenditure.
Step two: determine your average monthly expenditure and compare it with your monthly income. Even if the latter is more that the former, this does not mean that one is spending wisely. If the monthly expenditure is more than the monthly income, it means one should do more to reduce their expenditures. A way of doing this is to only spend on things that you need (thing that are adding value to your life) and save on things that you want (things that are not adding any value to your life).
Step three: Add a third column for the maximum expenditure per item for the following month. Some items may be fixed or some may be not applicable to that particular month. For others, set a maximum spending for that particular month depending on your monthly income and your saving goal (this is very important as you may wish to save for example 10 percent of your monthly income for retirement).
Step four: track your future monthly expenditures and make changes where necessary. It is also important to make provision for unforeseen, miscellaneous events.
Planning your monthly budget: what you should know
To budget is to balance one’s income and expenditures. This is usually done on a monthly basis. Budget planning, properly done, can prevent an individual from living beyond his/her means. It is associated with monitoring one’s expenses. The reality is, many individuals are not planning their monthly budget nor keeping track of their expenditures. This fact can partly be attributed to the time and constraints involved in budget planning; individuals’ tendency to mentally keep record of financial activities and lastly the lack of motivation to plan. The latter is a very important factor as the motivation to plan is needed in order to start the process of budgeting. An increased number of individuals are acknowledging the fact that budget planning is vital. The question that arises is why are they not budgeting?
Budget planning usually follows an individual desire to save money for a purpose. Alternatively, an individual may track down expenditures in order to save money for something that really matters to him or her. From the above discussion, it is evident that one should have a goal to create the motivation to plan. But this should be a medium to long-term goal for the motivation to be enough to encourage one to start a budget. For example, a student may plan his or her monthly budget to save money to buy a car in two years time; a salaried person may start a budget plan in order to track down expenditures in order to provide for their children’s education, and so forth.
In practice, budget planning can be done following several steps. Typical budget planning can be summarized as follows:
Step one: Historical data is needed to have a good estimation of what your average monthly expenditures are. Track all expenditures for, at least, the past 3 months. This tracking can be done by keeping all invoices or writing down money spent without having an invoice in return. If one wants to work things out quickly, it will be a very good idea to use an Excel spreadsheet. If this is the case one should first use two columns: item name and current expenditure.
Step two: determine your average monthly expenditure and compare it with your monthly income. Even if the latter is more that the former, this does not mean that one is spending wisely. If the monthly expenditure is more than the monthly income, it means one should do more to reduce their expenditures. A way of doing this is to only spend on things that you need (thing that are adding value to your life) and save on things that you want (things that are not adding any value to your life).
Step three: Add a third column for the maximum expenditure per item for the following month. Some items may be fixed or some may be not applicable to that particular month. For others, set a maximum spending for that particular month depending on your monthly income and your saving goal (this is very important as you may wish to save for example 10 percent of your monthly income for retirement).
Step four: track your future monthly expenditures and make changes where necessary. It is also important to make provision for unforeseen, miscellaneous events.
The Failure of Never Again - Daniel Schay
Hi All
Below is the next in the series for Yom Hashoa.
On Yom Hashoa 2005 18,000 people from differing backgrounds stood together united in Auschwits-Birkeneu. In front of them stood a stage with guest speakers ranging from the Prime Minister of Poland to Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Lau and also included Elie Wiesel. Scattered throughout the crowd were big screens emblazoned with a candle and the words “Never Again”. I was privileged enough to be one of those individuals there on that day.
The words “Never Again” have become synonymous with Holocaust Remembrance but have we ever really thought what does “Never Again” mean? I think now’s the time to do so.
Does “Never Again” refer to just the Holocaust of Jews or genocide in general. If we say it refers to genocide generally than we don’t have to look very far to understand its failure. Since the Holocaust we’ve seen genocide in Rwanda and continue to see genocide in Darfur and furthermore I dare say that we may be seeing the first seeds of genocide developing in Nigeria. With all these examples what has been done to prevent any of them, nothing. The United Nations continues to fail at one of its core duties and is almost unwilling to attempt to rectify that.
If we’re still searching for a success of “Never Again” we’re going to have to define it specifically deal with Jews. Now we need to decide whether it applies to Jewish lives or Jewish souls. If we say Jewish Souls than the majority of us have all heard by now of the Silent Holocaust which is the loss of millions of Jewish Souls to assimilation all over the world. While once this problem was considered to be monopolised by American Jewry, it is no longer the case today. In South Africa the figures are higher than anyone dares to disclose and can longer be ignored. With this said “Never Again” has failed with reference to Jewish Souls.
We’ll continue our search for a success of “Never Again” by defining it to Jewish lives only. Whilst you may propose that we have yet to experience a loss of Jewish lives on the scale of the Holocaust since the World War II and therefore in this definition of “Never Again” we have a success, I’m going to differ. I differ as the fact that we haven’t lost 6 million of our brethren since the Holocaust is not enough for me, for the potential for a nation to stand by and allow elements from within it to commit genocide against Jews is still in existence. This potential exists throughout the Palestinian Territories; we need not to look further than Palestinian Media to understand this. Whilst not every Palestinian Citizen is a willing murderer, there are elements within their population that will be, and for as for the rest of the population there’s been very little evidence shown (through their inability to control terrorist groups within their midst) that leads me to believe that they will try stop these elements if the opportunity was presented to them. The Holocaust was perpetrated by the Nazi’s and their collaborators but it was those who stood by and turned a blind eye that allowed it to occur. Given the opportunity Hamas and other terrorist groups would happily commit a Holocaust and the rest of the Palestinian population wouldn’t so much lift a finger to stop them. So as you can see within the Palestinian population we have a potential Holocaust and for me that is enough to say the “Never Again” has failed in reference to Jewish Lives as well.
To understand the true extent of the failure of “Never Again” we also have to understand that the Silent Holocaust and Potential Holocaust are 2 forces that are rapidly merging thus creating a much larger and more urgent threat to world Jewry. All over the world we are beginning to see victims of the Silent Holocaust who have lost connection to who they are and where they come from, that they no longer can or want to feel any connection to their people, to Judaism or the Global Jewish Experience. For these people it is easier to align to sympathise and to side with the Palestinian cause without really understanding either side of the conflict. By these “Jews” showing their support for the Pro-Palestinian / Anti-Israel Camp they give this side legitimacy to continue behaving as they currently are, the legitimise the hate-mongering that is spread through the media and they legitimise the terror used against innocent civilians. Whilst they continue to legitimise the Anti-Israel cause they also delegitimize Israel and therefore limit its ability to respond to legitimate threats against her sovereignty. These “Jew’s” actions give legitimacy, at least according to the world media, for terror to continue against Israel and the Jewish population within it. Furthermore this gives legitimacy to the Potential Holocaust. Thus due to the combination of these two forces we are rapidly approaching a situation very similar situation to the Evian Les Baines conference where the Holocaust could be committed and no one would lift a finger, the only difference is that the world refuse to help, not because they don’t want, but rather because they would believe that the cause of this Holocaust would be legitimate and therefore no action needs to be taken. With these 2 forces merging we find ourselves almost back in 1939 with a single exception, that exception being that world Jewry relies on the very State that is being used as a stick to beat it with, for its protection.
The pamphlets for this year’s Yom Hashoa service read “The Next Generation Remembers the Six Million”, but do they really? Remembering the Holocaust does not mean going to a ceremony once a year. Remembering the Holocaust means actively preventing the perpetuation of the cycle that World Jewry finds itself in. It means doing whatever you can to hold on whatever aspects of Judaism you currently perform and maybe even adding to them. It means teaching your descendants about the importance of a strong Jewish Identity and instilling that identity upon them. For it is up to the current generation to stall the Silent Holocaust and thereby retarding the Potential Holocaust, for without legitimisation the Palestinian Cause will need to rethink their policies on education and media. The fate of World Jewry lies in the hands of the current generation, and it’s a responsibility that we should not take lightly.
Below is the next in the series for Yom Hashoa.
On Yom Hashoa 2005 18,000 people from differing backgrounds stood together united in Auschwits-Birkeneu. In front of them stood a stage with guest speakers ranging from the Prime Minister of Poland to Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Lau and also included Elie Wiesel. Scattered throughout the crowd were big screens emblazoned with a candle and the words “Never Again”. I was privileged enough to be one of those individuals there on that day.
The words “Never Again” have become synonymous with Holocaust Remembrance but have we ever really thought what does “Never Again” mean? I think now’s the time to do so.
Does “Never Again” refer to just the Holocaust of Jews or genocide in general. If we say it refers to genocide generally than we don’t have to look very far to understand its failure. Since the Holocaust we’ve seen genocide in Rwanda and continue to see genocide in Darfur and furthermore I dare say that we may be seeing the first seeds of genocide developing in Nigeria. With all these examples what has been done to prevent any of them, nothing. The United Nations continues to fail at one of its core duties and is almost unwilling to attempt to rectify that.
If we’re still searching for a success of “Never Again” we’re going to have to define it specifically deal with Jews. Now we need to decide whether it applies to Jewish lives or Jewish souls. If we say Jewish Souls than the majority of us have all heard by now of the Silent Holocaust which is the loss of millions of Jewish Souls to assimilation all over the world. While once this problem was considered to be monopolised by American Jewry, it is no longer the case today. In South Africa the figures are higher than anyone dares to disclose and can longer be ignored. With this said “Never Again” has failed with reference to Jewish Souls.
We’ll continue our search for a success of “Never Again” by defining it to Jewish lives only. Whilst you may propose that we have yet to experience a loss of Jewish lives on the scale of the Holocaust since the World War II and therefore in this definition of “Never Again” we have a success, I’m going to differ. I differ as the fact that we haven’t lost 6 million of our brethren since the Holocaust is not enough for me, for the potential for a nation to stand by and allow elements from within it to commit genocide against Jews is still in existence. This potential exists throughout the Palestinian Territories; we need not to look further than Palestinian Media to understand this. Whilst not every Palestinian Citizen is a willing murderer, there are elements within their population that will be, and for as for the rest of the population there’s been very little evidence shown (through their inability to control terrorist groups within their midst) that leads me to believe that they will try stop these elements if the opportunity was presented to them. The Holocaust was perpetrated by the Nazi’s and their collaborators but it was those who stood by and turned a blind eye that allowed it to occur. Given the opportunity Hamas and other terrorist groups would happily commit a Holocaust and the rest of the Palestinian population wouldn’t so much lift a finger to stop them. So as you can see within the Palestinian population we have a potential Holocaust and for me that is enough to say the “Never Again” has failed in reference to Jewish Lives as well.
To understand the true extent of the failure of “Never Again” we also have to understand that the Silent Holocaust and Potential Holocaust are 2 forces that are rapidly merging thus creating a much larger and more urgent threat to world Jewry. All over the world we are beginning to see victims of the Silent Holocaust who have lost connection to who they are and where they come from, that they no longer can or want to feel any connection to their people, to Judaism or the Global Jewish Experience. For these people it is easier to align to sympathise and to side with the Palestinian cause without really understanding either side of the conflict. By these “Jews” showing their support for the Pro-Palestinian / Anti-Israel Camp they give this side legitimacy to continue behaving as they currently are, the legitimise the hate-mongering that is spread through the media and they legitimise the terror used against innocent civilians. Whilst they continue to legitimise the Anti-Israel cause they also delegitimize Israel and therefore limit its ability to respond to legitimate threats against her sovereignty. These “Jew’s” actions give legitimacy, at least according to the world media, for terror to continue against Israel and the Jewish population within it. Furthermore this gives legitimacy to the Potential Holocaust. Thus due to the combination of these two forces we are rapidly approaching a situation very similar situation to the Evian Les Baines conference where the Holocaust could be committed and no one would lift a finger, the only difference is that the world refuse to help, not because they don’t want, but rather because they would believe that the cause of this Holocaust would be legitimate and therefore no action needs to be taken. With these 2 forces merging we find ourselves almost back in 1939 with a single exception, that exception being that world Jewry relies on the very State that is being used as a stick to beat it with, for its protection.
The pamphlets for this year’s Yom Hashoa service read “The Next Generation Remembers the Six Million”, but do they really? Remembering the Holocaust does not mean going to a ceremony once a year. Remembering the Holocaust means actively preventing the perpetuation of the cycle that World Jewry finds itself in. It means doing whatever you can to hold on whatever aspects of Judaism you currently perform and maybe even adding to them. It means teaching your descendants about the importance of a strong Jewish Identity and instilling that identity upon them. For it is up to the current generation to stall the Silent Holocaust and thereby retarding the Potential Holocaust, for without legitimisation the Palestinian Cause will need to rethink their policies on education and media. The fate of World Jewry lies in the hands of the current generation, and it’s a responsibility that we should not take lightly.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Holocaust survivor speaks to SAUJS
Hi All
With the on set of Yom Hashoa we will be having some pieces on the blog relating to the subject. The first is a letter sent to us by Holocaust survivor and Clinical Psychologist who will be visiting South Africa in the coming days.
Dr. Nathan Durst Clinical Psychologist Herzlyah Israel.
Dear Friends of the South African Union of Jewish students
I am writing these lines during the Chol Hamo'ed days of Pesach.
You feel the mood of the holyday in the street, everywhere.
I do suppose, that also in your country, the majority of the Jews are in someway or another, participating in this chag. Here in Israel, even the most liberal-ones visit each other, have a festive and meal and sing songs about Freedom. Together with Yom Kippur, Pesach belongs to that part of our calendar, which makes sense. All of us understand the deeper meaning of the saying: "We have been slaves in Egypt" The yearning of being a free person is deep seated in all of humankind.
But why, or where-for, do we still need to remember Yom Hashoah?
For the few survivors, those who are still among us, for them, remembering their family members who were killed will be a natural act. A kind of "yohrzeit"
But who the heck needs another day of atonement, another mourning day in the Jewish calendar? We have enough of them, don't we?
The point is that throughout history, there have been wars, all over the place, and in our long Jewish history, we had many occasions when Jews were massacred. That is not new.
What is new is the way, the scale of, where and how it was done. Nowhere in history have we encountered a people being so persecuted, despite living thousands of miles from the perpetrator, and with such enthusiastic
cooperation by so many other civilized nations.
And this was done by so called "humane, cultured, enlightened people".
As a consequence of this tragedy, we should be alert for, and take action, when we encounter, racism, antisemitism or xenophobia.
Humankind, should learn to take responsibility for what happens to the "other", and take action if necessary
No more Auschwitz means: To give an answer to the question that God posed to Adam: "Adam Ayeka" – Man, where are you? No more being a passive bystander: be alert, be involved, and become responsible.
Chag Sameach. I do hope to meet you.
Nathan Durst.
E-mail: durstnatan@gmail.com
With the on set of Yom Hashoa we will be having some pieces on the blog relating to the subject. The first is a letter sent to us by Holocaust survivor and Clinical Psychologist who will be visiting South Africa in the coming days.
Dr. Nathan Durst Clinical Psychologist Herzlyah Israel.
Dear Friends of the South African Union of Jewish students
I am writing these lines during the Chol Hamo'ed days of Pesach.
You feel the mood of the holyday in the street, everywhere.
I do suppose, that also in your country, the majority of the Jews are in someway or another, participating in this chag. Here in Israel, even the most liberal-ones visit each other, have a festive and meal and sing songs about Freedom. Together with Yom Kippur, Pesach belongs to that part of our calendar, which makes sense. All of us understand the deeper meaning of the saying: "We have been slaves in Egypt" The yearning of being a free person is deep seated in all of humankind.
But why, or where-for, do we still need to remember Yom Hashoah?
For the few survivors, those who are still among us, for them, remembering their family members who were killed will be a natural act. A kind of "yohrzeit"
But who the heck needs another day of atonement, another mourning day in the Jewish calendar? We have enough of them, don't we?
The point is that throughout history, there have been wars, all over the place, and in our long Jewish history, we had many occasions when Jews were massacred. That is not new.
What is new is the way, the scale of, where and how it was done. Nowhere in history have we encountered a people being so persecuted, despite living thousands of miles from the perpetrator, and with such enthusiastic
cooperation by so many other civilized nations.
And this was done by so called "humane, cultured, enlightened people".
As a consequence of this tragedy, we should be alert for, and take action, when we encounter, racism, antisemitism or xenophobia.
Humankind, should learn to take responsibility for what happens to the "other", and take action if necessary
No more Auschwitz means: To give an answer to the question that God posed to Adam: "Adam Ayeka" – Man, where are you? No more being a passive bystander: be alert, be involved, and become responsible.
Chag Sameach. I do hope to meet you.
Nathan Durst.
E-mail: durstnatan@gmail.com
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Business Day on Naom Bedien
Alistair Anderson
Contributing Writer Business Day
In response to International Anti-Israel Apartheid week that took place last week, the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) has sent an activist and leader of a non-profit media organisation to South Africa.
Director of the Sderot Media Centre, Noam Bedein, has spoken around the world, often conveying arguments for the country Israel that many government bodies may not be able to because of his organisation’s non-political affiliation.
After the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) joined South Africa’s Palestinian Solidarity Alliance (PSA) in its promotion of the international week against alleged Israeli Apartheid, Beiden was invited by SAUJS to give some clarity on the Israeli point of view.
The PSA has condemned Israel for it allegedly maltreating Palestinians in its country and in the disputed Gaza Strip area that it occupies. The group which includes people who “work to promote a free Palestinian state” organised a march on the Israeli embassy, which took place last Friday, and was joined by Cosatu.
Bedein, a 27-year-old student from Spir College in Southern Israel, explained that he has been in South Africa to highlight what he alleges to be a media imbalance that the Palestinian Authority enjoys against the Israeli side, in the conflict over the middle-eastern area of the Gaza Strip, which lies on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the south, east and north.
Bedein who has spoken at colleges around the world and Capitol Hill before the US Congress, explained that Sderot, his hometown in small Southern Israel has borne the brunt of rocket fire directed towards Israel from Gaza but the world has not been told about the people there’s plight.
“It’s incredible that this town is the only town in the world that has rockets directed at its Jewish population. The problem is that the Palestinian authority gets money from Muslim fundamentalist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to fund huge media television and radio broadcasts, while the twenty-thousand people of Sderot have to rely on government money just to keep the town in one piece.”
Bedein said that “the town is the world’s biggest bomb shelter”. He said that about $125 million had been spent on building bomb shelters in Sderot.
“In fact, in Israel there are about 500 million shelters and at least half a billion dollars has been invested into Israel’s security budget for a country that is about as big as your (South Africa’s) Kruger National Park.”
The Palestinian Solidarity Alliance has said that Israel is an Apartheid state where Israelis treat Palestinians as second-class citizens but Bedein said the opposite is true.
“There are Muslim families living in my neighbourhood. We have Africans, Iranians, all kinds of people and we integrate. Israel is the only Western democracy in the Middle East and we allow Palestinians to voice their beliefs, which can include a want to have the state destroyed,” Bedein said.
"People need to understand that the issue over Israel is not about land, it's about the human right to exist," Bedein said.
Contributing Writer Business Day
In response to International Anti-Israel Apartheid week that took place last week, the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) has sent an activist and leader of a non-profit media organisation to South Africa.
Director of the Sderot Media Centre, Noam Bedein, has spoken around the world, often conveying arguments for the country Israel that many government bodies may not be able to because of his organisation’s non-political affiliation.
After the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) joined South Africa’s Palestinian Solidarity Alliance (PSA) in its promotion of the international week against alleged Israeli Apartheid, Beiden was invited by SAUJS to give some clarity on the Israeli point of view.
The PSA has condemned Israel for it allegedly maltreating Palestinians in its country and in the disputed Gaza Strip area that it occupies. The group which includes people who “work to promote a free Palestinian state” organised a march on the Israeli embassy, which took place last Friday, and was joined by Cosatu.
Bedein, a 27-year-old student from Spir College in Southern Israel, explained that he has been in South Africa to highlight what he alleges to be a media imbalance that the Palestinian Authority enjoys against the Israeli side, in the conflict over the middle-eastern area of the Gaza Strip, which lies on the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the south, east and north.
Bedein who has spoken at colleges around the world and Capitol Hill before the US Congress, explained that Sderot, his hometown in small Southern Israel has borne the brunt of rocket fire directed towards Israel from Gaza but the world has not been told about the people there’s plight.
“It’s incredible that this town is the only town in the world that has rockets directed at its Jewish population. The problem is that the Palestinian authority gets money from Muslim fundamentalist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to fund huge media television and radio broadcasts, while the twenty-thousand people of Sderot have to rely on government money just to keep the town in one piece.”
Bedein said that “the town is the world’s biggest bomb shelter”. He said that about $125 million had been spent on building bomb shelters in Sderot.
“In fact, in Israel there are about 500 million shelters and at least half a billion dollars has been invested into Israel’s security budget for a country that is about as big as your (South Africa’s) Kruger National Park.”
The Palestinian Solidarity Alliance has said that Israel is an Apartheid state where Israelis treat Palestinians as second-class citizens but Bedein said the opposite is true.
“There are Muslim families living in my neighbourhood. We have Africans, Iranians, all kinds of people and we integrate. Israel is the only Western democracy in the Middle East and we allow Palestinians to voice their beliefs, which can include a want to have the state destroyed,” Bedein said.
"People need to understand that the issue over Israel is not about land, it's about the human right to exist," Bedein said.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Choca Challah Pudding for Shabbos - Guest Blog
SAUJS is not all about serious stuff. In todays guest blog we bring you a recipe from Tracy and Georgie of www.thejewishprincess.com. They are the top Kosher, Cooking, Kugels in the UK. This is one of their favorite and funkiest recipes. Enjoy and good Shabbos.
Unsalted butter, for greasing
8 Slices of large challah 1.5cm thick (one day old)
200g dark chocolate (the 70% cocoa type)
200ml double cream
300ml skimmed milk
115g unsalted butter
150g caster sugar
4 medium eggs
for decoration
icing sugar
Butter a medium ovenproof dish (I always use an oval one that's 35cm x 24cm x 6cm)
Remove the crusts the challah. If the slices are very large, cut them in half.
Place the chocolate, cream, milk, butter and sugar into a double saucepan (bain-marie) over a low heat, stirring all the time, until the mixture is melted and smooth. If you haven't got a double saucepan, then just use a saucepan of boiling water with a heatproof bowl over it and put the ingredients in the bowl.
Remove the bowl from the heat and leave it to cool.
Beat the eggs and stir them slowly into the chocolate mixture.
Pour half the sauce into teh bottom of the ovenproof dish.
Place the sliced challah into the liquid, pressing down with the back of a tablespoon to allow the bread to begin to saturate.
Pour the remaining liquid n top and press down again to allow the sauce to saturate the bread and completely cover the challah.
Cover the dish and leave to cool, then refrigerate it for a minimum of two hours.
Preheat the oven to 180ºC/350ºF/gas mark 4.
Bake in a bain-marie (I do this by putting the dish in a roasting pan and filling it with water until it reaches halfway up the outside of the dis) in the preheated oven for about 20 minutes.
Dust with icing sugar to decorate and serve warm.
A fantastic way of using leftover challah – and a wonderfully chocolicious dessert. If you would like to see more just go onto the to their website or subscribe to their newsletter.
Unsalted butter, for greasing
8 Slices of large challah 1.5cm thick (one day old)
200g dark chocolate (the 70% cocoa type)
200ml double cream
300ml skimmed milk
115g unsalted butter
150g caster sugar
4 medium eggs
for decoration
icing sugar
Butter a medium ovenproof dish (I always use an oval one that's 35cm x 24cm x 6cm)
Remove the crusts the challah. If the slices are very large, cut them in half.
Place the chocolate, cream, milk, butter and sugar into a double saucepan (bain-marie) over a low heat, stirring all the time, until the mixture is melted and smooth. If you haven't got a double saucepan, then just use a saucepan of boiling water with a heatproof bowl over it and put the ingredients in the bowl.
Remove the bowl from the heat and leave it to cool.
Beat the eggs and stir them slowly into the chocolate mixture.
Pour half the sauce into teh bottom of the ovenproof dish.
Place the sliced challah into the liquid, pressing down with the back of a tablespoon to allow the bread to begin to saturate.
Pour the remaining liquid n top and press down again to allow the sauce to saturate the bread and completely cover the challah.
Cover the dish and leave to cool, then refrigerate it for a minimum of two hours.
Preheat the oven to 180ºC/350ºF/gas mark 4.
Bake in a bain-marie (I do this by putting the dish in a roasting pan and filling it with water until it reaches halfway up the outside of the dis) in the preheated oven for about 20 minutes.
Dust with icing sugar to decorate and serve warm.
A fantastic way of using leftover challah – and a wonderfully chocolicious dessert. If you would like to see more just go onto the to their website or subscribe to their newsletter.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Guest Blog- Jewish in Germany
Jamie Snow is currently living in the German capital of Berlin, what follows is a her interactions with and feelings about the city.
As I walk down the street from our current residence to the subway, I could be pretty much anywhere in Europe. Well actually, I have only ever visited a few European cities outside of Germany: Salzburg, Madrid, Toledo, Bern, Zurich, and the Rheinfall in Switzerland. But, I imagine other big European cities to be very similar to München. Exploring our new Stadt, I pass hundreds of cafes, shops, churches, and old buildings:
Old Town Hall, Munich
(Built in 1474)
"New" Town Hall, Munich
(Built between 1867-1908)
However, every once in a while, I pass something that looks eerily familiar that stops me in my tracks. Sights like the Feldherrenhalle, where Hitler gave a speech during the “Beer Hall Putsch” bring back memories from Holocaust courses:
Odeonsplatz, Munich
(It was at Odeonsplatz on November 9, 1923, that Hitler attempted to bring down the Weimar Republic. Hitler's attempt was unsuccessful and he was sentenced to five years in jail. However, he only ended up serving nine months and it was in that time that he wrote Mein Kampf.)
Hmmm. I think to myself, “How am I reacting to this place or thing? How am I supposed to react to it? Should I be angry, sad, scared, upset? All of the above? Or, none of the above?”
When I first met my husband, Steve, and learned that he had studied abroad in Germany during his senior year of high school, I thought he was crazy. I did not understand how someone who is half-Jewish could live in a country that, at that time, I solely associated with the Holocaust. Nevertheless, we moved away from Seattle, where we met as AmeriCorps members, so that Steve could enter a PhD program in German history and study the development of the German Green Party. “Not even the Holocaust!” I lamented. But my love for Steve continued to grow and after we got engaged I found myself agreeing to spend this year abroad with him in Germany…the country that once tried to wipe out my ancestors.
I never had a desire to live in Germany, let alone visit. I was not against the idea of Germany; there were just so many other places that I wanted to explore instead. Still, unlike many of the more conservative Jews that I grew up with, I was never against buying a German car or spending money on anything German-crafted. Strangely, I thought that made me a better and more accepting person; I thought that I had no prejudices.
When Steve and I first traveled to Germany two summers ago, it was nothing like I imagined. Before our trip, the only pictures I had seen of Germany were from Holocaust books and films. On the plane I imagined landing in a country painted in black and white. Literally.
However, traveling to Sulzheim, a tiny village and home of my husband’s high school host family, from the Frankfurt airport was a wake-up call. In fact, Germany was not black and white, but painted all the colors of the rainbow. On our drive we saw skyscrapers and fast trains, gorgeous fields of sunflowers and small, red-roofed villages:
Sunflower Field
(Somewhere on the way from Frankfurt to Sulzheim.)
It was clear: Germany was working to recover from its past. But was I?
Inspired by the unexpected, I spent visits the next two summers trekking from Holocaust memorials to Jewish museums, from old, burned-down synagogue sites to newly renovated synagogue replicas, and from mass graveyards to new Jewish cemeteries, trying to come to terms with everything. Steve even pointed out gold plaques thrust between the sidewalk cement in Freiburg marking where Jews had once lived and sadly stating what happened to them during the War.
Through my journey I was able to look beyond the Germany of yesterday and transition into a mind-set where I felt comfortable moving forward to learn more about present-day German society. I came to understand that Germany has not yet fully come to terms with its history. Yet, Germany is working to recreate its image as well as physically rebuild itself from the destruction of war by attempting to preserve old culture and simultaneously develop a fresh new identity.
Today, I do not feel my former aversion to Germany. After making friends here and working to learn the language, I feel comfortable living in Munich and discovering more about the Germany of today. At the beginning of our time in Munich, Steve and I attended Yom Kippur services. For me, walking into a synagogue here and being part of the community was the perfect transition from dwelling, to remembering and moving forward.
By Photos and article by Jamie Snow
As I walk down the street from our current residence to the subway, I could be pretty much anywhere in Europe. Well actually, I have only ever visited a few European cities outside of Germany: Salzburg, Madrid, Toledo, Bern, Zurich, and the Rheinfall in Switzerland. But, I imagine other big European cities to be very similar to München. Exploring our new Stadt, I pass hundreds of cafes, shops, churches, and old buildings:
Old Town Hall, Munich
(Built in 1474)
"New" Town Hall, Munich
(Built between 1867-1908)
However, every once in a while, I pass something that looks eerily familiar that stops me in my tracks. Sights like the Feldherrenhalle, where Hitler gave a speech during the “Beer Hall Putsch” bring back memories from Holocaust courses:
Odeonsplatz, Munich
(It was at Odeonsplatz on November 9, 1923, that Hitler attempted to bring down the Weimar Republic. Hitler's attempt was unsuccessful and he was sentenced to five years in jail. However, he only ended up serving nine months and it was in that time that he wrote Mein Kampf.)
Hmmm. I think to myself, “How am I reacting to this place or thing? How am I supposed to react to it? Should I be angry, sad, scared, upset? All of the above? Or, none of the above?”
When I first met my husband, Steve, and learned that he had studied abroad in Germany during his senior year of high school, I thought he was crazy. I did not understand how someone who is half-Jewish could live in a country that, at that time, I solely associated with the Holocaust. Nevertheless, we moved away from Seattle, where we met as AmeriCorps members, so that Steve could enter a PhD program in German history and study the development of the German Green Party. “Not even the Holocaust!” I lamented. But my love for Steve continued to grow and after we got engaged I found myself agreeing to spend this year abroad with him in Germany…the country that once tried to wipe out my ancestors.
I never had a desire to live in Germany, let alone visit. I was not against the idea of Germany; there were just so many other places that I wanted to explore instead. Still, unlike many of the more conservative Jews that I grew up with, I was never against buying a German car or spending money on anything German-crafted. Strangely, I thought that made me a better and more accepting person; I thought that I had no prejudices.
When Steve and I first traveled to Germany two summers ago, it was nothing like I imagined. Before our trip, the only pictures I had seen of Germany were from Holocaust books and films. On the plane I imagined landing in a country painted in black and white. Literally.
However, traveling to Sulzheim, a tiny village and home of my husband’s high school host family, from the Frankfurt airport was a wake-up call. In fact, Germany was not black and white, but painted all the colors of the rainbow. On our drive we saw skyscrapers and fast trains, gorgeous fields of sunflowers and small, red-roofed villages:
Sunflower Field
(Somewhere on the way from Frankfurt to Sulzheim.)
It was clear: Germany was working to recover from its past. But was I?
Inspired by the unexpected, I spent visits the next two summers trekking from Holocaust memorials to Jewish museums, from old, burned-down synagogue sites to newly renovated synagogue replicas, and from mass graveyards to new Jewish cemeteries, trying to come to terms with everything. Steve even pointed out gold plaques thrust between the sidewalk cement in Freiburg marking where Jews had once lived and sadly stating what happened to them during the War.
Through my journey I was able to look beyond the Germany of yesterday and transition into a mind-set where I felt comfortable moving forward to learn more about present-day German society. I came to understand that Germany has not yet fully come to terms with its history. Yet, Germany is working to recreate its image as well as physically rebuild itself from the destruction of war by attempting to preserve old culture and simultaneously develop a fresh new identity.
Today, I do not feel my former aversion to Germany. After making friends here and working to learn the language, I feel comfortable living in Munich and discovering more about the Germany of today. At the beginning of our time in Munich, Steve and I attended Yom Kippur services. For me, walking into a synagogue here and being part of the community was the perfect transition from dwelling, to remembering and moving forward.
By Photos and article by Jamie Snow
Monday, March 15, 2010
Debate from blog post "Putting SA in SAUJS"
Hi all
Some very naughty people decided to carry on this debate on facebook and not on the blog (smack). So I have put all the exchanges below so everyone can see them and not just those of us with fb accounts.
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Hi Ilan
The real challenge is to join the real future struggles of this country, for young Jews to be a part of creating a decent society. In SA, with our systematic inequality, we need the youth of our community to seek to engage poor people and join the variety of struggles for basic education, health, housing and sanitation.
What that really means is to move ourselves out of the mindset of 'being a good person and helping out' to becoming a part of the struggle for equality.... See More
March 10 at 4:33pm
Mukovhe Morris Masutha DANIEL MAN, I'M PROUD OF YOU , YOU TOOK ALL THE WORDS FROM MY MOUTH AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS CONGRESS RECOGNIZES AND APPRECIATES THE EXISTANCE OF SAUJS IN OUR WITS CAMPUS AND OUR SOCIETY IN GENERAL..
THE CHIEF RABBI STATED IT CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE A HUGE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS CHILDREN OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SOILS AND ... See More
March 10 at 8:56pm
Mukovhe Morris Masutha VERY INFORMATIVE Ilan...Would you suggest any book on the history of Jews in south africa?
March 10 at 10:17pm
Ilan Strauss An important discussion to start Mr Solomons (so I dont feel like I am speaking to myself).
SAUJS have tough choices about their identity and values (they cannot be seperated in this case), which effect how they interact with both SA and Israel.
Jews were one of the most visible victims of rising ethnic nationalism in Europe in the 19th century. This ethnically centred state posed problems for democratic and pluralistic values which were becoming more prominant at the time (i.e. how to deal with minorities if citizenship is defined by ethnicity).
The ethnic Jewish identity which exists in South Africa today fosters good and bad in Jews' approach to the 'non-Jewish' world and people. ... See More
The bad (always more interesting): the Jewish mission of making the world 'more human' while still being a Jew currently seems lost in the current ethnic configuration of some Jews' identity.
- Making Jews interact (as Jews) with other South Africans is difficult, not only because of our previous largely oppresive and entirely removed relationship with black people in this country, but because of current race and class boundaries, and all other cultural, geographic and other barriers whic stems from class, race and a history of opression and division. Working through these present and historical barriers in SA, as well as blatent and latent insensitivity - at best - displayed by some Jews towards non-Jews is challenging.
This insensitivity is fostered by how Israel advises Jews to properly interact with minorities internally as well as those who one occupies. This stems from its ethnic centred citizenship and all the unfreedoms which stem from it (i.e. no constitution to ensure the state promotes the liberty and prosperity of all citizens living within its enlarged borders etc).
If we want to interact more and 'better' with SA society, why not explore: a radical rethink of the school syllabus in jewish schools regarding South Africa, and Jews in South Africa; a fresh approach to living in a multicultural society and reassessment of the value of this type of citizenship; and a decision about the degree of risk (real and phsycological) we are willing to take in order to explore other geographical parts of this country which are inhabited by the, still exploited, majority. They represent the SA which was seperated from white Jews during Apartheid and which still remains largely seperate from wealthy peoples today.
March 10 at 10:21pm
Ilan Solomons Morris two excellent books about Jews in SA is one entitled " The Jews of South Africa" by Gideon Shimoni and the other is " Cutting Through the Mountain" by Prof Raymond Suttner, their great books which give a detailed history of Jewish involvement in south african society!
March 11 at 6:26am
Ilan Solomons Guys thanks for the post so far, just one thing. Please can you all post your comments on the blog directly in future as it makes it more accessable to others.
Interesting discussions so far, this is exactly the reason we created the blog, in-order to foster productive discussion and critical thought. So far so good! thanks guys keep it up :-)
March 11 at 6:34am
Rafael Etan Eliasov @ Daniel, i agree with many of your points, SAUJS remains committed to combating inequality within South African society, it is a cornerstone of our very existence.
However to say that Zionism is incompatible with this is completely unfounded, in fact the opposite is true. The reason i joined the SAUJS committee was because someone told me what i can and cannot believe - 'Zionists are not tolerated on this campus', this fundamentally contradicts our constitution which entitles the people of South Africa to their beliefs. Therefore by taking up the fight against those who seek to dictate beliefs we are taking up the fight to protect our constitution and South African values.
We have and always will support the rights of any person anywhere in the world be they black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Palestinian or Israeli etc. This is why we continue the struggle to emancipate the Palestinians from the likes of Hamas, who continue to abuse human rights in the Gaza Strip - indeed they are the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This has been recognized over and over again in every part of the globe. In the 2008 Doha debate the house passed a resolution by 70.9 to 29.1 recognizing that 'Palestinians risk becoming their own worst enemy'. However since the infighting between Haj Amin Al Husseini and the Nashashibi clan this has been true. That being said any Israeli action which is against the fundamental rights of the Palestinians should be equally condemned.
You continually condemn the two state solution as reactionary yet this is the solution adopted by the United Nations, resolution 242 and the ICC and it receives, according to many polls, more support than any other solution. Yet you portray this solution as symptomatic of right-wing Jewish leadership. The reality is that it is you who is trying to stifle democracy and impose a solution.
Looking forward to helping to make Wits and South Africa a better place for all.
March 11 at 9:49am
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Rafael
I actually never said 'However to say that Zionism is incompatible with this is completely unfounded, in fact the opposite is true.' It is a very strange attempt to put words in my mouth.
I would call myself a spiritual Zionist, in the tradition of Buber and Achad Ha'am. Neither of these two necessarily advocated for a Jewish state in law but wanted a Jewish cultural home. That means that their vision could have been created through Israel being a real democracy (ie not just a state for its Jewish citizens, as it is defined in law at the moment).
But I condemn the occupation without question and call for Israel to become a real democracy.
The problem is that a blanket statement of 'we are Zionist' means something very different in today's world. Through your silence, you become identified with the most violent, racist, aggressive interpreters of Zionism today - the settlers.
If SAUJ's Zionism means, as religious zionism does, the belief that the whole of the land of Israel (and the Occupied Palestinian Territories) belongs to Jews, then that is a justification of the colonialism that is currently going on there (see the current Biden/Clinton v Bibi row going on now). By not separating itself from this truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief, SAUJS become a mechanism for justifying it and the entire colonial project in the OPT.
I never said that a two state solution is a reactionary position. Rafael, please read my posts more carefully.
I said that it was parev, meaningless and totally un-progressive.It is a statement without any meaningful moral content. While SAUJS said some important things during Apartheid on the moral bankrupcy of white supremacist rule, its ability to speak ethically on the occupation, colonialism, violation of Palestinian rights and the continued breakdown of Israel's democracy, SAUJS is today silent. You only restate what the SAZF or SAJBD says. That is fine, but then be honest about it.
And, if you really want to be a part of fighting for justice for Israelis and Palestinians, then start to read about Sheikh Jerrach, Hebron, go and visit the colonial settlement projects in the OPT (which if you have already done and still you continue to not speak out, it simply boggles my mind) and learn about how the law operates to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and lands.
Here is a good website to start:
http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/03/why-were-concerned-about-sheikh-jarrah-and-why-you-should-be-too/
If SAUJS does not start to speak out, the time will come when history will judge SAUJS for playing a role diametrically opposite to that which it played during Apartheid when the Board and SAZF wanted it to just shut up and batten down the hatches. At that point, people will look to its leadership and wonder whether they lacked courage, did not know what was actually going on (which I have no doubt people will use as an excuse when the time comes) or actually agreed with the colonial project (and hence did not recognise Palestinians as human beings worthy of equal human rights).
That choice is yours to make.
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel you categorize my comments as a 'very strange attempt to put words in my [your] mouth.' Yet you do the very same thing to SAUJS:
'By not separating itself from this truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief, SAUJS become a mechanism for justifying it and the entire colonial project in the OPT.' I reiterate SAUJS supports no radical or ideological belief, we have demonstrated this time and time again by hosting speakers from all sides of the political spectrum and a host of different religions. Indeed I wander if you are even familiar with the positions of SAUJS which are constantly being assessed and redefined?
'un-progressive' ,'reactionary', this is semantics - i simply wished to understand the logic behind these accusations (which remain unanswered, indeed sweeping statements are made with very little reasoning). I think both words indicate a certain negativity towards the two state solution.
SAUJS does very little 'without question' as you so revealingly state of yourself. We are constantly questioning our positions and beliefs. You on the other hand seem to have made up your mind.
Many may see your cultural or 'spiritual' Zionism as a mere guise for anti-Zionism (I will expand upon this later). The fact that people misinterpret what Zionism means is purely due to ignorance, and we should not be forced to our beliefs in order to appease the ignorant. I can garuntee that SAUJS does not see the entirety of what was the Palestinian mandate as belonging to Israel. Furthermore you dangerously stereotype religious Zionism as dangerous and radical. This is incorrect and based on ignorance about the concept of religious Zionism and Torah law. Indeed many rabbi's have agreed to concessions for peace.
Your implied insult that SAUJS simply re-state the SAJBD and the Zionist Fed's position belittles our organization (and my own intelligence, having produced many of SAUJS articles on the issues). I do not wish to make this personal and will not adopt the same tactic. Indeed the 'attack the man not the argument' tactic is often used when one has a weak argument (produce any factual evidence of your claim whatsoever). I have read all forms of literature ranging from Neve Gordon's 'Israeli Occupation', Lisa Hajjar's 'Courting Conflict' to Dershowitz's 'the Case for Israel', however out of the countless total books on the conflict I have read less than a tiny portion and will strive to continue to expand my knowledge.
I have been to Hebron (and Shuhada Street), and seen disgusting things on the part of the settlers, indeed the 'death to Arab' graffiti was a true horror to see. However the hatred I saw in the eyes of the Palestinians was even more horrifying, they have implemented an apartheid system in which no Jew (one merely has to look at the declining Christian population in the West Bank to see that it is not exclusively Jewish) may enter H-1 under pain of death. I have met Palestinian activists and Breaking the Silence. I have written to Btselem and Yesh Din. I have debated with hundreds of people representing the entire political spectrum and I look forward to continuing to expand my knowledge. I know that the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer, I know that Israel constantly commits acts I disagree with. But I believe that Palestinians suffer most from bad leadership. However that being said I do not simply attempt to condemn one party blindly and unilaterally (I infer this from the fact that you have not once condemned the Palestinians in the above two posts).
You point a finger to specific events and places, while ironically ignoring many others. I could full volumes with the wrongs the Palestinians have done to Israel and each other. Your condemnation of a human rights violation on the part of Israel, does not necessitate an equal condemnation of the Palestinians but when one disproportionally focuses on one party, one's objectivity may come into question. I think that this is the characteristic distinction in our views - I attempt condemn human rights violations on both sides. I have no problem condemning any violations on the part of the settlers (and Israeli government), while you seem to focus on a single party as if hypnotized. (this is based on all your articles I have seen in the Jewish Report and your comments here. I don't think I once saw an article on the killing of collaborators, the abuses of Hamas, nor have you once mentioned Palestinian human rights abuses in our current conversation).
It is strange this culture of accusation, I am constantly told of the dangers (as, if i may be so bold as to summarize, you seem to do) to SAUJS (and myself) of not changing some of our values and beliefs with respect to Israel. Yet I wander if there is anyone that has informed you of the dangers of false accusations? Something you seem to have done a lot in your previous post (most of your claims about SAUJS were blatantly false or lacking in any evidence). Accusing someone falsely of immoral actions is one of the worst actions a man can do, indeed you may just shrug your shoulders and say 'oops I was wrong' but in reality the crime you would be committing has the potential of devastating effects.
Now lets talk about actions. You have cooperated with the PSC - bringing to Wits the Shministim in cooperation with the PSC. Just the other day I called the head of the PSC to discuss how we can create a more conducive environment to learning about the conflict - I was told that they would not meet me until I condemn my Zionist beliefs. They have been involved in numerous hate crimes over the years including hosting Mr. Masuku, drawing swastikas on the graffiti wall, I personally was told by the head of the PSC that he would make Zionists life on campus a 'hell'. They have distributed an article entitled 'Jewish anti-semitism is the real problem'. While I am not inferring their actions onto you, your claims of Zionism seem to ring hollow - why would a Zionist host an event with such an organization?
I wander if you would be willing to stand for my rights on campus? In my SAUJS tenure I have been called 'a vampire that drinks the blood of butchered Palestininians' for my condemnation of the rocket fire into Sderot. I have been told that 'Hitler should have finished the job'. I have been called a racist a Nazi and a 'fucking Jew', I have been attacked verbally and physically.
Daniel, in reality it is Open Shuhada that supports radicalism, by promoting a completely one-sided narrative of the conflict that breeds ignorance, Open Shuhada Street's actions prolong the conflict (and induces Antisemitism). By labeling the two state solution as 'meaningless', it is you who are denying Palestinians the right to self-determination.
ps. I would most happily discuss the state of Israeli democracy with you. Although, due to more pressing issues I have omitted it. Suffice to briefly state Freedom House (an NGO which monitors countries and their systems), rates Israel ( only applies to Israel proper - although somewhere in the region of 90% of Palestinians in the occupied territories are under the control of the PA) as one of the freest countries in the world.
Yesterday at 8:59pm
Rafael Etan Eliasov oh and thank you for your link to that website. Clearly the 'good Jews', understand the situation much better than I or Freedom House do (a well respected NGO as appose to an organization with a clear political agenda).
Yesterday at 9:00pm
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh
Raphael
Please furnish me with statements where SAUJS calls for an end to the occupation. I would be only too happy to be shown to be wrong on this issue and proved to be someone who has made terrible statements of an accusatory manner.
Zionism is not a single ideological belief and in the world today the term has been captured by the settlers. Arthur Hertzberg, in the Zionist Idea, talks about some of the varieties thereof including Socialist Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Religious Zionism, Cultural Zionism etc. Today, the only form of Zionism that is a driving ideology for settlement in the OPT is religious Zionism with the active (although quite) encouragement of the Israeli state (how else would streetpoles, plumbing and roads suddenly appear in the West Bank).
I have not actually attacked you as a person Rafael. I do however, criticise SAUJS and you should accept this criticism being in your position. In fact, you should welcome it - this is what it means to live in a democratic society. I would like to see examples where SAUJS dares to ever speak with a different voice to the SAZF/SAJBD on one of the of the following issues:
• The Shministim – where despite my best efforts, an event with SAUJS was vetoed as people tried to silence their message.
• Israel’s gaza war – where the joint statement of the SAZF/SAJBD justified Israel’s attack and did not condemn the killing of 1400 Palestinians, the deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure or the unofficial but used policy IDF policy of human shields (see Breaking the Silence Report).
• Shuhada Street – what could be more simple than calling for a ‘Jew only’ road (read Apartheid road) to be open to Palestinians and Israelis?
• The real implosion of Israeli democracy – as seen by Supreme Court decisions that are not carried out and attacks on human rights organisations and activists. Talk to Israeli human rights activists on the ground and see how scared they are about death threats coming from within Israeli society and the way that the state is starting to shut down protests and monitor them.
I could keep going, but it will become tedious. The point is that on matters of substance, SAUJS will tow the part line.
How many Jews do you know who lived in H1 in houses with Palestinians? I know a couple, and in fact, one of them is working with me in OSS right now. She stayed for a month in H1 with a family with no problem whatsoever.
Are you saying that the Palestinians suffer the occupation (the 500 000 settlers who live over the green line as a result of Israeli violations of the 4th Geneva convention and the IDF’s strict divide and rule tactics throughout the West Bank) because of bad leadership? Is that a serious statement? You are saying that had the Palestinians had good leadership then Israel would not have:
• Expropriated their private land
• Created settlements and brought in settlers to live throughout the West Bank
• Keep the Palestinians living under lock and key as they have for over 43 years since the occupation began
No serious person who knows anything about the history of the occupation could possible subscribe to your view.
In addition, I feel no need to defend the Palestinian leadership and I agree with you that they have been ineffective, corrupt and many of them have supported terror attacks against Israelis.
However, bad Palestinian leadership does not justify occupation, because that is what the logical conclusion of your statement suggests.
Antisemitism and violent rhetoric is exactly what OSS is seeking to combat. By building on a basis of human rights, I have no time for racists who engage in horrible slander like that which you have been subjected to on Wits campus. Members of OSS have been attacked thus far by Jews for being anti-Semitic and by anti-Semites for some of our members (including myself) for being spiritual Zionists - so I think that we are getting the message right. No quarter for antisemitism/islamaphobia and a renewed focus on the human rights abuses.
My point about a two state solution (I think I have said this so many times already) is that it is merely a restatement of the current consensus. Hence, SAUJS, by reiterating what everyone is already saying, is not saying anything of meaningful moral content. My issue is that SAUJS is not speaking out about the myriad of human rights abuses, implemented by the Israeli state and the settlers, against Palestinian human rights.
Will SAUJS release a substantive statement on Sheik Jerrach for instance and how racist Israeli property law only allows Jews to recover property while denying Palestinians that same right? See
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147932330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Lastly, thank you for pointing out Freedom House’s characterisation of Israel. While Freedom House does have a tendency not to criticise US strategic allies (a whole other discussion but they do have a political agenda), and it is completely inconsistent that the country implementing the world's longest occupation is put on par with Western democracies which do not keep millions of people under lock and key, I definitely think that they are a decent source of information.
Did you know that Freedom House highlighted that Israel, after the Gaza War in 2009, fell on its journalistic freedom rating, from ‘free’ to ‘partly free’ on the Freedom House score sheet (below that of Kuwait, the UAE and Lebanon)?
17 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel, on numerous occasions SAUJS has called for an end to the occupation through a negotiated settlement. Our positions are rarely published (except in the Jewish Report), I would be quite happy to write a statement condemning the expansion of settlements and calling for a negotiated settlement (I do not believe that a unilateral withdrawal will be in any way helpful as the Gaza disengagement so aptly proves). Our new blog has provided a space for us to provide our stances (and I recommend you read my article on the stalled peace process which will be up soon). What is more important and what I have continually emphasized is that we have become a forum for diverse views, (I will not restate the list of personalities we have hosted again), providing a space for our students to derive a real education.
Categorizing Zionism into neat little boxes and then blaming one for all the wrongdoings is not only unhelpful but completely incorrect. One just has to look at the diversity of Israeli settlers to understand this, look at the positions of Yisrael Bieteinu and Betar (a revisionist Zionist movement), to see that your stereotype is based on a fallacy. Your original statement was categorizing religious Zionism as a whole as, 'truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief'. I merely wished to point out that this is a stereotype, you seem extremely displeased by someone stereotyping your Zionist beliefs - don't do it to others. (Again you have at no point disproved my statement but only tried to divert the debate - even if I accept your flimsy premise that ideological Zionism drives settlement building, the settlers are not representative of religious Zionism and I again, although somewhat redundantly, point out that there are religious Zionists who support the Palestinians right to self-determination and autonomy. Within religious Zionism there are a plethora of political positions.)
Accusing SAUJS and by extension me of 'only restat[ing] what the SAZF or SAJBD says', would be tantamount to me accusing you of only restating Doron Isaac's position. Although your positions are no doubt similar on some issues, this is something I would not do, as I respect you as a free thinking individual with enough intellect to come up with your own positions (and because I am only familiar with a few of your and Mr. Isaacs positions - comparable to the familiarity you have with SAUJS' positions).
Before I deal with your list of 'positions', I would just like to explain the reality of SAUJS' work with regards to Israel. Organizations on campus question Israel's right to exist, I have seen students attempt to justify suicide bombings and rocket attacks. I point this out to illustrate that on campus the very substance of debate is different, we therefore focus our energies and efforts on proving Israel's right to exist.
You have given me an extensive list of positions however you have not given me the full press release and I therefore cannot comment on any of their positions without further details (nor do i claim to be an expert on SAZF positions). That being said I will address my understanding (which may be erroneous as SAUJS is a democratic institution - we had the highest voter turnout in our last election than any other SAUJS elections in the last ten years) of SAUJS positions:
With regard to the Shministim, I can truly confirm that SAUJS can offer them no platform, this was a democratic decision. While this is not a position taken lightly, as a prerequisite we require that a speaker actually knows something about the issue he (or she) is speaking on.
SAUJS condemns any deliberate attack on civillians. (just as SAUJS condemns the use of human shields by Hamas).
SAUJS condemns the actions of the Palestinians that necessitated ethnically separate roads. Palestinian terrorist organizations attacking anyone of a certain religious orientation, is a gross form of racism. Make no mistake Daniel, it was the racism and brutality of organisations such as Hamas and Fatah that lead to the ethnically separate roads. When Palestinian organizations threaten genocide against Jews it is they who cause the separation, your gripe should therefore be with these organizations. Your' severing the necessary implications of cause and effect are unhelpful. That being said when any lesser measure could have been taken to protect Jews traveling to visit thousand year old holy sites, SAUJS would condemn Israeli action (ie. the adopting of an unnecessarily severe measure).
That being said and I would like to redundantly state this again SAUJS condemns the apartheid that the Palestinian organizations are perpetrating against Christians and Jews in their areas of control.
Finally we condemn any Israeli action which ignores a procedurally and substantively correct Israeli court ruling. We condemn death threats to any individual.
Again I see you are guilty of putting words into other peoples mouth - I highly doubt that these are the positions of any Jewish body, although I'm happy to get the Zionist Fed's opinion if you disagree.
I met the Jews living in H-2 (actually they were living in a Palestinian home in H-2, but semantics aside, although unlikely, you could have met a different set), firstly the Jews living there are such a tiny portion of the population. Secondly the Palestinian apartheid regime necessitates that they adopt certain political radically anti-Israel stances in order to be accepted. I was warned on leaving not to go into H-1 without a Palestinian guide by these very people (and the breaking the silence representative), why? because I was a Jew. Visions of a burning Joseph's tomb, visions of Palestinians proudly displaying the blood of lynched soldiers for the world to see flashed before my eyes.
I believe that the Palestinians suffer from the occupation due to bad leadership and I think that this is obvious (your disdain towards this logical conclusion in no way detracts from it). This in no way justifies the settlements nor does it mean that the settlements are helpful - which they are not, they are in fact in many respects independent from the errors of Palestinian leadership. This is most evident in the fact that the first time settlements become part of the peace process was only in 2002, one must than wander at the ever increasing importance of the settlements and their true implications.
If there had been good Palestinian leadership the Palestinians would have a state today, it would therefore be impossible for Israel to do the things you mentioned (although this in no way means that they are justified as you claim is the logical conclusion of my statement which it is not - again you attempt to put words into my mouth). The Palestinians have been offered a state countless times in every shape and form (I can go through them if you like). Please don't use emotional and generic statements like 'No serious person who knows anything about the history of the occupation could possible subscribe to your view.' and 'Is that a serious statement?', Instead bring facts to prove your statement (facts remain sparse). Please don't belittle my intelligence with such statements.
And yes I do believe that bad leadership can (notice and use the word 'can' instead of 'does') justify occupation - where occupation is the only means to stop twelve thousand rockets being fired at civilian populations - every single time the Israeli's have withdrawn they have received devastating attacks against civilian targets. If the Palestinians had a good, effective and moderate leadership it would allow Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories without this effect.
Open Shuhada is not achieving its objective by promoting a one sided narrative - quite the opposite in fact.
7 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov With regards to the two-state solution - your assumption is based on a faulty premise; that anything the majority says lacks 'meaningful moral content', quite the contrary many times the majority is indeed correct (in fact your premise is contrary to democratic values). Your basis for denying the two state solution is that this is that this is a position that the majority has adopted - which is no basis at all. Do you support the two state solution, which in my opinion is the basis for a moderate solution that does not completely ignore international law and human rights? Please don't use SAUJS other positions to attack it's support of the two state solution - if you want to attack the two state solution, attack the two state solution.
Regarding your request for a statement, I will look into the situation further and consult the committee, if we democratically decide to do so then we will do this. Would you be willing to release a statement condemning Hamas and its incitement, xenophobia, violations of human rights and supporting the two state solution? (by the way your article is an analysis as appose to an actual news article; just a point, although this does not invalidate it)
Yes I happened to notice that - that is however a different index (Israel's rating remains 'free' in the political and civil rights indexes).
7 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel, it is time that Open Shuhada Street adopts moderate positions, it's radical positions threaten to corrupt what we as a community and country stand for. If you are radicals that is fine but at least be honest about it and don't champion your cause under the guise of human rights and tolerance. History probably won't judge Open Shuhada Street, as once the conflict ends it will quickly be forgotten. However, the time will come when people will question whether Open Shuhada Street actually intended to divide and brainwash our community. I have no doubt people in the organization will at no point be accountable to the false accusations that they make. However if they were they will claim that they thought they were helping the Palestinians and not silencing their democratic will. Or some will claim that they supported the apartheid of the Palestinian terror organizations (and therefore do not see Jews and Christians as human beings).
The choice is yours to make.
6 hours ago
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Hi Rafael
I need to reply to you on the facts and I will do so with detailed sources.
However, for the moment, 2 points are worth mentioning:
1 - OSS is not a Jewish organisation. Our membership has a diverse array of people, so the charge of dividing the Jewish community is a nonsensical one. I know that there are many Jews who care about Palestinian and Israeli human rights and who will not be kept quiet by the accusations of breaking ranks. That is what SAUJS seemed to be willing to do under Apartheid but would not dare do today.
2 - Your statement below is one of the most important I have read coming from SAUJS in many years and I thank you for being so honest:
'And yes I do believe that bad leadership can (notice and use the word 'can' instead of 'does') justify occupation - where occupation is the only means to stop twelve thousand rockets being fired at civilian populations - every single time the Israeli's have withdrawn they have received devastating attacks against civilian targets.'
A justification for the violation of international law through occupation. The International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion stated very clearly that it all territories conquered by Israel are occupied. And occupation combined with settlement of your own country's citizens in that territory violates the 4th Geneva convention.
A proper response will follow in due course.
5 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel before you go further, you have again tried to put words into my mouth I refer to 'community' and not 'Jewish community' referring to a wider South African community.
5 hours ago
Some very naughty people decided to carry on this debate on facebook and not on the blog (smack). So I have put all the exchanges below so everyone can see them and not just those of us with fb accounts.
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Hi Ilan
The real challenge is to join the real future struggles of this country, for young Jews to be a part of creating a decent society. In SA, with our systematic inequality, we need the youth of our community to seek to engage poor people and join the variety of struggles for basic education, health, housing and sanitation.
What that really means is to move ourselves out of the mindset of 'being a good person and helping out' to becoming a part of the struggle for equality.... See More
March 10 at 4:33pm
Mukovhe Morris Masutha DANIEL MAN, I'M PROUD OF YOU , YOU TOOK ALL THE WORDS FROM MY MOUTH AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY THE SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS CONGRESS RECOGNIZES AND APPRECIATES THE EXISTANCE OF SAUJS IN OUR WITS CAMPUS AND OUR SOCIETY IN GENERAL..
THE CHIEF RABBI STATED IT CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE A HUGE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AS CHILDREN OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SOILS AND ... See More
March 10 at 8:56pm
Mukovhe Morris Masutha VERY INFORMATIVE Ilan...Would you suggest any book on the history of Jews in south africa?
March 10 at 10:17pm
Ilan Strauss An important discussion to start Mr Solomons (so I dont feel like I am speaking to myself).
SAUJS have tough choices about their identity and values (they cannot be seperated in this case), which effect how they interact with both SA and Israel.
Jews were one of the most visible victims of rising ethnic nationalism in Europe in the 19th century. This ethnically centred state posed problems for democratic and pluralistic values which were becoming more prominant at the time (i.e. how to deal with minorities if citizenship is defined by ethnicity).
The ethnic Jewish identity which exists in South Africa today fosters good and bad in Jews' approach to the 'non-Jewish' world and people. ... See More
The bad (always more interesting): the Jewish mission of making the world 'more human' while still being a Jew currently seems lost in the current ethnic configuration of some Jews' identity.
- Making Jews interact (as Jews) with other South Africans is difficult, not only because of our previous largely oppresive and entirely removed relationship with black people in this country, but because of current race and class boundaries, and all other cultural, geographic and other barriers whic stems from class, race and a history of opression and division. Working through these present and historical barriers in SA, as well as blatent and latent insensitivity - at best - displayed by some Jews towards non-Jews is challenging.
This insensitivity is fostered by how Israel advises Jews to properly interact with minorities internally as well as those who one occupies. This stems from its ethnic centred citizenship and all the unfreedoms which stem from it (i.e. no constitution to ensure the state promotes the liberty and prosperity of all citizens living within its enlarged borders etc).
If we want to interact more and 'better' with SA society, why not explore: a radical rethink of the school syllabus in jewish schools regarding South Africa, and Jews in South Africa; a fresh approach to living in a multicultural society and reassessment of the value of this type of citizenship; and a decision about the degree of risk (real and phsycological) we are willing to take in order to explore other geographical parts of this country which are inhabited by the, still exploited, majority. They represent the SA which was seperated from white Jews during Apartheid and which still remains largely seperate from wealthy peoples today.
March 10 at 10:21pm
Ilan Solomons Morris two excellent books about Jews in SA is one entitled " The Jews of South Africa" by Gideon Shimoni and the other is " Cutting Through the Mountain" by Prof Raymond Suttner, their great books which give a detailed history of Jewish involvement in south african society!
March 11 at 6:26am
Ilan Solomons Guys thanks for the post so far, just one thing. Please can you all post your comments on the blog directly in future as it makes it more accessable to others.
Interesting discussions so far, this is exactly the reason we created the blog, in-order to foster productive discussion and critical thought. So far so good! thanks guys keep it up :-)
March 11 at 6:34am
Rafael Etan Eliasov @ Daniel, i agree with many of your points, SAUJS remains committed to combating inequality within South African society, it is a cornerstone of our very existence.
However to say that Zionism is incompatible with this is completely unfounded, in fact the opposite is true. The reason i joined the SAUJS committee was because someone told me what i can and cannot believe - 'Zionists are not tolerated on this campus', this fundamentally contradicts our constitution which entitles the people of South Africa to their beliefs. Therefore by taking up the fight against those who seek to dictate beliefs we are taking up the fight to protect our constitution and South African values.
We have and always will support the rights of any person anywhere in the world be they black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Palestinian or Israeli etc. This is why we continue the struggle to emancipate the Palestinians from the likes of Hamas, who continue to abuse human rights in the Gaza Strip - indeed they are the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This has been recognized over and over again in every part of the globe. In the 2008 Doha debate the house passed a resolution by 70.9 to 29.1 recognizing that 'Palestinians risk becoming their own worst enemy'. However since the infighting between Haj Amin Al Husseini and the Nashashibi clan this has been true. That being said any Israeli action which is against the fundamental rights of the Palestinians should be equally condemned.
You continually condemn the two state solution as reactionary yet this is the solution adopted by the United Nations, resolution 242 and the ICC and it receives, according to many polls, more support than any other solution. Yet you portray this solution as symptomatic of right-wing Jewish leadership. The reality is that it is you who is trying to stifle democracy and impose a solution.
Looking forward to helping to make Wits and South Africa a better place for all.
March 11 at 9:49am
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Rafael
I actually never said 'However to say that Zionism is incompatible with this is completely unfounded, in fact the opposite is true.' It is a very strange attempt to put words in my mouth.
I would call myself a spiritual Zionist, in the tradition of Buber and Achad Ha'am. Neither of these two necessarily advocated for a Jewish state in law but wanted a Jewish cultural home. That means that their vision could have been created through Israel being a real democracy (ie not just a state for its Jewish citizens, as it is defined in law at the moment).
But I condemn the occupation without question and call for Israel to become a real democracy.
The problem is that a blanket statement of 'we are Zionist' means something very different in today's world. Through your silence, you become identified with the most violent, racist, aggressive interpreters of Zionism today - the settlers.
If SAUJ's Zionism means, as religious zionism does, the belief that the whole of the land of Israel (and the Occupied Palestinian Territories) belongs to Jews, then that is a justification of the colonialism that is currently going on there (see the current Biden/Clinton v Bibi row going on now). By not separating itself from this truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief, SAUJS become a mechanism for justifying it and the entire colonial project in the OPT.
I never said that a two state solution is a reactionary position. Rafael, please read my posts more carefully.
I said that it was parev, meaningless and totally un-progressive.It is a statement without any meaningful moral content. While SAUJS said some important things during Apartheid on the moral bankrupcy of white supremacist rule, its ability to speak ethically on the occupation, colonialism, violation of Palestinian rights and the continued breakdown of Israel's democracy, SAUJS is today silent. You only restate what the SAZF or SAJBD says. That is fine, but then be honest about it.
And, if you really want to be a part of fighting for justice for Israelis and Palestinians, then start to read about Sheikh Jerrach, Hebron, go and visit the colonial settlement projects in the OPT (which if you have already done and still you continue to not speak out, it simply boggles my mind) and learn about how the law operates to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and lands.
Here is a good website to start:
http://theonlydemocracy.org/2010/03/why-were-concerned-about-sheikh-jarrah-and-why-you-should-be-too/
If SAUJS does not start to speak out, the time will come when history will judge SAUJS for playing a role diametrically opposite to that which it played during Apartheid when the Board and SAZF wanted it to just shut up and batten down the hatches. At that point, people will look to its leadership and wonder whether they lacked courage, did not know what was actually going on (which I have no doubt people will use as an excuse when the time comes) or actually agreed with the colonial project (and hence did not recognise Palestinians as human beings worthy of equal human rights).
That choice is yours to make.
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel you categorize my comments as a 'very strange attempt to put words in my [your] mouth.' Yet you do the very same thing to SAUJS:
'By not separating itself from this truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief, SAUJS become a mechanism for justifying it and the entire colonial project in the OPT.' I reiterate SAUJS supports no radical or ideological belief, we have demonstrated this time and time again by hosting speakers from all sides of the political spectrum and a host of different religions. Indeed I wander if you are even familiar with the positions of SAUJS which are constantly being assessed and redefined?
'un-progressive' ,'reactionary', this is semantics - i simply wished to understand the logic behind these accusations (which remain unanswered, indeed sweeping statements are made with very little reasoning). I think both words indicate a certain negativity towards the two state solution.
SAUJS does very little 'without question' as you so revealingly state of yourself. We are constantly questioning our positions and beliefs. You on the other hand seem to have made up your mind.
Many may see your cultural or 'spiritual' Zionism as a mere guise for anti-Zionism (I will expand upon this later). The fact that people misinterpret what Zionism means is purely due to ignorance, and we should not be forced to our beliefs in order to appease the ignorant. I can garuntee that SAUJS does not see the entirety of what was the Palestinian mandate as belonging to Israel. Furthermore you dangerously stereotype religious Zionism as dangerous and radical. This is incorrect and based on ignorance about the concept of religious Zionism and Torah law. Indeed many rabbi's have agreed to concessions for peace.
Your implied insult that SAUJS simply re-state the SAJBD and the Zionist Fed's position belittles our organization (and my own intelligence, having produced many of SAUJS articles on the issues). I do not wish to make this personal and will not adopt the same tactic. Indeed the 'attack the man not the argument' tactic is often used when one has a weak argument (produce any factual evidence of your claim whatsoever). I have read all forms of literature ranging from Neve Gordon's 'Israeli Occupation', Lisa Hajjar's 'Courting Conflict' to Dershowitz's 'the Case for Israel', however out of the countless total books on the conflict I have read less than a tiny portion and will strive to continue to expand my knowledge.
I have been to Hebron (and Shuhada Street), and seen disgusting things on the part of the settlers, indeed the 'death to Arab' graffiti was a true horror to see. However the hatred I saw in the eyes of the Palestinians was even more horrifying, they have implemented an apartheid system in which no Jew (one merely has to look at the declining Christian population in the West Bank to see that it is not exclusively Jewish) may enter H-1 under pain of death. I have met Palestinian activists and Breaking the Silence. I have written to Btselem and Yesh Din. I have debated with hundreds of people representing the entire political spectrum and I look forward to continuing to expand my knowledge. I know that the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer, I know that Israel constantly commits acts I disagree with. But I believe that Palestinians suffer most from bad leadership. However that being said I do not simply attempt to condemn one party blindly and unilaterally (I infer this from the fact that you have not once condemned the Palestinians in the above two posts).
You point a finger to specific events and places, while ironically ignoring many others. I could full volumes with the wrongs the Palestinians have done to Israel and each other. Your condemnation of a human rights violation on the part of Israel, does not necessitate an equal condemnation of the Palestinians but when one disproportionally focuses on one party, one's objectivity may come into question. I think that this is the characteristic distinction in our views - I attempt condemn human rights violations on both sides. I have no problem condemning any violations on the part of the settlers (and Israeli government), while you seem to focus on a single party as if hypnotized. (this is based on all your articles I have seen in the Jewish Report and your comments here. I don't think I once saw an article on the killing of collaborators, the abuses of Hamas, nor have you once mentioned Palestinian human rights abuses in our current conversation).
It is strange this culture of accusation, I am constantly told of the dangers (as, if i may be so bold as to summarize, you seem to do) to SAUJS (and myself) of not changing some of our values and beliefs with respect to Israel. Yet I wander if there is anyone that has informed you of the dangers of false accusations? Something you seem to have done a lot in your previous post (most of your claims about SAUJS were blatantly false or lacking in any evidence). Accusing someone falsely of immoral actions is one of the worst actions a man can do, indeed you may just shrug your shoulders and say 'oops I was wrong' but in reality the crime you would be committing has the potential of devastating effects.
Now lets talk about actions. You have cooperated with the PSC - bringing to Wits the Shministim in cooperation with the PSC. Just the other day I called the head of the PSC to discuss how we can create a more conducive environment to learning about the conflict - I was told that they would not meet me until I condemn my Zionist beliefs. They have been involved in numerous hate crimes over the years including hosting Mr. Masuku, drawing swastikas on the graffiti wall, I personally was told by the head of the PSC that he would make Zionists life on campus a 'hell'. They have distributed an article entitled 'Jewish anti-semitism is the real problem'. While I am not inferring their actions onto you, your claims of Zionism seem to ring hollow - why would a Zionist host an event with such an organization?
I wander if you would be willing to stand for my rights on campus? In my SAUJS tenure I have been called 'a vampire that drinks the blood of butchered Palestininians' for my condemnation of the rocket fire into Sderot. I have been told that 'Hitler should have finished the job'. I have been called a racist a Nazi and a 'fucking Jew', I have been attacked verbally and physically.
Daniel, in reality it is Open Shuhada that supports radicalism, by promoting a completely one-sided narrative of the conflict that breeds ignorance, Open Shuhada Street's actions prolong the conflict (and induces Antisemitism). By labeling the two state solution as 'meaningless', it is you who are denying Palestinians the right to self-determination.
ps. I would most happily discuss the state of Israeli democracy with you. Although, due to more pressing issues I have omitted it. Suffice to briefly state Freedom House (an NGO which monitors countries and their systems), rates Israel ( only applies to Israel proper - although somewhere in the region of 90% of Palestinians in the occupied territories are under the control of the PA) as one of the freest countries in the world.
Yesterday at 8:59pm
Rafael Etan Eliasov oh and thank you for your link to that website. Clearly the 'good Jews', understand the situation much better than I or Freedom House do (a well respected NGO as appose to an organization with a clear political agenda).
Yesterday at 9:00pm
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh
Raphael
Please furnish me with statements where SAUJS calls for an end to the occupation. I would be only too happy to be shown to be wrong on this issue and proved to be someone who has made terrible statements of an accusatory manner.
Zionism is not a single ideological belief and in the world today the term has been captured by the settlers. Arthur Hertzberg, in the Zionist Idea, talks about some of the varieties thereof including Socialist Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Religious Zionism, Cultural Zionism etc. Today, the only form of Zionism that is a driving ideology for settlement in the OPT is religious Zionism with the active (although quite) encouragement of the Israeli state (how else would streetpoles, plumbing and roads suddenly appear in the West Bank).
I have not actually attacked you as a person Rafael. I do however, criticise SAUJS and you should accept this criticism being in your position. In fact, you should welcome it - this is what it means to live in a democratic society. I would like to see examples where SAUJS dares to ever speak with a different voice to the SAZF/SAJBD on one of the of the following issues:
• The Shministim – where despite my best efforts, an event with SAUJS was vetoed as people tried to silence their message.
• Israel’s gaza war – where the joint statement of the SAZF/SAJBD justified Israel’s attack and did not condemn the killing of 1400 Palestinians, the deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure or the unofficial but used policy IDF policy of human shields (see Breaking the Silence Report).
• Shuhada Street – what could be more simple than calling for a ‘Jew only’ road (read Apartheid road) to be open to Palestinians and Israelis?
• The real implosion of Israeli democracy – as seen by Supreme Court decisions that are not carried out and attacks on human rights organisations and activists. Talk to Israeli human rights activists on the ground and see how scared they are about death threats coming from within Israeli society and the way that the state is starting to shut down protests and monitor them.
I could keep going, but it will become tedious. The point is that on matters of substance, SAUJS will tow the part line.
How many Jews do you know who lived in H1 in houses with Palestinians? I know a couple, and in fact, one of them is working with me in OSS right now. She stayed for a month in H1 with a family with no problem whatsoever.
Are you saying that the Palestinians suffer the occupation (the 500 000 settlers who live over the green line as a result of Israeli violations of the 4th Geneva convention and the IDF’s strict divide and rule tactics throughout the West Bank) because of bad leadership? Is that a serious statement? You are saying that had the Palestinians had good leadership then Israel would not have:
• Expropriated their private land
• Created settlements and brought in settlers to live throughout the West Bank
• Keep the Palestinians living under lock and key as they have for over 43 years since the occupation began
No serious person who knows anything about the history of the occupation could possible subscribe to your view.
In addition, I feel no need to defend the Palestinian leadership and I agree with you that they have been ineffective, corrupt and many of them have supported terror attacks against Israelis.
However, bad Palestinian leadership does not justify occupation, because that is what the logical conclusion of your statement suggests.
Antisemitism and violent rhetoric is exactly what OSS is seeking to combat. By building on a basis of human rights, I have no time for racists who engage in horrible slander like that which you have been subjected to on Wits campus. Members of OSS have been attacked thus far by Jews for being anti-Semitic and by anti-Semites for some of our members (including myself) for being spiritual Zionists - so I think that we are getting the message right. No quarter for antisemitism/islamaphobia and a renewed focus on the human rights abuses.
My point about a two state solution (I think I have said this so many times already) is that it is merely a restatement of the current consensus. Hence, SAUJS, by reiterating what everyone is already saying, is not saying anything of meaningful moral content. My issue is that SAUJS is not speaking out about the myriad of human rights abuses, implemented by the Israeli state and the settlers, against Palestinian human rights.
Will SAUJS release a substantive statement on Sheik Jerrach for instance and how racist Israeli property law only allows Jews to recover property while denying Palestinians that same right? See
http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1263147932330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Lastly, thank you for pointing out Freedom House’s characterisation of Israel. While Freedom House does have a tendency not to criticise US strategic allies (a whole other discussion but they do have a political agenda), and it is completely inconsistent that the country implementing the world's longest occupation is put on par with Western democracies which do not keep millions of people under lock and key, I definitely think that they are a decent source of information.
Did you know that Freedom House highlighted that Israel, after the Gaza War in 2009, fell on its journalistic freedom rating, from ‘free’ to ‘partly free’ on the Freedom House score sheet (below that of Kuwait, the UAE and Lebanon)?
17 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel, on numerous occasions SAUJS has called for an end to the occupation through a negotiated settlement. Our positions are rarely published (except in the Jewish Report), I would be quite happy to write a statement condemning the expansion of settlements and calling for a negotiated settlement (I do not believe that a unilateral withdrawal will be in any way helpful as the Gaza disengagement so aptly proves). Our new blog has provided a space for us to provide our stances (and I recommend you read my article on the stalled peace process which will be up soon). What is more important and what I have continually emphasized is that we have become a forum for diverse views, (I will not restate the list of personalities we have hosted again), providing a space for our students to derive a real education.
Categorizing Zionism into neat little boxes and then blaming one for all the wrongdoings is not only unhelpful but completely incorrect. One just has to look at the diversity of Israeli settlers to understand this, look at the positions of Yisrael Bieteinu and Betar (a revisionist Zionist movement), to see that your stereotype is based on a fallacy. Your original statement was categorizing religious Zionism as a whole as, 'truly radical (and violent) form of ideological belief'. I merely wished to point out that this is a stereotype, you seem extremely displeased by someone stereotyping your Zionist beliefs - don't do it to others. (Again you have at no point disproved my statement but only tried to divert the debate - even if I accept your flimsy premise that ideological Zionism drives settlement building, the settlers are not representative of religious Zionism and I again, although somewhat redundantly, point out that there are religious Zionists who support the Palestinians right to self-determination and autonomy. Within religious Zionism there are a plethora of political positions.)
Accusing SAUJS and by extension me of 'only restat[ing] what the SAZF or SAJBD says', would be tantamount to me accusing you of only restating Doron Isaac's position. Although your positions are no doubt similar on some issues, this is something I would not do, as I respect you as a free thinking individual with enough intellect to come up with your own positions (and because I am only familiar with a few of your and Mr. Isaacs positions - comparable to the familiarity you have with SAUJS' positions).
Before I deal with your list of 'positions', I would just like to explain the reality of SAUJS' work with regards to Israel. Organizations on campus question Israel's right to exist, I have seen students attempt to justify suicide bombings and rocket attacks. I point this out to illustrate that on campus the very substance of debate is different, we therefore focus our energies and efforts on proving Israel's right to exist.
You have given me an extensive list of positions however you have not given me the full press release and I therefore cannot comment on any of their positions without further details (nor do i claim to be an expert on SAZF positions). That being said I will address my understanding (which may be erroneous as SAUJS is a democratic institution - we had the highest voter turnout in our last election than any other SAUJS elections in the last ten years) of SAUJS positions:
With regard to the Shministim, I can truly confirm that SAUJS can offer them no platform, this was a democratic decision. While this is not a position taken lightly, as a prerequisite we require that a speaker actually knows something about the issue he (or she) is speaking on.
SAUJS condemns any deliberate attack on civillians. (just as SAUJS condemns the use of human shields by Hamas).
SAUJS condemns the actions of the Palestinians that necessitated ethnically separate roads. Palestinian terrorist organizations attacking anyone of a certain religious orientation, is a gross form of racism. Make no mistake Daniel, it was the racism and brutality of organisations such as Hamas and Fatah that lead to the ethnically separate roads. When Palestinian organizations threaten genocide against Jews it is they who cause the separation, your gripe should therefore be with these organizations. Your' severing the necessary implications of cause and effect are unhelpful. That being said when any lesser measure could have been taken to protect Jews traveling to visit thousand year old holy sites, SAUJS would condemn Israeli action (ie. the adopting of an unnecessarily severe measure).
That being said and I would like to redundantly state this again SAUJS condemns the apartheid that the Palestinian organizations are perpetrating against Christians and Jews in their areas of control.
Finally we condemn any Israeli action which ignores a procedurally and substantively correct Israeli court ruling. We condemn death threats to any individual.
Again I see you are guilty of putting words into other peoples mouth - I highly doubt that these are the positions of any Jewish body, although I'm happy to get the Zionist Fed's opinion if you disagree.
I met the Jews living in H-2 (actually they were living in a Palestinian home in H-2, but semantics aside, although unlikely, you could have met a different set), firstly the Jews living there are such a tiny portion of the population. Secondly the Palestinian apartheid regime necessitates that they adopt certain political radically anti-Israel stances in order to be accepted. I was warned on leaving not to go into H-1 without a Palestinian guide by these very people (and the breaking the silence representative), why? because I was a Jew. Visions of a burning Joseph's tomb, visions of Palestinians proudly displaying the blood of lynched soldiers for the world to see flashed before my eyes.
I believe that the Palestinians suffer from the occupation due to bad leadership and I think that this is obvious (your disdain towards this logical conclusion in no way detracts from it). This in no way justifies the settlements nor does it mean that the settlements are helpful - which they are not, they are in fact in many respects independent from the errors of Palestinian leadership. This is most evident in the fact that the first time settlements become part of the peace process was only in 2002, one must than wander at the ever increasing importance of the settlements and their true implications.
If there had been good Palestinian leadership the Palestinians would have a state today, it would therefore be impossible for Israel to do the things you mentioned (although this in no way means that they are justified as you claim is the logical conclusion of my statement which it is not - again you attempt to put words into my mouth). The Palestinians have been offered a state countless times in every shape and form (I can go through them if you like). Please don't use emotional and generic statements like 'No serious person who knows anything about the history of the occupation could possible subscribe to your view.' and 'Is that a serious statement?', Instead bring facts to prove your statement (facts remain sparse). Please don't belittle my intelligence with such statements.
And yes I do believe that bad leadership can (notice and use the word 'can' instead of 'does') justify occupation - where occupation is the only means to stop twelve thousand rockets being fired at civilian populations - every single time the Israeli's have withdrawn they have received devastating attacks against civilian targets. If the Palestinians had a good, effective and moderate leadership it would allow Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories without this effect.
Open Shuhada is not achieving its objective by promoting a one sided narrative - quite the opposite in fact.
7 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov With regards to the two-state solution - your assumption is based on a faulty premise; that anything the majority says lacks 'meaningful moral content', quite the contrary many times the majority is indeed correct (in fact your premise is contrary to democratic values). Your basis for denying the two state solution is that this is that this is a position that the majority has adopted - which is no basis at all. Do you support the two state solution, which in my opinion is the basis for a moderate solution that does not completely ignore international law and human rights? Please don't use SAUJS other positions to attack it's support of the two state solution - if you want to attack the two state solution, attack the two state solution.
Regarding your request for a statement, I will look into the situation further and consult the committee, if we democratically decide to do so then we will do this. Would you be willing to release a statement condemning Hamas and its incitement, xenophobia, violations of human rights and supporting the two state solution? (by the way your article is an analysis as appose to an actual news article; just a point, although this does not invalidate it)
Yes I happened to notice that - that is however a different index (Israel's rating remains 'free' in the political and civil rights indexes).
7 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel, it is time that Open Shuhada Street adopts moderate positions, it's radical positions threaten to corrupt what we as a community and country stand for. If you are radicals that is fine but at least be honest about it and don't champion your cause under the guise of human rights and tolerance. History probably won't judge Open Shuhada Street, as once the conflict ends it will quickly be forgotten. However, the time will come when people will question whether Open Shuhada Street actually intended to divide and brainwash our community. I have no doubt people in the organization will at no point be accountable to the false accusations that they make. However if they were they will claim that they thought they were helping the Palestinians and not silencing their democratic will. Or some will claim that they supported the apartheid of the Palestinian terror organizations (and therefore do not see Jews and Christians as human beings).
The choice is yours to make.
6 hours ago
Daniel Alexander Mackintosh Hi Rafael
I need to reply to you on the facts and I will do so with detailed sources.
However, for the moment, 2 points are worth mentioning:
1 - OSS is not a Jewish organisation. Our membership has a diverse array of people, so the charge of dividing the Jewish community is a nonsensical one. I know that there are many Jews who care about Palestinian and Israeli human rights and who will not be kept quiet by the accusations of breaking ranks. That is what SAUJS seemed to be willing to do under Apartheid but would not dare do today.
2 - Your statement below is one of the most important I have read coming from SAUJS in many years and I thank you for being so honest:
'And yes I do believe that bad leadership can (notice and use the word 'can' instead of 'does') justify occupation - where occupation is the only means to stop twelve thousand rockets being fired at civilian populations - every single time the Israeli's have withdrawn they have received devastating attacks against civilian targets.'
A justification for the violation of international law through occupation. The International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion stated very clearly that it all territories conquered by Israel are occupied. And occupation combined with settlement of your own country's citizens in that territory violates the 4th Geneva convention.
A proper response will follow in due course.
5 hours ago
Rafael Etan Eliasov Daniel before you go further, you have again tried to put words into my mouth I refer to 'community' and not 'Jewish community' referring to a wider South African community.
5 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)