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.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
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
Stalled Peace Process - The Blame game, by Rafi Eliasov
I’d like to reminisce on the path towards the current impasse in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and the chance of future success.
The process began with two stances the Israeli stance – peace talks must begin immediately and unconditionally. On the other hand Abbas wanted a complete freeze in settlement construction in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This lead to a complete stall in the peace process, with Israel eventually conceding to a halt in construction in the West Bank. Thereafter the demands racked up, Abbas demanding recognition of a Palestinian state within the 67’ borders. After weeks of non-decision Abbas, with the backing of the Arab league, decided to accept indirect negotiations. Finally with the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, hopes of a resumed negotiation have been dashed.
Abbas and the Arab league are now claiming that Israel is the catalyst for this failure. I will now attempt to deconstruct this allegation.
Abbas’ initial demand of a complete halt in settlements, would have been an unprecedented step in Israel’s history. Indeed every single Israeli government – whether left or right - built settlements and Israel’s offer of a West Bank freeze remains a unique step. Settlements are unambiguously illegal under international law. However right and fact tend to differ on a practical level and Abbas failed to recognize that the best and permanent way to end settlements was to reach a final status agreement.
Abbas then demanded a state within the 67’ borders, implicitly saying, ‘give me everything I demand before we negotiate’. Again one may argue that the Palestinians have a right to a state as per resolution 242 and therefore Abbas was merely demanding what was rightfully his. Yet it is Israel’s right as a sovereign country to be free from terror attacks, if international law was adhered to there would be no need for negotiations – Israel would be at peace and the Palestinians would have their state. In actual fact Hamas continues to shower rockets into Sderot and the incitement by the PA and Hamas continues – brainwashing children to hate. Furthermore the purpose of negotiations is to transform ‘rights’ into ‘facts’ with each party making concessions in order to achieve more in their particular area of interested. While legal systems around the world remain imperfect, there will be a dichotomy between right and fact.
The final step to the breakdown was Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements. Let me make this clear, this was an illogical and illegal (while there was doubt of the legal status of East Jerusalem due to the ambiguous wording of resolution 242, this was solved by the ICC’s ruling on the issue) move on the part of the Israeli government. That being said Abbas’ surprise at this ’betrayal’ is equally illogical. The Israelis did what they said they would do – built settlements in East Jerusalem and as illegal as it is Abbas entered into the negotiations knowing that Israel had promised only to stop settlements outside of East Jerusalem. Indeed the Israelis made no attempt to hide their intention having built settlements in Gilo (East Jerusalem) mere months before.
One may argue that this is what the Road Map to Peace dictates, yet the Palestinians remain to fulfill many of the requirements on their side of the bargain.
When analyzing the negotiations one must take into account a number of factors – Bibi is attempting to balance the needs of his right wing support base with what is required for peace negotiations. There are two diametrically opposed goals. On the one hand Bibi must make enough concessions to satisfy the Palestinians that he is serious about peace. On the other hand if he makes too many concessions it could result in a breakdown of the coalition, leaving him in no place to negotiate peace.
On the other side of the fence can Abbas offer a real peace, what will peace with the PA achieve in Hamas run Gaza? Will a peace with Abbas end the rocket barrage on Sderot? Furthermore the PA have become viewed by many Palestinians as a tool of the Israeli system, Abbas therefore needed to prove to the Palestinian street that he could play ‘hard ball’ or risk his credibility, this was exasperated by his initial rejection of the Goldstone findings in the Human Rights Council. Again this current impasse is a message to those more radical elements of Palestinian society that Abbas can stand up to the Israelis. Abbas’ ‘joker up his sleeve’ is violence, he now stands at a forke – either wait for Israeli concessions, soften his approach and lose credibility or force Israel to accept his conditions through violence as was done by Arafat after Camp David. The recent East Jerusalem riots are an indication and a warning sign to Israel.
Ultimately the question remains what are the chances of success for negotiations? One needs to look back at the annals of history in order to determine the answer to this question.
The history of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is a long and bumpy road, beginning with the Yishuv’s relationship with the Nashashibi family, who used the Jewish settlements for money and supplies to fight their foes however according to renowned historian Benny Morris at no point did this clan accept their rights to the land. In 1925, a small Jewish organization called Brit Shalom approached notable Arabs and Jews proposing a bi-national state; this was summarily rejected by both sides. Since then the Palestinians would be offered a state in every shape and form and they would reject them all. Two notable exceptions (the Geneva Accord does not count as it was extra-governmental) are the Taba summit – however this summit was doomed to failure from the start as there was inadequate time till Israeli elections and the lack of the heads of state (who is the only person able to make the hardest concessions according to Dennis Ross). The other instance is the Arab Peace Initiative – which required unilateral steps on the part of the Israelis with no reciprocal steps on the part of the Palestinians and a rigid refusal on the part of the Arab nations to alter any elements but may constitute a missed opportunity for Israel. Even this initiative failed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
In conclusion, when the Palestinians sit down to negotiate they see themselves conceding seventy percent of what was mandatory Palestine before the negotiations have even begun. While the Palestinians continue to instill in their children the right of return and the right to the entirety of ‘Palestine’, in contradiction to international law, negotiations can never succeed. At the same time the Israelis need to give up on dreams, dreams of the West Bank. Peace remains as elusive as ever most due to a lack in the fundamentals required before peace can be achieved – most glaringly so on the Palestinian side. While marches for a Palestinian state exist in Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel, this is not so in respect to Israel in Ramallah or Nablus – indeed no Palestinian faction has ever recognized Israel as a Jewish homeland. Instead memories of a burning Joseph’s Tomb, of the blood of Israeli soldiers on Palestinian hand proudly displayed for the world to see remind Israel of the horrors that await if peace is not achieved.
The process began with two stances the Israeli stance – peace talks must begin immediately and unconditionally. On the other hand Abbas wanted a complete freeze in settlement construction in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This lead to a complete stall in the peace process, with Israel eventually conceding to a halt in construction in the West Bank. Thereafter the demands racked up, Abbas demanding recognition of a Palestinian state within the 67’ borders. After weeks of non-decision Abbas, with the backing of the Arab league, decided to accept indirect negotiations. Finally with the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, hopes of a resumed negotiation have been dashed.
Abbas and the Arab league are now claiming that Israel is the catalyst for this failure. I will now attempt to deconstruct this allegation.
Abbas’ initial demand of a complete halt in settlements, would have been an unprecedented step in Israel’s history. Indeed every single Israeli government – whether left or right - built settlements and Israel’s offer of a West Bank freeze remains a unique step. Settlements are unambiguously illegal under international law. However right and fact tend to differ on a practical level and Abbas failed to recognize that the best and permanent way to end settlements was to reach a final status agreement.
Abbas then demanded a state within the 67’ borders, implicitly saying, ‘give me everything I demand before we negotiate’. Again one may argue that the Palestinians have a right to a state as per resolution 242 and therefore Abbas was merely demanding what was rightfully his. Yet it is Israel’s right as a sovereign country to be free from terror attacks, if international law was adhered to there would be no need for negotiations – Israel would be at peace and the Palestinians would have their state. In actual fact Hamas continues to shower rockets into Sderot and the incitement by the PA and Hamas continues – brainwashing children to hate. Furthermore the purpose of negotiations is to transform ‘rights’ into ‘facts’ with each party making concessions in order to achieve more in their particular area of interested. While legal systems around the world remain imperfect, there will be a dichotomy between right and fact.
The final step to the breakdown was Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements. Let me make this clear, this was an illogical and illegal (while there was doubt of the legal status of East Jerusalem due to the ambiguous wording of resolution 242, this was solved by the ICC’s ruling on the issue) move on the part of the Israeli government. That being said Abbas’ surprise at this ’betrayal’ is equally illogical. The Israelis did what they said they would do – built settlements in East Jerusalem and as illegal as it is Abbas entered into the negotiations knowing that Israel had promised only to stop settlements outside of East Jerusalem. Indeed the Israelis made no attempt to hide their intention having built settlements in Gilo (East Jerusalem) mere months before.
One may argue that this is what the Road Map to Peace dictates, yet the Palestinians remain to fulfill many of the requirements on their side of the bargain.
When analyzing the negotiations one must take into account a number of factors – Bibi is attempting to balance the needs of his right wing support base with what is required for peace negotiations. There are two diametrically opposed goals. On the one hand Bibi must make enough concessions to satisfy the Palestinians that he is serious about peace. On the other hand if he makes too many concessions it could result in a breakdown of the coalition, leaving him in no place to negotiate peace.
On the other side of the fence can Abbas offer a real peace, what will peace with the PA achieve in Hamas run Gaza? Will a peace with Abbas end the rocket barrage on Sderot? Furthermore the PA have become viewed by many Palestinians as a tool of the Israeli system, Abbas therefore needed to prove to the Palestinian street that he could play ‘hard ball’ or risk his credibility, this was exasperated by his initial rejection of the Goldstone findings in the Human Rights Council. Again this current impasse is a message to those more radical elements of Palestinian society that Abbas can stand up to the Israelis. Abbas’ ‘joker up his sleeve’ is violence, he now stands at a forke – either wait for Israeli concessions, soften his approach and lose credibility or force Israel to accept his conditions through violence as was done by Arafat after Camp David. The recent East Jerusalem riots are an indication and a warning sign to Israel.
Ultimately the question remains what are the chances of success for negotiations? One needs to look back at the annals of history in order to determine the answer to this question.
The history of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is a long and bumpy road, beginning with the Yishuv’s relationship with the Nashashibi family, who used the Jewish settlements for money and supplies to fight their foes however according to renowned historian Benny Morris at no point did this clan accept their rights to the land. In 1925, a small Jewish organization called Brit Shalom approached notable Arabs and Jews proposing a bi-national state; this was summarily rejected by both sides. Since then the Palestinians would be offered a state in every shape and form and they would reject them all. Two notable exceptions (the Geneva Accord does not count as it was extra-governmental) are the Taba summit – however this summit was doomed to failure from the start as there was inadequate time till Israeli elections and the lack of the heads of state (who is the only person able to make the hardest concessions according to Dennis Ross). The other instance is the Arab Peace Initiative – which required unilateral steps on the part of the Israelis with no reciprocal steps on the part of the Palestinians and a rigid refusal on the part of the Arab nations to alter any elements but may constitute a missed opportunity for Israel. Even this initiative failed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
In conclusion, when the Palestinians sit down to negotiate they see themselves conceding seventy percent of what was mandatory Palestine before the negotiations have even begun. While the Palestinians continue to instill in their children the right of return and the right to the entirety of ‘Palestine’, in contradiction to international law, negotiations can never succeed. At the same time the Israelis need to give up on dreams, dreams of the West Bank. Peace remains as elusive as ever most due to a lack in the fundamentals required before peace can be achieved – most glaringly so on the Palestinian side. While marches for a Palestinian state exist in Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel, this is not so in respect to Israel in Ramallah or Nablus – indeed no Palestinian faction has ever recognized Israel as a Jewish homeland. Instead memories of a burning Joseph’s Tomb, of the blood of Israeli soldiers on Palestinian hand proudly displayed for the world to see remind Israel of the horrors that await if peace is not achieved.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Middle East Conflict Revisited - Yanai Klawansky
After reading recent articles in Vuvuzela I felt compelled to shed some light on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly from a perspective that the average witsie is unfamiliar with. Given the nature and intensity of the PSC’s ‘apartheid Israel’ agenda on campus, coupled with SAUJS’s ardent defence of Israel, it is of little surprise that the notion of a “divided campus” surrounds this issue. In addition the Bongani Masuku hate speech comments followed by the HRC’s ruling have only served to exacerbate this divide.
In order to understand the intricacies of the conflict in a wider sense that is not informed by the polarised environment on campus, it is necessary to deconstruct the PSC’s position as well as place its agenda among the commonly accepted schools of thought surrounding the conflict. The Israel-Apartheid analogy, which gained momentum around the time of the now infamous Durban UN Anti-racism conference in 2001, has been opportunistically utilised in the South African context to promote international condemnation and boycott of Israel. Despite its ostensible appeal (on the simplest of levels), the analogy remains an indefensible one. Not only does it fail to consider the fundamental differences between the South African and Israeli situations, the analogy’s use is inappropriate and serves to cheapen the meaning of apartheid which resulted in the persecution of millions of South Africans. As Benjamin Pogrund, former anti-apartheid activist and founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem has noted, use of the label is “at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative”.
What then are these fundamental differences that are ignored by proponents of the apartheid analogy? While this involves a lengthy analysis which I am unable to carry out in this forum, the core consideration is this: the Israeli state, despite its many failings, human rights concerns, and questionable acts in terms of international law, remains a vibrant functioning democracy in which the Arab minority are afforded an array of rights including that of franchise.
If one still considers use of the analogy as an accurate and appropriate one, consider this. By taking the apartheid analogy to its logical end we would be required to entertain the following argument: South Africa emerged from apartheid as a unitary state, therefore because blacks were oppressed under apartheid and Palestinians are oppressed by Israel, the same one-state solution should apply.
Why then does this proposed one-state solution enjoy virtually no support among the international community, academics, writers, and concerned civil society at large? Apart from radical groups like the PSC and various minority voices, no significant support exists because the solution is widely regarded as untenable, unrealistic and insensitive to the regional and historical complexities of the conflict. Essentially the idealistic appeal of the one-state proposition is undone by its defective underpinning – the apartheid analogy.
It is regrettable that the Israeli-Palestinian narrative on campus is so heavily driven by a group as radical and out of touch with the realities of the conflict as the PSC, and consequentially by SAUJS’s reactionary defence of Israel, which in light of the apartheid accusations is often is unwilling to accept wrong doing on Israel’s part. Debate around this issue remains intense for the simple fact that there are valid arguments to be made by either side. On the one hand, calls are rightly made for denouncement and ending of terrorist activity and fanatical ideology, and demanding a credible Palestinian leadership that is committed to negotiation and able to effectively nullify the radical elements which oppose negotiation. While on the other, there is cessation of settlement activity, calls for proportionality in military response, and compliance with international law standards.
Our campus should be a forum in which level-headed intelligent debate surrounding the middle-east is conducted, rather than an environment characterised by agenda driven rhetoric and viewpoints which owe more to their malicious motives than to the realities of the conflict.
Originally printed in Vuvuzela
In order to understand the intricacies of the conflict in a wider sense that is not informed by the polarised environment on campus, it is necessary to deconstruct the PSC’s position as well as place its agenda among the commonly accepted schools of thought surrounding the conflict. The Israel-Apartheid analogy, which gained momentum around the time of the now infamous Durban UN Anti-racism conference in 2001, has been opportunistically utilised in the South African context to promote international condemnation and boycott of Israel. Despite its ostensible appeal (on the simplest of levels), the analogy remains an indefensible one. Not only does it fail to consider the fundamental differences between the South African and Israeli situations, the analogy’s use is inappropriate and serves to cheapen the meaning of apartheid which resulted in the persecution of millions of South Africans. As Benjamin Pogrund, former anti-apartheid activist and founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem has noted, use of the label is “at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative”.
What then are these fundamental differences that are ignored by proponents of the apartheid analogy? While this involves a lengthy analysis which I am unable to carry out in this forum, the core consideration is this: the Israeli state, despite its many failings, human rights concerns, and questionable acts in terms of international law, remains a vibrant functioning democracy in which the Arab minority are afforded an array of rights including that of franchise.
If one still considers use of the analogy as an accurate and appropriate one, consider this. By taking the apartheid analogy to its logical end we would be required to entertain the following argument: South Africa emerged from apartheid as a unitary state, therefore because blacks were oppressed under apartheid and Palestinians are oppressed by Israel, the same one-state solution should apply.
Why then does this proposed one-state solution enjoy virtually no support among the international community, academics, writers, and concerned civil society at large? Apart from radical groups like the PSC and various minority voices, no significant support exists because the solution is widely regarded as untenable, unrealistic and insensitive to the regional and historical complexities of the conflict. Essentially the idealistic appeal of the one-state proposition is undone by its defective underpinning – the apartheid analogy.
It is regrettable that the Israeli-Palestinian narrative on campus is so heavily driven by a group as radical and out of touch with the realities of the conflict as the PSC, and consequentially by SAUJS’s reactionary defence of Israel, which in light of the apartheid accusations is often is unwilling to accept wrong doing on Israel’s part. Debate around this issue remains intense for the simple fact that there are valid arguments to be made by either side. On the one hand, calls are rightly made for denouncement and ending of terrorist activity and fanatical ideology, and demanding a credible Palestinian leadership that is committed to negotiation and able to effectively nullify the radical elements which oppose negotiation. While on the other, there is cessation of settlement activity, calls for proportionality in military response, and compliance with international law standards.
Our campus should be a forum in which level-headed intelligent debate surrounding the middle-east is conducted, rather than an environment characterised by agenda driven rhetoric and viewpoints which owe more to their malicious motives than to the realities of the conflict.
Originally printed in Vuvuzela
Thank you
We are already receiving a number of interesting posts on topics. Thanks so much to all of you who have submitted. Our policy is that any SAUJS member can write for this blog as long as it has to do with out three pillars of Jewish Identity, South Africa and the promotion of Zionism. Whilst we want to have as much discussion as possible we are also not interested in promoting hate speech. Please see our policy on this in our profile. We will be having interesting guest bloggers who are not SAUJS members from time to time, so look out.
This blog does not reflect the views of SAUJS unless otherwise stated.
Any comments please send to media@saujs.co.za
This blog does not reflect the views of SAUJS unless otherwise stated.
Any comments please send to media@saujs.co.za
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Putting in the SA in SAUJS - Ilan Solomons
The South African in SAUJS 2010
The South African Union of Jewish Students or SAUJS stands on three pillars Judaism, Zionism/Israel and South African affairs. These values are what hold us together as a student movement on and off campuses across the country. It is often a difficult and complex balancing act but these core values have held us together for many years and will be our guiding principles for the foreseeable future as well.
SAUJS has been in the recent past mainly associated with its first two pillars, which are without doubt two vital aspects of our culture and tradition. The third principle, i.e. South Africa has to some extent been overshadowed since the end of the days of Apartheid when SAUJS was one of the few ‘white’( as we were classified by the NATS) organizations that openly opposed the unjust and inhumane system that oppressed the overwhelming majority of the country. There have been various books and articles written on this particular subject and SAUJS is actually in the process of compiling its own history into a book, which should be ready some time this year hopefully.
The issue now is what is SAUJS’s vision for how to reignite the spark of patriotism and South African activism for which it was once known? Last year we were able to co-host with the Progressive Youth Alliance – which consists of the South African Students Congress (SASCO), the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), and the Young Communist League (YCL) – an event where prominent Jewish South Africans like Janet Love and Howard Sackstein, spoke about their involvement in the struggle both as Jews and as humanitarians. It was a fantastic and enlightening discussion which showed the important role Jewish activists played in the struggle, and even how SAUJS leaders like Howie Sackstein took brave decisions to stand up to members of his own constituency including the Board of Deputies and the Sydenham Highlands North Shul committee who hosted PW Botha on one occasion when he was involved and responsible for some of the most egregious acts of Apartheid oppression. These are the types of Jews that make us proud and I hope that if Heaven Forbid the current leadership of the Jewish community had to be associated or even supportive of oppressive racist elements that we as SAUJS would stand up to them.
Just this past week we co – hosted Moeletsi Mbeki with the Association of Black Securities and Investments Professionals Wits Chapter(ABSIP), Mr Mbeki is the brother of the former President of South Africa – Thabo Mbeki. He is a leading Economist, Journalist and Political Analysis. He is also a major critic of the government namely on its policy towards the economy, HIV/AIDS and Zimbabwe. He spoke about the release of his latest book and some of the important issues that the book mentions. It is important that South African students are always made aware from a plurality of views about the challenges that our country faces and how best we can overcome them and turn them into opportunities for a better South Africa.
It is my sincere hope that the campus committees of SAUJS ensure that events like the Jewish Anti-Apartheid Hero week happens this year, and that more collaboration between various organizations of different faiths, creeds, backgrounds and the like occur. As the National committee of SAUJS we are committed to improving ties with our Non-Jewish friends and exploring the loads of diverse cultures that this country has blessed us with. Opening up avenues of communication and dialogue with members of the Islamic faith is another challenge which we hope to tackle in some shape or form during the course of this year.
We truly hope that this year in which we host the Soccer World Cup that not only Bafana Bafana will put in a respectable performance, but that the message of fair play and tolerance is embedded in the minds and souls of all our countryman during and after the tournament itself.
Please feel free to contact me or any member of the SAUJS National Committee about interesting initiatives or suggestions for projects we can do to help further strengthen our South African - or any other aspect of the movement for that matter – affairs portfolio.
Am Yisrael Chai, Ayoba 2010 Ayoba!!!!
Feel free just to leave comment on the blog or contact Ilan on Liaison@saujs.co.za
The South African Union of Jewish Students or SAUJS stands on three pillars Judaism, Zionism/Israel and South African affairs. These values are what hold us together as a student movement on and off campuses across the country. It is often a difficult and complex balancing act but these core values have held us together for many years and will be our guiding principles for the foreseeable future as well.
SAUJS has been in the recent past mainly associated with its first two pillars, which are without doubt two vital aspects of our culture and tradition. The third principle, i.e. South Africa has to some extent been overshadowed since the end of the days of Apartheid when SAUJS was one of the few ‘white’( as we were classified by the NATS) organizations that openly opposed the unjust and inhumane system that oppressed the overwhelming majority of the country. There have been various books and articles written on this particular subject and SAUJS is actually in the process of compiling its own history into a book, which should be ready some time this year hopefully.
The issue now is what is SAUJS’s vision for how to reignite the spark of patriotism and South African activism for which it was once known? Last year we were able to co-host with the Progressive Youth Alliance – which consists of the South African Students Congress (SASCO), the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), and the Young Communist League (YCL) – an event where prominent Jewish South Africans like Janet Love and Howard Sackstein, spoke about their involvement in the struggle both as Jews and as humanitarians. It was a fantastic and enlightening discussion which showed the important role Jewish activists played in the struggle, and even how SAUJS leaders like Howie Sackstein took brave decisions to stand up to members of his own constituency including the Board of Deputies and the Sydenham Highlands North Shul committee who hosted PW Botha on one occasion when he was involved and responsible for some of the most egregious acts of Apartheid oppression. These are the types of Jews that make us proud and I hope that if Heaven Forbid the current leadership of the Jewish community had to be associated or even supportive of oppressive racist elements that we as SAUJS would stand up to them.
Just this past week we co – hosted Moeletsi Mbeki with the Association of Black Securities and Investments Professionals Wits Chapter(ABSIP), Mr Mbeki is the brother of the former President of South Africa – Thabo Mbeki. He is a leading Economist, Journalist and Political Analysis. He is also a major critic of the government namely on its policy towards the economy, HIV/AIDS and Zimbabwe. He spoke about the release of his latest book and some of the important issues that the book mentions. It is important that South African students are always made aware from a plurality of views about the challenges that our country faces and how best we can overcome them and turn them into opportunities for a better South Africa.
It is my sincere hope that the campus committees of SAUJS ensure that events like the Jewish Anti-Apartheid Hero week happens this year, and that more collaboration between various organizations of different faiths, creeds, backgrounds and the like occur. As the National committee of SAUJS we are committed to improving ties with our Non-Jewish friends and exploring the loads of diverse cultures that this country has blessed us with. Opening up avenues of communication and dialogue with members of the Islamic faith is another challenge which we hope to tackle in some shape or form during the course of this year.
We truly hope that this year in which we host the Soccer World Cup that not only Bafana Bafana will put in a respectable performance, but that the message of fair play and tolerance is embedded in the minds and souls of all our countryman during and after the tournament itself.
Please feel free to contact me or any member of the SAUJS National Committee about interesting initiatives or suggestions for projects we can do to help further strengthen our South African - or any other aspect of the movement for that matter – affairs portfolio.
Am Yisrael Chai, Ayoba 2010 Ayoba!!!!
Feel free just to leave comment on the blog or contact Ilan on Liaison@saujs.co.za
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
SAUJS Wits gets busy- Dina Hendler
South African Union of Jewish Students has commenced the year of 2010 with a resounding bang. The movement has relaunched and rebranded sporting a funky new logo and a commitment to renewing Jewish activity across South African campuses, including religious, social, political, outreach and Zionist events and initiatives.
The vibrancy and enthusiasm of the team has already manifested in an array of events on Wits campus. The SAUJS welcoming braai held on the library lawns on main campus saw over 180 SAUJS members gather to socialise and meet fellow Jewish students while enjoying delicious wors rolls and a brilliant selection of music. The positive atmosphere at the braai was reflected by students who expressed excitement about SAUJS 2010 and enquired about upcoming events on the organisation’s calendar.
The successful braai was followed by the long-awaited Wits Beis Medrash opening, which was brilliantly organised by the National committee who have been working on the project since last year. The event was attended by students and prominent community members who were treated to a typically thought provoking and eloquent address by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein as well as the inspiring words of Rabbi Holzberg, father of murdered Chabad emissary to India.
Not long after, SAUJS celebrated purim at the happening Ohrsom purim party, offering discounted rates to members. The very next day a follow-up party on the lawns was held, with delectable hammanstachen, shalach monos from Chabad, refreshing appeltizers on offer, all accompanied by pumping music; in an enjoyable social gathering reminiscent of the phenomenal opening braai.
The very same week, SAUJS hosted Moeletsi Mbeki, brother of President Tahbo Mbeki, a foremost intellectual and critic of South African economic policy who spoke on his recently publsiehd book ‘Architects of Poverty”. This popular speaker attracted a huge crowd and provided food for thought for the large number of students and intellectuals who attended his talk.
The next day, SAUJS hosted yet another well-attended talk by human rights activist and international speaker Noam Bedein who spoke harrowingly about the humanitarian crisis in Sderot and the murder of civilians by Hamas rockets.
In all, SAUJS 2010 has launched with an unforgettable range of social events, political speakers and offers a wide variety of religious services weekly on campus.
To hear about upcoming events, join the SAUJS Wits facebook group and listen to Chaifm for updates on the amazing happening of the only Jewish students movement in South Africa.
The vibrancy and enthusiasm of the team has already manifested in an array of events on Wits campus. The SAUJS welcoming braai held on the library lawns on main campus saw over 180 SAUJS members gather to socialise and meet fellow Jewish students while enjoying delicious wors rolls and a brilliant selection of music. The positive atmosphere at the braai was reflected by students who expressed excitement about SAUJS 2010 and enquired about upcoming events on the organisation’s calendar.
The successful braai was followed by the long-awaited Wits Beis Medrash opening, which was brilliantly organised by the National committee who have been working on the project since last year. The event was attended by students and prominent community members who were treated to a typically thought provoking and eloquent address by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein as well as the inspiring words of Rabbi Holzberg, father of murdered Chabad emissary to India.
Not long after, SAUJS celebrated purim at the happening Ohrsom purim party, offering discounted rates to members. The very next day a follow-up party on the lawns was held, with delectable hammanstachen, shalach monos from Chabad, refreshing appeltizers on offer, all accompanied by pumping music; in an enjoyable social gathering reminiscent of the phenomenal opening braai.
The very same week, SAUJS hosted Moeletsi Mbeki, brother of President Tahbo Mbeki, a foremost intellectual and critic of South African economic policy who spoke on his recently publsiehd book ‘Architects of Poverty”. This popular speaker attracted a huge crowd and provided food for thought for the large number of students and intellectuals who attended his talk.
The next day, SAUJS hosted yet another well-attended talk by human rights activist and international speaker Noam Bedein who spoke harrowingly about the humanitarian crisis in Sderot and the murder of civilians by Hamas rockets.
In all, SAUJS 2010 has launched with an unforgettable range of social events, political speakers and offers a wide variety of religious services weekly on campus.
To hear about upcoming events, join the SAUJS Wits facebook group and listen to Chaifm for updates on the amazing happening of the only Jewish students movement in South Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)