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
No comments:
Post a Comment