The last two blog posts on the visit by Benjamin Pogrund and the Palestinian ambassador have caused much controversy. However they both suffer from common deficiencies that tend to plague debate on the Middle East. Reading the one blog you might think that Mosiach had arrived at Wits, signed the Oslo accords and implemented them all in one hour. Reading the other there is desperate nihilism about the whole thing that is very hard to stomach. It almost suggests that somehow not only does everybody hate us all the time, but that they will continue to do so forever.
Between these two poles messianism and depression there has to be something missing. I would argue that if we are going to be really Zionist about the whole thing than we need to add a solid dose of pragmatism, something that has sustained the Zionist movement pretty much since the enterprise began.
By way of example let’s look at the most enduring peace event in the Middle East, peace between Egypt and Israel. This was not achieved between some liberal hippy Egyptian and his pinko Jew friend. Anwar Sadat was an extreme Egyptian nationalist with solid anti-Zionist background and uncomfortable support for the Nazis. Menacham Begin was a militaristic right wing Zionist who was survivor of the holocaust. Now how does this work?
After Egypt’s third failure to wipe Israel off the map, Sadat realised that he had two options. He could either piss the rest of his GDP against an Israeli tank column or he could make peace with the Jews. He chose the latter. It wasn’t pretty, it wasn’t warm and it was not out of love but it has held and it has held in a region where things like this often don’t.
But Begin was no roll over. Although overjoyed at the opportunity was the process extremely difficult. He didn’t get wrapped in whose land it actually was but rather focused on the prize. Peace and recognition. Sadat’s wife records extreme frustration saying that Begin went on and on about the Holocaust. For even inch of Sinai that Begin gave away so Sadat learnt every psychological twist to being a Jew.
This has something to teach as Jews. On the one hand we can’t be hypocrites, for years we have bemoaned the fact that no one on the other side will talk to us. The Palestinian ambassador is prepared to speak to us we should let him and we should engage and learn from him. I promise you now this is not great PR for him. A less brave man in his condition could easily have ignored the Jews or just met them in private. He did not as the one blog suggested come out in the favour of a one state solution. He said he would prefer it but that he sees two states as being the only option right now. This Ambassador has a long history of being moderate and I pray that we see more voices like him. However the PA itself is suddenly more inclined to talk. Not because they love us but because they are running out of options. They have tried terror, suicide bombings, support from the Arab states and denunciations in the UN. But they are losing ground, they are not so welcome in the west who see them as corrupt, the Islamic fundamentalists see them as only step above Zionists, as usual they are being betrayed but their Arab neighbours and they have lost control of their leftist solidarity allies.
Like Sadat before, peace with the Jews and their own state next door is looking like the only option that they have left. We daren’t miss this opportunity to help them out with their problem. But as Begin showed us and the Palestinian ambassador reminded we don’t need to lose ourselves over this. We don’t need to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians, the PSC do a good enough job as it is. Israel is thankfully the more powerful player these days. But make no mistake, the people who got us into this mess were rejectionist Arab leaders and they need to be reminded at every opportunity that we get. We have rights to that land also and floating them out onto the Mediterranean will not help our cause.
To describe Israeli policies in such draconian terms as the one blog has done and then say it is to support Israel, is not only counterproductive, it is ridiculous. It does nothing to inform proper debate and erodes our ability as Jews to make the careful and dangerous decisions that we will need to secure our rights as citizens of the world.
Benji Shulman writes in personal capacity and these views do not neccesarily reflect those of SAUJS
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ya ma se Boycott - Josh Schewitz
The proposed boycott of Ahava Dead Sea Products is based on hatful assumptions. Open Shahadah Street is an extreme fringe organisation that is not concerned with peace so much as it is concerned with the destruction of the Jewish state. The Boycott campaign or BDS of Israel is not by any stretch concerned with a peaceful resumption to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. By its actions and words the BDS campaign has been shown to be a proponent of the destruction of the Jewish State. Boycotts of Israel are aimed at the delegitimization of the Jewish State as a whole. The boycott campaign aims at anything Israeli and in some cases anything Jewish. Organisation such as Open Shahadah street`s request for divestment and boycott of the Israeli company Ahava should be opposed in the strongest terms.
Here are some statements by BDS campaigners: Ronnie Kasrils, a former anti-apartheid activist turned anti-Israel activist, has made the objectiveclear: "BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." Ahmed Moor, another prominent BDS activist has it even clearer: "So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state". ( i am not going to expand on the basic Human right that Zionism encompasses. It is the subject of a essay in the future.)
Boycotts of Israel go against the actions and needs of the Palestinians themselves. Currently the Palestinian Authority does approximately 3 billion dollars worth of trade each year with Israel. The Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa recently spoke at a South African Union of Jewish Students Event. This is contrary to the education boycott that organisation that claim to represent the Palestinian people impose internationally. The Palestinian lobby in South Africa urged the Palestinian Ambassador not to accept the saujs invitation to a debate based on the same accusation that are being used to try manipulate your company. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Women and minorities have more rights in Israel than in any other middle east state. Israel has the freest media and the most open political system in the middle east. In Israel women have exactly the same rights as men, something foreign to the region. Kalid Abu Tomoe, an Arab Israeli journalist works for the Jerusalem post because he cant work as a journalist in any other middle east nation without being subject to anti-freedom restrictions on his writting. He has said on many occasions that he would rather live in the Jewish
Israel than in any other Middle East nation.
Ismail Khalid a Bedouin Israeli diplomat says that he is proud of the achievements of his young country. He says there are problems but for a country that is only 60 years old Israel has done tremendously well. Especially taken in light of the type of regimes that populate the Middle East at the moment. Ismail Khalid says Israel can be proud of its democracy, human rights record, technological advances as well as many other achievements.
The accusations of apartheid are totally unfounded and based on irrational hate rather than proper intellectual discourse. Both Khalid Abu Tomoe and Ismail kalidi will vigorously fight the irrational claim of apartheid. Israel is committed to a peaceful negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arabs. Israel is currently sitting at the negotiating table waiting for the Palestinians to sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution. Israel has time and again made concrete steps to end the conflict and live in peace. These include, among others, the 1968 appeal for a land for peace deal. The Arabs rejected with the infamous three no`s of Khartoum. Israel faithfully signed the Oslo accords of 1993 and kept its part of the deal. Israel removed its soldiers and began the process of handing over control of the western bank of the Hashemite kingdom to the Palestinian authority. The response from the PA was vastly increased terrorism, further hate education of Palestinian youth and continued promotion of armed resistance. Again in 2000 Prime Minster Barak offer 97% of the west bank and land transfers to make up the other 3%. Yassir Arafat declined and initiated the 2nd intifada. The current situation of check points and restrictions of entry to Israel for Arabs is a direct result of the terror campaign launched in 2001. Israel has shown time and again its willingness to dismantle checkpoints and easy restrictions is proved by the removal of checkpoints as soon as security situations improve. The recent activities in Gilo are a real indication of Israel’s willingness to remove security barriers when security situations improve. There is a direct relationship between terrorism directed as Israeli civilians and security measures that are restrictive.
Israel desperately wants peace. Israel understands the requirements to achieve peace but is at this time unable to find a partner for peace. Israel will continue to sue for peace in the hope that a Palestinian leader will emerge with the courage to make peace with the Jews.
Josh Schewitz writes in his individual capacity and does not neccesarily represent views of SAUJS
Here are some statements by BDS campaigners: Ronnie Kasrils, a former anti-apartheid activist turned anti-Israel activist, has made the objectiveclear: "BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine." Ahmed Moor, another prominent BDS activist has it even clearer: "So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state". ( i am not going to expand on the basic Human right that Zionism encompasses. It is the subject of a essay in the future.)
Boycotts of Israel go against the actions and needs of the Palestinians themselves. Currently the Palestinian Authority does approximately 3 billion dollars worth of trade each year with Israel. The Palestinian Ambassador to South Africa recently spoke at a South African Union of Jewish Students Event. This is contrary to the education boycott that organisation that claim to represent the Palestinian people impose internationally. The Palestinian lobby in South Africa urged the Palestinian Ambassador not to accept the saujs invitation to a debate based on the same accusation that are being used to try manipulate your company. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Women and minorities have more rights in Israel than in any other middle east state. Israel has the freest media and the most open political system in the middle east. In Israel women have exactly the same rights as men, something foreign to the region. Kalid Abu Tomoe, an Arab Israeli journalist works for the Jerusalem post because he cant work as a journalist in any other middle east nation without being subject to anti-freedom restrictions on his writting. He has said on many occasions that he would rather live in the Jewish
Israel than in any other Middle East nation.
Ismail Khalid a Bedouin Israeli diplomat says that he is proud of the achievements of his young country. He says there are problems but for a country that is only 60 years old Israel has done tremendously well. Especially taken in light of the type of regimes that populate the Middle East at the moment. Ismail Khalid says Israel can be proud of its democracy, human rights record, technological advances as well as many other achievements.
The accusations of apartheid are totally unfounded and based on irrational hate rather than proper intellectual discourse. Both Khalid Abu Tomoe and Ismail kalidi will vigorously fight the irrational claim of apartheid. Israel is committed to a peaceful negotiated settlement between Israel and the Arabs. Israel is currently sitting at the negotiating table waiting for the Palestinians to sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution. Israel has time and again made concrete steps to end the conflict and live in peace. These include, among others, the 1968 appeal for a land for peace deal. The Arabs rejected with the infamous three no`s of Khartoum. Israel faithfully signed the Oslo accords of 1993 and kept its part of the deal. Israel removed its soldiers and began the process of handing over control of the western bank of the Hashemite kingdom to the Palestinian authority. The response from the PA was vastly increased terrorism, further hate education of Palestinian youth and continued promotion of armed resistance. Again in 2000 Prime Minster Barak offer 97% of the west bank and land transfers to make up the other 3%. Yassir Arafat declined and initiated the 2nd intifada. The current situation of check points and restrictions of entry to Israel for Arabs is a direct result of the terror campaign launched in 2001. Israel has shown time and again its willingness to dismantle checkpoints and easy restrictions is proved by the removal of checkpoints as soon as security situations improve. The recent activities in Gilo are a real indication of Israel’s willingness to remove security barriers when security situations improve. There is a direct relationship between terrorism directed as Israeli civilians and security measures that are restrictive.
Israel desperately wants peace. Israel understands the requirements to achieve peace but is at this time unable to find a partner for peace. Israel will continue to sue for peace in the hope that a Palestinian leader will emerge with the courage to make peace with the Jews.
Josh Schewitz writes in his individual capacity and does not neccesarily represent views of SAUJS
Monday, August 23, 2010
Another view of our Israeli/Palestinian guest - Rafi Eliasov
Recently SAUJS hosted the Palestinian ambassador in a discussion panel on recent events in the Middle East and prospects for peace. I will firstly begin by analyzing the broad deficiencies of the event and then analyze the content of each speaker.
Broadly speaking, essentially I think SAUJS was hosting a speaker in favour of a one state solution, counter to its mandate and constitution as a Zionist organization. While the event has been labeled, by some SAUJS members as ‘assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved’, I think the event did not represent the ethos of SAUJS and failed to provide a balanced perspective on the issues. While it is essential that SAUJS as an organization empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their plight is continually emphasized both by the national media and by on campus organizations such as Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. It is therefore, in my opinion, our responsibility to add balance to this aberration.
According to Mr Pogrund both parties agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions and then immediately set numerous conditions that must be fulfilled in order for negotiations to begin. While this is indeed true for the Palestinians who demanded a recognition that the 67’ borders would be the basis of the negotiations and a freeze of settlement building, this is untrue of Israel . Not only did Israel repeatedly agree to immediate and unconditional negotiations, but it imposed a moratorium in order to appease the Palestinians , this unprecedented step yielded little in return. Additionally Mr Pogrund repeatedly identified settlements as the major obstacle to peace. While settlements are no doubt unhelpful to the situation, as stated above Israel discontinued their expansion. What Mr Pogrund failed to address was the anti-Semitism created by the Palestinian national movement that precipitated a segmented society. This stigma, which condemned Palestinians to death for merely associating with Jews, has existed since the days of Haj Amin Al Husseini. Palestinian organizations such as the ‘Black Hand’ and ‘the Lightning’, executed Palestinians with ties to the Yishuv this served as an example, with the goal of creating an utter state of segregation between Jews and no-Jews. This ideology is the basis on which no Jew can live in a future Palestinian state and Israel is forced to withdraw its civilians and dismantle settlements.
Ultimately the perception that Arafat was a visionary, portrayed by his Excellency the Palestinian ambassador is undermined by fact. Not only did Arafat reject the Clinton Parameters (a far reaching proposal that encompassed massive compromises by Israel), but he also pillaged and horded international funds intended for the Palestinian people . Likewise the portrayal of Netanyahu as an uncompromising peace partner is similarly false. It was Netanyahu who concluded the Hebron protocols, which led to autonomy for the PA in this controversial city. Additionally the Wye River-Memorandum, which gave the PA additional territory in the West Bank was condoned by Netanyahu. Netanyahu has continued that trend, to the possible disgruntlement of his consistency by lifting road block , improving the Palestinian economy and stopping settlements.
While dialogue is indeed useful, I would rather SAUJS ensure that its constituency receives a balanced education on these issues. While the Palestinian Ambassador should be applauded for attending the event, it is the base racism of those who condemned him for speaking to Jews that is the root of the Middle East conflict. In future if we host a speaker whose views are contentious, we as an organization should endeavor to ensure that two divergent opinions are expressed as appose to two similar and contentious opinions as was the case at this event. This is true when an event is portrayed as a debate or where speakers are portrayed as representing the two sides of the issue.
Rafi Eliasov writes in his personal capacity. This article does not represent the views of SAUJS.
Broadly speaking, essentially I think SAUJS was hosting a speaker in favour of a one state solution, counter to its mandate and constitution as a Zionist organization. While the event has been labeled, by some SAUJS members as ‘assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved’, I think the event did not represent the ethos of SAUJS and failed to provide a balanced perspective on the issues. While it is essential that SAUJS as an organization empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their plight is continually emphasized both by the national media and by on campus organizations such as Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Committee. It is therefore, in my opinion, our responsibility to add balance to this aberration.
According to Mr Pogrund both parties agreed to negotiations without pre-conditions and then immediately set numerous conditions that must be fulfilled in order for negotiations to begin. While this is indeed true for the Palestinians who demanded a recognition that the 67’ borders would be the basis of the negotiations and a freeze of settlement building, this is untrue of Israel . Not only did Israel repeatedly agree to immediate and unconditional negotiations, but it imposed a moratorium in order to appease the Palestinians , this unprecedented step yielded little in return. Additionally Mr Pogrund repeatedly identified settlements as the major obstacle to peace. While settlements are no doubt unhelpful to the situation, as stated above Israel discontinued their expansion. What Mr Pogrund failed to address was the anti-Semitism created by the Palestinian national movement that precipitated a segmented society. This stigma, which condemned Palestinians to death for merely associating with Jews, has existed since the days of Haj Amin Al Husseini. Palestinian organizations such as the ‘Black Hand’ and ‘the Lightning’, executed Palestinians with ties to the Yishuv this served as an example, with the goal of creating an utter state of segregation between Jews and no-Jews. This ideology is the basis on which no Jew can live in a future Palestinian state and Israel is forced to withdraw its civilians and dismantle settlements.
Ultimately the perception that Arafat was a visionary, portrayed by his Excellency the Palestinian ambassador is undermined by fact. Not only did Arafat reject the Clinton Parameters (a far reaching proposal that encompassed massive compromises by Israel), but he also pillaged and horded international funds intended for the Palestinian people . Likewise the portrayal of Netanyahu as an uncompromising peace partner is similarly false. It was Netanyahu who concluded the Hebron protocols, which led to autonomy for the PA in this controversial city. Additionally the Wye River-Memorandum, which gave the PA additional territory in the West Bank was condoned by Netanyahu. Netanyahu has continued that trend, to the possible disgruntlement of his consistency by lifting road block , improving the Palestinian economy and stopping settlements.
While dialogue is indeed useful, I would rather SAUJS ensure that its constituency receives a balanced education on these issues. While the Palestinian Ambassador should be applauded for attending the event, it is the base racism of those who condemned him for speaking to Jews that is the root of the Middle East conflict. In future if we host a speaker whose views are contentious, we as an organization should endeavor to ensure that two divergent opinions are expressed as appose to two similar and contentious opinions as was the case at this event. This is true when an event is portrayed as a debate or where speakers are portrayed as representing the two sides of the issue.
Rafi Eliasov writes in his personal capacity. This article does not represent the views of SAUJS.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A view of our Palestinian Israeli guest- By Ilan Solomons
It’s not often that an event hosted by the South African Union of Jewish Students (SAUJS) makes it onto websites like Al-Jazeera.net Arabic, Electronic Intifada and Maan News to name just a few. Well our recent event made headlines on these sites. SAUJS is an organization which seeks to constructively engage on a range of issues whether they are relating to Jewish identity, South African and African Affairs, or even the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is because SAUJS is founded on 3 core values Jewish Identity, South Africa and Zionism. The last principle is something which makes our connection to this conflict that exists thousands of miles away from South Africa such an important part of daily SAUJS activities.
SAUJS is defined as broadly as an apolitical organization but this does not by any means make us politically naïve or unconscious. We send tours to Israel every year, we have our leadership training there, our highest values are to make Aliya and become a part of Israeli society. We have a close relationship with the Israeli Embassy in South Africa and all of the above is generally regarded as common knowledge. What is not such common knowledge are our relationships with the Palestinian people and their diplomatic missions.
Before I go into this topic let me just also state that SAUJS also has relationships with Israeli human rights organizations which are generally very critical of policies and practices of the State of Israel. The most famous one being Benjamin Pogrund who is the former editor of the Rand Daily Mail and who moved to Israel and founded the Yakar Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem. He is a veteran of the Zionist-Left and is very much critical of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian territories and the human rights abuses that occur in the Territories, and other policies which infringe upon the rights of Arab-Israeli’s, which is why he has been so involved in Israeli-Palestinian and Jordanian dialogue through the Yakar Centre. He is devote Zionist but just as devoutly anti-Occupation
Now back to the issue of our relationship with the Palestinians. SAUJS has been engaged in meeting with Palestinian peace activists in the territories, SAUJS has hosted Bassim Eid and Benjamin Pogrund on a previous occasion. We have unfortunately only very recently begun engaging directly with the local Palestinian Diplomatic Mission in South Africa. Although this is viewed as contraversial move by some to meet the PLO/PA SAUJS realized that we had found someone in Palestinian Ambassador who shared our view of creating meaningful dialogue between the Jewish community and the Palestinian people.
That we have major differences it goes without saying that the Ambassador is not in favour of Zionism or the concept of a Jewish State – as apposed to the existence of State called Israel where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others live together as equals – this goes without saying, I just am stating this because many of the internet sites have labelled him a ‘Zionist collaborator’ and ‘an agent of Zionism and of the Zionist entity AKA Israel’, this is incredibly insulting to any Palestinian no-less to a Palestinian diplomat, who views Zionism as the reason for them being without a state and many still languishing in refugee camps throughout the middle-east. What we do agree on is the need for dialogue and as the Ambassador has said many times he would rather us to shout at one another than shoot at one other.
I have personally arranged for the Ambassador to speak to Jewish Youth groupings, and have helped facilitate a special relationship between our movement and parts of the Jewish community. I truly hope this will help bring balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an official Palestinian view point – that is opposed to the radical views espoused by groups like the PSC, Afro-Middle Centre(AMEC) and the like!
The actual discussion between the Ambassador and Pogrund which was held in the Dorothy Susskind Hall in John Moffat building on Wits Campus was entitled “ Assessing Current Diplomacy towards building Peace in the Middle East”. It was moderated by Professor Larry Benjamin from the School of International Relations. What both participants agreed on was that the growth illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were destoying efforts to establish a viable independent Palestinian State along side the State of Israel. They also agreed that America was not doing enough to bring a peace settlement and that it was important for both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, to take bold and courageous steps to bring about a just and equitable solution!
I believe that as a movement we should be committed to seeking a fair and broad understanding of the tragedy that has befallen the people of Palestine and Israel. I think that we have too often been guilty of responding to groups like the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC), by countering their propaganda with our own form of Hasbara. I believe that we should be committed to defending Israel from unfair criticism and liable, but I also believe that through initiatives like the discussion between an imminent Israeli human rights activist and a representative of the Palestinian Authority we are assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved.
In conclusion I just would like to state that the PSC was approached to co-host this event but they refused to do so. SAUJS however will continue to engage them in the hopes that we can work together to show a fuller picture of situation and co-operate in the interests of peace between the State of Israel and the Future State of Palestine. We welcome partnerships with various groups and organizations and look forward to expanding dialogue with all campus groupings, civil society and other institutions!
If you would like to know more about the event or SAUJS or anything that was mentioned in this article please feel free to contact me at liaison@saujs.co.za.
Ilan Solomons writes this blog in his personal capacity and does not represent the views of the organisation.
Chutzpahonline is a forum for debate of individual SAUJS members. Please see our terms of use for more information. If you would like to contribute on this or any other topic please email media@saujs.co.za
SAUJS is defined as broadly as an apolitical organization but this does not by any means make us politically naïve or unconscious. We send tours to Israel every year, we have our leadership training there, our highest values are to make Aliya and become a part of Israeli society. We have a close relationship with the Israeli Embassy in South Africa and all of the above is generally regarded as common knowledge. What is not such common knowledge are our relationships with the Palestinian people and their diplomatic missions.
Before I go into this topic let me just also state that SAUJS also has relationships with Israeli human rights organizations which are generally very critical of policies and practices of the State of Israel. The most famous one being Benjamin Pogrund who is the former editor of the Rand Daily Mail and who moved to Israel and founded the Yakar Centre for Social Concern in Jerusalem. He is a veteran of the Zionist-Left and is very much critical of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian territories and the human rights abuses that occur in the Territories, and other policies which infringe upon the rights of Arab-Israeli’s, which is why he has been so involved in Israeli-Palestinian and Jordanian dialogue through the Yakar Centre. He is devote Zionist but just as devoutly anti-Occupation
Now back to the issue of our relationship with the Palestinians. SAUJS has been engaged in meeting with Palestinian peace activists in the territories, SAUJS has hosted Bassim Eid and Benjamin Pogrund on a previous occasion. We have unfortunately only very recently begun engaging directly with the local Palestinian Diplomatic Mission in South Africa. Although this is viewed as contraversial move by some to meet the PLO/PA SAUJS realized that we had found someone in Palestinian Ambassador who shared our view of creating meaningful dialogue between the Jewish community and the Palestinian people.
That we have major differences it goes without saying that the Ambassador is not in favour of Zionism or the concept of a Jewish State – as apposed to the existence of State called Israel where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others live together as equals – this goes without saying, I just am stating this because many of the internet sites have labelled him a ‘Zionist collaborator’ and ‘an agent of Zionism and of the Zionist entity AKA Israel’, this is incredibly insulting to any Palestinian no-less to a Palestinian diplomat, who views Zionism as the reason for them being without a state and many still languishing in refugee camps throughout the middle-east. What we do agree on is the need for dialogue and as the Ambassador has said many times he would rather us to shout at one another than shoot at one other.
I have personally arranged for the Ambassador to speak to Jewish Youth groupings, and have helped facilitate a special relationship between our movement and parts of the Jewish community. I truly hope this will help bring balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an official Palestinian view point – that is opposed to the radical views espoused by groups like the PSC, Afro-Middle Centre(AMEC) and the like!
The actual discussion between the Ambassador and Pogrund which was held in the Dorothy Susskind Hall in John Moffat building on Wits Campus was entitled “ Assessing Current Diplomacy towards building Peace in the Middle East”. It was moderated by Professor Larry Benjamin from the School of International Relations. What both participants agreed on was that the growth illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories were destoying efforts to establish a viable independent Palestinian State along side the State of Israel. They also agreed that America was not doing enough to bring a peace settlement and that it was important for both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, to take bold and courageous steps to bring about a just and equitable solution!
I believe that as a movement we should be committed to seeking a fair and broad understanding of the tragedy that has befallen the people of Palestine and Israel. I think that we have too often been guilty of responding to groups like the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC), by countering their propaganda with our own form of Hasbara. I believe that we should be committed to defending Israel from unfair criticism and liable, but I also believe that through initiatives like the discussion between an imminent Israeli human rights activist and a representative of the Palestinian Authority we are assisting in highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people and the hurdles that need to be overcome in-order to ensure that peace is achieved.
In conclusion I just would like to state that the PSC was approached to co-host this event but they refused to do so. SAUJS however will continue to engage them in the hopes that we can work together to show a fuller picture of situation and co-operate in the interests of peace between the State of Israel and the Future State of Palestine. We welcome partnerships with various groups and organizations and look forward to expanding dialogue with all campus groupings, civil society and other institutions!
If you would like to know more about the event or SAUJS or anything that was mentioned in this article please feel free to contact me at liaison@saujs.co.za.
Ilan Solomons writes this blog in his personal capacity and does not represent the views of the organisation.
Chutzpahonline is a forum for debate of individual SAUJS members. Please see our terms of use for more information. If you would like to contribute on this or any other topic please email media@saujs.co.za
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)