I’m one of those people who know which side of the fence they’re on on pretty much every topic they’ve come into contact with. So now that I am conflicted, I don’t really know what to do with myself, and it’s rather troubling. And all because of a man called David Benjamin.
David Benjamin is the legal adviser to the Israeli Defence Force. He is a South African, and studied at the same university whose grounds I strolled for four years — UCT. He was the man who, in his own words, was intimately involved in the planning of the siege on Gaza. His exact words were “approval of targets which can be attacked, methods of warfare — it all has gone through us”. This means that he was the man accused of approving the use of white phosphorus, attacks on residential areas and, according to United Nations official John Ging, on universities, UN offices and five UN schools.
There has been a divisive uproar around Benjamin’s speaking appointments at the annual Limmud conference in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg happening this month. Limmud, according to its website, is a “diverse and inclusive forum in which you will experience the full gamut of Jewish opinion and belief”. The debate has even filtered down into the circles of anti-occupation, anti-Zionism and general human-rights activists, with some, like Jonathan Shapiro and Zackie Achmat believing that Benjamin should not be given a voice and others, including Farid Esack seeing access to Benjamin’s words a fundamental step in the road going forward. To be honest, I didn’t really see the problem in Benjamin talking here, I thought it would be like glimpsing the inner workings of the mind of a mafia godfather. I thought it was necessary, and at first, and I’m putting myself on the line here, didn’t see what all the fuss was about.
It was Achmat’s comment as reported in The Times that helped me get started on the arduous path to clarity — he called Benjamin an “architect of the war on the Palestinian people”. Obviously, being as unsubtle as I am, I immediately asked myself if I’d be okay with a society for the enrichment of the Afrikaner people inviting a living Hendrik Verwoerd to talk to them at their annual conference.
Here’s how I worked it out: firstly, it would be offensive, as it would assume that all the people in this community were associated with apartheid. Secondly, and this is where I think I started coming up with a little theory, what could he actually talk about in a monologue that could be of any benefit to the public? It’s not like he’s going to get up there and talk about how sorry he is in retrospect.
A friend, and fearless activist, who attended Benjamin’s session in Cape Town, said she only attended so that she could ask questions at the end, but was not given the opportunity, as the session was a soliloquy of sorts, with about two minutes for questions at the end. A short while after our conversation, I was asked to interview Benjamin and found myself in an argument with myself, and my news editor, around whether, as a journalist, I wanted my newspaper to give a voice to a man who has pretty much been deemed a war criminal. I have the responsibility to put it all out there, but I also have the ability to, to an extent, affect topics of importance in the public sphere. “Why would you want to give a platform to a liar, and a war criminal?” was said in harsher tones than I am used to down the receiver from another activist.
That’s when it became pretty clear — the problem is not that Benjamin has been invited to speak, it’s the platform he’s been given and the ones he’s been protected from. He has not given a single media interview since his arrival and will not give any officially until after his sessions. The only stage he has taken has been one with an audience not given the opportunity to question, probe or clarify. The conference was not open to the general public — it was an event that was not advertised outside of the Jewish community and charged a daily fee of R 180. Had the session been held in an open forum, with an invited media, Limmud could at least have cried healthy dialogue and debate.
A media interview will work as a platform for digging for truths and giving the public enough information with which to decide for themselves. In a media interview, a journalist could ask Benjamin, when he defended the killing of civilians with that all-encompassing term, human shields, what he expected with a population of more than a million in an area 40km long and 10km wide. A journalist could ask Benjamin, when he denied the use of white phosphorus, and talked about how humane and law-abiding his army is, if he ever watched the news.
But the public wasn’t given this opportunity. So I’ve made up my mind — I’m not cool with Benjamin coming to have a one-way dialogue with himself in front of a room of people charmed into taking his word because, he was there. Limmud still has the chance to save face though — media access, public education and open, honest forums are the only way to finding justice and a non-racist, non-discriminatory peace in Palestine.
May your last three lines apply to all sides of the debate/fight not just the Jewish side.
Brent
I would have thought that the SA Press has enough power and guts to corner the man and seriously question him. ETV’s “Third degree” comes to mind.
Alternatively, seduce him into a private conversation with a little mike hidden where it fits best while whispering your questions in his ear.
Sound like you missed an opportunity.
Good article. The bit that really interests me is the way all these bad things are wrapped up as cultural events! It is the modern get-out-of-jail-free card.
The fact that you were given an opportunity to question this Benjamin shows that you chose to spurn a great opportunity to ask those questions that could have made Benjamin question his sense of humanity.
I don’t blame the Jewish community for not advertising the Limmud conference too widely. Besides the conference was not only for Jews, anyone could have attended. Remember what happened at Durban 1 (World Conference on Racism – Aug 2001) – it was hijacked and undermined by the Palestinian lobby group. The disruption of this conference is unforgivable! The issues concerning hundreds of millions around the world that are subjected to racism on a daily basis were not addressed because of the concerns for a few hundred thousand displaced Palestinians. Does that make sense to you?
Interesting that his visit, unlike that of the Dalai Lama, wasn’t considered likely to distract from the football next year…
Your article offends in a number of ways. You assume that all the people attending Limmud are of the same ilk; homogenous, accepting and unthinking of the views put forward to them. Be careful of your own assumptions. Benjamin spoke in more than one session and I personally saw questions being put to him by the audience that were critical and probing. Anyone can attend Limmud and there are many people who are not Jewish who are attending around the country. I encourage you, as a journalist, to find out more about the conference and its history before condemning it. It is a forum for diversity and pluralism that other religious groupings long to set up in their own communities and Benjamin’s voice is countered by other presenters, including Shlomi Zachary a human rights lawyer from Israel who works in the occupied territories, Anat Hoffman, an activist who fights for the rights of Palestinian civilians and Jonathan Berger of the Human Rights Delegation. Interesting that your article makes no mention of these presenters, among others, who are also presenting at Limmud.
If muslims showed any interest in human rights abuses that occur all over the world, they might have some sort of moral leg to stand on. All they really seem concerned about is “Palestinians”. Like the islamic world isn’t full of oppressors! Forget about the “umma” and get as worked up about all human rights abuses. You are only concerned about the “Palestinians” because they are muslim. There’s plenty of abuse going on north of the Limpopo, without worrying about what is happening thousands of miles away on another continent.
If you refused to interview him you can’t complain about others not being given the opportunity. Perhaps you felt you weren’t intellectually up to debating with someone representing the other side.
Ah Dave Harris, back with more nuggets of wisdom, ‘a few hundred thousand Palestinians’?? You are not talking about cattle Dave. I can just imagine a Nazi camp leader rationalizing in a similar fashion ‘ a few hundred thousand Jews ….. It’s for the greater good’. You manage to show yourself as a total hypocrite everytime I read your Comments.
Irish reader.
So Ned proclaims his “Irishness” and now calls others “total hypocrites”? Thats, as usual, laughable
I absolutly agree with you. Free speech and ‘war criminals’. Here is another example:-
On April 23, 1999 missiles slammed into Radio Television Serbia (RTS) in downtown Belgrade, killing 16 employees. The station, NATO claimed, was a legitimate military target because it broadcast propaganda. (Certainly a novel form of censorship; not to mention the fact that NATO could simply have taken out the station’s transmitter.) What apparently bothered the Western powers was that RTS was reporting the horrendous effects of NATO’s bombing as well as passing footage of the destruction to Western media.
@Ned,
Dave Harris wasn’t rationalizing anything. He used comparison to highlight the fact that anti-Israelis only focus on the plight of a relatively small number of victims.
They obviously have an agenda, because these are the only “victims” that they seem concerned about.
Much of the “Palestinians” troubles are brought on themselves and by the actions of other muslims all over the world who support them. If they left Israel alone and accepted it’s existence most of their problems would go away as Israel would not have to constantly defend itself against attacks.
It never ceases to amaze me that people think that war is conducted in some sanitized manner, as if it was an execise in good manners.
Rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention are lovely in theory (just like communism and a loving, just god) but they fall by the wayside when lives are on the line.
Only idiots will pick a war against a much stronger enemy, because any nation worth it’s name will maximise it’s power to end up victorious and bugger the consequences. They would be stupid not to.
Jeff, the fact that you use inverted commas when writing Palestinian is evidence enough that you are not worth engaging with.
Dave Harris, are you also now slurring the Irish? Or are non South Africans not welcome to comment here? I suppose we all have our own prejudices don’t we though?
Ned, based on your outlandish comments here and on other blogs, you are about as “Irish” as the Ayatollah.
Your reluctance to engage with Jeff, who has taken the time to spell things out to you is indicative of your brand of extremism and outmoded thinking that has no place in the Middle East. The poor Palestinians bear the brunt of your thuggish mentality and are even worse off than “cattle”. Even Obama, who ran his campaign as being open to dialog with anyone, has realized the uselessness of trying to engage with certain factions in the Middle East. You sadly, represent one of those factions.
Have a great day
For some strange reason Dave, you have a problem with the fact that I am Irish. I am writing from a small village in Co. Cork. I don’t feel the need to prove it to you, but guess that you suffer some strange paranoia about small things like this.
If the moderator will let me explain. I have a Politically correct B.S. detector that spans continents Dave, and you’re blip is one of the brightest.
Why would I engage with a man who delegtimises the existence of the Palestinians by useing inverted comma? Imagine this sentence for a minute dave… The ‘Israeli’ people returned to their homeland after 2000 years. The inverted commas suggest the ‘so called ‘ Israelis.
If it is ‘extremism’ to point out that the Palestinians exist, then Dave, I’ll have to say you’ve outdone yourself with your twisted logic.
And can you really say you agree with Jeff’s statement…
‘Much of the “Palestinians” troubles are brought on themselves and by the actions of other muslims all over the world who support them. If they left Israel alone and accepted it’s existence most of their problems would go away as Israel would not have to constantly defend itself against attacks.’
From reading you’re prveious posts you like to be the kind of guy who sticks up for the oppressed… what’s you’re problem here Dave? Do’nt you see your own contradictions?
Could it be as simple as you blame the Palestinians for spoiling your fun at the Durban conference? (Chaired by the ex-President of MY country)
I wonder…
And Dave, you can keep your twee, sarcastic smiley faces. The constant use of which say a lot about you.
@Ned,
It appears to me that you are the one who has been taken in by the “Politically correct BS”. Then being Irish I suppose you look for “victims” to support. After all the Irish never let go of their “victim” status.
Find another bunch of politically correct victims for your sympathy; it’s wasted on the “Palestinians”. If you’re not a muslim they’d gladly watch you suffer.
Ned, once again, what does your “Irishness” have to do with this discussion? The more you try to flaunt your “Irishness” the more unbelievable your claims are to the rest of us. Now you want to divert us from this conversation by accusing me of being prejudiced against the Irish. Typical.
Back to topic: The Palestenians are being used as mere pawns (worse than “cattle”) by Jihadists in the Middle East to spread their fundamentalism and garner support from Moslems around the world. A tactic that worked in the Bush era but is fast losing momentum. Peace would not suit the Jihadists plans so, according to their warped thinking, the Palestenian conflict MUST be maintained at all costs. So I do agree with Jeff, no Palestenian conflict means that Jihadists lose their raison d’être …pardon my French and the smiley
By hijacking Durban 1 (a WORLDWIDE conference on racism) the Palestenian lobby is directly responsible for hindering progress towards eradicating the cancer of racism affecting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS around the world. They even undermined the latest conference in Geneva with their fanatical demands. Even though the Obama administration placed emphasis on dealing with the legacy of racism, they too had to again walk away from attending the conference. Over 40 countries walked out after Ahmadinejad’s anti-semitic speech. Ned, my “Irish” friend, you seem to spew the same hate-filled ideology as Ahmadinejad, evidenced by your references to Nazis in your comments above. No more smileys for you!
Ned, Dave…..off the subject again and in a personal vendetta.
Thought this forum had a moderator???..and some rules. Childish point scoring is for politicians and does never forward a debate.
Loosing interest fast!
@Benzol, it’s not childish point scoring to argue against the logic that claims ‘the Palestinians brought their trouble on themselves’ as is the flavour of those on the blog.
@Dave , I pointed out my nationality not to make a point but just to say there are also people outside s.a. reading thus blog. You and Jeff have made a point out of it and slurred the Irish. This is the kind of thing I call you a hypocrite. You are anti racist but quite happy to slur your chosen group. (@Jeff, for the last time ) As for victimhood, I think you’d find it has passed off mostly, but perhaps 800 years of occupation can explain that. Not so unreasonable ? In general though, the Irish empathize with the Palastinian plight because it HAS EXPERIENCED forcefull occupation.
On your point Dave, all I have to say, and it’s my last comment, Is that you either have priciples on discrimination or you don’t. Highlighting the fact that Zionism is a form of racism is very valid and if the Americans constantly walk out of talks because of this fact, it is they who scupper the racism issue.
I think you’ll never get it. No loss.
@Ned,
Actually I’m Welsh and have always had a high regard for the Irish in general and those I have known personally. I’m not a nationalist of any sort. I always decried idiots like the Free Wales Army (a joke if ever there was one) fighting age old battles that any intelligent being has moved on from. Everyone has been a victim at some time.
Just be lucky it was the English who colonised you. It could have been the Arabs, then all the Irish would be muslim now. Get over it Ned, rabitting on about colonialism and victimisation is a waste of time. “Not even God can change the past”. Even as an atheist I like that one. “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on, nor all thy piety and wit…[etc.]”
I also admire the Jews and Israelis. I “get it” just fine, but, like Dave, I have a different viewpoint to you.
My father was also victimised as a coalminer whose health was ruined by the working conditions of the time. Thing is, he refused to be a “poor victim of the exploiter”. He bore no grudges, and was thankful that I could get educated and not be a coalminer. He had too much pride and self-esteem to be a “victim”. Make of that what you will.
Fair play Jeff, I agree with you on the ‘victim status’ thing, plenty of abuse there, but I think the game in the West bank is a little different. Some people actually are victims and the Palestinians are not the highest profile simply because of anti Israeli media.
Sometimes it’s really important to put personal feelings and opinions aside and make a detached, objective decision. Once that is done it cannot really be denied that Israeli aggression towards there neighbour is totally and utterly out of hand and the reason the world does nothing to stop it are both complex and shameful to us all.
And believe me I am no lefty idealist, (like our confused anti racist fellow blogger dave). I wholeheartedly oppose mass immigration to Europe.
@Ted (Ned?)
I think the Israeli response is quite restrained. If someone wanted to wipe me off the face of the earth I would maximise my power and destroy them completely first.
One of my main gripes with the Palestine question is that muslims worldwide are milking it for their own ends. The umma comes first. If the Palestians were not muslim they wouldn’t care less about them.
Muslims here in Cape Town talk only of “our people being killed in Palestine”. What “our people”? They are Arabs thousands of kilometres away. What about those black Africans a few hundred kilometres away? They don’t count because they aren’t muslim. By and large muslims couldn’t care less about the “infidel”. Matter of fact their teachings preach hatred of them.