Officially, at least, the war on Gaza is on hold, with one unilateral ceasefire following another. For now, a large number of Israeli troops remain on Palestinian territory, having been given a week by Hamas to retreat. World leaders have gathered in Egypt to pontificate. Obama becomes America’s next president later today. It’s anyone’s guess how the next few days, weeks and months will unfold.
At home, thousands of miles from the conflict, South Africans have weighed in with their views. Many have done their best to evaluate the facts in a principled manner, deeply concerned by the mounting civilian casualties. Others, unfortunately, have been unable to think beyond ideological and religious affiliations. Most disturbingly, some have used the crisis to further their agendas of hate.
Consider, for example, a recent email effectively calling for a boycott of Jewish-owned or Jewish-run businesses in South Africa. The “justification” for the call seems to go something like this:
(1) The Chief Rabbi, the religious head of the local Jewish community, has expressed his unconditional support for the Israeli government’s invasion of Gaza;
(2) The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD), the community’s representative structure, is similarly supportive of the war;
(3) Some members of the South African Jewish community have expressly distanced themselves from the position adopted by the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD; and
(4) Jewish business leaders who have not similarly distanced themselves from these positions must be assumed to support them.
So, if this argument is to be believed, when you buy dishwashing liquid at Pick n Pay, toothpaste at Clicks, underwear at Woolworths, or a grilled bird at Nando’s, you “may be partly paying for the next bomb killing innocent children in Gaza.”
Nathan Geffen, one of the authors of the sign-on letter expressing an alternative view to that of the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD, has rightly condemned this email as “reprehensibly anti-semitic” and “incredibly ignorant of the complexity and diversity of the Jewish community.” In his view, the call for a boycott “is naked discrimination on the basis of ethnic background.”
Other responses to the email, however, have been somewhat less rational. Take the weblog It’s Almost Supernatural, allegedly dedicated to “exposing anti-Israel bias in the South African media and promoting a balanced South African foreign policy towards the Middle East”. It has accused “the Muslim community” – as a whole – of supporting the call, because “[t]o date, no … Muslims of high conscience have signed and distributed dissident letters to the press distancing themselves from this boycott.”
Ironic, isn’t it, that this response to the anti-Semitic email employs the same twisted logic: one or more Muslims and/or Muslim groups have issued and/or supported a call to boycott Jewish businesses; unless and until certain Muslims – of “high conscience” – have expressly distanced themselves from this call, the entire Muslim community will be assumed to support the call.
The paranoid weblog also accuses local Muslim organisations of attempting “to pressure the Jewish community into denouncing Israel’s actions in Gaza.” It alleges that Geffen has taken direction from these organisations, which “have been coordinating with far left-wing Jewish groups to organise a petition against the mainstream South African Jewish response.” Unlike the community’s united leadership, Geffen and his fellow signatories – including yours truly – were hoodwinked.
The reality of the letter’s genesis is far less exciting than the alleged conspiracy theory suggests. Geffen explains: “I wrote the response shortly after receiving the [Jewish] Board of Deputies statement. I circulated it. Doron [Isaacs] and others improved it and the response to it has been fantastic.” In its defence, the weblog refers to a Voice of the Cape online article stating that “moves were afoot to produce a statement from within the community that would counter the SAJBD statement.”
Geffen is now under attack for having the chutzpah to speak his conscience. One prominent member of the Jewish community has gone so far as to describe Geffen’s – in my view justified – reference to the Chief Rabbi as a fundamentalist as amounting to incitement when communicated “with a member of the Muslim community who is clearly given to anti-Semitism”. In his view, Geffen has “set the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organisations and Jewish leaders at the very top of … [his] agenda.”
So it’s Geffen, and not the Chief Rabbi, or the SAJBD, or any of their unquestioning supporters, who is primarily responsible for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism. Does that mean then that verligte Afrikaners – such as Frederick van Zyl Slabbert, Beyers Naude and Carl Niehaus – were responsible for fostering anti-Afrikaner hatred in the 1980s, and not the elected leadership of the day? PW, FW, Vlok, Malan and the rest were each entitled to a free pass?
Oy vey! Has this country gone truly mad? Don’t we already have enough on our plates? Not only are we faced with a looming Zuma presidency, but also we are now expected to be vigilant and respond to each and every statement put out by a crazy purporting to act on behalf of any group to which we may belong. I couldn’t be bothered. I’m apparently too busy working to support the business leaders while they advise Jerusalem. For the record, I prefer my chicken hot and skinless.
The real “chutzpah” is to argue that people who disagree with you are opposed to the very act of speaking your conscience as opposed to the substance of what you are saying and how you are saying it.
You know very well that neither It’s Almost Supernatural nor my own blog is opposed to you, Geffen or anyone else speaking their conscience. But you quote selectively (and without linking the blogs you attack), denying your readers the chance to read the actual criticism in its original context.
Readers who want to inform themselves can find the original posts at:
http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2009/01/muslim-antisemitism-takes-a-leaf-from-the-nazis.html
http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2009/01/nathan-geffen-ias-is-antisemitic.html
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/2009/01/19-january-2009-hypocrisy-anti-israel.html
International solidarity is vital in giving a world-wide voice to the oppressed people of Palestine – Muslims, Christians and Jews. We should remember that international solidarity kept the international struggle against apartheid alive. In present circumstances where powerful states, including neighbouring Arab states, have abandoned the Palestinians and their struggle for peace and freedom, the voices of ordinary citizens of the world become all the more important. However, we have to exercise that solidarity with due respect to others and especially refrain from any discriminatory practices. Blaming all Jews for the actions of Israel is unacceptable and any such statements should be strongly condemned. This does not mean that those supporting the Palestinian cause should not challenge those who unquestioningly support Israel in its quest to totally subjugate the Palestinians. Organisations such as the SA Board of Deputies and individuals, whether Jewish or not, should be challenged about their support for Israel, especially the war crimes and crimes against humanity it has committed against Palestinians.
As you rightly point out that there are many South African Jews who are appalled by Israel’s actions and have spoken out. This should be recognised by those demonstrating solidarity with Palestinians so that the opposition to Israel could be strengthened.
Apart from plain bigotry, there is no basis for calling for a boycott of all Jewish-owned business in SA.
However, I would strongly support the boycott of any product grown or manufactured in Israel. In particular, there has to be a boycott of all products produced on Palestinian occupied lands. It is a well-known fact that Israel presents such products as being produced in Israel while in fact it is produced in the occupied Palestinian territories. If South Africans begin boycotting such Israeli products, South African business will be reluctant to stock them. Thereby reducing their support for the Israeli economy.
There should also be pressure on the South African Govt. to cut economic and trade relations with Israel. This will indicate that their pledge of solidarity with Palestinians is genuine.
Additionally, where specific businesses in South Africa (international or South African) are shown to support the government of Israel, whether financially or politically, or to publicly associates themselves with the actions of Israel, they should bear the brunt of a consumer boycott. Such boycott should not be based on conjecture but on facts.
Good article. It is deeply unfortunate that muddled thinking and anti-semitic issues make discussion of the really important issues almost impossible.
Why on earth would a Rabbi (a leading figure in a religion which, like all true religions, has peace, respect and love among its most basic values) express support for a war? The only way I can think of to understand this is to assume that he is not actually a spiritual leader, but a political figurehead. The main emphasis of all sane messages is one of deep regret at the conflict. Partisan posturing has no place in religion; it belongs only in politics.
As you say, some Jews have opposed the Rabbi’s sentiment. This is to their enormous credit — within the Jewish community, they face up to an extremely emotional and (as the Rabbi’s statement would seem to suggest) indoctrinated support for Israel which brooks little disagreement.
A friend of mine who is ‘only culturally Jewish’ attending a Jewish wedding during the conflict. He reported that the entire congregation prayed for the success of the Israeli Defence Force. What courage it would take to abstain from such a gesture, let alone to disagree with its sentiment.
As I see it right now Israel is misbehaving as a State whether it claims to be Jewish, or not, is really irrelevant. As I understand it the majority of people living in Gaza were pushed out of Israel when it was formed. This was a gross injustice and Israel since its formation has done nothing to try to rectify matters. Thus the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas are understandable but ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ and these attacks are giving Israel and its supporters a justification for perpetrating yet another wrong on the people living in Gaza. Therefore it is not surprising that all sorts of further conflicts are being sparked in our own country, wrongs breed further wrongs they do not bring peace and harmony.
It’s perfectly logical. Everybody’s being dishonest. Most Jews support Israel’s behaviour in Gaza, but punishing them won’t change Israel’s behaviour. Meanwhile, Jewish leaders naturally accuse Jews who oppose Israel’s behaviour in Gaza of being anti-Semites. It’s the only thing they have left in their rhetorical arsenal, and the only way of distracting attention from their support for terrorism, torture and tyranny.
Why should the Muslims have 22 states in which neither Christians nor Jews have rights,and from which the Jews who had lived there for centuries were expelled, and the Jews be denied one? In 1947/1948 a very small section of the former colonies of Turkey was given to the Jews, and the rest to the Muslims.
None of you will accept the fact that there is nothing democratic about Hamas, or Hizbollal, or Al Quada; and that it is not only Jews to be eliminated, but also Western Democracy is to be replaced with a Muslim State world under Sharia law.
In London, The World Trade Centre, Mumbai, Madrid the attacks were not on Jews at all.
I note Joel Pollak’s response above. Pollak is the person Jonathan has referred to as the “prominent member of the Jewish community” who has accused me of setting “the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organisations and Jewish leaders at the very top of … [his] agenda.”
Here is an example of Pollak’s invective:
“For the past several months, Nathan, it is you–yes, you!–who have engaged in a campaign of lies, falsely alleging conspiracies among Jews and Jewish organizations in South Africa and around the world to support “crimes” in the Middle East and beyond. It is not a far leap to conclude that your acts and speech have encouraged South African Muslims to see Jewish organizations and businesses as fair targets for boycott, protest, and–who knows?–even worse. You have never been satisfied merely to criticise Israeli policy. You have set the demonisation of Jews, Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders at the very top of your agenda.”
The absurdity of his allegations needs no further comment.
One of the It’s Almost Supernatural moderators has responded to my blog on his blog by referring readers to my “attempts to paint … [them] of harbouring an agenda of hate” (see http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2009/01/a-clarification.html#comments). In my view, this is based on a misreading of my piece. Here’s the response I posted on that site:
Dear Steve,
I think you may have misread my Thought Leader piece. While I stand by my submission that there are extremists on all sides who have used the crisis in Gaza to advance their agendas of hate, I do not place you or this weblog in that category. Having said that, I do believe that some people use this site – as do others use other sites – to advance their racist positions (whether anti-Semitic or Islamophobic).
Just for the record, my Thought Leader piece was not an attempt to compare the call for a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses with this weblog’s response to it. Instead, it singled out the call as being incredibly hateful, and then compared Nathan’s response to yours.
In particular, I was – and remain – concerned about numerous unjustifiable attacks on Nathan, whether posted on your site or not. My piece sought to address some of those concerns.
Regards,
Jonathan
PS – I hope you have seen http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/203980/MuslimsAgainstRacismStatement.html
And here is a comment by Mike Berger (not to be confused with Jonathan Berger) another prominent member of my community, in an email supporting Joel Pollak’s invective described above.
“I do not believe Geffen et al should be provided with any legitimacy or platform whatsoever by the Jewish community and the community’s desperate and pathetic attempts to appear broadminded and evenhanded are not commendable – they are misguided and weak.”
It’s worth noting that my community is not quite as broadminded and evenhanded as Mike Berger suggests. Four people have pulled their names from the response to the Jewish Board of Deputies, citing fear as their reason. I could give many other examples. Tactics that are frequently used to intimidate Jewish critics of Israel include defamation (Jonathan’s article gives a good example of this), spreading the most outrageous lies and allegations about people and trying to alienate them from the community.
Lyndall Beddy
One may ask why there was a reborn Christain president of a country that decared an illigitimate war based on lies in which up to one million Arab civilians have died, and right now he is a free man, not even subpeonaed for crimes against humanity?
Maybe he caused some Muslims to hate the west a little?
Nathan Geffen, too, offers only a partial quote from my blog. He does not address the fact that his comments have frequently targeted Jews and Jewish organizations, inviting the public to consider even independent commentators as part of a “system” that is complicit in Israeli “crimes.” When challenged, Geffen has refused to defend his inflammatory accusations, just as he has refused to do so here.
Interested readers are invited to consult my full post and judge for themselves.
http://guidetotheperplexed.blogspot.com/2009/01/19-january-2009-hypocrisy-anti-israel.html
Jonathan,
Do you really think serious people will not laugh at your comparisons of the Jewish leadership with the apartheid tyrants?
Readers can read a response from the co-author of my blog “It’s Almost Supernatural” here: Jonathan Berger and agenda’s of hate
Also Jonathan, there are only around 50 names on the Muslim condemnation petition. Why so few. Where are the rest of the prominent leaders whose letters we read in the paper every day?
I’ve always thought the petition to be silly. Take yours…you have, let’s say 300, but then the rest are with the Board and the Rabbi. Thats pretty conclusive evidence that they speak for the overwhelming majority of SA Jews.
By the way, when speaking critically of others whose statements are on the web, its good ettiquette/common courtesy to provide a link to their sites/statements to give readers a chance to see more detail.
I did it for you.
Andrew
This myth that Iraqis are being killed by Americans is getting stale. One Muslim sect is killing the other Muslim sect for control of Iraq, and occassionally managing to kill some Americans as well. Both Syria and Iran are after control of Iraq, its oil, and the Middle East. Shia versus Sunni.
The actual war was over in a few weeks with a few thousand dead, and a dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands toppled.
However – that left a power vacuum, which got filled by Muslims fighting each other for control.
What amazes me about the entire debate is where people like Geffen and Berger start being concerned about civilian casualties.
When Hamas declared an end to the Egyptian brokered cease fire – where were they to say – “hold on guys what are you doing”?
When Hamas sent over 100 rockets into Israel across an international border aimed at civilian targets in Israel, where were they to say – “hold on guys you are committing a war crime and you are going to provoke a force you cannot control”?
When Hamas rockets were being fired from atop civilian apartment buildings prior to the conflict beginning, where were they to say – “Hold on guys this is an international war crime because you are using a civilian area to conduct a military conflict against another country and you are placing your civilian population at risk”?
When Hamas refused to honour the Palestinians’ obligations under the Oslo accord, launched a military campaign against Fatah killing hundreds of Palestinians and sending the Palestinian President into exile out of Gaza – where were they to say – ‘hold on guys there are international obligations you are cannot just refuse to honour”?
When Hamas and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in its place, where were they to say “hold on guys, this flies in the face of all relevant law, international obligations and flies in the face of the rights of all people to self determination”?
I will tell you where Berger and Geffen were – the answer is nowhere, because they failed to comment at all, they failed in their moral obligation to talk up, they failed to warn Hamas about the consequences of their action – they presumed Hamas could commit any war crime, fire any rocket, target any civilian – with no consequence.
Now Hamas finally understands there are consequences to its actions.
Now they blame the victim for hitting back at the fanatic who provoked the conflict – yes the victim is strong, yes the victim will take all measures necessary to protect its civilian population, yes innocent people will unfortunately die in the conflict, but ultimately lets put blame where it should be put – squarely in Hamas’ blood stained hands.
If they were truly men of integrity they would have spoken – but alas their silence screams more loudly than their words.
Nathan Geffen writes: “Another awful consequence of Hajaig’s comments is that instead of strengthening the Palestinian cause, she has given succour to supporters of the Israeli occupation, who falsely tarnish criticism of Israel as antisemitic. On the contrary, much criticism of Israel is motivated by human rights and anti-racism, which are the antidote to and opposite of antisemitism. The abuse of the antisemitism charge by uncritical defenders of Israel reduces their credibility in responding to a genuine case of antisemitism like Hajaig’s comments.”
http://www.sashrip.org/node/25
However, The Palestine Solidarity Alliance does not agree with him. I refer to an article which has recently appeared on “Voice of The Cape”…
“Adam said if Hajaig’s entire talk was aired, listeners would hear Hajaig “appealing to the Jewish collective conscience in the face of Israel’s inhumane attack on the people of Gaza and that she was clearly not anti-Semitic. We are concerned that whenever Jews who support Israel are challenged for their support of racism they play the anti-Semitic race card. Hence our view that this attack on Deputy Minister Hajaig is nothing less than a malicious and calculated act to veil their shameless support for Israel’s gross violations which the Deputy Minister has exposed.”” http://www.vocfm.co.za/public/articles.php?Articleid=44522
Moreover, Prof Farid Esack ( “Muslims Against Racism”) has not personally supported Nathan’s fax to Fatima. As a result, it is evident that most of his anti-zionist non-Jewish friends do not concur with him.
Joel,
You conclude on your blog; “What Geffen, Isaacs and the SAHRD are entitled to demand is an open discourse within the Jewish community in which they can air their views and challenge those of the Jewish mainstream. What they are not entitled to demand is that their views be given unique protection, right or wrong and regardless of facts. And for all the attention they demand from the community, they are rarely willing to debate their views or learn from past exchanges. (Note that the SAHRD website limits comments to delegation members only.)”
I totally agree with the above.
Jonathan,
On “It’s Almost Supernatural” you write,,, “the only people I have accused of promoting an agenda of hate are those responsible for the racist boycott call. I don’t believe that the Chief Rabbi or the SAJBD have a hateful agenda. Instead, I place them in the second category mentioned in my Thought Leader piece – those who are “unable to think beyond ideological and religious affiliations”.” (Posted by: Jonathan Berger | January 22, 2009 at 10:18)
I refer to the various boycotts ( not precluded!) in the” Muslims against racism” statement. Are such boycotts “promoting an agenda of hate”?
Jonathan,
The Voice of the Cape website states re The Gaza petition: “Please send an email to nathangeffen@gmail.com indicating you wish to sign on. The statement and continually updated list of signatories is at
https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/193052/responsetoBOD.html.”
It is on this basis that one might conclude that the Geffen/Isaacs “Gaza petition” is being promulgated in conjunction with The Voice of the Cape website.
Jonathan Berger has written elsewhere
“In my view, holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism, so it’s quite ironic that the musings of an antisemitic organisation are used to explain why the deputy Minister’s comments are not antisemitic.”
“For the record, I agree that it is hugely problematic to fail to see how one’s own victimhood is tied up with the victimhood of others. And no, this does not mean a rewriting of the Holocaust but rather an historically accurate memorial.” (ie Yad Vashem, the holocaust memorial in Jerusalem)
“If anyone is seriously interested in my views on Yad Vashem, I’m more than willing to chat over a cup of coffee and/or engage in a public debate.”
The last paragraph of this article indicates that its author has fallen prey to the pernicious myth that Jews can contribute to anti-Semitism. Jews can no more cause or contribute to anti-Semitism than women can cause misogyny, blacks can cause racism, and homosexuals can cause homophobia.
Anti-Semitism is a disease – the eldest hatred – and the victims of the disease no more bear any responsibility for it than do the victims of anti black- racism, chauvinistic paternalism, homophobia etc
Whatever one may think of the Israeli Army and the State of Israel the notion that their conduct contributes to a rising tide of anti-Semitism is, at best. a manifest fallacy
Prof Farid Esack “Muslims Against Racism”: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/203980/MuslimsAgainstRacismStatement.html
“While we remain committed to various acts in solidarity with Palestinians, we are nevertheless appalled at the occasional manifestations of anti-Semitism in our community. We do not believe that the injury and destruction suffered by the Palestinians should be an excuse for anti-Semitism among us. All racism, including anti-Semitism, is deplorable.”
http://www.vocfm.co.za/public/articles.php?Articleid=44561
In response, Esack who two weeks ago penned a public letter led by local academics distancing themselves from the anti-Jewish tones circulating on the internet among pro-Palestinians – said he was not too concerned that their lobby sprouted anti-Jewish sentiments
From Geffen’s/Isaacs’ new website….
South African Muslims stand against antisemitism
January 29th, 2009 | posted by SASHRIP
Members of the Muslim community have written a statement condemning antisemitism. The statement is in response to an anonymously circulated email calling for a boycott of Jewish businesses.
http://www.sashrip.org/node/21