Political Pornography Updated

I have written here before about anti-Zionist propaganda. A recent article by Johann Hari, an award-winning, celebrity journalist for the Independent in the UK, goes beyond propaganda to pornography (click here for article). This piece caters for the obsessive anti-Zionist anti-Semitism which has become a feature of the so-called progressive press.

Despite denials, this campaign - which closely resembles the vicious European anti-Semitism of the pre-Nazi era - caters for the semi-psychotic addicted crazies which infect every strata of society and need only some form of legitimation to give expression to their fantasies. The following quote from comments in response to the article(one example amongst many on the 'net) gives some idea of the thought processes underlying these obsessions:

“The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....”

Hari knows about this trend. Previously he wrote

“And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

But that did not stop Hari from writing his latest vicious piece of pornography. We must answer this campaign of defamation but we must also seek ways of carrying the fight to our enemies. I was told that Hari's article has been or is going to be published in The Star. I am unable to locate it on the Internet and have not been sent a hard copy, but was asked by Bev Goldman, Media Team leader for the SAJBOD, to write an op-ed piece in response.

Despite this uncertainty, I drafted a reply published below in full. It may yet appear in The Star, but you have it here in unexpurgated and unedited form. (Has Hari's original piece been blocked by objections to its publication of the Internet??)

I will be away for 3 weeks so don't expect anything from me for the next month. All the best and lets keep the responses coming.

Political Pornography

Everyone knows it is easier to throw mud than to wipe it off, and Johann Hari in the Star (…) comes armed with something much more smelly than mud. He builds his article, to use his words, around Jewish filth being flung at a “cowering Palestinian population”.

Now Mr Hari is himself a shit-thrower of considerable note; he is the 2008 winner of the Orwell Prize for Journalism amongst other awards. His descriptions are thus suitably vivid: “long stinking rivers of waste” and “…one of them burst drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste”. Being a celebrity journalist, apparently excuses Hari from the boring stuff like verifying the accuracy of his claims or contextualising them.

It seems almost petty to ask whether the Intifada launched in 2000, when Palestinian economic and population growth were at a peak and Arafat had been offered 95% of the West Bank and the opportunity to build a Palestinian state, may have dented the rehabilitation of the sewerage system in the West Bank and Gaza. Or whether the sewer pipes are blocked because they are used for Quassam rockets or because Hamas is targeting the Israel-Gaza crossings to prevent material getting through so as to increase political pressure on Israel.

Perhaps Hari could have mentioned that significant Israeli-Palestinian cooperation is on-going to address the complex, emotive and longterm issues around water and waste as evidenced by a recent publication entitled “Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian Water Issues From Conflict to Cooperation” edited by Hillel Shuval and Hassan Dweik.

But none of this is pertinent to Hari’s true mission which is not to critique Israel’s attitude towards Palestinian welfare but to delegitimise the Israeli state. Excrement is really just the hors d’oevres.

Using Ilan Pappe as his historical witness, Hari quotes Ben Gurion as saying “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war”. (Ben Gurion was that dumb?) This was accomplished by Plan Dalit. “In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded,…some 800 000 people were ethnically cleansed and Israel was built on the ruins”.

All this, along with the “cowering Palestinians” is simply propaganda. The cowering Palestinians, aided by Iran and Syria, have launched thousands of rockets and mortars at southern Israel, have murdered and kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians and openly declare their intention to “liberate” the whole of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean with the help of arms smuggled through Egypt.

Pappe, Hari’s source and apparent inspiration and a member of the Israeli Communist Party before emigrating in 2007, regards facts as irrelevant. A few direct quotes provides the flavour: “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous”. “Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are?”

So it is hardly surprising that the “facts” used by Hari to support his case against Israel are nothing but fiction. The quote attributed to Ben Gurion has been dismissed by genuine historians (that is, those who believe that facts matter) as “pure invention”. Similarly, rather than Jews driving out helpless Palestinians, local Arab attacks starting in 1947 killed over 1000 Jews by March 1948 before the invasion of six Arab armies.

Now Hari is more than a crusading celebrity journalist: for instance he obtained a double first at Cambridge. So when he compares Israel in the Middle East with 30 million Kurds taking over most of Britain, he knows its bullshit. In case some of our readers have to be be told why, here goes:

Because Jews became a nation for the first time in “Palestine” about 3000 years ago and have had a presence there ever since. Because a pitiful couple of hundred thousand not 30 million Jews “invaded” the Middle East, many the remnants of slaughtered European communities. Because there was no Palestinian state for the Jews to invade, only a relatively minor province of the huge and failing Ottoman Empire occupied by about 30 000 Jews and 600 000 Arabs, many scattered as impoverished tenant farmers subject to the depredations of Bedouin raiders, plus a much smaller Arab middle and wealthy class. Jerusalem was already mainly Jewish. And, finally, because Israel does not occupy most of Arab land but less than one five hundredth. Palestinian Arabs share ethnicity, history, language and religion with around 300 million near neighbours.

It is easy enough to discredit Hari’s accusations since he hardly gets a single fact right. But that doesn’t get to the root of the issue. After all, no-one is claiming that Israel is a country of saints or that its creation was a kind of immaculate conception. For yardsticks of comparison just look at the history of the USA, Mexico, Britain, and so on down the list.

In reality Hari’s article goes beyond ordinary propaganda, it is anti-Zionist pornography; the kosher version of Holocaust denial. It arises from and caters to obsessive anti-Zionist, anti-Semitism, the bastard offspring of pre-Nazi anti-Semitism which has been resurrected globally by a sytematic media campaign over decades.

I exaggerate? Well here’s one comment following on Hari’s original article in the UK Independent from Laurie Smith: “The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....” There are many more like that in the crevices of the Internet.

Hari knows of this psychotic underworld. In 2006 he wrote “And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

We have laws against gross sexual pornography in our media. Perhaps we need to apply some of the same standards to political pornography. It seems a much greater threat to a sane and decent society than the former kind.

Mike Berger

Mud and the Media

A casual reader opening the Cape Times today (28 May) will find a prominent letter entitled “Israel must reach out” by Mr Jazbhay in which he dissociates himself from any celebration of Israel’s 60^th anniversary.

As far as I know, Mr Jazbhay has not been invited to join in these celebrations, nor has the Cape Times associated itself with Israel’s remarkable accomplishments. Thus, a casual reader may wonder why Jazbhay felt impelled to write such a letter or, indeed, why the Cape Times consented to publish it.

The reader will find in Jazbhay’s letter the usual litany of complaints against Israel: brutality, expropriation, “the wall”, discrimination against Israeli Arabs and so on and on. Needless to say there is no mention of the on-going terrorist incursions against Israel with resultant deaths and injuries, the rocket attacks, the inflammatory behaviour of many (by no means all) Israeli Arabs who demand the full rights of Israeli citizens while undermining Israel abroad and at home or, indeed, the circumstances which led to the expensive and politically costly construction of the security barrier in the first place.

In fact, the reader would be astonished by any attempt at a contextualised or informative letter since this would be contrary to the objective of the game which, as even the most casual reader understands, is to throw as much mud as possible at Israel in the reasonable belief that some of it will stick.

A slightly less casual reader will have noticed by now some clear patterns within the South African media. Firstly, an obsessive concern with a highly complex conflict far outside South Africa’s domain of interest. Secondly, the gross preponderance of anti-Israel comment, images, reportage and analysis generally without even token attempts at “balance” or contextualisation. Thirdly, the reader will have noted that such exchanges invariably start with some anti-Israel piece followed by (in the interests of fairness of course) responses from those like me attempting to wipe some of the sticky stuff off.

What the ordinary reader will not know (but may guess) is the most of the “accusations” are endlessly recycled half-truths, distortions or outright lies. What the ordinary reader will not know is who and what is driving this campaign of nasty anti-Semitism or political propaganda under the guise of moral indignation. But, once again, it is not too difficult to surmise.

But in reply to Jazbhay and his ilk, Israel’s behaviour and accomplishments are one of the remarkable stories of the modern age and I and thousands of Jews and non-Jews celebrate its 60th anniversary with unmitigated pride. I challenge the Cape Times and the rest of the South African media to tell the true story.

Mike Berger

Propaganda

Wars are fought in the minds of men at least as much as on the battlefield. Great military leaders have been able to inspire their men to incredible feats against huge odds.

One of the famous examples is the defeat of the powerful French army at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 by an exhausted, depleted British force, a victory attributed to Henry V’s gift of oratory. This was immortalised by Shakespeare 200 years later.

Henry:

“…But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,…"

But the battlefield today involves whole populations, indeed the global population, as wars are fought out in the minds of civilians as much as in the minds of soldiers. The name of this is PROPAGANDA.

It is important today because the willing consent of civilian populations is required to bear the economic and personal sacrifices of military operations. It is also important because the technological means is available to spread images and words across the world at the speed of light.

We in South Africa are the target of an unremitting stream of anti-Israel propaganda. We need to understand its context, its purpose and its methods to develop the essential antibodies to its insidious poison. This is not simple since propaganda has many guises and disguises. It can aim to inspire and to denigrate and demonise. It can do both. It can be subtle or blatant, honest or dishonest. It can be used offensively or defensively – or both.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. The war against Israel did not end in 1948 or in 1967; it is being vigorously pursued by different groups using different means, but its objective remains the destruction of Israel.

This is not debatable. Despite the work of apologists for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and others in the ME and beyond, they make their intentions quite clear. None of this has anything to do with Israel’s behaviour. It is a primal battle to replace the Jewish state with an Islamic, Arab entity within an area of the globe which they regard as the domain of Islam and Arabia in its broadest sense.

But why South Africa? Why direct propaganda so far afield to the West? The reasons are relatively simple: Israel is a study in contradictions. It has an immensely powerful and efficient army, at least relative to its local opponents. It has been amazingly successful in economic terms and is thus able to support ongoing military action and preparedness. It has nuclear weapons as a last resort.

But, at the same time, its Jewish population is less than 7 million and its surface area is miniscule relative to its enemies. Israel has no vital resources with which to bargain and it has a restive democratic ethos which makes sustained action difficult to maintain.

Israel thus depends on a measure of international goodwill and legitimacy to continue the battle: to keep the economic engine running and to keep its civilian population willing to sacrifice for the Zionist ideal when other options beckon, including emigration or surrender, in one form or another. Israel desperately needs the support of the Diaspora. These are the chinks in Israel’s armour against which the weapons of propaganda are deployed.

The propaganda need not be sophisticated; that may indeed be a disadvantage. Kasrils and others specialise in the crudest of lies and distortions in order to dirty Israel’s name. But there are somewhat more sophisticated methods and the Jewish population needs to be forewarned.

An Israeli Palestinian rights NGO, called Adalah, has recently landed in South Africa with the purported intent of soliciting international support for its allegations of Israeli brutality at the start of the Intifada. It may well have good reason for at least some of its accusations, but there is equally no doubt that it is knowingly lending itself to the international campaign of anti-Israel demonisation.

Adalah, together with the District 6 Museum Foundation and the Palestine Solidarity Group, will publically present a film and oral testimonies from the family members of the 13 killed in the Intifada riots on Wednesday afternoon, the eve of Yom HaShoah. By such actions Adalah has ceased being a legitimate human rights NGO but is an active fifth column in the war aginst Israel.

This is a propaganda battle Israel cannot win in the short-term. Unlike the Battle of Agincourt, Israel is engaged in a protracted, multi-dimensional, vicious struggle for survival. Those of us who support the basic justice of its cause will need all our courage and clarity to see it through.

Part of this will require us to remain steadfast in our core beliefs while at the same time remaining alive to defects in our own position and responsive to opportunities for progress. Thus the high-profile approach of Carter to Hamas is clearly counterproductive, but in the end Israel will need to reach peace with its enemies, not with its friends. This balance between openness on the one hand and resistance on the other is much more challenging than simple obstinacy.

One catchphrase I've always regarded with suspicion, is that "Israel must take risks for peace". It is usually said in contexts where Israel is giving up quite a lot for little return; given her position that is plain silly. But "settlement building" hands propaganda material to Israel's enemies and makes peace more difficult to achieve. Thus substantial sensitivity needs to be shown in this area, unless the real objective is to scuttle any chance of any realistic two-state solution.

This takes us into quite controversial territory which is not suitable at the end of a post. In the meantime we need to recognise the Adalah cavalcade as part of an orchestrated campaign of denigration and delegitimisation with clear political ends in view - whatever the underlying psychological motivations may be.

Mike Berger

Links to "Propaganda"...

• Did Hamas agree to accept a two-state solution?
• I and my brother against my cousin
• Into the Lions Den

Identity, Judaism and Geekism

One penalty/benefit of writing a blog on Israel and the Middle East is the sheer volume of material challenging one's preconceptions and assumptions to the point of serious intellectual (and sometimes emotional) indigestion. The other challenge is to select from the torrent that which may interest and stimulate the reader.

A brief personal diversion is necessary to introduce the topic of today's blog on Identity, Judaism and Geekism. I come from a strongly assimilated Jewish background, heavily influenced by Anglo-liberal (in the progressive Fabian and literary sense) secular philosophy. It was not a bad beginning though far removed from the traditional Jewish ethos, but certainly not entirely incompatible with it, and even more distant from any form of Jewish ritual, practice and community. These tendencies were further strengthened by a lifetime in science with its emphasis on hard empirical fact, rigorous logic and transnational collaboration.

In the light of these formative and persisting influences, the belief structure and the practices of religion in general, including the Jewish religion, seemed to me absurd - even distasteful at times.

Given this background surely I would be an automatic disciple of someone like Dawkins who sees religion as so much superstitious garbage from a bygone era; the toxic detritus of primitive minds which in the light of science and progressive social ideas should be permanently sealed in concrete mental silos? After all, many "enlightened" and scientifically sophisticated people feel this way as do a host of lesser geeks.

I am moved to these observations by exposure to two quite distinct minds over the past 24 hours or so. The first is an article by a Jarred Cinman entitled "Let’s talk about the Jews" on ThoughtLeader (no less), the Mail and Guardian online blog. It is a text of quite unbelievable naivete, of which the author is wholly unconscious. I suppose it could be termed the "unbearable obtuseness of geekism". I use the phrase because we are led to understand in the blurb accompanying Cinman's article, that he is a successful IT practitioner and businessman. Some examples give the flavour:

Virtually throughout the article he uses the term "the Jews" based, one imagines, on his experience of the Jews of his limited business and suburban acquaintance together with a bundle of unexamined anti-semitic stereotypes he has absorbed like blotting paper. It does not occur to Cinman that "the Jews" encompass Isaiah Berlin, Marx, Einstein, Rabbi Kook, Spinoza and Maimonides to mention just a few.

Other pearls of insight include such observations as 'The Jews, in what I have always found a supreme act of arrogance, state that a Jew is born with a “Jewish soul”... "Let it be said that the underlying religious beliefs are no more inspiring or coherent than those of any other religion and, in many cases, sound more like the writings of JRR Tolkien than ancient spiritual practitioners."..."Leaving God aside, there are all kinds of bonkers stuff going on within the Jewish belief system."..."Likewise, there is the shady concept of “Amalek”, the shady archetypal enemy of the Jews, who (some argue) are embodied by present-day Arabs. They are told they must take from them a ring of power, and throw it into a volcano … well, not really, but it does get pretty weird."

In between this adolescent tripe are anti-semitic tropes borrowed wholesale from your average yobbo on the football terraces. Again examples are the only way of conveying the full flavour of Cinman's "thought" processes: ..."the Jews have made a big mark. Hostile to outsiders, lavish in giving advantages to its (sic) own kind and filled with a persecution complex"... "There is still a God, the renowned Yahweh (sometimes called Jehovah), whose acts and attitudes in the Old Testament are a case study in brutality, xenophobia and cruelty. He routinely has entire nations slain, swallows up people into the Earth, drowns, burns, turns into salt and so forth."

In these quotes I have hardly skimmed the surface: Cinman is a case study in crass prejudice and arrogance strutting its stuff on a public stage. So why spend any time on him? Surely there are anti-religious commentators capable of informed argument couched in adult, even eloquent, prose more deserving of our attention.

Of course, but partly it is worth noting because this mindless drivel appears under the imprimatur of the Mail and Guardian blessed by the designation, ThoughtLeader. That the world of blogs, especially those with strongly partisan agendas, are a cesspool of prejudice and ignorance is not news. But this is not usually accompanied with the seal of approval from a newspaper which pretends to intellectual and political respectability. If it is claimed that the Mail and Guardian is in the business of presenting different viewpoints with which it may seriously disagree, surely it can do much better than Cinman?

But maybe it can't. Or, maybe, Cinman simply reflects the prejudices of a significant section of the M & G editorial staff.

But let's get past Cinman (and the M & G) and deal with something worth talking about. Here is a rather long extract from a blog coming out of a Progressive Orthodox standpoint which I urge readers to have a look at. This extract is by Haim Watzman: "Both these American philosophers (William James and Emerson), as you note, viewed religion principally as an inner experience. Such a view of religion is peculiarly suited to the liberal American tradition, which holds that belief should be a private matter. A person’s relationship with God is his or her own business, and not the state’s.

I’m not arguing against this view as a political strategy, but most religious people would, I think, find it inadequate as an account of their experience and their needs. For them, religion not only comes from within but also from without, as a matter of revelation, tradition, myth, and sacred texts. The religion of James and Emerson has no room for ritual, for the performance of precepts (other than general moral ones), and relatively little for collective experience. Their religion did not need a church, mosque, or synagogue; it did not need stories of creation, redemption, and liberation; it did not need the performance of precepts. In a large measure, they viewed such elements, which bring individual believers together for prayer, disputation, and collective memory, as impediments to the inner spiritual state they viewed as the essence of man’s relationship to the divine.

The American relegation of religion to the private sphere grew out of specific historical circumstances. It produces an assimilating society that can absorb nearly anyone who accepts this principle.

My grandparents accepted it, were accepted into American society, and managed to work their way up into moderate prosperity, safety, and happiness. For them it was a great bargain, compared to what they had experienced under the czars and the commissars. But they gave up a lot, too; assimilating into America meant gradually sloughing off their Jewish heritage. They remained committed, identifying, and partially practicing Jews, as did their children and grandchildren. But their Jewish culture, the connection to Jewish history, tradition, practice, language, and texts, grew more and more attenuated in each generation. It wasn’t until I began relearning these things, first in high school and then after settling in Israel, that I realized how much we had given up in order to become American.

It’s wonderful that the world has a United States of America and a liberal American tradition, but not every place need be the United States and not every fair-minded, moral person need be an American-style liberal. In fact, if the whole world accepts the American solution, the world will lose a great deal. One of the things it will lose is the heritage of faiths that stress collective experience.

The Exodus, which we will both sit down to commemorate tomorrow night through the reading of an ancient text and the performance of ancient rituals, was a public, not an inner spiritual event—as the Seder makes its yearly rehearsal to this day.

This, let me assert once more, does not give religions a right to force others to believe or worship. I’m a fierce critic of the Orthodox Jewish establishment in Israel and of hyper-nationalist, xenophobic interpretations of our heritage (and of others). I believe that a seriously religious person in any faith ought to question, doubt, and struggle and that such engagement is a necessary condition for creating the humility and creativity that ethical life in the modern world requires.

But the proper answer to that is to seek to create a Judaism (and a Christianity, and Islam, and all the rest) that is open, accepting, and humanistic, but also faithful to and conversant in its heritage."

When contrasting Cinman and Watzman (besides the obvious difference in quality), Watzman recognises two things: firstly, that religion cannot be divorced from the larger society of which it is a part and will inevitably reflect the impact of its social environment and, secondly, that religion is always in a state of evolution - whether slow or rapid, whether abrupt or smooth. The one indeed follows from the other.

I have just finished reading Chinua Achebe's classic "Things Fall Apart" which describes the life of a Nigerian village just before the advent of white colonialism (with its Christian missionaries) and the impact of the latter on the traditional religious life of the village. His writings brilliantly illustrate (without flinching from the ugly bits) the intimate, mutually sustaining (ecological) relationship between a superstitious religious belief system and the daily life of the village, and its inhabitants; an existence in which history moved at a snail's pace until the arrival of the white man. In some ways Achebe's book closely resembles Isaac Bashevis Singer's beautiful collection of Jewish/rabbinical stories entitled "In my Father's Court".

Modern Judaism, as do all religions, illustrates the impact of accelerated history driven by technology and increasing (but precarious) mastery over the natural world. It has branched out and will continue to do so in response to the fragmented, diverse, sceptical and abrasive ethos of the modern age. At the extremes, one line of Judaism has retreated into a denial of modernity and has attempted to recreate a "purified" and idealised version of of the religion and, on the other, many Jews have totally rejected the divine in any form in favour of various wholly secular doctrines - or no doctrine at all. In between are various other solutions which retain some of the traditional collective forms with the best of Judaism's ethical, poetic and spiritual elements.

What many secular fundamentalists miss, is that religion can become a vehicle for poetry, art and ethical thought. The divine, in one sense, is a metaphor for human strivings towards meaning and transcendence of our animal nature. When linked to tradition, ritual and history, it becomes a collective enterprise providing a sense of belonging and guideposts to ethical behaviour.


Of course, it can be argued, religion can become an excuse for the worst of human instincts: intolerance, aggression, irrationality and greed. What is more religious doctrine can be used not simply to justify such behaviour but to encourage it. Whether religion is worse in this respect than secular creeds like Marxism and its offshoots, or even less coherent secular doctrines, is uncertain. I personally suspect that religion, through appeals to a group-specific divinity, is less susceptible to "disproof" and can more readily become a source of exclusive identity and a motivation to extreme political conflict than secular doctrines.

I'm also not sure that any doctrine which holds up unattainable standards of human behaviour is, ultimately, not more damaging than more tolerant creeds. For those like myself, inclined towards scepticism and science, serious adherence to religious doctrine with its emphasis on faith (at root an exercise in irrationality) poses serious intellctual and emotional obstacles.

So, in the last analysis, I find rather attractive the freedom to select out those elements of Judaism which provide a sense of historical continuity, identity and human transcendence while avoiding the spectre of irrational belief and infatuation with the minutiae of ritual and practice. I suppose one cannot have one's cake and eat it, but this is as close as one can get to (Isaiah Berlin's ?) philosophy of liberal humanism. I incline heavily towards non-observance in practice while encouraging it in theory.

For those who find these ideas inadequate (as I do), please use the comment facility at the end of this post to enlighten me and other readers.

Mike Berger

Links to "Identity, Judaism and Geekism"...

• Haim Watzman
• South Jerusalem (Blog)
• ThoughtLeader (M & G online)

Kasrils and the Star

Prologue

Below is my response to the truly malicious piece of Kasrils propaganda in the Star of yesterday. I tried to maintain a strong but relatively unemotional tone.

I think we can all agree that my response only touches on the issues raised by the Kasrils article. Some others were raised directly in my letter to the editor accompanying my response, and I strongly feel that others should take up the theme of imagery and misleading captions with the Star - and of course anything else you feel my letter did not adequately address.

The phenomenon of Jewish anti-Zionism - if that is the appropriate term - is interesting from a number of points of view, especially the psychological. It is possible to oppose Zionism (I happen to support a progressive form of it) without descending to the kind of malice exhibited by a substantial portion of the Jewish anti-Zionists, of which Kasrils is a prime example. I touch on that issue in my blog and possibly it is a matter worth exploring jointly.

My suggestion for Kasrils theme tune: Mud, mud, glorious mud, there's nothing quite like it...

My letter to Editor of Letters page in the Star

I submit below a letter for publication in response to the Kasrils article of 07-04-2008. It is the most vile piece of misrepresentation that I have yet come across in the SA press and deserves a fuller reply than the brief one permitted on your Letters page.

I trust it will be published in full. One may also question the Star policy of publishing such clearly politically motivated articles which have the obvious intent of discrediting the 60th anniversary of Israel's creation.

The Middle East lies well outside South Africa's domain of interest, but has considerable emotional significance for both Jews and Muslims in South Africa. You do no service to either community by importing, in such a blatantly one-sided manner, a complex conflict which has no relevance to SA. If it is SA's humanitarian outreach you are concerned to promote then Africa itself provides more than ample scope for our energies.

To this one must add the use of the inflammatory images with patently misleading captions which accompany the article.

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Berger

Response to Kasrils

No doubt, it is in the service of justice, as he sees it, that Kasrils (7 April) is prepared to treat historical truth, context and methodological integrity as so much bourgeois hypocrisy.

In the same vein Ilan Pappe, a historian whom Kasrils quotes with approval, writes “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers”.

That history is about establishing truth, not assuming it and then tailoring one’s story to fit a preconceived narrative, escapes Pappe - and clearly Kasrils, for Kasrils follows this formula with shameless abandon.

He quotes “eyewitnesses” who not only claim rape by Israeli soldiers, but butchering and slaughtering by the most brutal means possible. Kasrils rubs in the gory details: he quotes “disembowelled furniture”, a beautiful Israeli girl with “criminal” eyes. He asserts without qualification that “ 254 men, women and children were butchered there (Deir Yassin) by Zionist forces” and that this was but one episode in a long list of others – including Jenin, where it was unambiguously demonstrated that no massacre took place.

Now to a few facts. Sharif Kananah, of Bir Zeit (a Palestinian) University, in a detailed study arrived at an estimate of 110-120 villagers killed. Most accounts accept that rough figure and not 250 plus, which was inflated for propaganda purposes and now used without question by Kasrils.

Mohommad Radwan, an eyewitness involved in the fighting, stated “"There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade,". Ayish Zeidan, a teenager, claimed “The Arab radio at the time talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true. I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters."

In the course of the fighting over that period there were a number of “atrocities” committed by both sides These included the killing (and mutilating) of 78 doctors, nurses, patients and Haganah militia by Arab irregulars while attempting to reach Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus and the massacre of about 130 Jews when the Kfar Etzion finally fell to the Arabs.

I certainly have my own commitments to Israel, but it is not my intention to whitewash the Israelis or blacken the Arabs. But Kasrils’ article is the most unscrupulous and malicious piece of anti-Zionist propaganda that I can recall being published in the South African press.

Mike Berger

Exchange with M & G

I have decided to post an exchange of correspondence in full (despite its substantial length) between myself and the Chief Editor of the M & G, Ferial Haffajee, and Drew Forrest, a Senior Editor.

I have done so almost unedited so as to convey the full flavour of the exchange and so as not to bias it in any way. Also I will refrain from comment at this point, so that you the reader can form your own opinions.

The original Pilger article can be found here and my letter in response here.

To put the exchange in context (especially in view of some of Drew Forrest's comments), I conducted a small piece of retrospective research on the M & G record of publication on matters broadly pertaining to the Middle East, Israel, Jews and Islam. This is based on a 2 month retrospective survey using the SA Monitoring Service set up by the SA Zionist Federation. The Service is entirely impartial and the selection has nothing to do with the Zionist Federation.

The results out of 10 hits are:

Pro-Israel: 1 letter (mine).
Anti-Israel (West): 4 full-length articles (with photographic image in one) and 2 letters.
Anti-Islamist: 1 brief news report concerning a fatwa out of Saudi Arabia.
Irrelevant or neutral: 2.

Exchange of Correspondence (start at top and read down)

I note that my reply to Pilger's propaganda piece in the previous M & G was not published. On the assumption that the M & G intends publishing responses in the next issue, I have resubmitted an edited version below of the original - sent in haste.

I still retain somewhere the idealistic vision of journalism as a means of enlightenment and, though we often differ, I believe that the M & G shares that somewhat anachronistic notion - though I fail to see how publishing Mr Pilger contributes to that ideal. Forgive me if I say bluntly that in the matter of Israel and the Palestinians, the M & G is seriously on the wrong side of truth, history and morality.

On the assumption that you haven't entirely closed your mind on this matter, I suggest you give me the opportunity to submit an article entitled the "The moral stance and Israel in the Middle East". I look forward to your reply.

Mike Berger

Dear Ferial, Drew

First, I note that you published my response to Pilger in full. While that is to the credit of the M & G, I won't offer thanks since the right to have alternate views expressed (and, in turn, challenged) is the obligation of any newspaper which lays claim to good journalism. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the M & G lived up to its ideals.

At the same time, despite your obvious reluctance (determination?) to engage me in any sort of dialogue, I one again reiterate my request to be accorded space in your newspaper to set out in meaningful context some of the moral issues involved in the "Middle East conflict". So far you have ignored this "offer", along with any attempt on my part to establish some sort of civil contact, by refusing to answer any of my e-mail or telephonic messages.

Nothing I have said or done justifies such an attitude. It can only be attributed to a certain arrogance of power, of the kind you rightly castigate in Government or other powerful corporate entities. Or it reflects a fear to engage in debate on this issue, which implies some deep insecurity on your part regarding the validity of the one-sided position you have adopted vis-a-vis Zionism and Israel. Or, possibly, you are trapped in contractual/ideological obligations to the UK Guardian. Or you have me labelled in some way which precludes you from meaningful engagement.

Whatever the explanation or mix of explanations, your position does not rebound to the credit of the M & G (or yourselves to be frank) and excludes the chance of adding to your paper's significance and relevance in the South African and global context.

So, once again I extend this open-ended offer to engage in a more constructive dialogue and debate. You must be aware that in this age of electronic communication you cannot close off voices you don't approve of. Possibly you may wish to visit my blog, SOLAR PLEXUS (URL - http://froggyfarm.blogstop.com/), and receive the brief Newsletter relating to the blog? If so, let me know.

I am keeping this correspondence confidential, but reserve the right to publish it together with any response of your own, should I feel that the situation warrants it. I would prefer not to do so or to do so with your approval.

regards
Mike Berger

Dear Mike

May I respond as follows:

1. In good faith, we published your right to reply as a letter. We run our newspaper as a forum and always encourage a diversity of views.
2. We are not arrogant, merely flooded. Our letters and personal cues receives hundreds of emails a day and scores of article contributions too.
3. We are not soliciting columns at the moment, but welcome your letters and other contributions on our standard publishing practice. Please bear in mind that we can publish only a small minority of contributions pitched every week.

I don't mean to be rude, but point out herewith that my week is revving up from today and so I will not be able to enter into a discussion about this.

Warm regards,
Peace
Ferial Haffajee
Editor M & G

Dear Mike,

I'm afraid I was a good deal more irritated by your letter than the editor, so am responding separately.

*Neither we nor any other newspaper has any "obligation" to carry readers' contributions, and it is a misconception that there is a universal "right to reply" there is no such thing. Whether and how fully we publish letters is entirely at our discretion. You might have some moral claim if Pilger's article had attacked you personally, but in fact it was about the actions of the Israeli state. Why should you have a "right of reply" to an article critical of Israel, as if your reputation had been impugned?

*Why should the M&G, a South African newspaper, need a regular columnist on Israel/Palestine? Is there a single newspaper in the country with a regular column on any foreign country? The paper's comment section is overwhelmingly about South Africa, and our small world section uses no regular columnists of any kind.

*If for some strange reason we wanted a columnist on Israel/Palestine, why would we use you anyway? What is your special interest or expertise? If we wanted a regular columnist to give the Israeli perspective, we'd at least use someone who is plugged in to what is going on in the Middle East, like the Israeli ambassador (who has occasionally written for us). In contrast
with your writing on scientific matters, I personally find your views on Israel/Palestine stale and predictable in fact, the same stock arguments one has heard trotted out a thousand times by South African Zionists. It's all knee-jerk defensive stuff, with no evidence of any attempt to rethink the situation or wrestle with the complexities. The underlying attitude n your letter "We'll just go on whacking them until they leave us alone" doesn't take things very far forward, it seems to me.

*We are not "trapped" into any contractual obligations to The Guardian in fact, they have shown extraordinary generosity by giving us lifting rights on their excellent world coverage. We share their perspective on Israel, which is pretty much the world consensus outside Israel and the US. Like other readers, you can write us a letter if you feel strongly about something published in the M&G and we will run it if we think it deserves publication. That is exactly what happened last week, and in that context I find it difficult to understand your complaint.

Regards,
Drew

PS The idiom is "redound to the credit" not "rebound to the credit".

Dear Drew

Don't worry about irritation; it is something to be transcended. While I'll be equally frank and address your comments explicitly, I will try not to answer you in the same contemptuous tone in the hope that you will free yourself sufficiently from your preconceptions both regarding Israel-Palestine and myself personally to actually take some note of what I have to say.

• I don't know about "obligations" but if the M & G wishes to be something more than a propaganda rag then it will certainly publish what I (and others with views which run counter to your own) have to say.
• Pilger's article attacked a country with which I and other Jews (in the vast majority) feel a strong sense of identification. Both psychologically and morally we have every right to reply. Possibly if you really had some better idea of Jewish-Zionist history (or were capable of feeling any empathy with that history) you would not have written as you have. It may mean more to you if I pointed out that if someone had traduced your family, you would feel obligated, and would be entitled, to respond. Is that so hard to understand?
• Who said anything about a "regular columnist"? Nevertheless, regular columnist or not, the M & G regularily publishes anti-Israel and anti-Zionst material (I am being euphemistic in my choice of words here), which amounts to the same thing. So get off your high horse; you're on shaky ground.
• Why would you chose me? Well possibly because I was twice published in the M & G Bedside book during the few years when the editor (who differed from me politically) was prepared to publish my work. Because the enlightened Jewish community (and some non-Jews who have taken the time and effort to contact me) regard my writings highly. Because those who are genuine certified experts believe that I have something pertinant to say and say it well. Because I have taken the time and effort to acquaint myself with the issues, take care with facts and the different point of views and because I am open to rational debate. I could go on but modesty supervenes. Nevertheless, I would be happy to supply you with some references and a CV should you truly be interested.
• You comment 'The underlying attitude n (sic) your letter "We'll just go on whacking them until they leave us alone" doesn't take things very far forward, it seems to me.' What letter are you referring to? The Pilger one? I have few hundred words to address his mishmash of lies and distortions:, what do you expect? A historical treatise? A "solution" perhaps? I set out to debunk his nonsense which I did effectively - which no doubt offended you, hence the insults. That is also why I have requested a bit more space in which the topic could be dealt with in a way that does at least a modicum of justice to its "complexities", as you so rightly term them.
• Another of your comments: "We'll (referring to, Israel) keep on whacking them till they leave us alone". No. We'll keep on whacking them (and trying to talk to them and supplying them with the necessities and more) till they stop trying to destroy us. I don't know what fairy stories you tell yourself Drew, but the Jews can't afford them. When people say they want to exterminate us, we've learnt to believe them. When they act as though they wish to destroy us, we certainly believe them. The Jews can't afford stupidity; we're not big and strong enough - though some Jews haven't got the message. But then they mostly don't really want to be Jews.
• I'm glad to hear that you're not "trapped" in any contractual obligations to the Guardian; you merely share their prejudices. But contrary to your belief that the rest of the world also shares them, you should read a recent Pew global survey on attitudes towards Israel and the Palestinians. It would surprise, and doubtless disappoint, you that the incessant stream of anti-Israel "comment" (how about that euphemism?) has yielded such poor returns - except in the enlightened countries of Western Europe so well known for their fairness and tolerance. And, of course, in the despotisms of the Middle East.
• I was not "complaining", just challenging. Possibly you're not accustomed to that?
• The idiom is "redound to the credit" not "rebound to the credit". Wow. Thanks. (Actually, entre nous, I know that.)

In ending let me say that your letter disappoints me. It reeks of prejudice and reflects the sad quality of understanding and thought that underpins so called "enlightened" anti-Zionism. We are sort of inured to the anger and intemperance of zealots (we have them too), but it is when I encounter the shallowness and rage which underlies the anti-Zionism of educated and supposedly "progressive" people that I truly fear for the human condition. We can't learn from that, and what one ultimately desires is for a debate in which the possibility of genuine understanding and personal growth is latent. That cannot be said for your response. I hope that you will take a moment to consider.

I won't comment on Ferial's reply here. Whether it is "sincere" or simply "diplomatic" and "strategic", I have no way of knowing. But, more gently perhaps, it also closes the door. It is to be regretted.

Mike Berger

Dear Mike

I was plain sincere and if you read my response as closing the door rather than pointing out the realities of limited space and still inviting your voice but not at the same rate as you would perhaps like, you are wrong.

Peace
Ferial Haffajee
Editor, Mail&Guardian

Dear Ferial

I felt that I had been a trifle churlish in my response to your gentle letter and this gives me the opportunity to correct that. I am reassured to know that you are sincere and I naturally accept that the pressures on your space and time are enormous. So I will take your message to indicate that the door is not firmly shut and will test (bearing in mind your realities) the extent to which it is open.

with kind regards

Mike

Jews against Jews

So what is it about Jews against Jews? Or Jews against Zionism? Or Jews against Israel? Are these all the same thing- or as near as dammit as to make no difference? Or not?

These questions are pertinent in view of the substantial (at least in terms of noise, if not numbers) of the anti-Zionist/anti-Israel/anti-Jewish lobby. It is also difficult to avoid such questions with Kasrils - see Its Almost Supernatural, 2 April - (and, more regrettably, Zapiro since he has genuine talent) in our midst.

For the moment I'm going to take these positions to be sufficiently similar as to lump them together as Jews Against Jews, or JAJs, for short.

Why the exquisite sensitivity to the imperfections of Jews or Israel but near total blindness when it comes to the actions of those who oppose or hate Jews? How come, the actions of others can always be explained by "circumstances" and "context" but those of Jews (or Israel or Zionists) are simply evil?

These questions also arise in the context of thinking about what may be termed "the moral stance" in politics, especially international politics. I have briefly addressed this in a previous post, but want to look at it in greater depth in due course - not in this posting.

Certainly part of the explanation for JAJs is psychological; what kind of psychology (or psychologies?) lies behind this phenomenon?

The conventional wisdom, amongst much of the Jewish community at any rate, is that it is internalised anti-semitism, picked up from the social environment. This is certainly plausible. A considerable body of psychological research points to the internalisation of racist stereotypes by the targets themselves. This is a staple of anti-racist discourse, and there is no reason why Jews should not be as susceptible as anyone else.

There are now well-established (though not universally accepted) methods for detecting the existence of such unconscious stereotypes in individuals, but I'm not aware of research conducted specifically on Jewish anti-semitism. It should be done.

But even if true, it can't be the entire explanation for JAJs. After all many Jews may have anti-semitic stereotypes lurking in their unconscious or semiconconscious, without becoming overt self-haters.

Is it genuine self-hatred, a projection of one's own weaknesses, inadequacies and evil thoughts onto the Jews. "Projection" as a psychological mechanism is frequently used to explain the attitudes of anti-semites and other racists. Does it also account for the JAJs?

Yes, I think it does in part. So extreme is this at times - see below - that the "self " is split, with the Jewish component of the self being assigned to some kingdom of evil (I don't exaggerate) which must be destroyed.

But I think that other mechanisms may also be operative. For example, old-fashioned vanity and narcissism. Any opposition simply makes such people more vehement and excessive. Ego and self-image is so tied into their self-appointed position of moral spokespersons that they will defend their views to the last gasp.

To get a flavour of the lengths to which such individuals are driven, the following quotes are revealing:

"He (David Saks) tries to argue that Israel shows remarkable restraint, which is exactly the same language used by apartheid’s rulers in their repression of our people. While Israel will mark its 60th anniversary in May this year April 9 sees another 60th anniversary; one of the most infamous of the many barbaric massacres carried out against Palestinians, where Jewish terrorists slaughtered 254 men, women and children in cold blood at the village of Deir Yassin." Kasrils

(Note the term "Jewish terrorists" instead of "Zionist terrorists".)

"To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook. ... Israel and Zionism are the ultimate Evil with no comparison. ... The current Israeli brutality is nothing but evilness for the sake of evilness. Retribution that knows no mercy. Israel is a devastating collective resurrection of the Biblical Samson. It is a
modern representation of the man who kills women, children and the elderly, the Hebraic victorious master of blind indiscriminate retaliation. ... Israeli cannibalism ... If we want to save this world, if we want to live in a humane planet, we must focus on the gravest enemy of peace, those who are wicked for the sake of evilness: the Israeli State and world Zionism. ... We all have to de-Zionise ourselves before it is too late. We have to admit that Israel is the ultimate evil rather than Nazi Germany (52)."
Gilad Atzmon (an ex-Israeli) quoted by Anthony Julius

It is a truism to point out that such tirades are eagerly seized upon by dyed-in-the-wool, non-Jewish anti-semites for whom the extinction of the Jews would be of little consequence, if not a much desired outcome.

For a nuanced and powerful overview of JAJs see "Jewish anti-Zionsim Unravelled" by Anthony Julius part 1 and part 2, Blushing for the Jewish State by Balint and Anti-semitism and the Left that Doesn't Learn by Mitchell Cohen.

A balanced view allows for Jewish self-criticism and disagreement with specific acts and policies without descending into the pit of semi-psychotic self-hatred.

To end on a more positive note, and to cleanse ourselves of these hateful delusions, here is a lovely quote from the writings of Haim Nahman Bialik (1925) in the article "Fragments from the Archives" published by Z-word:

"We are not coming here to seek wealth, or dominion, or greatness. How much of these can this poor little country give us? We wish to find here only a domain of our own for our physical and intellectual wealth. We have not yet achieved great things here. We have not yet had time to wash the dust of long wanderings from our feet and to change our patched garmets. Undoubtedly many years have yet to pass until we have healed this desolate land of the leprosy of its rocks and the rot of its swamps. For the present there is only a small beginning of upbuilding; yet already the need has been felt for erecting a home for the intellectual work of the nation."

Let the JAJs put that in their pipe and smoke it. The Jews did better than Bialik imagined possible and it is not over yet.