In a Nutshell

The confrontational and needlessly abrasive correspondence between myself and Doron Isaacs should not detract from the central issue – finding a way to bring about a sustainable peace between Israel and her neighbours in such a way as to preserve the existence of a viable Jewish State.

It is mistakenly believed that those of us who steadfastly support Israel, in a climate characterised by the stupid extremism of the anti-Israel petitions which appeared in the Mail and Guardian and The Citizen, wish to preserve the status quo there. It is ignorantly thought by our self-appointed moral guardians that we’re blind to the dangers of the status quo or that we have no regard for the rights or suffering of any other than Jews or Israelis.

Such embedded ignorance is difficult to dislodge, but it should not distract us from clarifying the issues involved and acting to promote the kind of resolution which so far as humanly possible is sustainable and just.

I use the word “just” with some caution, since one of the less attractive features of human behaviour is moral grandstanding on the basis of a conveniently selective morality. I do not support Israel because of some grand law of universal justice. I support her mainly because I’m Jewish and, in the context of recent world history, that requires me to support the creation of the Jewish State.

I do not believe that Israel has some absolute right to her present borders, to larger borders or for that matter to any land at all in the Middle East, or indeed elsewhere. Nor do I believe that the Palestinians or any peoples or nations have such abstract rights.

I believe that a consideration of history and human psychology, especially in its collective form, indicates that those collections of people who see themselves as a definable collective almost always seek out land on which they can pursue their collective interests and social-political life. This inevitably brought peoples into conflict with others seeking also to maximise their claim to land and the resources contained on it.

At the risk of stating the obvious, much of history is the story of the conflicts engendered by this process and the various regulatory instruments and norms developed to render the process less destructive, more in keeping with the interests of the ordinary folk most at risk and in maintaining a stable global system.

Putting it this way, takes some of the ideological and moral fervour out of the equation and allows us to seek pragmatic solutions to human needs. There is no simple formula to this. It will inevitably require a rather subtle blend of power, feasibility and basic principles of equity.

In the context of the Middle East, it is generally agreed that the most pragmatic solution (in the sense spelt out above) would be the creation of two states, one Jewish and the other Palestinian, living side-by-side in a state of peace and preferably active cooperation. So what’s stopping it?

One could point to many factors indeed and I have alluded to some of these in previous articles and am reluctant to go over all this ground here. I am not an expert in any event.

Most of them come down to this: it is politically possible to create within Israel a strong majority opinion in favour of just such a settlement provided that genuine peace and security can reasonably be assured.

For good reasons of history and context, “reasonably” in this case means a very high level of assurance. Without that, it is unlikely that a strong peace movement can be sustained within Israel. But with that, as indicated in poll after poll, such a movement undoubtedly could be created and could prevail.

It is this fundamental fact, which is continually missed by the so-called “left”. They believe they can bully or shame Israel into doing the “right” thing as defined by them. They vilify and demonise those who oppose their view and some seek to do the same to Israel as shown in the repugnant adverts taken out in our local newspapers.

The most important actions they could undertake, if indeed the fate of the Palestinians were as an important concern as they claim, would be to drum this fact into the heads of those who currently seek to bully, threaten or destroy Israel. It would be to assure Israel of their loyalty and commitment. It would be to publically defend Israel and to attack those who seek to delegitimise (subtly or blatantly) or undermine her through boycotts, the promotion of single state solutions and a selective and dishonest media focus on Israel’s shortcomings and the “suffering” of her neighbours.

Only when Israel is no longer scared (legitimately scared) that relinquishing strategic resources as part of a peace process will not be met by further hostility, strengthened both psychologically and tangibly by various kinds of strategic gain, can the prospects of a sustainable and reasonably just settlement become a reality. Only then will she be able to realistically confront the maximalists in her ranks playing the high-risk game of a zero-sum outcome.

Why does this argument not apply equally to the other side? For a host of reasons:

• Israel does not threaten its opponents with extinction.
• Israel has an unruly and potentially dangerous settler movement; it does not have tens of thousands of well-armed militants ready to invade or bomb it’s neighbours and undermine its own government.
• Its demographic and geographic position (and other factors) puts it at a serious strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis its neighbours – only offset by a strong military backed up by a strong economy and a committed population and diaspora.
• Its recent and long-term history makes security and top priority.

Thus it is Israeli security which is the chief issue. When that is understood and implemented, then it will be possible to bring the political process forward. We are not there yet. Though there have been some useful moves forward, with Iran and other extremist entities still very much alive and kicking it is premature to start “pressurising” Israel, the preferred tactic of the left.

Creative ways need to be, and are being, sought to advance the security of the region and with it, Israel. This cannot be achieved overnight, but also should not be put on the back-burner. It requires realistic political nous and the right blend of economic, diplomatic and military incentives – not public posturing.

This, put as simply as possible, is the absolutely central issue. Anything else is simply a call for Israeli surrender with all the enormous risks that would entail. Most of us will never become part of that campaign directly or indirectly. There are ways of conveying real concerns to Israel which do not involve some form of betrayal. If necessary these should be used.

Mike Berger

Correspondence with Doron Isaacs of the SAHRD

This is the first time I've written to you directly...

You know of course I strongly oppose not only your position and the HRD notwithstanding subsequent clarifications and, in my view, spin. I have spelt out the basis for my position in the CJC and on my occasional blog, Solar Plexus. You have never responded to any of this; you were under no obligation to do so.

While I'm not immune, I suppose, to gossip around people's motivations, agendas and associations I always retain a measure of scepticism preferring to believe in sincerity (even if seriously mistaken sincerity) rather than hidden agendas and motivations - unless established otherwise. Not that "sincerity" is some universal whitewash. It is a word which requires considerable qualification.

However I have read your "debate" with Joel Pollak and some of your other writing. To be honest I find much of it egregious sophistry. Examples abound. You raise issues around the number of hospital beds in Israel to suggest it is not interested in "human rights" - a phrase you seem to regard as a kind of universal moral solvent. One could of course quote longevity and childhood mortality stats to show that Israel's population, both Arab and especially Jewish, have health statistics comparable to the rest of the developed world. But why indeed do you find it necessary to minutely and selectively scrutinise Israel's social and moral shortcomings except to provide a backdrop to your condemnation of her occupation. Who has ever argued that Israel is a perfect society? Surely if you want to cure its real and alleged shortcomings, go and live there as an Israeli citizen and participate in the democratic process available.

You make a point of insisting that Israel does not face existential threats by focussing on selective military shortterm assessments; others would claim otherwise. But, in any case, what does this have to do with the longterm reality of continued anti-Israel and anti-semitic propaganda and activity which of course are existential threats - that is their declared purpose.

You tend to poo poo Israel's security concerns to suggest she is not sincere about ending the occupation. Israel is of course a heterogeneous society and there are elements (not only settlers) who strongly believe that Israel has a right to the West Bank. Have you seriously considered their arguments, not only the more extereme religious ones? For the record I do NOT believe that Israel has a RIGHT to this territory; nor do I believe that the "Palestinians" have an automatic right. I believe that it is mainly a political question to be resolved pragmatically and that Israel's very real security concerns play an enormous role in determining Israeli attitudes towards this issue.

But there are really 3 questions I have of you:

If you truly support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state (as you claim to do), then do you not admit that she has significant enemies who wish for precisely the opposite outcome and who use every means possible (military broadly speaking, economic, diplomatic, propaganda and psychological warfare - depending on circumstances) to advance their aims? If this is true, are the alleged "sins" of Israel in context really of such a magnitude that Jews should provide aid and comfort to Israel's enemies because of their (understandable) concern with aspects of Israel's (or individual Israeli's) behaviour? My answer to that is unequivocally no. What is yours?

Secondly, will you concede that your public stance and the stance of many of those you have associated yourself with, is predominantly critical of Israel specifically. In this context I am well aware that you and others of the Human Rights Delegation (HRD) have also condemned suicide bombings and the like and the "strategy" of Palestinian "resistance" etc. But it seems to me that these are caveats of expediency - like condemning serial rape they're easy calls? The thrust of your public utterances and actions has been directed at Israel. You have never attacked Palestinians to my knowledge on fundamentals...like antisemitism, like the glorification of violence and martyrdom, like their utter failure to create a viable political-social structure or to grasp productively real opportunities to advance their alleged aim of 2 peaceful states side-by-side with Israel rather than the extinction of Israel. You have never seriously referred to the fact that Israel faces existential issues arising not only from Palestinian "resistance" but other state and non-state entities regionally and even globally. Even your reading of history downgrades the significance of the Zionist movement, the extent and impact of Arab hostility, Israeli moves towards establishing peaceful relationships and Israeli achievements relative to the prominence you accord to real and alleged transgressions against the Palestinians. In view of all of this, are not your critics entirely correct in their view of you as fundamentally hostile to Israel and thus in their view of you as part of a 5th column?

Finally, is my (and, of course, many others as well) perception correct or incorrect that you are actively engaged in spreading your vision of the ME situation (to use a clumsy shorthand) to the Jewish community, especially its youth, in this country and that you may well be linked to others (like Kasrils) whose clearly venomously anti-Israeli views are well known? Calling this activity "debate" simply serves as a very flimsy camouflage of an essentially political agenda and so I would reject that explanation. This should be a straightforward question to answer. I ask it since many believe that is precisely what you are engaged in under the blanket of a concern for "human rights" which applies mainly to Palestinians and not to Israelis - unless to illustrate Israels' disregard for human rights.

So these are my 3 questions. I would be interested in your answers. Please understand that I'm NOT writing to you in confidence and your reply will also not be regarded as such.

I would only add in passing that your comment that Makhanya's and Madlala-Routledge's statements "do not contain an ounce of prejudice" is frankly unbelievable. Prejudice means making up one's mind without sufficient information or on the basis of dubious information or on the basis of pre-conceptions or being resistent to any argument and information which runs counter to or would mitigate the views one holds. Do you seriously wish us to believe that no prejudice is at work in these utterances?

Mike Berger



Dear Mike Berger,

You are mistaken if you think that you can write to me, impugn my integrity, suggest that I may secretly support suicide bombing, inform me that I tolerate antisemitism, imply that my approach to the world is defined by some anti-Jewish animus, insist that I have hidden agenda, and then expect me to take you seriously.

Your style is more insidious, objectionable, tasteless (and less witty) than your obsessive colleague's.

There are two things I find really fascinating.

The first is that it really doesn't matter what I write, your eyes will fail to see it. It will be there on the page, on almost every page, as clear, distinct and purposefully written as anything else, but you'll miss it. When you do see it you regard it as a propaganda trick, because you've managed to convince yourself that these people who find fault with Israel are actually lying when they say they don't want their Jewish relatives and friends in Israel to die or have their human rights compromised in any way. You need to have magic eyes that see only certain things, and have a special mind that can find hatred where it doesn't exist, because realising that these are just normal people saying though-out things would push over the house of cards on which your miniscule intellectual universe is built.

Here is a challenge. Can you (a) manage to not actually read the next paragraph or (b) find a way to interpret it as one big lie designed to hide a malicious agenda?

I have specifically condemned all the things you mention:
- Antisemitism: "Hamas must be challenged on their antisemitism" http://supernatural.blogs.com/
- The glorification of violence and martyrdom: "The reality in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is an indictment on ... the Palestinian leadership for choosing violence to achieve political ends" - Press Conference to announce the Human Rights Delegation. And also "You speak about the problem of martyrdom. We saw this with our own eyes and found it disturbing." -http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/
- Palestinian utter failure to create a viable political-social structure: "I think we should all be critical of them, particularly those who returned with Arafat from exile, for their poor leadership, their corruption, their toleration of and involvement in violence, and their reluctance to champion a truly progressive politics." -http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/ and "they must learn. If they want to be supported as the victims of oppression, then they cannot preach oppression" -forthcoming on Supernatural blog.

I could really cite scores of examples.

The second thing I find amazing is how close to classic antisemitism your logic comes. You think that I am part of some secret clique working in the shadows, pulling the strings, with massive influence in the media, a network of power and evil-intent not visible in the public domain. Zionism was meant to free us Jews of such mindsets of permanent persecution, but in your case this is sadly still the pathology. I have met Ronnie Kasrils exactly once in my life, seven years ago, in December 2001, when I chaired a debate he had with Hagai Segal and Joel Pollak.

I am not closing the door to you. When you're ready to take me seriously and acknowledge that I, like you, do what I do because I believe in it, and among other reasons belief it to be in the best interests of Israel and Jews, and when you're read to engage me seriously on the issues - vigorously, robustly, as trenchantly as you like - then I will respond to you in kind, as I have done with everyone else who has e-mailed me in that way. Until then, please take good care of yourself.

Doron Isaacs


Dear Doron

My comments were robust and trenchant as you put it. Yours are simply insulting and dishonest - and puerile even to point of referring to my "miniscule intellectual universe", the staple insult of the pea-brains who infest internet talkbacks.

I think you impugn your own integrity: I never implied that you support (secretly or otherwise) suicide bombing or that you tolerate (whatever that may actually mean) antisemitism or that you have an anti-Jewish animus. I did open the question of a "hidden agenda" and gave you the opportunity to put that issue to rest.

In fact you never simply and directly answered ANY of the questions I put to you. Perhaps that is because you have convinced yourself "that it really doesn't matter what I (that's you) write, your eyes will fail to see it." Or because it is a lawyer's trick or whatever. It doesn't really matter, but it's wrong. I do in fact read, carefully, what you and others with whom I may disagree have say and I may be convinced otherwise or I may be confirmed in my previous assessment.

The only paragraph of yours worth serious comment is this one

"I have specifically condemned all the things you mention:
- Antisemitism: "Hamas must be challenged on their antisemitism" http://supernatural.blogs.com/
- The glorification of violence and martyrdom: "The reality in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is an indictment on ... the Palestinian leadership for choosing violence to achieve political ends" - Press Conference to announce the Human Rights Delegation. And also "You speak about the problem of martyrdom. We saw this with our own eyes and found it disturbing." -http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/
- Palestinian utter failure to create a viable political-social structure: "I think we should all be critical of them, particularly those who returned with Arafat from exile, for their poor leadership, their corruption, their toleration of and involvement in violence, and their reluctance to champion a truly progressive politics." -http://themovingdebate.blogspot.com/ and "they must learn. If they want to be supported as the victims of oppression, then they cannot preach oppression" -forthcoming on Supernatural blog.

I could really cite scores of examples."

As I pointed out in my challenge, certain calls are what I called "caveats of expediency" and don't carry too much weight. Amongst these I included such obvious no-nos like suicide bombing as part of the glorification of violence and martyrdom and the violent "strategy" of Palestinian resistance. You repeat them above and add condemnation of Hamas anti-semitism and Palestinian failure to create a viable social-political structure.

Well and good, it is a small step in the right direction. But why only Hamas's anti-semitism? What about the widespread anti-semitism in the region and, in fact, permeating a significant portion of Islam globally? Why not point out the general failure of the Arab states to achieve the basic democratic norms which you so "trenchantly" endorse? And which Israel, by and large, has achieved. It is these failures which point to the heart of the problem which I and many others have with your position - and will come back to shortly.

But first a VERY brief response to your paragraph starting with "The second thing I find amazing is how close to classic antisemitism your logic comes...." BULLSHIT!
But I am glad you have nothing to do with Ronnie K.

However, most of the above is skirting the central issue which you do quite a lot of. The fundamental question is this: where does your heart lie as revealed in the totality of your public writings and actions? You can bluster to your heart's content but there is no room for ambiguity in the context of Israel. Nothing you have said in your letter or in your public position suggests other than that you reveal enormous ambivalence or actual hostility towards the Zionist project with all its warts and imperfections.

Just in case you don't grasp what I'm saying here let me paint a reasonable analogy. In WW2 Great Britain, in particular, was bombing (on somewhat dubious strategic grounds) the hell out of German cities. The sheer death, destruction and suffering to the civilian population this campaign caused outweighed by many orders of magnitude anything Israel has inflicted on her enemies. Let me repeat: enemies. But had a delegation of Englishman left for Germany to report back on English brutality in the midst of this conflict, together with a bunch of people outspokenly - sometimes virulently - sympathetic to Germany and critical of England, it would have been called treason. And it would have been just that.

So until you address (within your own mind and heart as well as publically) my central questions adequately, you will not have laid to rest the suspicions and anger many members of the Jewish community feel towards you and your delegation.

And one more thing. If you ever write to me again in the same bullying and insulting way, you will not only not get a reply, I will never read or trust or reproduce anything you have to say.

Mike Berger

Betrayal

I've copied below an article by Matthias Kunzel to provide context for what I have to say. I suggest you read the Kunzel piece before reading mine to provide context for my arguments.

Tuesday evening I attended the launch of Joel Pollak's book entitled "The Kasril's Affair" attended by a decorous audience of Jews mainly. By all accounts so far, the book is informative and interesting.

This post is not about the book, which I have not yet read, but is rather an attempt to remedy my own rather limp-wristed contribution to the debate initiated by the roundtable of 3 panelists.

In essence, I suggested that what was omitted from the scrupulously fairminded and decorous(there's that word again) discussion was context.

My comment was provoked by a number of what we can call the Not in Our Name/Human Rights brigade speaking, in infinitely self-righteous and self-pitying tones, of the intolerance and closed-mindedness of the Jewish community in response to their views. They bemoaned their alleged rejection and marginalisation by the Jewish collective which, they implied, bespoke of the failure of their fellow Jews to appreciate their high-minded and progressive stance.

In short, their failure (partial as it turns out) to make significant inroads into popular Jewish opinion stemmed, according to their own estimation, not from the erroneous and perverse nature of their political stance, but from the intellectual and moral shortcomings of their fellow Jews.

Tsk tsk! Let us up front first repudiate the silly threats and idiotic slurs made by some of the immature/fanatical members of our community. These are to be condemned mainly for their gross stupidity, but also for the danger such rantings holds for meaningful discourse. They serve only as red herrings and the opportunity for anti-Zionists to pose as martyrs to themselves and others.

Having disposed of this irrelevancy, let's cut to the chase. The vehement rejection of the Not in Our Name/Human Rights brigate by their fellow Jews was not based solely on the intellectual and moral poverty of their arguments. If so the community reaction would have been far less angry and sustained.

No, it was based on the clear understanding that noisy PUBLIC attacks in the media on Israel by Jewish and other members of the HR delegation, as well as on so-called "Zionists" in general, are not simply abstruse academic squabbles over historical fact, interpretation and analysis. It is well understood by ordinary Jews with an ounce of commonsense that these were POLITICAL acts in the service of political and personal agendas performed in the CONTEXT of a sustained hostile media campaign to depict Israel in the blackest of colours.

To get to the nub and to use the proper words, these actions were correctly percieved as acts of betrayal. This is a painful word but it must be said.

What else can the public behaviour and words of these fellow Jews possibly be called in the light of the Kunzel article below - or in the light of the consistently hostile and venomous depiction of Israel in our public media over the past decade? What other word can one realistically use when Israel's right to exist is openly denied by significant state and non-state actors both in the Middle East and elsewhere? What other term is appropriate when Israel has been engaged in hot and cold conflict with is neighbours, both near and more distant, for over half a century? How else should one describe the reductionist, selective and decontextualised condemnation of Israel by fellow Jews despite the racist demonisation of Israel in organisations like the United Nations by states whose major distinguishing features are their own fanatical and tyrannical political cultures?

The ordinary Jew understands quite well the distinction between genuine (whether justified or not) ethical misgivings over aspects of Israeli policies and practice and siding with outright enemies of Israel.

Some may claim that my depiction of Israel's situation in such existential terms is alarmist and false. That, in fact, Israel with her effective miilitary backed by nuclear weapons, her strong economy and powerful allies like the USA, is under little if any threat - especially if considered in the context of her backward and divided neighbours. If this is true, public criticism of Israel, even if unbalanced and distorted, should not be regarded as betrayal but as healthy debate.

Even the most meagre scrutiny disproves such simplistic analysis. It is true to the extent that without these advantages, Israel would have long disappeared. But the enormous demographic and geographic strategic disadvantages remain. So does the discrepency in access to natural resources as does the persistence of a militant and totalitarian Jihadist culture which provides endless human ammunition against Israel (and the West in general). Furthermore, what also remains is a Western media/academic discourse which sytemetically delegitimises Israel and Zionism in such a way as to open the door to the openly Nazi doctrines of Ahmadinejad and many others in the Middle East and, regrettably, in the wider Islamic world.

It may also be argued that the Human Rights Delegation brought some nuance to the hitherto totally one-sided views of a number of the Human Rights delegation. This is also true to a point. But it is far from good enough and it is clear that all things considered, the overwhelming tone was selectively and misleadingly anti-Israel.

The position of the diasporean Jew vis-a-vis Israel and Israeli actions is a legitimate topic for open debate wihin the Jewish community. This is a complex and subtle issue. To promote such debate is not equivalent to condoning or actually participating in the malicious sport of Israel-baiting, and Jews generally can tell the difference.

If not done so already, it also needs to be appreciated by the communal leadership, that the Not in our Name/Human Rights members are seasoned and accomplished activists. They understand well the arts of persuasion. Their focus is on the Jewish youth and they have learnt their lesson from the collective response to the Human Rights Delegation to Israel.

They will conduct future operations under the public radar so to speak and will couch their appeal in terms of Jewish fairmindedness and openness to conflicting ideas. If not confronted this will pave the way to a serious questioning of the very basis of the Jewish state and to undermining the emotional attachment to the idea of a Jewish homeland.

Well and good, such is the price of free speech which we are obligated to uphold. But this does not place the Jewish collective under any obligation to take the Not in My Name/Human Rights brigade at their own inflated self-estimation or to allow them to conduct propaganda unhindered under one or another disguise. Let us call them out and take them on without undue subservience to the dictates of political correctness. Unless their tacit denial of a fundamental Jewish solidarity and collective history is effectively combatted, the loyalty of our youth and the future relationship of the diaspora with Israel will be put in jeopardy.

This is what I should have said at the meeting. As mentioned by Joel Pollak the members of the Humn Rights delegation seem strangely reluctant to enter into debate. This blog is open to their responses. Their silence will not be misunderstood by the Jewish community.

Mike Berger



Defining Jew-Hatred Down
The curious response to Ahmadinejad at the U.N.
by Matthias Küntzel
The Weekly Standard 11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09

It is a topsy-turvy world: At the United Nations--an organization born out of the struggle against Nazi Germany and intended to embody the lessons of the Holocaust--a head of state openly spouts anti-Semitic propaganda in an address before the General Assembly. Granted, he takes the trouble to denounce "Zionists" and avoid the word "Jew," but this dodge is transparent to any student of the Nazis. His speech is greeted with acclaim, and neither the U.N. secretary general nor any Western head of
government bothers to object. The media are mostly silent.

It happened on September 23, and the speaker was Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A familiar figure at the U.N., Ahmadinejad has a history of using his turn at the rostrum to sermonize about his yearning for the return of the Shia messiah. This time, he went further, drawing inspiration also from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Zionists, he told the assembly, are the eternal enemy of "the dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people" (this is the English translation of his remarks on the U.N. website). Although they are few in number, the Zionists "have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the United States in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner." Indeed, so influential are the Zionists around the world that even "some presidential or premier nominees in some big countries have to visit these people, take part in their gatherings, swear allegiance and commitment to their interests in order to attain financial or media support." In particular, even "the great people of America and various nations of Europe" are caught in the clutches of Jewish power: They "need to obey the demands and wishes of a small number of acquisitive and invasive people. These nations are
spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will."

Yet liberation is near. "Today," according to Ahmadinejad, "the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse. There is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters." For Ahmadinejad, of course, such talk is nothing new. Addressing the international Holocaust deniers' conference in Tehran in December 2006, he declared (in a speech translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI) that "the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated"--freed, that is, from the "acquisitive and invasive" minority he "outed" in New York as the real power behind Western governments.

The sentiment is not so far from that expressed in a Nazi directive of 1943: "This war will end with anti-Semitic world revolution and with the extermination of Jewry throughout the world, both of which are the
precondition for an enduring peace." Just as Hitler's utopia, his "German peace," required the extermination of the Jews, so the Iranian leadership's "Islamic peace" is conditioned on the elimination of Israel. Ahmadinejad's performance elicited applause from his audience and a warm embrace from the president of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a 75-year-old Catholic priest and holder of the Lenin Prize of the former Soviet Union. D'Escoto is a close friend of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, in whose government he served as foreign minister from 1979 to 1990. This is the same Ortega who, four weeks after the Tehran Holocaust deniers' conference, joined President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela in welcoming Ahmadinejad to Latin America as a "a president willing to join with the Nicaraguan people in the great battle against poverty."

Equally noteworthy was the lack of reaction to Ahmadinejad's U.N. performance in Western capitals--with three exceptions. The German and French foreign ministers criticized Ahmadinejad's "blatant anti-Semitism," and Barack Obama expressed disappointment that the Iranian president had been given "a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views." Otherwise Ahmadinejad's misuse of the U.N. to spread anti-Semitic propaganda didn't even register as a provocation.

On September 23, the very day of his speech, Ahmadinejad was Larry King's guest on CNN. King offered the Iranian president an hour-long opportunity to hold forth as he pleased. The next day, in an article for Salon, the Iran specialist Juan Cole of the University of Michigan took Obama to task for his comments on Ahmadinejad. Cole quoted a single sentence from the U.N. speech--one in which Ahmadinejad criticized the United States—while ignoring the anti-Semitic passages. "Larry King got at the true Ahmadinejad," Cole insisted, whereas Obama "fell into the trap of declining to make a distinction between anti-Zionist views and anti-Semitic ones."

Then on September 25, Ahmadinejad visited the New York Times. In the interview published the next day, he rehearsed his anti-Semitic notions without protest from interviewer Neil MacFarquhar. "Zionism," Ahmadinejad explained, "is the root cause of insecurity and wars. . . . What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one?"

This was in striking contrast to the Times's outrage in 2003 when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia delivered an anti-Semitic speech. Back then the Times wrote: It is hard to know what is more alarming--a toxic statement of hatred of Jews by the Malaysian prime minister at an Islamic summit meeting this week or the unanimous applause it engendered from the kings, presidents and emirs in
the audience.

Not only that, but the Times concluded its editorial with a sharp rebuke to the European Union: The European Union was asked to include a condemnation of Mr. Mahathir's speech in its statement yesterday ending its own summit meeting. It chose not to, adding a worry that anti-Semitism displays are being met with inexcusable nonchalance. The Times is doing now what it so recently held to be "inexcusable."

Sixty-three years after Auschwitz, then, has anti-Semitism entered "acceptable" discourse? Or is the New York Times actually fooled by a rhetorical trick? Where Mahathir was crude enough to denounce the machinations of "the Jews," Ahmadinejad attacks only "the Zionists." He says, "Two thousand Zionists want to rule the world." He says "the Zionists" have for 60 years blackmailed "all Western
governments." He says, "The Zionists have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors." Perhaps this is why he is hailed as an anti-imperialist star.

But the Iranian president uses the term "Zionist" in precisely the way Hitler used the term "Jew": as the embodiment of evil. Even if the Iranian regime tolerates the presence of a Jewish community in Tehran, whoever holds Jews responsible for all the ills of the world--whether calling them "Judases" or Zionists"--is propagating a potentially genocidal creed.

In fact, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have gone hand in hand for over 80 years, not only in the annals of Nazism but also in the intellectual foundations of the Iranian revolution. In 1921, the future Nazi ideology chief Alfred Rosenberg published a book entitled Zionism, Enemy of the State. In 1925, Hitler
likewise attacked Zionism in Mein Kampf, warning that "a Jewish state in Palestine" would only serve as an "organization centre for their international world-swindling, . . . a place of refuge for convicted scoundrels and a university for up-and-coming swindlers." Or does this reading of Hitler fall into Juan Cole's "trap of declining to make a distinction between anti-Zionist views and anti-Semitic ones"?

As a scholar who can read the writings of the Ayatollah Khomeini in the original, Cole is surely familiar with Khomeini's anti-Semitism. And yet he passes over this anti-Semitism in silence, just as he passed over the offensive passages of Ahmadinejad's speech. Up until the revolution of 1979, Khomeini was entirely open in his choice of words. "The Jews wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world," he wrote in 1970 in his major work, Islamic Government. "Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that they may one day achieve their goal." In September 1977, Khomeini declared: "The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite, they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied." The quotation comes from an official compilation of Khomeini's works published in Tehran in 1995.

Starting in 1979, however, Khomeini substituted the word "Zionist" for "Jew," while leaving the fundamental anti-Semitism unchanged. The mullahs' regime disseminated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion throughout the world. In 2005, an English edition of the Protocols was displayed by Iranian booksellers at the Frankfurt Book Fair--the very year Khomeini's fervent admirer Ahmadinejad was elected president.

Today, the anti-Semitism of the Nazis is espoused in Tehran with all the zeal that fuels religious war. As Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, one of the regime's leading religious authorities, declared in a statement published in 2005 by the official Iranian news agency, Fars (but quickly pulled from the Fars website, according to MEMRI): "One should fight the Jews and vanquish them so that the conditions for the advent of the Hidden Imam are met."

What makes the Iranian nuclear program so dangerous is not the technology, but the religious and anti-Semitic mission that the regime would use it to pursue. "Tehran . . . is pregnant with tragedies," Israeli president Shimon Peres told the U.N. General Assembly the day after Ahmadinejad's appearance. "The General Assembly and the Security Council bear responsibility to prevent agonies before they take place." And not only the General Assembly and the Security Council--but Larry King, the New York Times, and the rest of us as well.

Matthias Küntzel, a Hamburg-based political scientist, is the author most recently of Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11.

Human Rights Delegation: open letter from Stephen Paul

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS DELEGATION TO ISRAEL



In the beginning you announced that one of the aims of your mission was to engage local Jewish and Muslim communities on the human rights issues bedevilling the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for the purpose of sensitizing local Jewry to the situation of Palestinians and the harm this is causing to Israel’s own interests, for the benefit of local Jewish/Muslim community relationships. By implication this refers to human rights abuses from one side only caused by what you would call Occupation and what others recognize as Jewish Israelis living in Judea and Samaria / West Bank. This is a discussion for another time. Suffice to say that neither the settler policy of successive Israeli governments, nor the notorious “Khartoum 3 no’s type” rejectionist policy of Arab and Palestinian leadership, has worked, and a two state solution is being agonizingly negotiated with the exhausted mandate of the majority of Israelis and Palestinians.

So with the above in mind last night I attended your public meeting at the Jewish Community campus where you showed the video made of your trip. It is very difficult to understand how you thought it would facilitate engagement or to move forward constructive debate as you put it. On the contrary it seemed to be extremely polarizing and counter-productive. Lofty expressions of Jewish idealism notwithstanding, if your target market is to change the hearts and minds of the local community by shaking people out of their complacency, you also need to engage with their own narrative. To produce a desired result requires the methodology to go with it. This is not rocket science. There was absolutely no acknowledgement of Jewish rights or Palestinian obligations. Only the reverse. No context to the conflict whatsoever. A striking example was sympathetically interviewing an Arab householder in Hebron in which she answered - why should she leave as this was the land of her ancestors. In contrast Hebron Jewish residents were portrayed as thuggish and that they should get out of their 3000 year old ancestral land. A comment of Zackie Achmat was that the delegation was perceived as being anti-Israeli but we were not seeing the young Israelis with them on the mission working for peace and against the brutalising effects on the Israeli psyche. This is a subliminal way of saying that they are the “good” guys, and I fail to see how much room that leaves for “engagement”. In reply to a direct question from the floor the delegation could not produce a vision of how the audience in the room could have any influence on the political process already taking place in Israel. What then is the point of the exercise?

So let me tell you where I am coming from.

I have great compassion for the Palestinian whose family has lost a home and loved ones in the conflict and/or is subjected to humiliating security measures such as the defensive barrier necessitated by their leadership choices of suicide homicidal bombers and other terrorist acts. I would also ask him/her if their hatred of Israelis includes anger at their own leaders for choosing violent warfare and terrorism for 60 years instead of acceptance of the others right to exist and negotiated settlement; and if they have ever tried to stop or influence this policy in any way. Does their remorse extend to acknowledging the pain and narrative of the other and saying sorry?

I have great compassion for the Israeli who has been subjected to constant barrage of wars, terror and existential threat for 60 years, who has lost 30 000 loved ones and tens of thousands more maimed in the conflict, and what this does to his/her psyche. I would also ask them if their hatred for Palestinians extends to anger and remorse at their own unthinking arrogance for ignoring the pain and dispossession caused to the other for whatever reason. Can they acknowledge the other narrative and say sorry?

I have great compassion for the Palestinian homeowner in Hebron who only wants to be rid of the settlers. And great compassion for the Hebron settlers whose rights to their national Torah heritage are being trampled upon.

Great compassion for human rights activists who are prepared to stand their ground in front of hostile Zionist audiences. And great compassion for audiences that are asked to examine lifelong passions and prejudices.

One thing I do know. One narrative without acknowledging the other does not work. The SA Zionist Federation and Muslim Judicial Council are expected by their constituents to represent their own constitutional mandates but also need to show leadership even in the face of opposition. My contribution to the debate sought by the Human Rights Delegation is that you show your bona fides to both representative bodies so that you can facilitate dialogue without fear or favour to either narrative. So far you do not cut it.


Stephen Paul

On this and that

I signed off on Solar Plexus a couple of months ago, in order to take something of a break from the Israel-Palestine issue and to get more involved in a new personal interest.

In the interim all sorts of important things were taking place on the home front as well as globally. None of this has made us feel more comfortable, though an optimistic interpretation of current local political events is that they have opened up the political space for more a realistic and hopeful politics and vision. But we should not get ahead of ourselves.

Mugabe, predictably, has thrown a spanner into the Zimbabwe powersharing deal and that country slides ever closer to total meltdown. The human cost in premature death, hunger and blighted hopes for a better future is sickening.

Locally we still have our ideologues, extremists and political entrepreneurs milking the fears and the prejudices of the South African population. They are not going to disappear off the map.

We have Manto writing her illiterate nonsense on The ANC Today - luckily a sideshow following the appointment of Barbara Hogan as Minister of Health. We have the usual mischievous political meddling in sport, with irrelevant and provocative attacks on the Springbok emblem and the re-intrusion of quotas into national teams. It is almost certain that for the average black South African, neither of these carry much resonance.

What they and most decent South Africans want is simple fairness, real grassroots transformation and opportunity, and, above all, success. They do not want or need the humiliation of “tokenism”. Unfortunately, Luke Watson used the occasion to make an ill-judged and immature speech to the Ubumbo Rugby Festival. Besides the harm it has done to his own career and to our rugby, it has also brought white racists out of the closet as judged by the comments on http://www.keo.co.za/.

Given that Motlanthe emphasized inclusivity in his address to South Africa, it is time that the ANC put these fine words into practice by reining in the provocateurs in his party’s ranks. That is the minimum required; we also need to see inclusivity stretch beyond the appointment of Barbara Hogan, to become part of the ANC policy platform and practice. But that would be following the DA lead wouldn’t it?

Then there is Lekota and the New Party Threat! All that is in such an early stage and so much is going on behind the scenes, that it is impossible to make a serious comment. What one would like to see is the emergence of strong, two relatively balanced centrist forces in South African politics and the creation of a genuinely inclusive South African identity. At present that is wishful thinking, but with energy and imagination we may yet see the forces of left and right reaction put to flight.

At the same time, South Africa is sharing in the global pain of economic uncertainty and potential recession. According to Trevor M, this is likely to persist (or get worse) for a couple of years at least. Eina!

What impact this will have on the South African economy, social projects, infrastructure spending and employment remains to be seen, but is unlikely to be positive.

Some good may still come out of this if it induces a generally more realistic stance vis-à-vis the role of the state in economic development. Along with crime and corruption, education, social policies and sustainability this remains part of the challenges South Africa faces for the foreseeable future.

Locally the South African “Human Rights Delegation” (HRD) to Israel caused bitter dissention with reactions ranging from unseemly threats to denialism. It is the latter that I want to take issue with, but let’s start by getting some things out of the way.

Nobody is denying the HRD their right to free speech. That does not mean, however, that they should be immune to robust critiques of the content of their message, the political agenda which it serves or their motivations.

Let us be quite clear that their project and its motivation is political. They wish to convert as many Jews and non-Jews in South Africa to their political perspective. For instance the Book Lounge, an innovative addition to the independent bookstore scene in Cape Town, is hosting at talk by “two leading Israeli and Palestinian human rights activists, Mikhael Menkin and Hani Abu-Heikel, who work together...”. “They will discuss the difficulties involved in the important challenge of engaging in joint Israeli-Palestinian non-violent opposition to the Occupation. They will also give a vivid and accurate understanding of the current political situation and the reality on the ground, particularly in Hebron”. It seems highly likely that this is at the instigation or with the participation of the individuals from within the HRD project.

It is quite clear from the phrasing of invitation what the underlying assumptions are. In case it needs to be spelt out they are:

• The prime responsibility for solving the current conflict is Israel as the “occupying” power. No mention is made of how Israel came to be in the position it is and the role of Palestinian and other extremist entities in the region in maintaining the status quo. Thus, it is Israeli ambitions, intransigence and brutality which stands in the way of a peaceful outcome.
• This stance leads to the activist project of mounting a “non-violent opposition to the occupation”. No mention is made here of the role of Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria and their proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah in the maintenance of the impasse. These are outside the realm of discourse.
• At the root of both of these assumptions, is the fundamentalist “leftwing” paradigm that imperialist Zionist and Western (mainly USA) ambitions are the root cause of this conflict amongst many others. Thus while paying lip service to a two-state solution, the narrative opens the door to the more radical claim that the existence of Israel as a Jewish entity is a Zionist, hence racist and imperialist, project which has no moral legitimacy. Of course, this claim is made openly and repeatedly by the enemies of Israel, for which the apparently more moderate discourse of the HRD and its affiliates prepares the ground. Jews indulging in such forms of activism cannot disown the instrumental uses to which their stance is put.

The other point to be made, is that this invitation is being made to the wider South African public, not simply the Jewish community. This is the same public which over the past decade and more has been subjected to a barrage of anti-Israel reportage and analysis using the same selective bias, half-truths, decontextualisations and outright falsehoods which characterised the more explicit European and Nazi antisemitism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It is hardly surprising that the recent Pew Global Survey of Social Attitudes shows South Africa to have amongst the highest levels of antisemitism of countries without an outright Muslim majority. Given that Jews constitute about 0.2% of the population one must ask whether such attitudes do not derive from the calculated media partisanship regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by a small, aggressively moralistic clique within the South African Jewish community.

Since this complex conflict is far distant from South Africa’s strategic interests and obvious socio-political challenges, one must ask whence derives the drive amongst Jewish activists to ensure that the debate remains in the public domain. In some measure it is the result of the media programming to which all of us have been subjected. Partly it flows from the consensus leftwing paradigm concerning the moral failures and responsibilities of the West, specifically embodied in Israel and the USA.

Thus the HRD position must be rejected on at least two levels: the simplistic and misleading nature of their core analysis and the instrumental purposes to which their activism is put by declared enemies of Israel.

It would be a shame if the imaginative and admirable Book Lounge becomes the venue for a partisan political agenda. I trust it will not.

A list of some of the more informative articles and analyses I have come across in the past couple of weeks follows. I’m sure this is incomplete but others may wish to supplement the list.

"Talk Isn't Cheap With Iran" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265290125384359.html) Michael Oren and Seth Robinson examine some of the issues involved in initating dialogue with Iran.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/FM_Livni_Address_MFA_Conference+_Policy_Strategy_5-Oct-2008.htm: An address by Tzipi Livni to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Policy and Strategy Conference in October setting out the broad principles of her vision.

http://www.bicom.org.uk/newsletter-latest-from-bicom/bicom-analysis--violent-frin: BICOM Analysis: Violent fringes challenge Israel’s emerging territorial consensus. Claims that a broad emerging consensus in Israel regarding the key elements of the peace process has provoked right and left wing elements into extremist activties and even violence. Some of this, minus the violence, is spilling over into far-off South Africa.

http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2222&print=1: Gabrial Simoni of the Jaffee Institute for Security Studies says that Israels response to “provocation” will be disproportionate in future to elevate the costs to the enemy of the strategy of attrition.

www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/israelmedia.pdf: An excellent guide to all aspects of the Israeli media scene as a pdf file.

That’s it for this posting. Shalom!

Mike Berger

Reminder

This is an opportune time to tell everyone I will be away up North for almost 2 weeks and will be thinking inter alia of my next post, tentatively entitled, "Hawks and Doves in the Centre Lane".

It is also a good time to remind readers and contributors that the blog, SOLAR PLEXUS, is in the public space. It is a political blog and hence all political comment or comment related to its content or to my political writings or positions, can be posted there for public scrutiny at my discretion.

I receive a lot of mail which is not intended, and is not appropriate, for publication. Often this is just a message of support or agreement or minor comment. It is much appreciated but it need not be posted.

However the blog is intended to be interactive so I welcome substantive comment, positive or negative, and will be happy to post it for public scrutiny and debate. It is meant to be a blog (probably excessively serious and earnest at times) about ideas and not about personalities. This cannot be an absolute rule; sometimes the personality attached to an idea or approach is significant as it clearly was in my debate with Judge Davis.

Generally, abusive, racist or just plain silly material will not be posted but simply thrown into the rubbish bin. But if I feel it is of such a nature that public exposure is desirable, then it will appear on SOLAR PLEXUS. So be warned: there is no confidentiality clause covering political and related comment coming to me personally or through the blog, unless this is agreed upon in writing. I don't go in for gossip and slander and refrain from posting material which clearly belongs in the private domain, unless there is an overriding need to do otherwise.

I believe in the importance of robust, public debate within the boundaries of decency. So let's have your views, whatever they are, within these fairly generous limits.

Mike Berger

Prologue to correspondence between Davis and Berger

I am placing on public record below an exchange of correspondence between myself and Judge Dennis Davis. The material is complete and unaltered, save for a couple of notes of brief clarification and one letter of my own which was intended for Judge Davis but was not sent to him on the initiative of Prof Milton Shain (Department of History, UCT and Director of the Kaplan Centre). Prof Shain chairs a smallish, informal discussion group, the Bernard Steinberg Group, comprised of Jewish academics of which both Judge Davis and I are members.

This letter and the full exchange of correspondence is posted to my blog, Solar Plexus (URL: http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/), and will also be included in the distribution list of the Solar Plexus newsletter.

This exchange arose out of a letter of my own (included in the attached record) which was distributed to members of the Bernard Steinberg Group for comment. Three responses were received: two positive, and are thus not included, and one from Judge Davis which led to the exchange reproduced below.


Motivation
I have decided to make this material more widely available for reasons of public interest. Part of this relates to the climate of open, robust but civil debate which needs to fostered in this country I won’t expand on the other ramiifications here but can do so if so merited.

Background

Over the past 10 years or so, I have written in the general press on two major themes: one is domestic politics and the other pertains to Israel. In the latter role I have attempted to rebut what I perceive as unjust attacks on a State of great emotional significance to the majority of South African Jews. Given the fact that I am generally limited to the Letters Page (since the major newspapers will no longer publish articles of mine dealing with Israel) I am compelled to be more simplistic than my preferences would dictate. For a more complete expression of my views, consult my blog at the following URL: http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/.

Within the Jewish community a smallish, broadly leftwing group has allied itself, to a individually variable extent, with those who criticise Israel as a brutal occupying power. This arouses great emotion within the Jewish community since it is perceived as a form of betrayal. There is little love lost between the blocs and debate becomes rapidly polarised.

More specifically, the recent Human Rights Delegation (HRD) to Israel was initiated by a group of young Jewish activists but included a number of non-Jews, some quite prominent and well respected. Most, but not all, of the latter were allied with voices critical of Israel. Judge Davis was part of the HRD.

I amongst others was critical of the HRD for a host of reasons. Prominent amongst these was the fact that despite their claimed sensitivity to the 'sensitivities and anxieties' of the Jewish community a number of them published public pieces on their experiences in which Israel was implicitly or explicitly (sometimes in extremely strong terms) characterised as a brutal occupying power. The major South African media (based on objective criteria) gives considerable prominence to such views and poses enormous obstacles to those of us wishing to offer alternative perspectives. This can of course be documented.

At the same time some of the younger members of the delegation wished to engage with the majority Jewish community in debate. I regarded, and still do, this as double standards and have said so openly.


Allegations
In the course of this correspondence I was subjected to a slew of ad hominem and gratuitous slurs, a variety of accusations, some of which were accompanied by repeated threats of legal action and a host of mis-assumptions and pejorative labels.

I replied to some of these in the course of the correspondence but some I ignored on the basis of their absurdity and out of sheer exhaustion. Some of them were of the type “state explicitly that you do not beat your wife”. One does not generally reply to that kind of demand.

But since this in the public domain and silence can be interpreted as assent I have attempted to reply very briefly to the more egregious accusations.
1. Judge Davis: “because nothing that you have ever written as ever passed any intellectual muster .It is so laughable for me to read you talk of intellectual coherence when your ‘writings’ reveal nothing of the kind . of course that you were never more than a truly pedestrian academic so I should not expect very much . “ He did later apologise for those remarks. Suffice it to say many others have a different opinion.
2. Judge Davis: “By the way to compare Palestinians to Nazis speaks more eloquently than any of your mutterings of preconceptions . please publish this line in public so that I can lay charge against you in the Equality Court .” That patently false inference and threat of legal action was made repeatedly even after I repudiated it. So for the record let me state I did not make that association simply because to do so would be grossly ignorant and stupid and, contrary to Judge Davis’s opinion, I’m neither. Had I believed it was a reasonable comparison I would have stated it openly.

3. Judge Davis accuses me of hate speech and encouraging hate speech on more than one occasion, and even after he withdraws that accusation he demands that I explicitly state my abhorrence of such behaviour. It’s like demanding that someone explicitly declare their repudiation of serial rape. It is a despicable suggestion that I support such behaviour (including threats made to his family or to other members of the Human Rights Delegation). But for the record I regard hate speech and related behaviour as cowardly and repulsive and it should be prosecuted. I have been subjected to it myself and thus know what it feels like.

The accusations around hate speech and the Palestinian-Nazi comparison and threats of legal action were made repeatedly.: “Obviously in your world which equates all Palestinians to Nazis( your words not mine ) people like me are self hating JEWS who would rejoice at its destruction . So go ahead and say so but when remember that when you do so , you cross the line between free speech and defamation and I will be waiting to defend my rights .”

And again: “indeed if you make public your views on Palestinians as Nazis I will consider laying a charge at the Equality Court… And if you defame me or my colleagues , it is equally my right to institute action against you . “

And again: ” How is it that you consider yourself a fair commentator on the Palestinian /Israel crisis when you equate palestinians to Nazis .Note I have given you at least 3 opportunities to withdraw or qualify that which I do regard as hateful speech ie to so write of a whole people “

And again: “To the extent that I accused you of hate speech I WITHDRAW the allegation However, I do find your explanation of the use of the nazi parallel rather unsatisfactory .Why use it in relation to Palestinians ? Does this not fit into a pattern of demonisation of Palestinians”

And again: “While I understand your anger at being linked to a right wing fringe that attacks Doron , it would be helpful for me to know this: do you condemn this kind of ’speech ‘ and will you say so , even in public if necessary . “

I invite the reader to scrutinise the correspondence and judge for themselves where the hate was coming from. If open robust opposition to viewpoints which one regards as misinformed or naïve or politically motivated or malicious is now deemed an incitement to hate speech, then we may as well close down open debate and democracy. I will continue to make such comment openly and reject any attempt to limit my rights.

4. Judge Davis: “But be warned - if you continue tin public to defame any of the group of which I was a part , I will sue you and take it all the way to through the courts. My advice- keep your counsel to yourself .
As for hate , it is not I whose personal attacks in public on individuals has spawned the hate mail on the internet nor is it I who equates all Palestinians to Nazis .”

I have never defamed Judge Davis (indeed, to my recollection, I have never referred to him in print either implicitly or explicitly till now) nor have I defamed members of his group. Once again this suggestion and threat crops up repeatedly. The effect if not the intent is to intimidate me into silence; that will not succeed.

5. Judge Davis: “Small wonder the conspiracy theory lies at the heart of your argument that the world is out to get us” Judge Davis repeatedly imputes to me a belief in some undefined “conspiracy theory”.

If “conspiracy theory” is to have any real meaning – that is, that some group of people are responsible for all the negative comment regarding Israel - then no, I do not believe in “conspiracy theory”. Nor do I believe “that the world is out to get us”.

But I believe on the basis of fairly convincing evidence that the anti-Israel position taken by many (not all) leftwing groups aligns itself conveniently with the diplomatic efforts to isolate Israel by groups opposed to its existence. I also suspect that at least some degree of coordination does occur between individuals and groups. This is a position adopted by many respected commentators – it does not make us conspiracy theorists.

6. Judge Davis: “I look forward to your defence of Doron Isaacs’ right to speak as freely as you should be allowed to speak . In the event that you are prevented unfairly by the media from expressing your position , I would be very happy to defend you and if necessary to assist in any formal complaint to the relevant media authority.”

Since I have never attacked in any way whatsoever, Doron’s (or any other critic of Israel) right to speak I do not see why I should have to defend it. In fact the simple objective evidence clearly shows that they are afforded more than ample opportunity to express their views. I hereby endorse that right.

The shoe is, of course, on the other foot and I invite both Judge Davis and Doron Isaacs to ensure that their critics are afforded the same right and exposure in the public media. I have said this in print and I repeat it here.

7. Judge Davis: “when people like you did absolutely nothing to struggle against apartheid , many of us were defending and promoting the kind of rights that you are now entitled to use in freedom and rightly so .” And again “As for the apartheid record , I do apologise for my impolite and disrespectful comment to you but : the public record against apartheid is important given the widespread criticism of a group of whom I am proud to say that my colleagues on that group all have a proud record of brave defence of human rights in this country and elsewhere .Hence it seems to me that when they are called a ‘so called ‘human rights group , it does open the question -what are your( ie the critic) human rights credentials “

This is, of course, utterly irrelevant but for the record I have ALWAYS opposed apartheid openly and vociferously – sometimes too vociferously. I was one of a small group of Liberal Party students who, along with Ernie Wentzel at a public meeting, urged Helen Suzman – then still a member of the United Party – to leave and at least join the new Progressive Party. She may still remember me for all I know.

I participated in marches for academic freedom and, to my astonishment, I received a standing ovation by my class at UCT when I told them that I was cancelling a lecture to join a march. I wrote to the Cape Times supporting the UCT students when they were widely condemned by the liberal press for their unruly behaviour during a lecture by Conor Cruise O’Brian. I also wrote attacking the Tricameral Parliament as a fraud. I joined NAMDA which was part of the UDF and contributed substantially to the legal fund to bring the doctors treating Steve Biko to trial.

But most of all I taught hundreds of black students at the Medical Schools of Cape Town and Natal and tried very hard to instill in them self-belief, a sense of their own worth and dignity – and the high standards which would allow them to fill their rightful place as medical doctors and full citizens of this country.

8. To continue Judge Davis writes repeatedly that I bear him animus and regard him as a “self-hating” Jew. Other than one brief acrimonious encounter at a meeting of the Bernard Steinberg group, I have not exchanged more than 10 or 20 words with him. On the rare occasion we meet, I greet him (generally I take the initiative) but it never goes beyond that. I quite frankly rarely think of him, though this may change following this episode.

9. There still quite a number of imputations and accusations (e.g., ad hominem attacks from my side which given his writing is quite unbelievable and does not merit an answer) which I have not dealt with. Perhaps I should simply mention that, contrary to Judge Davis’s repeated assertion that I judged the DVD Encounter Point without having seen it, I have NEVER judged the DVD and said so in my correspondence which, inevitably, he ignores. Apparently it is good.

What I did challenge was the uncritical and decontextualised manner in which it was recommended for viewing. I could do this at greater length but it is not germane to the issue here.

Finally, Judge Davis intimates, again repeatedly, that I don’t acknowledge the “hurt” done to the Palestinians and the fact that the occupation damages Israel He also claims I don’t admit to a “scintilla” of doubt and refuse to engage intellectually with him.

I have clearly referred to the hurt suffered by the Palestinians if he will simply read what I’ve written. But for the record my deepest feelings at present are for the hundreds of thousands of black Zimbabweans plunged into despair and starvation by the actions of their megalomaniac leader, tacitly condoned by our own President; for the millions of mainly black South Africans living in gross poverty, with all the attendent ills of abuse and violence while the new fat cat politicians whizz about in fancy limousines followed by a flock of smarmy whites on the make; for the poor sick and needy who get scant help from lazy, corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats and for all our victims of crime of any colour.

But yes, the hurt suffered by many Palestinians is real and Israel, through arrogance, brutality and even racism has contributed to it. But what about the Palestinians themselves – their extreme choices, their antisemitism and their violence? What about other extremist groupings all over the Middle East landscape who are only too happy to use the Palestinians as pawns in their genocidal games? What about Western apologists who explain these hateful and disastrous acts as “resistence” when they are nothing of the kind? I could go believe me, but where precisely does Judge Davis think I should be laying the blame in order to satisfy him?

I will quote David Harris of the American Jewish Committee “Still, call me what you will, but I cannot accept those who, in the name of alleged concern for Israel, would tarnish its good name and, however unintentionally, jeopardize its future.” (See http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/separating_fact_from_fiction_posted for the full article).

As for engaging in debate, just read the correspondence! But yes I’m willing, time and energy permitting.

Conclusion
My own general and not inflexible position on Israel has been outlined in articles in the public media (including the M & G, the Sunday Independent, the Cape Times, Business Day and some others). My blog, Solar Plexus, including the URL, was referred to earlier. I have also written a short column for the Cape Jewish Chronicle for the past few months. All this is open to public scrutiny.

I have been warned by friends and family that to make this correspondence public may lay me open to legal action of some kind. Possibly that is true and I certainly do not seek such martyrdom. But if Judge Davis does sue me for making his own words (and mine) – none of which were written in confidence - public, whatever his possible success in court he will have condemned himself in public opinion.

The reader is invited to read the full correspondence (carefully) and form their own opinion. But I believe Judge Davis owes 3 genuinely sincere and heartfelt apologies.

An unqualified apology to me without any “ifs”’ “buts’ and “maybes” attached, another to his allies to whose cause he has done possibly irreparable harm, and the third to those who saw him as an exemplar of what a Judge should be: lively, interesting but above all balanced and fair in debating with those whose perspectives may differ from his own.

I hope Judge Davis does precisely this since I have no desire (irrespective of what he may think) of harming him. But at the same time let us have our words and actions out in the open so that they may be evaluated openly in the court of public opinion. Only in that way can we all learn from our mistakes.

But judge for your selves.

Mike Berger