Dear Readers
Two letters appeared in the Cape Times this morning (5 Feb), criticising my last post entitled "Betrayal by any other name" which had previously been published in the same newspaper. The letter by Leonard Shapiro can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.monitoringsa.co.za/PDFS/2009/2/2009_02_05_655343.pdf. Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with the URL for Rosemund Handler's letter which appeared in the same issue.
My response, written in some haste but which conveys the broad thrust of my position adequately, is reproduced below. It has also been submitted to the Cape Times with the request to publish in full. I would like to thank Steve Magid of "It's Almost Supernatural" for drawing attention to my blog since his readership is, deservedly, much greater than my own. He, together with Joel Pollock on "Guide to the Perplexed" keep up an informed critical commentary on on-going events which I cannot match.
They are not alone: the names David Saks and Cape Town's pithy letter writer, S Kaye, spring to mind. I hope this brief list is not invidious and apologise to the many other friends of Israel who have been outspoken in their support. We do not always see eye to eye on details but we are united in the belief that the broad Zionist project and Israel deserves the full support of the Jewish Diaspora.
And let me remind you, as I sometimes have to remind myself, don't forget to get a life. The world is bigger than the the endless conflicts which mankind is prey to. Don't get mired in despondency or anger or a sense of hopelessness. Such emotions solve nothing and often involvement in these controversies are ways of escaping from oneself or projecting one's own fears, disappointments and anger onto others. Jung sort of said it when referring to WW1:
"The psychological concomitants of the present war- above all the incredible brutalization of public opinion, the mutual slanderings, the unprecedented fury of destruction, the monstrous flood of lies, and man’s incapacity to call a halt to the bloody demon- are uniquely fitted to force upon the attention of every thinking person the problem of the chaotic unconscious which slumbers uneasily beneath the ordered world of consciousness.”
Letter submitted to Cape Times
This is a brief response to Leonard Shapiro and Rosemund Handler (Cape Times, 5 Jan), and possibly other Jews who feel the same way or are simply confused:
With Isaiah Berlin I believe that culture, spirit and values are not abstractions but are embedded in the history and struggles of a people. The values that both these writers express, and which, in general terms, I share, are those of the Jewish people formed over millennia of dispersion and struggle.
If they would truly engage with the history of their own people, and not the spectres thrown up by virulent anti-Zionists, they would understand that much Jewish existence for most of the 2nd millennium was marginal and harsh and was coming to a cataclysmic end in Christian Europe in the 19th and 20th century.
It was apparent to Jewish thinkers like Herzl after witnessing the Dreyfuss case and other evidence of the collapse of Jewish emancipation, that the Jews desperately needed a physical space in which the diverse strands of their national identity could find expression and evolve in its own unique manner. In short, they needed a national home – the necessity for which become abundantly clear with the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust within my lifetime.
This was the essential foundation on which Israel was built. But reality and history rarely accommodate themselves to human needs and deepest yearnings and the fact is that the Zionists landed in the midst of another people’s own emergence into modernity and struggle for self-expression – namely the Arabs.
The result has been the messy and often ugly struggle which persists today and is tied up with the ambitions, agendas and ideologies of both regional and global participants. It is not pretty and is extremely difficult to resolve.
I fully identify with this heroic Jewish project which has brought the possibility of a decent and full human existence for the first time to millions of marginalised and brutalised Jews from around the world. I identify with its struggle for morality in the midst of a deadly struggle and sympathise with (not overlook) its transgressions and errors. I admire its remarkable achievements. None of this detracts from my belief in the common brotherhood of humanity.
Now it is possible that this history leaves Shapiro and Handler cold or that they have other ideological commitments. But that does not mean that they’re obliged to overtly or covertly lend ammunition to those who actively wish to bring an end to this extraordinary product of Jewish idealism and spirit.
Loyalty is not a specific Jewish value – it is a universal one – and loyalty and honesty dictates that those Jews who cannot identify with the Zionist project or are especially concerned with what they perceive as its failings, find ways to express this which do not involve acts of betrayal.
Mike Berger
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Betrayal by any other name
There has been a vigorous campaign within the Jewish community, initiated by members of the South African Human Rights Delegation (SAHRD), to dissociate itself from the carefully worded and moderate statement by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, the South African Zionist Federation and the Chief Rabbi supporting Israel in its military response to years of rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza on civilian communities in Israel.
After considerable effort, this group has managed to gather 300 signatories, out of a community of around 80 000, to a petition condemning Israel’s response to these attacks as inhumane and disproportionate. It is safe to say that the sentiments expressed by the signatories run contrary to the opinion of most South African Jews. Furthermore, at least some of those who signed are Jews in name rather than in substance or identity.
At the same time, many of the petitioners have a well-deserved high profile in South African public life and a few are known to me personally as decent, intelligent people for whom I have a high regard.
Nevertheless, I believe the action they have taken is morally and intellectually insupportable. In brief, the moral content of any action is ultimately determined by the context in which it takes place. To illustrate this in the simplest and crudest of terms let us take the murder of another human.
The sanctity of human life is rightly regarded by modern civilised people as a basic intrinsic virtue. Yet we would equally recognise that the morality of shooting a man in the back would be significantly different were he a defenceless neighbour going about his own business or the same neighbour engaged in raping your wife.
Loyalty, is equally regarded as a basic human virtue. Yet there are circumstances in which loyalty is recognised as wrong and inappropriate. For instance, in the years leading up to World War 2, when Nazi doctrines of Aryan superiority and Jewish evil were being actively promulgated by an increasingly totalitarian state bent on achieving world domination and the elimination of Jews and other “inferior” peoples, open opposition by fellow Germans can only be applauded.
The common factor in both these examples is that extreme conditions are required to justify actions like murder and betrayal which go against a deep moral consensus. This is recognised by ordinary people, by moral philosophers and, I dare say, in law.
The creation of Israel is a Jewish project (otherwise what would be the point of advertising one’s opposition as Jews?) supported by the majority of Jews worldwide. The act of publically condemning Israel for its self-defense nowhere remotely meets the standards required to justify an act of betrayal, which in context this petition undoubtedly represents.
On the contrary, the petition is being widely disseminated in the context of a situation which has been deliberately engineered by Hamas and its allies as part of a long-term strategy for reversing the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This strategy includes a global campaign of demonisation and condemnation based on manipulated, selective and often downright false information. The result is a global outpouring of hatred and anti-Zionist rhetoric - and antisemitic sentiment last seen in the 1930s.
The petition lends ammunition to those whose deepest desire is to see Israel destroyed and even to those who have bought into the notion of Jewish evil, a necessary prelude to genocide the world over.
The signatories should think again and take the necessary corrective action.
Mike Berger
After considerable effort, this group has managed to gather 300 signatories, out of a community of around 80 000, to a petition condemning Israel’s response to these attacks as inhumane and disproportionate. It is safe to say that the sentiments expressed by the signatories run contrary to the opinion of most South African Jews. Furthermore, at least some of those who signed are Jews in name rather than in substance or identity.
At the same time, many of the petitioners have a well-deserved high profile in South African public life and a few are known to me personally as decent, intelligent people for whom I have a high regard.
Nevertheless, I believe the action they have taken is morally and intellectually insupportable. In brief, the moral content of any action is ultimately determined by the context in which it takes place. To illustrate this in the simplest and crudest of terms let us take the murder of another human.
The sanctity of human life is rightly regarded by modern civilised people as a basic intrinsic virtue. Yet we would equally recognise that the morality of shooting a man in the back would be significantly different were he a defenceless neighbour going about his own business or the same neighbour engaged in raping your wife.
Loyalty, is equally regarded as a basic human virtue. Yet there are circumstances in which loyalty is recognised as wrong and inappropriate. For instance, in the years leading up to World War 2, when Nazi doctrines of Aryan superiority and Jewish evil were being actively promulgated by an increasingly totalitarian state bent on achieving world domination and the elimination of Jews and other “inferior” peoples, open opposition by fellow Germans can only be applauded.
The common factor in both these examples is that extreme conditions are required to justify actions like murder and betrayal which go against a deep moral consensus. This is recognised by ordinary people, by moral philosophers and, I dare say, in law.
The creation of Israel is a Jewish project (otherwise what would be the point of advertising one’s opposition as Jews?) supported by the majority of Jews worldwide. The act of publically condemning Israel for its self-defense nowhere remotely meets the standards required to justify an act of betrayal, which in context this petition undoubtedly represents.
On the contrary, the petition is being widely disseminated in the context of a situation which has been deliberately engineered by Hamas and its allies as part of a long-term strategy for reversing the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This strategy includes a global campaign of demonisation and condemnation based on manipulated, selective and often downright false information. The result is a global outpouring of hatred and anti-Zionist rhetoric - and antisemitic sentiment last seen in the 1930s.
The petition lends ammunition to those whose deepest desire is to see Israel destroyed and even to those who have bought into the notion of Jewish evil, a necessary prelude to genocide the world over.
The signatories should think again and take the necessary corrective action.
Mike Berger
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Beyond the pale
I attach below a letter I wrote late last night in response to one from Michael Kransdorff who, together with Steve Magid, is a co-author of that excellent blog, "It's almost supernatural". I've tidied my original up somewhat and slightly expanded it, but otherwise it is identical. Kransdorff's letter may be available on his blog or perhaps from him directly.
There is one issue which I have not examined here - that is the question of "loyalty" in a political context. What does it mean, what are its limits (if any) and what actions are appropriate or otherwise? I hope to take up this issue in a talk I have been invited to present to WIZO.
Please read on...
Dear Michael
While I admire your commitment to civil discourse, I fear that in this instance the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) of your goodwill do not merit it.
Let us be clear: this is not some academic debate being conducted between scholars in which normative standards of mutual respect are in order. Geffen et al are "activists" in a context in which Israel (a tiny Jewish state of less that 6 m Jews) is under constant, potentially genocidal pressure from those who hate not only the "Zionist" (ie. Jewish) state but Jews in general. Part of the strategy of such groups, given the military superiority of Israel, is to mobilise world opinion against Israel.
This has a number of ends in view. One is to pressure countries and political leaders to adopt at worst neutral stances in this struggle but, even better, to adopt actively hostile policies towards Israel. So far it hasn't really worked to the full, but it has stopped the West from openly labelling a spectrum of groups mainly, though not exclusively, from within Islam as the atavistic, fanatical and genocidal movements that they are. The second is to demoralise and divide Jews both within Israel and outside so as to wring "concessions" and hopefully, eventually, see the disintegration of the entire Zionist enterprise - and in the even longer term who knows? Of course, such tactics include economic pressure as well as political and social pressure.
Thirdly, such tactics help mobilize the Arab street – and immobilize Arab leaders who might otherwise wish to see the wider threat posed by Hamas and its like brought under control.
Given the general backwardness of these groups (state and non-state), the strategy of demonisation is in fact a primary objective. This is why Hamas, as a matter of calculated policy, is prepared to continually compel Israel into measures which inevitably kill civilians. It is for this simple reason that a dead Palestinian (especially a child) is worth immeasurably more to Hamas than a live one.
To achieve this level of sacrifice in the host population it becomes necessary to create a culture of Jihad and martyrdom and also to inculcate an unquenchable sense of bitter grievance and hatred. It is also out of the inevitable images of death and destruction that world opinion can be mobilised against Israel and an apocalyptic climate of global fury can be constructed. Thus every miltary response by Israel brings with it this inevitable side-effect - a painful fact of which Israel and we are only too aware.
This strategy has been extremely successful. The mass rallies and the kind of threats and violent actions we have seen in the last couple of weeks bear ample witness to the mob reaction of righteous indignation which is a pre-condition for ALL genocidal behaviour.
It is in this context that the Geffen-Isaacs axis operates. They state their purpose quite clearly "Doron and I are trying to effect change in the Jewish community by strengthening the hand of progressives." They do this by openly, very publicly and repeatedly declaring their opposition to those Jews supporting Israel, by stigmatising us and by associating themselves with those who have labelled Israeli actions not only disproportionate but "worse than Apartheid", worse than the Nazis, diabolical and so on in an endless stream of invective. To give some flavour here are extracts from a letter published in that sober journal, the Financial Mail, on 16 Jan 2009:
"The unilateral granting of statehood by means of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the subsequent terrorising of the legitimate owners of the land, the savage butchering and ethnic cleansing are clearly recorded as historical fact...
No less a Zionist butcher than Yitzhak Rabin, then Israel's chief of staff,...
History is replete with the authentic history of Palestine and its brutal usurpation, which the recorded sayings and biographies of the very perpetrators of this Zionist plot later admitted to... Scripturally, historically and politically Israel's existence is illegitimate and Israel and Zionists will know no peace until they accept that reality... This belligerence has now exceeded all bounds, and the worst tragedy of our "civilised" world is staged in full view of an astounded humanity - barring, of course, Israel's illegitimate step parents."
Further useful evidence of just what kind of sentiment is being stirred up in the South African street (over an intractable and immensely complex dispute taking place thousands of miles from our shores and our interests), here are extracts from a report from David Saks:
“The dichotomy between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews came out very strongly during last week’s COSATU solidarity rally for Palestine in Lenasia. It also witnessed what might be the first instance of public Jew-baiting by a member of government in over half a century as Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig informed a deliriously cheering crowd that America, as well as other Western countries, was in the grip of Jewish money power.
What the Honorable FJ actually said was: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else”
And “Another speaker praised “our Jewish brothers and sisters” who had come out against the Israel Defence Force, assuring them “there is a place in the world we are building in South Africa for you”. Those who had not done so, he warned, had “better watch out because the winds of change are blowing”.
Regarding local Jews allegedly serving in the IDF, another presenter shouted (again to rapturous and sustained applause): “We are going to become impimpis, We are going to become impimpis the business that we are going to carry out with the Jews, with these Zionist entities. We are going to talk to them, were going to find out if their sons have gone to fight our brothers and sisters in Palestine and then we’ll say to them come and fight us at home”.
Of course Geffen et al do not use such language; nor do they burn Israeli flags or scream "death to Israel and the Jews" or "send them to the ovens" - as recorded in a street demonstration in Fort Lauderdale in the good ole USA. But they pass the ammunition via measured phrases, via selective and decontextualised "facts" (now which famous right-wing politician used a similar strategy?) and via carefully calibrated spin to those who do, and to those who would destroy Israel and, if luck came their way, the Jews with it. They do this assiduously and quite successfully.
Such Jews, and they are neither insignificant in number or in influence, are beyond the pale of polite discourse. "Useful idiots" is too polite and they are, in one sense, not idiots. They are a 5th column within Jewry.
Let us be clear on this. It is not their views which are the primary issue. They are entitled to these (even where grievously mistaken) just as others are entitled to vigorously challenge them. Nor are the actions and attitudes of Israel immune from debate and even opprobrium (though I would recommend a measure of humility in the face of complexity and distance).
It is their actions - their public, persistent, insidious participation in the demonisation of Israel in the prevailing political context which renders them beyond the pale of our consideration. It is their political evangelism within the Jewish community and especially the youth which deserves unambiguous repudiation.
I do not believe Geffen et al should be provided with any legitimacy or platform whatsoever by the Jewish community and the community's desperate attempts to appear broadminded and even-handed are not commendable - they are misguided and weak.
I greatly admire your blog...don't dilute it out of a false sense of PC.
respectfully yours
Mike Berger
There is one issue which I have not examined here - that is the question of "loyalty" in a political context. What does it mean, what are its limits (if any) and what actions are appropriate or otherwise? I hope to take up this issue in a talk I have been invited to present to WIZO.
Please read on...
Dear Michael
While I admire your commitment to civil discourse, I fear that in this instance the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) of your goodwill do not merit it.
Let us be clear: this is not some academic debate being conducted between scholars in which normative standards of mutual respect are in order. Geffen et al are "activists" in a context in which Israel (a tiny Jewish state of less that 6 m Jews) is under constant, potentially genocidal pressure from those who hate not only the "Zionist" (ie. Jewish) state but Jews in general. Part of the strategy of such groups, given the military superiority of Israel, is to mobilise world opinion against Israel.
This has a number of ends in view. One is to pressure countries and political leaders to adopt at worst neutral stances in this struggle but, even better, to adopt actively hostile policies towards Israel. So far it hasn't really worked to the full, but it has stopped the West from openly labelling a spectrum of groups mainly, though not exclusively, from within Islam as the atavistic, fanatical and genocidal movements that they are. The second is to demoralise and divide Jews both within Israel and outside so as to wring "concessions" and hopefully, eventually, see the disintegration of the entire Zionist enterprise - and in the even longer term who knows? Of course, such tactics include economic pressure as well as political and social pressure.
Thirdly, such tactics help mobilize the Arab street – and immobilize Arab leaders who might otherwise wish to see the wider threat posed by Hamas and its like brought under control.
Given the general backwardness of these groups (state and non-state), the strategy of demonisation is in fact a primary objective. This is why Hamas, as a matter of calculated policy, is prepared to continually compel Israel into measures which inevitably kill civilians. It is for this simple reason that a dead Palestinian (especially a child) is worth immeasurably more to Hamas than a live one.
To achieve this level of sacrifice in the host population it becomes necessary to create a culture of Jihad and martyrdom and also to inculcate an unquenchable sense of bitter grievance and hatred. It is also out of the inevitable images of death and destruction that world opinion can be mobilised against Israel and an apocalyptic climate of global fury can be constructed. Thus every miltary response by Israel brings with it this inevitable side-effect - a painful fact of which Israel and we are only too aware.
This strategy has been extremely successful. The mass rallies and the kind of threats and violent actions we have seen in the last couple of weeks bear ample witness to the mob reaction of righteous indignation which is a pre-condition for ALL genocidal behaviour.
It is in this context that the Geffen-Isaacs axis operates. They state their purpose quite clearly "Doron and I are trying to effect change in the Jewish community by strengthening the hand of progressives." They do this by openly, very publicly and repeatedly declaring their opposition to those Jews supporting Israel, by stigmatising us and by associating themselves with those who have labelled Israeli actions not only disproportionate but "worse than Apartheid", worse than the Nazis, diabolical and so on in an endless stream of invective. To give some flavour here are extracts from a letter published in that sober journal, the Financial Mail, on 16 Jan 2009:
"The unilateral granting of statehood by means of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the subsequent terrorising of the legitimate owners of the land, the savage butchering and ethnic cleansing are clearly recorded as historical fact...
No less a Zionist butcher than Yitzhak Rabin, then Israel's chief of staff,...
History is replete with the authentic history of Palestine and its brutal usurpation, which the recorded sayings and biographies of the very perpetrators of this Zionist plot later admitted to... Scripturally, historically and politically Israel's existence is illegitimate and Israel and Zionists will know no peace until they accept that reality... This belligerence has now exceeded all bounds, and the worst tragedy of our "civilised" world is staged in full view of an astounded humanity - barring, of course, Israel's illegitimate step parents."
Further useful evidence of just what kind of sentiment is being stirred up in the South African street (over an intractable and immensely complex dispute taking place thousands of miles from our shores and our interests), here are extracts from a report from David Saks:
“The dichotomy between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Jews came out very strongly during last week’s COSATU solidarity rally for Palestine in Lenasia. It also witnessed what might be the first instance of public Jew-baiting by a member of government in over half a century as Deputy Foreign Minister Fatima Hajaig informed a deliriously cheering crowd that America, as well as other Western countries, was in the grip of Jewish money power.
What the Honorable FJ actually said was: “They in fact control [America]. No matter which government comes in to power, whether Republican or Democratic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else”
And “Another speaker praised “our Jewish brothers and sisters” who had come out against the Israel Defence Force, assuring them “there is a place in the world we are building in South Africa for you”. Those who had not done so, he warned, had “better watch out because the winds of change are blowing”.
Regarding local Jews allegedly serving in the IDF, another presenter shouted (again to rapturous and sustained applause): “We are going to become impimpis, We are going to become impimpis the business that we are going to carry out with the Jews, with these Zionist entities. We are going to talk to them, were going to find out if their sons have gone to fight our brothers and sisters in Palestine and then we’ll say to them come and fight us at home”.
Of course Geffen et al do not use such language; nor do they burn Israeli flags or scream "death to Israel and the Jews" or "send them to the ovens" - as recorded in a street demonstration in Fort Lauderdale in the good ole USA. But they pass the ammunition via measured phrases, via selective and decontextualised "facts" (now which famous right-wing politician used a similar strategy?) and via carefully calibrated spin to those who do, and to those who would destroy Israel and, if luck came their way, the Jews with it. They do this assiduously and quite successfully.
Such Jews, and they are neither insignificant in number or in influence, are beyond the pale of polite discourse. "Useful idiots" is too polite and they are, in one sense, not idiots. They are a 5th column within Jewry.
Let us be clear on this. It is not their views which are the primary issue. They are entitled to these (even where grievously mistaken) just as others are entitled to vigorously challenge them. Nor are the actions and attitudes of Israel immune from debate and even opprobrium (though I would recommend a measure of humility in the face of complexity and distance).
It is their actions - their public, persistent, insidious participation in the demonisation of Israel in the prevailing political context which renders them beyond the pale of our consideration. It is their political evangelism within the Jewish community and especially the youth which deserves unambiguous repudiation.
I do not believe Geffen et al should be provided with any legitimacy or platform whatsoever by the Jewish community and the community's desperate attempts to appear broadminded and even-handed are not commendable - they are misguided and weak.
I greatly admire your blog...don't dilute it out of a false sense of PC.
respectfully yours
Mike Berger
Monday, January 12, 2009
Deplorable
I attach a personal response below to the cartoon by Zapiro in the Sunday Times and the even more pathetic letter from the usual quarters in the Cape Times this morning. History will ultimately reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their stance.
Mike Berger
“Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult.” Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times (UK), 11 Jan 2009
That is perhaps a little stronger than I would normally put it, but it is sad when it takes clear-thinking and courageous non-Jews like Lawson (talking about the UK) to expose the useful idiots embedded in the South African Jewish community - so ably represented by Zapiro in the Sunday Times yesterday (11 Jan 2009) and the signators to the letter in the Cape Times today.
The moral posturing of the Zapiro cartoon is sickening. Hamas has deliberately placed its soldiers and instruments of war specifically in civilian settings – in homes, in hospitals, in mosques, in schools. This vicious policy has been implemented with the clear goal of maximising Palestinian suffering should Israel respond to years of terror inflicted on its southern population centres.
But on this crime, Zapiro, is tjoepstil!
If anything, the Cape Times letter is even more devoid of anything approaching intellectual or moral substance. This little band manages, just, to deplore Hamas rockets and Israeli deaths (are we not grateful for such brave impartiality?), but much - oh so very much - more strongly deplores Israel’s “disproportionate” response and Palestinian suffering.
Well they’re welcome to “deplore” away but we need to make a choice between hope and nihilism, between realism and fantasy, between democracy and totalitarianism and between our Jewish brethren and their bitter and implacable opponents.
I have made my choice, and it is clear they have made theirs.
Mike Berger
Mike Berger
“Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult.” Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times (UK), 11 Jan 2009
That is perhaps a little stronger than I would normally put it, but it is sad when it takes clear-thinking and courageous non-Jews like Lawson (talking about the UK) to expose the useful idiots embedded in the South African Jewish community - so ably represented by Zapiro in the Sunday Times yesterday (11 Jan 2009) and the signators to the letter in the Cape Times today.
The moral posturing of the Zapiro cartoon is sickening. Hamas has deliberately placed its soldiers and instruments of war specifically in civilian settings – in homes, in hospitals, in mosques, in schools. This vicious policy has been implemented with the clear goal of maximising Palestinian suffering should Israel respond to years of terror inflicted on its southern population centres.
But on this crime, Zapiro, is tjoepstil!
If anything, the Cape Times letter is even more devoid of anything approaching intellectual or moral substance. This little band manages, just, to deplore Hamas rockets and Israeli deaths (are we not grateful for such brave impartiality?), but much - oh so very much - more strongly deplores Israel’s “disproportionate” response and Palestinian suffering.
Well they’re welcome to “deplore” away but we need to make a choice between hope and nihilism, between realism and fantasy, between democracy and totalitarianism and between our Jewish brethren and their bitter and implacable opponents.
I have made my choice, and it is clear they have made theirs.
Mike Berger
Friday, January 9, 2009
Hamas's Media Partners
The following letter was published in the Cape Times today (Jan 2009). A letter from S. Kaye in like vein was also included and an article by the new Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, Steinberg. But the dominant comment in today's C Times - in terms of images, prominence, headlines and wordage - was anti-Israel. This is a reality which cannot be readily changed.
If public demonstrations against Israel mount, it will become necessary for the broader community - and not only Jewish - to publically demonstrate their support for Israel (and for peace and justice). I hope our communnal leadership is preparing themselves for such action.
All this will be found on my blog http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/.
Mike Berger
To the Cape Times
I write briefly to correct serious defects in the treatment of the Gaza operation, Cast Lead, by our media. The uncritical approach adopted makes sections of our media partners in the Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as propaganda fodder in its on-going war with Israel.
The facts are well known to everyone. Hamas has deliberately embedded its on-going and extensive military operations deep within its civilian population with three strategic aims in mind:
Firstly, it constrains the response of the Israeli military significantly - contrary to the outrageous claims of some commentators. Israel often takes the militarily costly step of forewarning the civilian population before it takes action. In some instances, Hamas operatives have rushed civilians to the site in order to forstall Israeli action. Not infrequently strikes have been aborted because of such considerations.
When civilian deaths and injuries do inevitably occur, the well-oiled Hamas propaganda machine springs into action to disseminate images, real or faked, together with reports emphasising civilian suffering. The desired outcome is, of course, public damage to Israel’s reputation and enhanced diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop before its objectives have been reached.
Thirdly, of course, Hamas hopes that civilian suffering will be converted into hatred for Israel and not into rejection of its own callous and bankrupt vision. Even here the media plays an important role by focussing attention on Israel rather than on the deliberate instigators of this conflict, Hamas.
Hamas is guilty of war crimes as much through the abuse of its own population as in its total disregard for Israeli civilians. Hamas is solely interested in power and in pursuing its war with Israel irrespective of the cost to its own society. Even if only out of self-interest, Israel only wishes for peace and calm on its borders.
Hamas's brutal disregard for its own population is unmistakeably similar to Mugabe’s actions in Zimbabwe. But contrary to the case of the despot on our border, some sections of our media have become accomplices in the Hamas fiction that Israel is to blame for the Gazan conflict and suffering.
It is about time that this shameful crusade came to an end and that some realism and proportion is applied to the complex Middle East political equation by the media.
Mike Berger
If public demonstrations against Israel mount, it will become necessary for the broader community - and not only Jewish - to publically demonstrate their support for Israel (and for peace and justice). I hope our communnal leadership is preparing themselves for such action.
All this will be found on my blog http://froggyfarm.blogspot.com/.
Mike Berger
To the Cape Times
I write briefly to correct serious defects in the treatment of the Gaza operation, Cast Lead, by our media. The uncritical approach adopted makes sections of our media partners in the Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as propaganda fodder in its on-going war with Israel.
The facts are well known to everyone. Hamas has deliberately embedded its on-going and extensive military operations deep within its civilian population with three strategic aims in mind:
Firstly, it constrains the response of the Israeli military significantly - contrary to the outrageous claims of some commentators. Israel often takes the militarily costly step of forewarning the civilian population before it takes action. In some instances, Hamas operatives have rushed civilians to the site in order to forstall Israeli action. Not infrequently strikes have been aborted because of such considerations.
When civilian deaths and injuries do inevitably occur, the well-oiled Hamas propaganda machine springs into action to disseminate images, real or faked, together with reports emphasising civilian suffering. The desired outcome is, of course, public damage to Israel’s reputation and enhanced diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop before its objectives have been reached.
Thirdly, of course, Hamas hopes that civilian suffering will be converted into hatred for Israel and not into rejection of its own callous and bankrupt vision. Even here the media plays an important role by focussing attention on Israel rather than on the deliberate instigators of this conflict, Hamas.
Hamas is guilty of war crimes as much through the abuse of its own population as in its total disregard for Israeli civilians. Hamas is solely interested in power and in pursuing its war with Israel irrespective of the cost to its own society. Even if only out of self-interest, Israel only wishes for peace and calm on its borders.
Hamas's brutal disregard for its own population is unmistakeably similar to Mugabe’s actions in Zimbabwe. But contrary to the case of the despot on our border, some sections of our media have become accomplices in the Hamas fiction that Israel is to blame for the Gazan conflict and suffering.
It is about time that this shameful crusade came to an end and that some realism and proportion is applied to the complex Middle East political equation by the media.
Mike Berger
Monday, January 5, 2009
Fallout from Operation Cast Lead
I attach below 2 articles of my own in response to media comment following on operation Cast Lead. For all Jews especially (and, of course, for Muslims and others) these are trying times. In certain quarters(mainly leftist, far rightist and Arab-Muslim), the Israeli offensive has met with a storm of outrage and vituperation.
The essential elements of this are the following:
1. The Israeli response is disproportionate and brutal typifying the character of the Israelis State.
2. Cast Lead is an OTT response to minimal provocation by Hamas which in turn was driven by the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
3. All of this is the result of the original sin of Zionist (colonial-imperialist) occupation of Palestinian land and can only be solved by the elimination of the Zionist State.
4. This time is not far off due to the decline of the USA and the increasing resistence of the American population to Zionist-Jewish manipulation.
Such comment is accompanied by moral outrage and a level of hatred and vituperation which needs to be read in the original. On one comment line, somebody called Jack Thomsen suggested that for every dead Palestinian baby or pregnant Palestinian woman, the Jewish equivalent living in the Diaspora should also be killed.
The dominant emotion on such sites is not real sympathy for the suffering Gazan population, but hatred directed at Zionists and, by a very simple extension, Jews in general. I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that anti-Zionism has all the hallmarks of old-fashioned antisemitism and is but a short step away from the real thing. It is characterised by insult, conspiracy theory and attributions of evil straight out of the anti-semitic/racist handbook.
A great deal of strength is required to remain steadfast in the face of such ignorance and malice, but at the same time to remain open to genuine issues and to seek ways of meeting legitimate demands. Whether this is possible remains to be seen but without courage, tenacity and insight all will be lost.
We have done it before and can do it again.
Mike Berger
Submitted to Sunday Times in response to editorial (Mondli Makhanya) and article (Gideon Levy) on 4 Jan 2009
As they say “it’s a free country”, and the chief editor of the Sunday Times, Mondli Makhanya, is entitled to keep his head in the sand. But even so there are some basic professional standards to uphold.
When he refers to the Israeli attack on Gaza as “indiscriminate” he is deliberately misleading his readers. Indiscriminate bombing in WW2 by the allies killed 20 000 to 50 000 German civilians in a single night – and this was repeated on many occasions.
Given modern firepower, “indiscriminate” bombing in crowded Gaza would wipe out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israeli fire has been targeted as precisely as possible to identified military targets despite every effort by Hamas to use civilians as human shields in contravention of international law and norms.
Mr Makhanya uses the word “provocation” when referring to the 8 500 rockets and mortars directed at Israel from Gaza, nearly 6000 of them since Israel vacated the territory in 2005. Under “provocation” no doubt he also includes Hamas-sponsored suicide bombings, the constant smuggling and construction of more advanced weaponry, the open training of a militia accompanied by constant threats to destroy Israel and the mock public trial of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.
Precisely how much of this kind of “provocation” does Mr Makhanya suggest any State should be prepared to accept? Israel has tolerated it for 3 years.
Makhanya also refers to “collective punishment”. There are aspects of collective punishment that may be legitimately questioned on both pragmatic and humanitarian grounds. But the Gazans voted Hamas into power in the full knowledge of their totalitarian Islamist program, their proven brutality even against fellow Palestinians and their doctrine of intransigent violent opposition to Israel.
They especially, but also Israel, are reaping the consequences of that choice. Some Jews no doubt rejoice at the punishment being inflicted on Gaza, but the vast majority wish only that the Gazans had the insight and courage to grasp the opportunity that Israeli withdrawal offered them. They gain no pleasure from the pain of Palestinian civilians.
To reinforce his views, Makhanya prints an article in which Gideon Levy layers on the horrors of war from the Palestinian perspective only. Levy, an Israeli journalist with a regular column in Ha’aretz, unforgiveably omits mention of the thousands of innocent Israeli dead and maimed who also only wanted to live in peace and security. Equally unforgiveably, Makhanya omits to point out that a Palestinian “Levy” wouldn’t live longer than 10 minutes in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Until the Palestinians and their sponsors and allies accept that Israel is not going to disintegrate or vote itself out of existence, the same fruitless, destructive strategies will be pursued in the vain hope that some day total victory will miraculously be delivered to the pathetic remnants left to rejoice.
If Mr Makhanya wishes to move beyond misplaced moral indignation, there are indeed some important tasks closer to home which deserve his attention. Can he please leave the Middle East to those directly affected and with the knowledge to make some useful contribution?
Mike Berger
Published in the Cape Times on 2 Jan 2009
The Israeli novelist, Amos Oz, one of the founders of the Peace movement in Israel, got it exactly right: for Hamas the death of an innocent Israeli civilian is good news, and the death of an innocent Palestinian even better.
The Hamas strategy is simple and diabolically cynical. Keep pounding Israeli civilian centres with rockets and mortars. Stage mock public shows of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, to taunt Israel with its impotence. Embed your military headquarters, rocket factories and launch sites amongst the Gazan population and dare Israel to retaliate.
When Israel holds back, claim it is confused and powerless against Islamist militancy. This will attract new recruits to your cause from amongst the 300 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims most of whom are trapped in backward and corrupt autocracies. Keep smuggling weapons into Gaza till it’s little more than an armed camp with more than 15 000 young well-trained men.
In short, conduct low-key war against your neighbour while telling them quite clearly your goal is the destruction of Israel itself.
When Israel, in full knowledge of the political and human costs, actually retaliates with surgical strikes immediately flood the world media with claims of disproportionality. Rely upon your proxies to ensure that images (carefully staged where necessary) of the wounded and the grief-stricken will be disseminated globally within minutes. Ensure that thousands of angry Arabs and others stage marches and protests world-wide secure in the knowledge that these will receive the publicity never accorded to Israeli targets or victims.
So, either as strutting, gun-waving militant or pathetic victim of Israeli military might, you figure you cannot lose and the Israelis cannot win. But Hamas and their sponsors and those that have chosen the same path, are wrong. While their miserable populations have nothing to look forward to other than hatred, poverty and oppression, Israel is getting on with the business of creating a modern, prosperous state. That option is also open to the Palestinians, together with self-rule should they so choose.
The Hamas dead-end strategy is no secret to the rest of the world. They will not get the support they hope for except from the predictable quarters. The question is where does South Africa stand? Our government appears to be trying out a new partisan role in the questionable hope it will buy some support from sections of our population. Tutu on this issue is simply wrong and out on a broken limb. It really falls to our media to provide the South African population with the serious information and analysis to allow them to draw informed opinions
But the majority of thinking and informed South Africans of all persuasions are not fooled and know exactly what’s at stake – and not only for Israel.
Mike Berger
The essential elements of this are the following:
1. The Israeli response is disproportionate and brutal typifying the character of the Israelis State.
2. Cast Lead is an OTT response to minimal provocation by Hamas which in turn was driven by the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
3. All of this is the result of the original sin of Zionist (colonial-imperialist) occupation of Palestinian land and can only be solved by the elimination of the Zionist State.
4. This time is not far off due to the decline of the USA and the increasing resistence of the American population to Zionist-Jewish manipulation.
Such comment is accompanied by moral outrage and a level of hatred and vituperation which needs to be read in the original. On one comment line, somebody called Jack Thomsen suggested that for every dead Palestinian baby or pregnant Palestinian woman, the Jewish equivalent living in the Diaspora should also be killed.
The dominant emotion on such sites is not real sympathy for the suffering Gazan population, but hatred directed at Zionists and, by a very simple extension, Jews in general. I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that anti-Zionism has all the hallmarks of old-fashioned antisemitism and is but a short step away from the real thing. It is characterised by insult, conspiracy theory and attributions of evil straight out of the anti-semitic/racist handbook.
A great deal of strength is required to remain steadfast in the face of such ignorance and malice, but at the same time to remain open to genuine issues and to seek ways of meeting legitimate demands. Whether this is possible remains to be seen but without courage, tenacity and insight all will be lost.
We have done it before and can do it again.
Mike Berger
Submitted to Sunday Times in response to editorial (Mondli Makhanya) and article (Gideon Levy) on 4 Jan 2009
As they say “it’s a free country”, and the chief editor of the Sunday Times, Mondli Makhanya, is entitled to keep his head in the sand. But even so there are some basic professional standards to uphold.
When he refers to the Israeli attack on Gaza as “indiscriminate” he is deliberately misleading his readers. Indiscriminate bombing in WW2 by the allies killed 20 000 to 50 000 German civilians in a single night – and this was repeated on many occasions.
Given modern firepower, “indiscriminate” bombing in crowded Gaza would wipe out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israeli fire has been targeted as precisely as possible to identified military targets despite every effort by Hamas to use civilians as human shields in contravention of international law and norms.
Mr Makhanya uses the word “provocation” when referring to the 8 500 rockets and mortars directed at Israel from Gaza, nearly 6000 of them since Israel vacated the territory in 2005. Under “provocation” no doubt he also includes Hamas-sponsored suicide bombings, the constant smuggling and construction of more advanced weaponry, the open training of a militia accompanied by constant threats to destroy Israel and the mock public trial of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.
Precisely how much of this kind of “provocation” does Mr Makhanya suggest any State should be prepared to accept? Israel has tolerated it for 3 years.
Makhanya also refers to “collective punishment”. There are aspects of collective punishment that may be legitimately questioned on both pragmatic and humanitarian grounds. But the Gazans voted Hamas into power in the full knowledge of their totalitarian Islamist program, their proven brutality even against fellow Palestinians and their doctrine of intransigent violent opposition to Israel.
They especially, but also Israel, are reaping the consequences of that choice. Some Jews no doubt rejoice at the punishment being inflicted on Gaza, but the vast majority wish only that the Gazans had the insight and courage to grasp the opportunity that Israeli withdrawal offered them. They gain no pleasure from the pain of Palestinian civilians.
To reinforce his views, Makhanya prints an article in which Gideon Levy layers on the horrors of war from the Palestinian perspective only. Levy, an Israeli journalist with a regular column in Ha’aretz, unforgiveably omits mention of the thousands of innocent Israeli dead and maimed who also only wanted to live in peace and security. Equally unforgiveably, Makhanya omits to point out that a Palestinian “Levy” wouldn’t live longer than 10 minutes in Hamas-controlled Gaza.
Until the Palestinians and their sponsors and allies accept that Israel is not going to disintegrate or vote itself out of existence, the same fruitless, destructive strategies will be pursued in the vain hope that some day total victory will miraculously be delivered to the pathetic remnants left to rejoice.
If Mr Makhanya wishes to move beyond misplaced moral indignation, there are indeed some important tasks closer to home which deserve his attention. Can he please leave the Middle East to those directly affected and with the knowledge to make some useful contribution?
Mike Berger
Published in the Cape Times on 2 Jan 2009
The Israeli novelist, Amos Oz, one of the founders of the Peace movement in Israel, got it exactly right: for Hamas the death of an innocent Israeli civilian is good news, and the death of an innocent Palestinian even better.
The Hamas strategy is simple and diabolically cynical. Keep pounding Israeli civilian centres with rockets and mortars. Stage mock public shows of the captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, to taunt Israel with its impotence. Embed your military headquarters, rocket factories and launch sites amongst the Gazan population and dare Israel to retaliate.
When Israel holds back, claim it is confused and powerless against Islamist militancy. This will attract new recruits to your cause from amongst the 300 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims most of whom are trapped in backward and corrupt autocracies. Keep smuggling weapons into Gaza till it’s little more than an armed camp with more than 15 000 young well-trained men.
In short, conduct low-key war against your neighbour while telling them quite clearly your goal is the destruction of Israel itself.
When Israel, in full knowledge of the political and human costs, actually retaliates with surgical strikes immediately flood the world media with claims of disproportionality. Rely upon your proxies to ensure that images (carefully staged where necessary) of the wounded and the grief-stricken will be disseminated globally within minutes. Ensure that thousands of angry Arabs and others stage marches and protests world-wide secure in the knowledge that these will receive the publicity never accorded to Israeli targets or victims.
So, either as strutting, gun-waving militant or pathetic victim of Israeli military might, you figure you cannot lose and the Israelis cannot win. But Hamas and their sponsors and those that have chosen the same path, are wrong. While their miserable populations have nothing to look forward to other than hatred, poverty and oppression, Israel is getting on with the business of creating a modern, prosperous state. That option is also open to the Palestinians, together with self-rule should they so choose.
The Hamas dead-end strategy is no secret to the rest of the world. They will not get the support they hope for except from the predictable quarters. The question is where does South Africa stand? Our government appears to be trying out a new partisan role in the questionable hope it will buy some support from sections of our population. Tutu on this issue is simply wrong and out on a broken limb. It really falls to our media to provide the South African population with the serious information and analysis to allow them to draw informed opinions
But the majority of thinking and informed South Africans of all persuasions are not fooled and know exactly what’s at stake – and not only for Israel.
Mike Berger
Friday, December 12, 2008
Last Try on Settler Riots...
Greetings
I have not had a reply to my response to Nathan Geffen's "open letter" addressed to me on 6 December. This raises the question of why he bothered to write in the first place. Here below is a second letter from me to Geffen raising just that point amongst others. Of course all this may just be a bizarre and absurd form of theatre of obscure motivation and even more obscure purpose...who knows.
I enclose a definitely tongue-in-cheek wish list of 12 items in my letter below, but on a more realistic note I wish everyone an enjoyable and safe holiday season and I hope that this has a far greater chance of realisation than my other 12.
I will end this Intro with a short list of recent articles which some of you may wish to read (Google them):
PASSING THE BATON: AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TAKES ON THE CHALLENGE OF IRAQ. Kenneth M. Pollack
If this Isn't Terrorism, What Is? By TOM GROSS. From today's Wall Street Journal Europe December 2, 2008
Reflections of a Sometime Israel Lobbyist. By Leonard Fein in Dissent Magasine.
Human rights & wrongs. Dec. 10, 2008, THE JERUSALEM POST
Security First. U.S. Priorities in Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking. by J. D. Crouch • Montgomery C. Meigs • Walter B. Slocombe, Ben Fishman, Rapporteur • Michael Eisenstadt, Advisor
Mike (Aka SOLAR PLEXUS)
Dear Nathan
You first wrote (an "Open Letter") to me on 6 Dec challenging my position vis-a-vis the "settlers" and Israel, which you equated with the stance of "Official Jewry". I presumed at the time that an "open letter" has as its chief purpose the initiation of debate; otherwise it is difficult to see the point. A number of responses from, amongst others, Joel Pollak and Steve Magid were sent to you and I also replied on 8 December. In my letter I commended you for the polite tone of your original letter, but challenged you on a number of substantive issues.
Since then we've heard nothing, which is puzzling to say the least. If you do not respond, what was the point of the first letter? Do you feel aggrieved or despondent that we have not immediately reached some form of consensus? Do you feel that you have been misrepresented or maligned? Please explain.
I would also point out that although your letter was free of personal abuse you certainly made some comments to which I could legitimately take offence.
For example you say: "You, as well as the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and the SA Zionist Federation are a small part, but nevertheless a part, of this system. It is not only the settlers that have put the Zionist enterprise at risk; it is the unconditional support for Israel --irrespective of the crimes committed or sanctioned by the state-- by the dominant form of Zionism in the diaspora today. A crucial element of this system is its dehumanisation of Muslims and Arabs. That's what creates the environment for pogroms to take place. We learnt this from Jewish History."
Besides the substantive errors in this comment, you strongly imply that I am guilty of the "dehumanisation of Muslims and Arabs". I strongly deny this imputation. I have absolutely zero animosity towards either Muslims or Arabs and anyone who knows me would also know this. What I do recognise is that major elements within both categories, are strongly anti-Israel and often anti-semitic for a variety of reasons. As such they pose a very real threat to Israel. This is not dehumanisation; it is simply reconition of a basic reality. Failure to acknowledge this is not admirable - it is simply denialism.
You also said, "You also compared Palestinians to Nazis (without even realising it)." This is a pretty ugly accusation wholly unsupported by any evidence in your letter. Yet you have failed to respond to my request for the precise statement on which you base this assertion. Do you think that contributes to trust or to dialogue?
On rereading your letter I am struck by the unfocussed and sweeping generalisations which inform your position. They range from accusations regarding Reform Jewry, to alleged support for Greater Israel to unconditional support for all Israeli actions - as though silence or conditional condemnation equates to support. In addition, you conflate a host of different entities (the two Jewish organisations, myself and unnamed others) into a some rightwing conspiracy which tacitly seeks a greater Israel and dehumanises Arabs and Muslims.
In failing to focus you seriously undermine your central alleged concern, settler violence and the "occupation", and perpetuate the polarisation of debate around labels and straw men.
In my own response I attempted to set this straight. In so doing I too may have used labels which are not productive. I used the word "shrill" for example. While parts of your writing are indeed "shrill", others have been balanced and deserving of consideration. I have myself written of the difficult issue of personal morality in the arena of political conflict.
I also used the words "moral crusade" which you may see as offensive labelling. But again I do so because of your emphasis on selected and uncritically accepted accusations against Israel and Israelis in the absence of realistic contextualisation. I attempted to remedy what I saw as a major defect in your position. This is related to your rote condemnation of violence and anti-semitism, which is not integrated into the position you actually adopt - namely, is intensely critical of Israel.
The whole SAHRD project reflected the failure to adequate conceptualise these dilemmas and conflicting realities - more specifically the hostile media environment and anti-Israel agitprop in certain South African circles. This immediately played itself out on the return of the delegation with a slew of critical articles and public comments in which Israel was cast as the central villian. In particular, I pointed out this is the context in which I operate and which conditions (to a significant extent) the public position I adopt. It does not allow the luxury of moral righteousness unrelated to hard existential realities.
I could go on, but once again, if your original letter was a genuine desire to engage in debate, I invite you to respond. Otherwise people will draw their own conclusions.
In the meantime this is my wish list for a better world:
1. I wish that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai did not find it necessary to specifically include the minute Jewish population in its list of targets or fund it necessary to torture them before killing tham.
2. I wish that the dangerous and hateful Jihadist philosophy together with its foundational Islamist doctrine would rapidly pass into the dustbin of history never to re-emerge.
3. I wish that no-one would resort to brutaility and violence to achieve their personal or ideological ends and that the conditions which encourage such responses could be eliminated.
4. I wish that instead of hurling bombs or abuse at one another that humans everywhere could discuss their differences over a pleasant glass of wine after showing each other pictures of their families and friends.
5. I wish that the politics always came second to debate over the best soccer, rugby or cricket team.
6. I wish that all people were rational, tolerant and wise and were free of the sins of pride, stupidity, cowardice, cupidity, sadism, envy, conformity and ignorance at all times and everywhere.
7. I wish that Islamists would stop persecuting Christian Arabs and that Palestinians who sold their land to Jews could do so without fearing death.
8. I wish that belligerant Jewish clerics would cease spitting on people with whom they differ, would stop defacing their graves or other religious or national symbols and turn away from extremist rhetoric which spills over into violent action.
9. I wish that the problems of the Middle East would be solved through rational discussion in such a way that the reasonable hopes and aspirations of all the people living there could be accommodated.
10. I wish that those not living there would demonstrate greater restraint and modesty and refrain from imposing their own ideologies, biases, ignorance and psychological obsessions on an arena remote from their legitimate interests and experience.
11. I wish that commentators would read beyond the inflammatory literature supporting their own position to more serious studies dealing with the complex, multi-dimensional realities which influence the flow of events.
12. I wish that people had deeper insight into the vast scientific literature which deals with the way people construct perceptions and make decisions in the political arena, since such knowledge could translate into greater rationality and less emotion.
And I've only started...
Mike Berger
I have not had a reply to my response to Nathan Geffen's "open letter" addressed to me on 6 December. This raises the question of why he bothered to write in the first place. Here below is a second letter from me to Geffen raising just that point amongst others. Of course all this may just be a bizarre and absurd form of theatre of obscure motivation and even more obscure purpose...who knows.
I enclose a definitely tongue-in-cheek wish list of 12 items in my letter below, but on a more realistic note I wish everyone an enjoyable and safe holiday season and I hope that this has a far greater chance of realisation than my other 12.
I will end this Intro with a short list of recent articles which some of you may wish to read (Google them):
PASSING THE BATON: AN OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TAKES ON THE CHALLENGE OF IRAQ. Kenneth M. Pollack
If this Isn't Terrorism, What Is? By TOM GROSS. From today's Wall Street Journal Europe December 2, 2008
Reflections of a Sometime Israel Lobbyist. By Leonard Fein in Dissent Magasine.
Human rights & wrongs. Dec. 10, 2008, THE JERUSALEM POST
Security First. U.S. Priorities in Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking. by J. D. Crouch • Montgomery C. Meigs • Walter B. Slocombe, Ben Fishman, Rapporteur • Michael Eisenstadt, Advisor
Mike (Aka SOLAR PLEXUS)
Dear Nathan
You first wrote (an "Open Letter") to me on 6 Dec challenging my position vis-a-vis the "settlers" and Israel, which you equated with the stance of "Official Jewry". I presumed at the time that an "open letter" has as its chief purpose the initiation of debate; otherwise it is difficult to see the point. A number of responses from, amongst others, Joel Pollak and Steve Magid were sent to you and I also replied on 8 December. In my letter I commended you for the polite tone of your original letter, but challenged you on a number of substantive issues.
Since then we've heard nothing, which is puzzling to say the least. If you do not respond, what was the point of the first letter? Do you feel aggrieved or despondent that we have not immediately reached some form of consensus? Do you feel that you have been misrepresented or maligned? Please explain.
I would also point out that although your letter was free of personal abuse you certainly made some comments to which I could legitimately take offence.
For example you say: "You, as well as the SA Jewish Board of Deputies and the SA Zionist Federation are a small part, but nevertheless a part, of this system. It is not only the settlers that have put the Zionist enterprise at risk; it is the unconditional support for Israel --irrespective of the crimes committed or sanctioned by the state-- by the dominant form of Zionism in the diaspora today. A crucial element of this system is its dehumanisation of Muslims and Arabs. That's what creates the environment for pogroms to take place. We learnt this from Jewish History."
Besides the substantive errors in this comment, you strongly imply that I am guilty of the "dehumanisation of Muslims and Arabs". I strongly deny this imputation. I have absolutely zero animosity towards either Muslims or Arabs and anyone who knows me would also know this. What I do recognise is that major elements within both categories, are strongly anti-Israel and often anti-semitic for a variety of reasons. As such they pose a very real threat to Israel. This is not dehumanisation; it is simply reconition of a basic reality. Failure to acknowledge this is not admirable - it is simply denialism.
You also said, "You also compared Palestinians to Nazis (without even realising it)." This is a pretty ugly accusation wholly unsupported by any evidence in your letter. Yet you have failed to respond to my request for the precise statement on which you base this assertion. Do you think that contributes to trust or to dialogue?
On rereading your letter I am struck by the unfocussed and sweeping generalisations which inform your position. They range from accusations regarding Reform Jewry, to alleged support for Greater Israel to unconditional support for all Israeli actions - as though silence or conditional condemnation equates to support. In addition, you conflate a host of different entities (the two Jewish organisations, myself and unnamed others) into a some rightwing conspiracy which tacitly seeks a greater Israel and dehumanises Arabs and Muslims.
In failing to focus you seriously undermine your central alleged concern, settler violence and the "occupation", and perpetuate the polarisation of debate around labels and straw men.
In my own response I attempted to set this straight. In so doing I too may have used labels which are not productive. I used the word "shrill" for example. While parts of your writing are indeed "shrill", others have been balanced and deserving of consideration. I have myself written of the difficult issue of personal morality in the arena of political conflict.
I also used the words "moral crusade" which you may see as offensive labelling. But again I do so because of your emphasis on selected and uncritically accepted accusations against Israel and Israelis in the absence of realistic contextualisation. I attempted to remedy what I saw as a major defect in your position. This is related to your rote condemnation of violence and anti-semitism, which is not integrated into the position you actually adopt - namely, is intensely critical of Israel.
The whole SAHRD project reflected the failure to adequate conceptualise these dilemmas and conflicting realities - more specifically the hostile media environment and anti-Israel agitprop in certain South African circles. This immediately played itself out on the return of the delegation with a slew of critical articles and public comments in which Israel was cast as the central villian. In particular, I pointed out this is the context in which I operate and which conditions (to a significant extent) the public position I adopt. It does not allow the luxury of moral righteousness unrelated to hard existential realities.
I could go on, but once again, if your original letter was a genuine desire to engage in debate, I invite you to respond. Otherwise people will draw their own conclusions.
In the meantime this is my wish list for a better world:
1. I wish that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai did not find it necessary to specifically include the minute Jewish population in its list of targets or fund it necessary to torture them before killing tham.
2. I wish that the dangerous and hateful Jihadist philosophy together with its foundational Islamist doctrine would rapidly pass into the dustbin of history never to re-emerge.
3. I wish that no-one would resort to brutaility and violence to achieve their personal or ideological ends and that the conditions which encourage such responses could be eliminated.
4. I wish that instead of hurling bombs or abuse at one another that humans everywhere could discuss their differences over a pleasant glass of wine after showing each other pictures of their families and friends.
5. I wish that the politics always came second to debate over the best soccer, rugby or cricket team.
6. I wish that all people were rational, tolerant and wise and were free of the sins of pride, stupidity, cowardice, cupidity, sadism, envy, conformity and ignorance at all times and everywhere.
7. I wish that Islamists would stop persecuting Christian Arabs and that Palestinians who sold their land to Jews could do so without fearing death.
8. I wish that belligerant Jewish clerics would cease spitting on people with whom they differ, would stop defacing their graves or other religious or national symbols and turn away from extremist rhetoric which spills over into violent action.
9. I wish that the problems of the Middle East would be solved through rational discussion in such a way that the reasonable hopes and aspirations of all the people living there could be accommodated.
10. I wish that those not living there would demonstrate greater restraint and modesty and refrain from imposing their own ideologies, biases, ignorance and psychological obsessions on an arena remote from their legitimate interests and experience.
11. I wish that commentators would read beyond the inflammatory literature supporting their own position to more serious studies dealing with the complex, multi-dimensional realities which influence the flow of events.
12. I wish that people had deeper insight into the vast scientific literature which deals with the way people construct perceptions and make decisions in the political arena, since such knowledge could translate into greater rationality and less emotion.
And I've only started...
Mike Berger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
