The utterly charming thing about the Zionist Thought Police is their apparent inability to restrain themselves, even from the very excesses that will prove to be their own undoing. Having asked sane and rational people to believe that Jimmy Carter is a Holocaust denier simply for pointing out the obvious about the apartheid regime Israel maintains in the occupied territories, the same crew now want us to believe that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite. No jokes! That was the reason cited for Tutu being banned from speaking at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. “We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,” explained university official Doug Hennes.
The “anti-Semitic” views Tutu had expressed were in his April 2002 speech “Occupation is Oppression” in which he likened the occupation regime in the West Bank, based on his personal experience of it, to what he had experienced as a black person in South Africa. He recalled the role of Jews in South Africa in the struggle to end apartheid, and expressed his solidarity with us through our centuries of suffering. But then turning to the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians, he issued an important challenge, one that might just as well have been uttered by a Jewish biblical prophet:
“My heart aches. I say, why are our memories so short? Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?
“Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.
“The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.
“Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or – and I hope this will be the road taken – to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.
“We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. South Africa is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land.”
Tutu is absolutely right, of course, nor would those Israelis who embody the same tradition of indivisible human rights that Tutu personifies disagree with him.
Frankly, this case I think this case underlines precisely how absurd the policing of discussion about Israel in the U.S. has become. As a South African veteran of the liberation struggle, I can testify that there are few, if any, more decent, humane, courageous and morally unimpeachable individuals in the world than Bishop Tutu. Speaking truth to power is what he’s always done, both to the old regime in South Africa as much as to the new, when the latter has failed to live up to the standards it professes on AIDS, crime and other issues.
He has spoken forcefully on human rights struggles around the world, and his statements about the West Bank are based on what he has seen there. The diminutive Bish is a moral giant of our times, and the fact that he is condemning Israel for maintaining an apartheid system on the West Bank should serve as a wake-up call to liberal Americans who prefer not to think about these things. Yes, of course Bishop Tutu makes people uncomfortable; that’s what he’s always done, like a good cleric, challenging his flock to consider their own actions and omissions against the morality they profess to embrace. Instead, thanks to the atmosphere created by the right-wing nationalists of AIPAC and the ADL etc., many mainstream institutions would now prefer to shoot the messenger, if only to avoid incurring the wrath of those who have stripped the very term “anti-Semitic” of its meaning (by using it as a bludgeon in defense of behavior utterly abhorrent in the Jewish tradition as much as anything else), and as such, commit a great crime against Jews and Judaism.
Not that Tutu would have been surprised by this clumsy attack on him. As he said in that Boston speech,
“But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?
“People are scared in this country [the U.S.] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? This is God’s world. For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.
“Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: What is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.
“We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.”
Tutu is challenging American institutions to put morality above the power of a lobby. (Yes, I know he called it “the Jewish lobby” and I don’t think of it as that; I think of it as a rightwing Likudnik lobby open to right-wing jingoists of every religious and ethnic stripe who share the Likudnik vision, but then again, I can understand Tutu’s confusion here, because it’s not as if any mainstream Jewish institutions have stepped forward and said no, these people who would suppress honest discussion of Israel speak only for themselves, not for the Jews…)
More power to him.
Postscript: Seems that even the likes of the ADL realize that when they’re seen to be trying to gag someone like Bishop Tutu, they’re destroying their own credibility in the eyes of many Jews. Not least in response to the efforts of the good people of Muzzlewatch, it seems that the university has reversed itself and restored Tutu’s invitation, with the support of even the ADL.
Calling eminently decent human beings like Carter and Tutu antisemites is a sign one is seriously losing the plot. This reminds me of that scene in the movie “Forget Paris,” where Billy Crystal kicks out Kareem Abdul Jabbar from his final game. (Kareem’s futile protest: “You can’t throw me out of my final game!”)
Re. the Jewish vs Likud lobby confusion. Yes, regrettable but understandable. A majority of American Jews may find the AIPAC/ADL/Dershowitz axis repellent but they don’t dare utter a word of disapproval.
Still a bit of the shtetl angst that washing one’s laundry in public is a luxury one can’t afford. (Why not?)
Opposition to the Iraq war was always stronger among Jews than white Christians. (Only African-Americans were more strongly opposed to it.) But the silent Jewish majority stayed silent. It’s not like AIPAC is competing for air time with all those other “Jewish” lobbies – nonexistent as they are.
I saw a lot of the same behavior among Irish Americans.
Many loathed the IRA but few dared open their mouths.
OT, but since it’s about South Africa, my very best wishes to the miners trapped 1.4 miles (yes 1.4 miles!) underground.
I’ve had the privilege in my life to know miners and experience a little bit of their lives. Only superlatives can describe the mental strengths of these people. They’re a breed apart from the rest of us. They can handle adversity in ways most of us can only dream about. My heart goes out to them and their families.
Just hoping they all come out safely.
Yes, Tutu’s use of the term “Jewish lobby” is unfortunate. But, as you say, AIPAC, the ADL & all the others want the world to think that their narrow view of the I-P conflict is THE consensus view of the entire American Jewish community. So how can you really blame him too much for making the mistake?
Richard: As mistakes go, it is pretty small. Many people in the USA refer to “Arabs” in general without making distinctions. This helps Israel’s negotiation position. They are “surrounded” by Arabs or a lone outpost in an “Arabic sea.” All wonderful images that treat Egyptians, Syrians, and Lebanese as the “other,” with the sub-human overtones, of course.
I find the upcoming peace conference laughable. It feels like King Louis’s last costume ball before the fall of the Bastille. None of the participants has any credibility or political strength to negoatiate. Abbas has a rare opportunity to tell the Israelis they can have peace, but it means the end of Eretz Israel. Judging by Abbas’s record, he will not have the courage to say that. Olmert cannot face down the colonists (“settlers.”) And Condi, when has an American Secretary of State been held in such low regard?
Hence, we have to wait until new leaders arise…sigh.
South Africa’s Chief Rabbi, by implication, called him worse:-
“What if the war directed against Israel is really the global war of fundamentalist tyranny against freedom and democracy? Then indeed, all of those who believe, with the best of intentions, that they are defending a vulnerable victim, are actually being complicit in one of the worst injustices in the history of human civilisation. They will have sided with the forces of death and destruction, of fear and prejudice. What if the world is siding against the only beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, thereby endangering us all, because the fate of Jews is often a sign portending the future? Hitler came after the Jews first, and then he attacked the world. Suicide bombings began in Jerusalem and then migrated to New York, Bali, Madrid, London and Nairobi.”
From:
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/article.aspx?ID=493912
That just shows how ignorant you can be and still be named Chief Rabbi. Among other things, “Suicide bombings began in Jerusalem…” Rubbish! The technique was first used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, actually. And its first use in the Middle East, as I remember it, was by Hizballah (or what became Hizballah) against U.S. and French troops.
As for the dark conspiracy of “Islamo-fascism”, the idea that Palestinians would accept their dispossession and occupation if only some fundamentalist clerics in Saudi Arabia would stop preaching their Wahabism is just plain idiotic — but I’ve noticed over many years that there are no depths to which some people won’t stoop to evade confronting the obvious about what fuels the conflict betwen Israel and the Palestinians…
What happened to the first posting I had? did you delete it Tony? The one regd Norman Podhoretz..?
I’ll go look in my spam filter — if it had more than one URL, it may have gotten chopped, let me look
Dass — seems to have disappeared — was it up and then went down? If so, I’m terribly sorry, may have accidentally deleted when clearing spam by hand. If it never made it up, may have been caught in the heavily clogged filter, which I often have to clear without carefully checking… Please resubmit!
Hey T, technical note here: you can probably go into your WordPress settings and tell it to block posts with more than one link, instead of just one. That might open you up to more spam, but people would be able to post links. Are you sure you’re not missing the moderation queue? That usually works for my site to catch comments that have links but aren’t from spam bots. It should be separate from the spam list.
From John Judis yesterday,re Bernard Chazelle above.
“According to the American Jewish Committee’s annual survey, released in January 2003, 59 percent of Americans Jews approved and 36 percent disapproved of the United States taking military action against Iraq. So I am not sure whether AIPAC was out of the American Jewish mainstream in 2002 when it quietly lobbied to authorize a war with Iraq.”
Ken, they’re not handy, but most other studies I’ve seen cited show a majority of American Jews, around 70%, as having opposed the war in Iraq. Being rather right-wing, I imagine the AJC has a stake in the figures being more hawkish…
Pingback: www.TruthRing.org » My Favorite ‘Anti-Semite’
Pingback: Anti-Semites everywhere at Antony Loewenstein
Pingback: OPINION: Israeli apartheid
Ihad posted earlier but I guess it got accidentally deleted but thats cool.
I was basically saying that inherent in Mr.Tutus’ claim is that just like the occupation of Palestine is essentially racist (deep seated hatred of Arabs), the same way the war in Iraq is the same..its just not about oil or protecting Israel or making the wet dream apocalyptic fantasies of the Christian Right come true. Even Sy Hersh claims the above 2 points as essentially true. I just finished reading Gershon Goremberg’s book Accidental Empire and what really strikes me was the extent to which the Israelis never really wanted peace, even though you read that there were some grumblings from say Levi Eshkol about the settlements. It seems to me that Israelis fear (especially Askhenazim) about Palestinian terror is not about Palestinian terror, Its about what happens when you make peace with the Arabs. Just like White Americans fear about interracial marriage that exists 50 yrs ago and still exists to a certain extent today, I think the European Jews, who are the majority in Israel, fear that they would have to actually mix with Arabs when peace comes, and thats what they fear more. Israelis are smart bunch and will creative ways to stop Palestinian terror, but I think they fear peace more because that means mixing with people they consider uncultured and uncivilized. Lets not forget that in the interest of peace, some refugee Palestinians in Jordan are willing to forfeit their right of return, but still Israel refuses to accept that and brings a host of other things it sees as obstacles.
I read some articles about Indian Jews leaving Israel and coming back to India because they were seen as second class Jews and European Jewish girls, whom they were attracted to, refused to mingle with them. So I think Israel knows the Palestinians can be made to accept a deal fair to both, but maybe Israelis dont want that….
In any case I dont know if you follow Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon, but below is a PDF file about Norman Podhoretz’s view on African Americans and interracial marriage..amazing stuff..
http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos/out.pdf
Btw, I just read Juan Cole’s blog and he mentioned that while U. of St.Thomas in MN prevented Mr. Tutu from speaking, they had apparently no moral qualms about letting Ann Coulter speak 2 yrs ago..and this is a lady who fantasizes openly about killing Muslims and converting them to Christianity..I guess thats why St.Thomas U likes her…she is bringing in more converts for them…
Dass: I read the Pod piece a long time ago but couldn’t get pass the first few pages. The prurience of it all. But I eventually read it through, and I just reread it.
One could say, well, it was 1963. Give the guy a break. But that doesn’t wash, does it?
Would hating the Jews be bad now but OK in 1930, because, well, it was 1930?
I once read a letter by a German nazi, in which he explained why he was antisemitic. I swear it was the same letter. “Black” was “Jew,” “violent” was “cunning,” “dominating” was “dominating, with all the other obvious substitutions, but the intimidation, the envy and the fear and the hate were all the same.
Also, the honesty. Podhoretz tries hard to be honest, and I believe he succeeds. He writes: “Did the Jews have to survive so that 6 million innocent people should one day be burned in the ovens of Auschwitz?” His hedging about the answer suggests it’s not just rhetorical. It takes guts and honesty to ask such a question.
The question is not rhetorical (he seems to wrestle with the answer) but the reason he is asking it is a rhetorical device. For it allows him then to ask the same question about blacks. One could accuse him of disingenuousness (it’s not like miscegenation was ever much of an option.) But that would be missing the point. The point is that he does not hedge.
After he just told us he was not so sure what was best for his own tribe, now he affirms his certitude about the other tribe (the neighborhood bully tribe, as he took pains to describe it in the previous 8 pages).
The answer: Blacks can live but blackness should die. To kill racism, no need to kill the Blacks, just kill pigmentation.
An infinitely greater writer than Podhoretz, Louis-Ferdinand Celine — and a first-class antisemite — suggested that to kill unemployment one might want to kill the unemployed.
He was joking.
But Podhoretz is serious. Since whites are incurably racist and Blacks don’t have much to desire from their blackness, the obvious solution is to get rid of blackness.
To kill rape, kill all the women.
To kill child molestation, kill all the children.
And by Podhoretz’s logic, to kill antisemitism, kill Jewishness.
Come to think of it. That was tried.
Not terribly successful.
A shame Podhoretz is Jewish. He would have been a perfect antisemite. Even better than Bishop Tutu…
Good article! getting it translated to Hebrew. Victoria Buch, Occupation Magazine
Bernie,
I think you have missed the main point regd my posting of that Pod article. My point wasnt to say to emphasize that white folks are racist (we have racists in every society, but because of colonialism, white racism is easily seen). My point was that its not hard to understand why most neocons ( and especially Cheney, who isnt Jewish) are so driven for war with the third world. I mean I even remember AIPAC and ADL sometimes going at length to court African-Americans and minorities in the hope that Israel can be potrayed to African Americans as a victim and hence gather sympathy from their leaders and by that logic destroy the claim that Israeli govt policies are racist (I dont think Israel is highly looked upon in the black community). Its one think when regular Americans, especially Jewish, try to draw analogies between the Holocaust and slavery. But it really sick when you see poeple like Podhoretz, Libby, Dershowitz etc take ownership of Holocaust, exploit its usage and its associated sentimentts to egg pro-war sentiments against mostly third world countries, and then they pretend like they really care for Americans here at home (and of course that they are very nice good citizens who could never discriminate)
just as an addendum, so the Pod article illustrates to me that maybe the neocons never ditched their sick views of minorities ever at all. Maybe they say they have, but if you look at they way they gleefully talk about annihalating Arabs and especially Iranians, its makes one wonder whether they abandoned views held by Norm regd blacks
While I generally appreciate the neutral viewpoints on Israeli issues, I seem to find a common theme of Jews “historical suffering” on this blog. What’s up with that? Who hasn’t suffered historically? Have Africans suffered historically? What about Koreans? Chinese? Afghans? Native Americans? Arabs? Germans? Russians? I mean, history is full of suffering. Just most people don’t whine about it.
To further that thought: isn’t it better to focus on accomplishments and take pride in one’s history, rather than focus on the negative? The Jewish obsession with past injustices, to the point of considering Jews “special” in terms of suffering and considering the Jews the most victimized group in history is pathological. One has only to open one’s eyes and look around the world to see that Jews are an extremely privileged tribe, and that the suffering is entirely elsewhere. Indeed there are vast numbers of tribes who were oppressed and victimized so much more that they do not even exist anymore.
One can also see that, despite the great privileges Jews enjoy almost throughout the world today, far too many Jews continue to complain about being “victims”. Why not be grateful for what you have?
Dass: I didn’t miss your point. I just went on a tangent that was mostly irrelevant to your point. (I often do that. Not sure exactly what blog etiquette is. But I often go off topic, hoping the host -and commenters- will forgive me.)
But Pod’s essay is fascinating in its own right. A friend of mine from Alabama said to me it’s the archetype of “southern white racism” (the Brooklyn variety, of course). It is honest and thoughtul. (Northern racism is different: it’s all about segregation and denial.)
What I found particularly interesting was the invariance of certain racist traits. Podhoretz ‘s anguish is that he understands the antisemitic mind perfectly. And he does so because he shares all of its essential components.
I really should try and find that WWII letter if it’s on the web. The resemblance with Pod’s essay is uncanny.
OK, end of digression.
This is a strange and untrue insight:
“To further that thought: isn’t it better to focus on accomplishments and take pride in one’s history, rather than focus on the negative? The Jewish obsession with past injustices, to the point of considering Jews “special” in terms of suffering and considering the Jews the most victimized group in history is pathological.”
Actually, it appears to be a tactic to show that the arab obsession with the same has no specialness to it. The the arab counterpoint does not give it any additional rights.
“One has only to open one’s eyes and look around the world to see that Jews are an extremely privileged tribe”
Only biased eyes see such. Unbiased eyes see a people who successfully struggle against hatred directed towards who they are.
“and that the suffering is entirely elsewhere.”
While there is suffering elsewhere, it seems the the Jews are always at the head of the line when fighting to end that suffering.
“Indeed there are vast numbers of tribes who were oppressed and victimized so much more that they do not even exist anymore.”
It just appears that there have been other people who did not continue such as the Philistines and the Canaanites. It does not appear that there was any oppression yet they failed to continue.
Bernard: Isn’t the fear behind the “Islamofascism” the same fear many whites have about African Americans: the dominant party demonizes the group they fear they can no longer dominate?
Not to be too cynical, but the profliferation of American military bases in the oil-producing regions and the rise of “Islamofascism” run in tandom.
I have serious issues with some statements here.
Tony: “Yes, I know he called it “the Jewish lobby” and I don’t think of it as that…but then again, I can understand Tutu’s confusion here”
Bernard: “Still a bit of the shtetl angst that washing one’s laundry in public is a luxury one can’t afford. (Why not?)”
Sage: “While I generally appreciate the neutral viewpoints on Israeli issues, I seem to find a common theme of Jews “historical suffering” on this blog. What’s up with that?…most people don’t whine about it.”
Sage (2 minutes later!): “The Jewish obsession with past injustices, to the point of considering Jews “special” in terms of suffering and considering the Jews the most victimized group in history is pathological…Why not be grateful for what you have?”
Let me explain something. Jews have been expelled or massacred in virtually every country they set foot in. This has been especially true in the European countries, but it was true in the Islamic world also. Furthermore, the fact that Jews are “priveledged” in an economic sense does not, and should not, provide a sense of security. Jews were a wealthy demographic in Medeival Spain–until they were expelled in 1492. They were a wealthy demographic in much of the Arab world, even as they were being massacred in blood libels. Jews were also a wealthy demographic in the pre-Depression Weinmar Republic.
Economic wealth is nice, but money can’t buy tolerance. It often does the opposite. In this context, Tutu’s “Jewish Lobby” remark becomes extremely disturbing, despite his noble intentions. It is a common anti-Semitic tactic to conflate the actions of some influential Jewish group with the entire people. Take for example the (much overstated in AIPAC) Grenada massacre, in which the Jewish population was slaughtered because of the Jewish vizier. For a more modern example, in the Interwar Period it was fashionable to identify Jews with “Commies” or the “Evil Borgeousie” based on the actions of some prominent political activists of financiers.
In the shtetl, antisemites first pointed criticism at Jews, then swords. Personally, I think those dark days are over, and that continuing this “shtetl angst” amounts to the greatest of victories for our oppressors. But can you prove that I am right? Not with ad hominem rhetorical attacks against the “Jewish lobby” and its “shtetl angst”, or by calling Jews “whiners”.
You all are burning with moral outrage over the Palestinian plight—and you should be. But if you want Jews to relent, you must shed light, not heat. Jews can not help but associate heat with crematoria.
Shlomo statement: “Let me explain something. Jews have been expelled or massacred in virtually every country they set foot in. This has been especially true in the European countries, but it was true in the Islamic world also. ”
To which I ask, “Why?”
IMHO, it is because they have propagated one of the most poisonous ideas in history, namely that God “chose” them. Is there a more arrogant and hateful idea than claiming that the Creator and Savior of the World loves one set of His children more than another?
Shlomo, I don’t think I am entitled to comment on the particulars of Jewish suffering since I am not Jewish, but I think I am more than qualified to comment on the broader question of suffering. From what I understood, you are implying that the Jewish predicament is unique. Allow me to tell you, that the unique FEATURES of Jewish suffering aside (the predicament of every oppressed group at any point in time has features unique to itself), all nations and peoples have experienced much suffering and oppression of various forms and varying degrees. You talk about the Jewish predicament as if it is unique by its very nature, when it has never been, is not, and never will be so. I have lived in South Africa and seen poverty, racism, intolerance, and much crime (a lot of times racially motivated), and I have lived for a considerable period in the Middle East as well, and seen first hand poverty and the collective suffering of many of the nations and peoples in the region. So my friend, Jews are not unique, and to say that you are unique is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. I invite you to view with an open mind and heart the history of the peoples and nations of the world. You will see that Jews are a group/nation just like others (unless we get into the religious aspects of being chosen, etc., which I have no intention of getting into, for the reason I mentioned at the beginning of this reply), with the same worries, same aspirations, and a similar history of oppression and dispossession as many other nations. You want to take the differences in the particular aspects of suffering as proof of some sort of uniqueness. In doing so, you are actually saying that you can measure human suffering on a scale and even come up with rankings of most-suffering nations. There is an abundance of injustice around the world. Instead of ranking who has been victimized most, and instead of exploiting the historical record of injustices to perpetrate and perpetuate injustice against others, how about fighting injustice and oppression? How about fighting injustice for what it is, rather than based on who its victims are ??! Only then will you truly appreciate what justice means, and only then will true justice — and peace — prevail. Until then, you will be perpetuating hatred, intolerance, and anti-Semitism; and sadly, will be taking the renewed anti-Semitism as further proof of the unique predicament of Jews and by extension your need for a state of your own — at all costs. Injustice breeds injustice. Justice can only be achieved by fighting against injustice itself, not against other groups which you think are inherently the source of the injustice. Otherwise you will be in a perpetual state of war against all other nations.
Matthew,
You’ve got to be kidding. First of all, the “chosen nation” is loved by God because they follow His commandments, and live an ethical life that is a positive example for all the world. You do not go to hell for being agnostic or atheist; anyone who behaves righteously can go to heaven. There is nothing arrogant or hateful about this. It is taking on extra responsibility, and you learn this on the third day of Hebrew School.
But that’s almost besides the point. Your claim that this doctrine explains Jewish persecution is beyond outrageous, yet highly illustrative. According to your logic, Crusaders who believed they were God’s Army were angry at Jews for creating the idea of Holy War. So when they massacred Jews, it was not antisemitic. It was only righteous humanist anger. Now I understand why progressives support Hamas. When Hamas bombs Israeli pizzarias, it’s not because they hate Jews. Heaven forbid! No, this is also just righteous anger.
Ed Carson,
You must have missed this part of my post: “Personally, I think those dark days are over, and that continuing this “shtetl angst” amounts to the greatest of victories for our oppressors.”
I agree with you that Jews should move on. They have a state. For the first time since the rule of King David, they have real geopolitical power. This gives them an ability to shape the world for the better, instead of playing zero-sum games.
But regarding our history, you’re wrong. Jewish suffering is unique. Every other people that has gone through what we have no longer exists. Since ancient Greece, many of the world’s most powerful rulers have tried to convert us or just plain slaughter us. It culminated in the Holocaust, which took a once-vibrant European Jewish community to ashes.
Because of the lessons many took from the Holocaust, the Jewish people might be destined for perpetual war. That must change. But it will not change so long as you minimize what we have gone through. My friend, Jews are unique. Wherever they have gone, they have faced nonstop attacks. To a large extent, they still do. Antisemitism is on the rise along with anti-Zionism, and it is often impossible to distinguish the two.
Let me make this clear: no amount of antisemitism justifies the suffering of even one Palestinian child. But the suffering of Palestinians does not in any way justify or reduce antisemitism. Whenever someone ties together Palestinian suffering with Jewish suffering, they are propogating a Hasbarah line. The logic is, if we acknowledge Palestinian suffering we are minimizing antisemitism. And opposing them is a slew of characters, some more sincere than others, who wish to minimize Jewish suffering in order to help Palestinians.
So here is how the debate is framed. One side thinks Jews haven’t really suffered so much, so Palestinians should be helped. The other thinks Palestinians haven’t suffered so much, so Jews should be helped. There is an argument over which group has suffered how much, but there is a common paradigm that one group’s suffering diminishes the other’s. This paradigm leads both sides to become more radical and uncompromising. And yes, it does lead both sides to a “perpetual state of war against all other nations.” So it is unacceptable to me.
Shlomo,
why dont you take a look at this article? just posted on the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7033042.stm
So this article basically reports that Namibians should forget about getting a formal apology from the German govt because of the fear of lawsuits. Lets see
1) Native Americans should forget getting formal apology from US govt for fear of lawsuits. Same with descendants of black slaves. Same with Aboriginal people in Australia. Same with Indigenous people to Latin America and Canada. Same with Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
But look at how much success European Jews have had in reparations. European Holocaust survivors and their descendants in America, Israel, Canada and rest of the world are having great success getting money from german, swiss and other European banks. And they deserve to get it because they were robbed of their loved ones property and put in virtual extermination. All European govts who took role in Holocaust have formally apologized
Are blacks and other minorities any less of humans? Are they sub human that they dont deserve a formal apology and the possibility of reparations? Why cant they get the same treatment as European Jews?
But has anyone stood up for them? No. That is why he world gets so mad at Israel. They get all the attention and money and reparations, and yet when the is slight criticism of Israel the critics are pounded and subdued into silence by calls of Antisemitism. Where is ADL and AIPAC and Israel when it comes to advocacy for Slavery reparations. You folk claim you have suffered a lot and demand justice to this day yet almost 90% of Israeli Zionist and Holocaust survivors remain silent on the issue affecting other minorities.
And I am sure Tony can attest to this. In south Africa, the whites were only willing to reconcile as long as they were not reminded of their heinous treatment and discrimination blacks and as long as they got to keep all the stolen wealth and best land. Guilt free reconciliation.
No one says anyone tragedy should be minimized, Especially Jewish people. But one cant help but feel despair when other people demand equal treatment but they get the boot.
Shlomo: Your comment is basically what I was taught in theology. Unfortunately, that is not the way the Chosen People metaphor is understood by fundamentalists or by Likudnicks (settlers). And the positive spin you’ve articulated is precisely the after-the-fact rationalization that a decent person like you has to make to salvage this dreadful idea.
The whole idea of exceptionalism is just lousy. Human beings cannot handle it . Catalogue just about every horror in the last few centuries, the slave trade, European imperialism, and genocides, and you see some preacher/rabbi/iman claiming that God has willed the brutality. It almost makes my fingers crinkle to have to repeat this ancient piffle.
On a more serious note, you need to be able to distinguish between the “intent” of the Idea–arguably a closer relation to God in order to serve as a positive example to the world–and the “effect” of the idea: God-sanctioned cruelty to others. Just read the comments section of Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post to see the effect of the Chosen People mythology on discourse.
This is not a unique Jewish phenomenon. They just introduced this terrible idea into mass circulation. It just serves as the after-the-fact justification for every thieving empire for the last two thousand years. (You could argue that Greek city states also spread a pagan version of this terrible idea.) So you see the brotherhood of humanity after all!
Sadly, your reponse did not address is why the Jewish experience in just about every culture has been negative? I guess your argument is that everyone from Marrakesh to Moscow mistreats the Jews…okay…but why?
Could it be that human beings bridle at a group walking around claiming that God shed His grace primarily on thee? We are back again to the terrible idea.
Shlomo: Your comment is basically what I was taught in theology. Unfortunately, that is not the way the Chosen People metaphor is understood by fundamentalists or by Likudnicks (settlers). And the positive spin you’ve articulated is precisely the after-the-fact rationalization that a decent person like you has to make to salvage this dreadful idea.
The whole idea of exceptionalism is just lousy. Human beings cannot handle it . Catalogue just about every horror in the last few centuries, the slave trade, European imperialism, and genocides, and you see some preacher/rabbi/iman claiming that God has willed the brutality. It almost makes my fingers crinkle to have to repeat this ancient piffle.
On a more serious note, you need to be able to distinguish between the “intent” of the Idea–arguably a closer relation to God in order to serve as a positive example to the world–and the “effect” of the idea: God-sanctioned cruelty to others. Just read the comments section of Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post to see the effect of the Chosen People mythology on discourse.
This is not a unique Jewish phenomenon. They just introduced this terrible idea into mass circulation. It just serves as the after-the-fact justification for every thieving empire for the last two thousand years. (You could argue that Greek city states also spread a pagan version of this terrible idea.) So you see the brotherhood of humanity after all!
Sadly, your reponse did not address is why the Jewish experience in just about every culture has been negative? I guess your argument is that everyone from Marrakesh to Moscow mistreats the Jews…okay…but why?
Could it be that human beings bridle at a group walking around claiming that God shed His grace primarily on thee? We are back again to the terrible idea.
I am fed up with Jewish and white supremacists period.
I am fed up with Jewish and white supremacists period.
Shlomo
You contradict yourself on the most basic point. You say Jews should move on, yet you talk about how you are unique. But before getting into that, allow me to point out that Israel has thus far not used its “geopolitical power” to shape the world “for the better.” Quite the contrary, it has so far never used it for good purposes, only for the continuation of war, oppression, and provocations. In short, Israel is a warmongering state, not a state that sheds light onto the nations as is habitually claimed. Israeli leaders have always viewed Palestinian aspirations for self-determination as a zero-sum game. I recommend that you read the book by Avner Yaniv, titled “Dilemmas of Security”, which by the way absolves much of the Israeli establishment and attributes this behavior to the concept of the dilemma of security (I disagree with him). But he does say something very interesting. He says (and brings many quotes to back this up), that Israeli leaders, since 1948, had put in place a strategy according to which they would never accept a “third” state between Israel and Jordan. This is why, in 1982, when there was the real threat of U.S recognition of PLO and the possibility of the emphasis of the negotiations track, Israeli leaders decided it was time to eliminate the PLO — and therefore invaded Lebanon. So you see, virtually every action that Israel has taken since its establishment has been based on the zero-sum world view.
I repeat, Jewish suffering is not unique. Only someone who is ignorant of ancient history would insist that Jews are the only nation that has survived after such persecution. One simple example to disprove your point, and which ironically is making the rounds these days, and has raised much controversy due to Israeli denial and participation in denialist lobbying, the case of the Armenians and the Armenian genocide. If we are to talk about proportional suffering, then we can safely say that Armenians suffered far more losses than Jews did. Armenians also had faced much persecution, and had even suffered for centuries as second-class citizens of the Ottoman Empire, which was not the case for European Jewry since at least the 19th century. I do not like comparing suffering, but you see, you forced me to. Your claims to uniqueness are disgusting to say the least. I can bring a thousand more examples of other nations’ equally horrendous suffeering, and tales of their survival as well! Who are you to tell a Native American or a Maori that they have not suffered like the Jews have? Who are you to tell black South Africans that their suffering does not compare to yours? There is nothing unique about Jewish suffering, nor anything unique about Jewish survival. People are people, they have the same abilities and similar mechanisms of coping and survival, aside from the fact that survival of European Jewry could also be attributed to historical circumstances. Had the Nazis come out of WWII victorious, we’d be living in an entirely different world today.
I am not attempting to minimize what you have gone through. You have it all wrong. You THINK I am minimizing your people’s/co-religionists’ plight, because I am saying that you are not unique. Well you are NOT unique, and that does not mean minimization of Jewish suffering. It means placing Jewish suffering on the same level as other nations’ suffering, and by extension, placing Jews on the same level as all peoples, not above other nations, and certainly not below others! No one is justifying anti-Semitism on any grounds whatsoever. Talking about the necessity of fighting INJUSTICE, including injustice perpetrated by some Jews, is not tantamount to justifying anti-Semitism.
And well, Israel’s actions and its claim to be the representative of all Jews worldwide, whether you like it or not, IS responsible for much of anti-Semitism in this part of the world. Not all of, but much/part of. Anti-Semitism is not “innate” as you claim it is. It is not a plague that the non-Jewish world suffers from. I am not saying that we must rationalize the existence of anti-Semitism. Racism cannot be rationalized, it has to be fought against. Not by killing and injustices, mind you, but by educating the new generations about tolerance and preach equality of all people no matter what religion they follow, what language they speak, what color their skin is, and so on and so forth. We must also make sure to place behavior into their proper context. This does not mean justifying it. It means looking at the root causes of it and treating those root causes. Often, hatred is a result of a lot of suffering at the hands of a group of people. It is not justified, but it nevertheless exists and cannot be ignored. You cannot say that Israel has not contributed to the myth that “Jews” are evil (and so on) — though I maintain that the phenomenon of anti-Semitism is not as widespread as Zionist media claims it is. I am talking from experience in the Arab world, talking about this issue with Arabs in cities as well as in remote rural areas.
Helping Palestinians is based on the idea that Jews haven’t suffered so much? Where do you get all these ideas from? Palestinians should be helped, period. Even if persecuted/oppressed by Palestinians. You have a wild imagination I must say, and a paranoid one at that. The argument is not about which group has suffered how much. The argument is about whether the suffering must be put an end to. And I hardly consider the settlers’ predicament to be tantamount to “suffering.” Are you saying that it is? That’s what’s unacceptable to me. Exploiting a historical event in which millions perished, to cover up with it on the acts of a fanatic bunch who go on a rampage day and night against innocent people, cutting olive trees, stealing land, and having the state of Israel (which also talks in the name of Jewish suffering and the necessity for a state as a result of it) act on behalf of it by destroying houses, killing women and children and elderly people, and in general acting like a bully towards neighboring countries (even when completely unprovoked) and hurling anti-Semitic labels left and right at every single person who dares criticize these actions. This is what I call unacceptable.
Dass, right on with everything you said, except for a minor part that I would like to raise an objection to:
“In south Africa, the whites were only willing to reconcile as long as they were not reminded of their heinous treatment and discrimination blacks and as long as they got to keep all the stolen wealth and best land. Guilt free reconciliation.”
I’m a white/Anglo South African, and I think it’s wrong to lump all whites in the category that you lump us into, namely, as a homogeneous group wanting reconciliation without having to pay for injustices… I was a youngster during the anti-apartheid activism era, so I never got to take part in the fight against apartheid, but I remember very clearly that many white South Africans (including my family) were strongly against apartheid and also in favor of reparations and re-distribution of land and wealth. Maybe not the majority, but some did, and I object to being placed in the same category as those who didn’t.
Ed, obviously I never meant to say that ALL white South Africans fell into the category of not wanting to have to pay for reparations. I live in Canada now and I know quite a few white South Africans Jews and non Jews alike. And a lot of them are glad that they left South Africa. Implicit in their reason to leave SA was quite simple: loss of power. I mean again some of them left because for better opportunities in USA and Canada, but others were simply ready to leave. Suddenly most of them felt like they didnt belong. I can quite recall Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu asking them to leave or saying they didnt belong. They wanted them to stay in SA and continue development of that country.
but i will still maintain that based on what I read, most white south africans were ready for reconciliation as long as they didnt give up much. personally I dont think they should because they had been good stewards of the land and they were better off cultivating it than handing it out to black farmers who may not know much about agriculture (like Mugabe is doing right now) but the point is most would rather leave SA than listen to a black SA president
Dass, I would like to think that there is a difference between the phrase “most white South Africans” and “white South Africans”. Anyway, glad you introduced “most” into the sentence, as that was why I raised the complaint.
As for white South Africans leaving the country, you will find that a lot of them are actually disappointed by the lack of action on the issue of crime that specifically targets white people. Historical injustice does not justify carrying out injustices against people who might have been (or might not have been) ex-oppressors. Just because one happens to be white in South Africa often makes one the target of hate crimes, on the bases that by default, being white makes one an ex-accomplice to the crimes and injustices of the apartheid era. How would you feel when your own country keeps mum on the hate crimes that are carried out specifically based on skin color? This is a taboo topic when it comes to South Africa, because of the apartheid, but does it make this phenomenon any less disgusting and wrong? I don’t think so. Do you? Anyway, even with all that disappointment and fear of living in one’s own country, you won’t see many white S. Africans carrying the orange free state or the transvaal rep. flag. You will see us proudly waving South Africa’s current flag. The South African flag represents the state that S. Africa became after the fall of apartheid. It means we are proud of being South Africans and are law-abiding citizens of our country, which often does not even protect whites from racially motivated crime. Unfortunately, there are many in S. Africa who still think of us as foreign implants. Even then, I am all for affirmative action, for the sake of righting historical wrongs. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to stereotype us in the way that many South Africans and non-S. Africans do. When I say I am white South African, I mention my skin color only because I want people to know that it’s not true that all white South Africans are racist or regret the fall of apartheid, or do not want the righting of past injustices. There is a lot of segregation in S. Africa to this day, and I would like to see it all gone, I would like to also be looked at not as a foreigner but as much a South African as black South Africans. That’s all there is to it. We are not by default heartless people who want to maintain their privileges at all costs. I don’t care about privileges even though I realize how economically privileged I am compared to others. I don’t look down upon people, and I am willing to give any luxuries I might be enjoying at the moment for the sake of being looked at without suspicion by fellow S. Africans. Because, you see, I don’t have any other country, even though some people think we should “go back”. Go back where? This is where I was born and this is the only country I am a citizen of. If we leave, it is not because we refuse to submit to a black president. You have it ALL WRONG. Skin color does NOT matter, what matters is whether or not the civil servant is carrying out his duties to the fullest and ensuring that justice is served for ALL citizens. That’s what should matter anyway, not someone’s skin color. You see, some of us wander around the world, going to foreign lands and living amongst different peoples and experiencing other cultures, and it is an eye-opener. It has made me realize that wherever I go, wherever I try to make a home for myself, I still belong in Africa. I often wonder why is it that I cannot be a “true” South African, is it because I take the place of one of the “real” South Africans? Is there any such thing as a “real” South African? I don’t know, but anyway, I know that I have not taken anyone’s right away, even though I often still can’t shake off a guilty conscience, can’t even understand why I would have a guilty conscience to begin with. South Africa might not think it necessary to carry out its responsibilities towards a segment of its population, but be sure that when South Africa is in need of resources and help, we will give it our best because “one wrong does not justify another wrong” is what everyone should believe in. The duty of a state is to protect is citizens, all its citizens. And the duty of its citizens is to be loyal to the country and to serve it in times of need. While the latter will always be the case, the former is currently NOT. There is nothing more to it. Nothing about a black president or a white president. We are not racists, just highly aware of the double standards and selective application of law in our country. South Africa will not progress until such time as its people kill each other for such petty things as shades of skin. I think it’s disgusting in general, and pity not everyone thinks racism against whites is just as bad as racism against blacks. Instead of working together towards a development plan to eliminate poverty in our country, we are still trapped in the petty racial world view that led to apartheid. Is this the only thing we can come up with and pass on to the new generations ? Have we even learned anything from apartheid, aside from eliminating the white majority rule? Sometimes I doubt anything has changed. And often I fear that my doubts are in their right place…
Anyhow apologies for taking this post off-topic.
Sorry meant to say that South Africa will not progress until such time as its people would stop killing each other for such petty things as shades of skin.
Ed, I think you need to take a chill pill and re-read and understand what I am trying to say. I never said it was ok for black SA’s to get back at their white counterparts because of historical injustices. White SA’s do have some real fears, especially in a place like SA where crime is high . but if you say you are sole representative of all white south africans then I am sure there are no problems there. But that isnt the case is it?
you may think differently and may stand for peace justice and anything else that sounds brotherly like. But I am saying that regardless of what you may think there are a good chunk of white south africans who really feel they dont belong. Even if there is law and order in SA and protection for everyone, i do not think they really want to “integrate”, in every sense of word. They fear dilution of their heritage, which is European. They fear interracial marriage. Look ok, there are lot of well meaning folks on both sides of the aisles, but when one party is used to power, its hard to give that up. because the power party has been conditioned to look down on others for far too long. Maybe the younger generation is different, but from what I read and hear, I have reason to believe that real integration is still a few decades away, and maybe by then the white flight will have taken effect to completion
Dass, I did not say I am representative of the feelings of white South Africans on these issues. Far from it. All I said is that it’s wrong to speak in terms of generalizations. Moreover, the fact that some white South Africans might have issues with losing power and the fact that many white South Africans are leaving the country, does not mean that the former is the cause of the latter. In fact, this is quite an offensive argument. You are implying that we have no attachment to our land and country save for a quest for power, and having lost that power, most whites are therefore leaving the country. You are saying that it is this loss of power, rather than a criminal and state-sanctioned campaign against white South Africans, that is responsible for our exodus. Many anti-racist, open-minded white South Africans have left the country because they just can’t live in the country that S. Africa has become transformed to. Many of those who have left used to be active in the anti-apartheid movement, but became terribly disappointed with what S. Africa had become — not in terms of the skin color of the civil servants, but in terms of the horrendous crime rate and the fact that they had seen many of their friends and loved ones murdered. So, the feeling of not belonging is the result of the inaction of the state and more broadly, of the alienating attitude of some South Africans towards white S. Africans.
You are talking about integration. Well how can you expect integration when the state folds its arms and watches criminal gangs kill 80-year-old men and women, rape women, raid houses, steal cars, etc. ? Integration in and of itself is not an easy thing and takes a lot of time in a place like South Africa where segregation was the norm for a very long time. This is like blaming Israeli-Arabs for not integrating in a society that treats them as foreigners, as statistics rather than human beings.. Are you saying, then, that Israeli Arabs’ lack of integration stems from anti-Semitism and the fact that they do not like being ruled by a Jewish prime minister? I doubt anyone would make such a claim, but as usual when it comes to white South Africans, it is all too easy to stereotype and bash, and then accuse the person who challenges this stereotyping, of hidden racism.
The fear of interracial marriage is everywhere, by the way, not just among white South Africans. It is very much alive in Arab states, Israel, Europe, USA, and guess what, also in “black Africa”. It is not specific to white South Africans. And of course, I do not approve of the racist concepts behind it, I think it is silly and backwards. But the fact remains, it’s a taboo topic all over the world and not just among white South Africans.
The ones who refused to have a black president left a long time ago, my friend. They never subscribed to the new South Africa, to its flag, to its anthem, or to the vision of equality and justice that was unfortunately never fully implemented. Yes, I am not the spokesperson of white South Africans, but I am talking to you about how your assumptions are mere generalizations and lack the factual bases that is necessary for you to present even the watered-down claim that “most white S. Africans” leave because they do not like losing power.
Your argument is just as ridiculous as Mandela’s statement that those who are leaving are unpatriotic and cowardly. I guess that makes me both. Well, good riddance for South Africa, then!
ok i am not yet convinced with your claims. but I guess we will know 10 yrs from now the rate at which white folks are leaving.
and you are wrong in comparing Israeli Arabs to white south africans. Israeli Arabs are second class citizens, so I dont blame them for not feeling part of Israel, if that is the case. But with white SA’s it isnt the case. They are part of the elite and are leaving SA in large numbers. and it is them SA needs the most.
As for the crime rate, I dont have numbers that say whether the crime is specifically targeted towards whites or its just an overall number that targets everyone. But I will agree that crime rate factor does muddy the statistics as to the real reason why many SA’s are leaving. but then on the flip my counter question to you is: If crime is really so bad, why are just the white SA’s leaving? why not everyone?
And I dont see anything wrong with the argument in saying White SA’s dont feel any real love for SA now that they have lost power. if you look at history of colonized countries, for example India, once India was given independence from the British, much of the british elite there left, along with the civil servants trained to serve them. some of those british folks were born and raised in India. and they left in droves. such is the case with Algeria too, where the French ran away once independence took hold in Algeria. Sure the younger generation in SA may be different and may feel more attachment to SA, but we have yet to see where they decide to live their lives once they grow up
You claim that I lack factual basis for my allegations. true, I only say what I read. do you have any statistics to back your claims?
take a look at this article ( i think of Guardian as a fairly independent newspaper, maybe a little to the left)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1202275,00.html
South Africa’s unemployment rate is pushing 40% and it has one of the world’s highest murder rates. But analysts agree that white South Africans are still relatively cushioned from such hardships.
Last week the country held its third election since white minority rule yielded to multi-racial democracy, returning the ruling ANC to power. Tributes to racial reconciliation are expected next week when dozens of heads of state attend President Thabo Mbeki’s second-term inauguration.
Despite polls showing optimism about the future, more than 16,000 people emigrated last year – up nearly half on the previous year and the highest number since 1994. Britain, North America, Australia and New Zealand are the main destinations.
Many emigrants are middle-class whites who cite crime and concern that affirmative action policies will inhibit their children’s job prospects.
But anecdotal evidence from airlines and removalists suggests many of those who fled post-1994 are being lured back by the country’s stability. A campaign, called Come Home, is working to bring back skilled people.
Obviously I am posting an article that supports my POV. maybe you can show me something that supports yours?
You don’t know much about South Africa do you? Just because some white South Africans are wealthy does not mean all are. Just because white South Africans have a higher standard of living compared to black South Africans does not mean they are wealthy. Just because a Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab is wealthier than some Israeli Jews does not mean he is free, not living under occupation, or a first-class citizen. Being a second class citizen is judged according to what criteria? Institutional racism and discrimination, first and foremost. Am I correct? So let me see, not doing anything to bring to justice perpetrators of racially-motivated crimes, not even pretending to investigate these crimes, is not racism? Weren’t these the same people who fought against apartheid, claimed to stand for equality for all regardless of race? So where are they now, why are they not doing anything to reign in this phenomenon? Let them prove that they do not endorse. The least they can do is voice concern about it. And what is it I hear about South African government’s support for Mugabe’s policies? Nothing but a product of my paranoia and wild, racist imagination, I guess!
If South Africa needs us most, then let South Africa treat us like it would treat its black citizens. In fact, I don’t see why the government’s treatment has to be based on race at all. It should be based on class, and given that most of the poor are blacks and not whites, it would also address the economic legacy of the apartheid. Unless of course there is a a more sinister motivation than economic justice, namely racism. It seems that this is the case, and it seems that South Africa is heading towards Zim-style de-development/national suicide.
There is crime all around in South Africa. But this does not mean that the white victims of torture (which is unique to crimes targeting whites), rape, and murder, were merely at the wrong place at the wrong time. There is a deliberate and viscious campaign against white South Africans (you only have to read Human Rights Watch on this topic, which is by no means a racist organization), designed specifically to make us flee for our lives. These criminal gangs might or might not be affiliated with the political echelon, but one thing is for sure, they act with official blessings, and the government is an accomplice in the campaign of ethnic cleansing against its citizens. Again, the crime rate against whites far exceeds in proportion to the general crime rate. Otherwise, such a taboo topic on race relations (and violence against whites) in South Africa would never have reared its ugly head and caused so much debate.
Well for the record, it’s not only white South Africans who are leaving, but also many educated black South Africans are leaving, because they don’t agree with what is going on either, and they don’t think they have a future in this country. They are, just like us, disappointed that none of the promises of the anti-apartheid movement have been fulfilled. Even those who live in South Africa to this day, black South Africans, express their disappointment with the outcome. In Soweto of all places. Only that some people do not have the financial means or professional skills required to leave the country and settle elsewhere. And all our “Safety and Security” Minister could say in response to accusations of inaction? If you don’t like it, leave the country. Besides, even if as you imply, the crime is not racially motivated, it still manifests itself in terms of the racial stereotyping that leads to violent crimes against whites merely based on the perception that their skin color automatically makes them wealthy. And anyway, according to statistics, the Indian and white are the most vulnerable to violent attacks.
Comparing the case of India with that of South Africa is ridiculous, if only for the fact that the British who lived in India were not “settlers” in the full sense of the word, they were merely “civil servants” and defenders of the British imperial interests, so to speak. The history of settlement in South Africa is totally different and you cannot de-contextualize it. We have, unlike the British who lived in India, developed a sense of nationalism and attachment to the land. Some segments of the white population have developed Afrikaner nationalism, which was nevertheless weakened by the rise of post-apartheid South Africa. So you might think there is nothing offensive in this statement, but that is not so for a South African who loves his country just as you love yours.
But suppose you are right, and we can actually compare all these cases, then what do you say about Israel? Would Israelis also be leaving in scores in case there is a one-state solution?
Maybe you should read a thing or two on South Africa, before talking to me about how I, as a white South African, feel about my country. For starters, read about the contributions of many white S. Africans to the struggle against apartheid. Start with, let’s say, Alan Paton. Read Coetzee’s Disgrace. Also read Anne Paton’s (widow of Alan Paton) letter about why she fled South Africa (“Why I’m fleeing South Africa”).
If you want we can continue this discussion by email, if getting off-topic and posting lengthy replies bothers Tony. Here’s my email pesouthafrican hotmail com
anyways racism and SA aside, for which I am sure we could write a PhD on…here is an interesting article ..gives me some hope
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/10/ok_here_we_go_the_israel_lobby.html
The president of St. Thomas explained in an email to faculty that he had rescinded the invitation because Tutu’s words had been “hurtful to some members of the Jewish community.”
Well, then! I wonder why he didn’t speak to members of the Palestinian community here in the Twin Cities. If you think what Tutu said is hurtful, try growing up in a refugee camp. That’s pretty damn hurtful too.
its pointless to argue with you Ed. you posted 3 huge rambling speeches with your only claim to legitimacy that you are SA and I am not. you any provide any stats or any articles to support your claim. I did take down your email so let me forge a response and then we can chat seperately.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Israel, Palestine, The Israeli Lobby, Apartheid, Etc
To St. Thomas Faculty Member: Isn’t it sad that you have to identify yourself anonymously because of groups like Campus Watch?
Note Alas states that the standard for cancelling the speech was “We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,” explained university official Doug Hennes.
These two examples are a damning indictment of the current state of academic freedom.